[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 93 (Monday, July 17, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5234-H5240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 3496) to amend the National Capital
Transportation Act of 1969 to authorize additional Federal
contributions for maintaining and improving the transit system of the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and for other purposes,
as amended.
The Clerk read as follows
H.R. 3496
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National
Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2006''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
(1) Metro, the public transit system of the Washington
metropolitan area, is essential for the continued and
effective performance of the functions of the Federal
Government, and for the orderly movement of people during
major events and times of regional or national emergency.
(2) On 3 occasions, Congress has authorized appropriations
for the construction and capital improvement needs of the
Metrorail system.
(3) Additional funding is required to protect these
previous Federal investments and ensure the continued
functionality and viability of the original 103-mile
Metrorail system.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM.
The National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (sec. 9-
1111.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION FOR CAPITAL AND
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
``Sec. 18. (a) Authorization.--Subject to the succeeding
provisions of this section, the Secretary of Transportation
is authorized to make grants to the Transit Authority, in
addition to the contributions authorized under sections 3,
14, and 17, for the purpose of financing in part the capital
and preventive maintenance projects included in the Capital
Improvement Program approved by the Board of Directors of the
Transit Authority.
``(b) Use of Funds.--The Federal grants made pursuant to
the authorization under this section shall be subject to the
following limitations and conditions:
``(1) The work for which such Federal grants are authorized
shall be subject to the provisions of the Compact (consistent
with the amendments to the Compact described in subsection
(d)).
``(2) Each such Federal grant shall be for 50 percent of
the net project cost of the project involved, and shall be
provided in cash from sources other than Federal funds or
revenues from the operation of public mass transportation
systems. Consistent with the terms of the amendment to the
Compact described in subsection (d)(1), any funds so provided
shall be solely from undistributed cash surpluses,
replacement or depreciation funds or reserves available in
cash, or new capital.
``(c) Applicability of Requirements For Mass Transportation
Capital Projects Receiving Funds Under Federal Transportation
Law.--Except as specifically provided in this section, the
use of any amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
under this section shall be subject to the requirements
applicable to capital projects for which funds are provided
under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, except to
the extent that the Secretary of Transportation determines
that the requirements are inconsistent with the purposes of
this section.
``(d) Amendments to Compact.--No amounts may be provided to
the Transit Authority pursuant to the authorization under
this section until the Transit Authority notifies the
Secretary of Transportation that each of the following
amendments to the Compact (and any further amendments which
may be required to implement such amendments) have taken
effect:
``(1) An amendment requiring all payments made by the local
signatory governments for the Transit Authority and for the
cost of operating and maintaining the adopted regional system
are made from amounts derived from dedicated funding sources.
For purposes of this paragraph, a `dedicated funding source'
is any source of funding which is earmarked and required
under State or local law to be used for payments to the
Transit Authority.
``(2) An amendment establishing the Office of the Inspector
General of the Transit Authority in accordance with section 3
of the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of
2006.
``(3) An amendment expanding the Board of Directors of the
Transit Authority to include 4 additional Directors appointed
by the Administrator of General Services, of whom 2 shall be
nonvoting and 2 shall be voting, and requiring one of the
voting members so appointed to be a regular passenger and
customer of the bus or rail service of the Transit Authority.
``(e) Amount.--There are authorized to be appropriated for
grants under this section such sums as are made available to
the Secretary of Treasury to make payments to the Transit
Authority pursuant to section 9(k) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338).
``(f) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization under this section--
``(1) shall remain available until expended; and
``(2) shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, amounts
available to the Transit Authority under chapter 53 of title
49, United States Code, or any other provision of law.''.
SEC. 3. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
INSPECTOR GENERAL.
(a) Establishment of Office.--
(1) In general.--The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority (hereafter referred to as the ``Transit
Authority'') shall establish in the Transit Authority the
Office of the Inspector General (hereafter in this section
referred to as the ``Office''), headed by the Inspector
General of the Transit Authority (hereafter in this section
referred to as the ``Inspector General'').
(2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the ``Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority'' means the Authority
established under Article III of the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority Compact (Public Law 89-774).
(b) Inspector General.--
(1) Appointment.--The Inspector General shall be appointed
by the vote of a majority of the Board of Directors of the
Transit Authority, and shall be appointed without regard to
political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity
and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial
analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or
investigations, as well as familiarity or experience with the
operation of transit systems.
(2) Term of service.--The Inspector General shall serve for
a term of 5 years, and an individual serving as Inspector
General may be reappointed for not more than 2 additional
terms.
(3) Removal.--The Inspector General may be removed from
office prior to the expiration of his term only by the
unanimous vote of all of the members of the Board of
Directors of the Transit Authority, and the Board shall
communicate the reasons for any such removal to the Governor
of Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, the chair of the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the
chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate.
(c) Duties.--
(1) Applicability of duties of inspector general of
executive branch establishment.--The Inspector General shall
carry out the same duties and responsibilities with respect
to the Transit Authority as an Inspector General of an
establishment carries out with respect to an establishment
under section 4 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App. 4), under the same terms and conditions which
apply under such section.
(2) Conducting annual audit of financial statements.--The
Inspector General shall be responsible for conducting the
annual audit of the financial accounts of the Transit
Authority, either directly or by contract with an independent
external auditor selected by the Inspector General.
(3) Reports.--
(A) Semiannual reports to transit authority.--The Inspector
General shall prepare and submit semiannual reports
summarizing the activities of the Office in the same manner,
and in accordance with the same deadlines, terms, and
conditions, as an Inspector General of an establishment under
section 5 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.
5). For purposes of applying section 5 of such Act to the
Inspector General, the Board of Directors of the Transit
Authority shall be considered the head of the establishment,
except that the Inspector General shall transmit to the
General Manager of the Transit Authority a copy of any report
submitted to the Board pursuant to this paragraph.
(B) Annual reports to local signatory governments and
congress.--Not later than January 15 of each year, the
Inspector General shall prepare and submit a report
summarizing the activities of the Office during the previous
year, and shall submit such reports to the Governor of
Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, the Mayor of the District
of Columbia, the chair of the Committee on Government Reform
of the House of Representatives, and the chair of the
Committee
[[Page H5235]]
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(4) Investigations of complaints of employees and
members.--
(A) Authority.--The Inspector General may receive and
investigate complaints or information from an employee or
member of the Transit Authority concerning the possible
existence of an activity constituting a violation of law,
rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of
funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific
danger to the public health and safety.
(B) Nondisclosure.--The Inspector General shall not, after
receipt of a complaint or information from an employee or
member, disclose the identity of the employee or member
without the consent of the employee or member, unless the
Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable
during the course of the investigation.
(C) Prohibiting retaliation.--An employee or member of the
Transit Authority who has authority to take, direct others to
take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not,
with respect to such authority, take or threaten to take any
action against any employee or member as a reprisal for
making a complaint or disclosing information to the Inspector
General, unless the complaint was made or the information
disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with
willful disregard for its truth or falsity.
(5) Independence in carrying out duties.--Neither the Board
of Directors of the Transit Authority, the General Manager of
the Transit Authority, nor any other member or employee of
the Transit Authority may prevent or prohibit the Inspector
General from carrying out any of the duties or
responsibilities assigned to the Inspector General under this
section.
(d) Powers.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General may exercise the
same authorities with respect to the Transit Authority as an
Inspector General of an establishment may exercise with
respect to an establishment under section 6(a) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 6(a)), other
than paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) of such section.
(2) Staff.--
(A) Assistant inspector generals and other staff.--The
Inspector General shall appoint and fix the pay of--
(i) an Assistant Inspector General for Audits, who shall be
responsible for coordinating the activities of the Inspector
General relating to audits;
(ii) an Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, who
shall be responsible for coordinating the activities of the
Inspector General relating to investigations; and
(iii) such other personnel as the Inspector General
considers appropriate.
(B) Independence in appointing staff.--No individual may
carry out any of the duties or responsibilities of the Office
unless the individual is appointed by the Inspector General,
or provides services procured by the Inspector General,
pursuant to this paragraph. Nothing in this subparagraph may
be construed to prohibit the Inspector General from entering
into a contract or other arrangement for the provision of
services under this section.
(C) Applicability of transit system personnel rules.--None
of the regulations governing the appointment and pay of
employees of the Transit System shall apply with respect to
the appointment and compensation of the personnel of the
Office, except to the extent agreed to by the Inspector
General. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to
affect subparagraphs (A) through (B).
(3) Equipment and supplies.--The General Manager of the
Transit Authority shall provide the Office with appropriate
and adequate office space, together with such equipment,
supplies, and communications facilities and services as may
be necessary for the operation of the Office, and shall
provide necessary maintenance services for such office space
and the equipment and facilities located therein.
(e) Transfer of Functions.--To the extent that any office
or entity in the Transit Authority prior to the appointment
of the first Inspector General under this section carried out
any of the duties and responsibilities assigned to the
Inspector General under this section, the functions of such
office or entity shall be transferred to the Office upon the
appointment of the first Inspector General under this
section.
SEC. 4. RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES.
(a) Prohibition on Disposition of Certain Property.--
(1) In general.--The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority (hereafter in this section referred to as the
``Transit Authority'') may not sell, lease, or otherwise
convey or dispose of the property described in paragraph (2)
unless the Transit Authority meets each of the following
conditions:
(A) The Transit Authority has held a separate, additional
public hearing after October 20, 2005, regarding the
disposition of the property at which members of the general
public had the opportunity to comment.
(B) The Transit Authority has submitted a report to the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the costs and benefits
associated with the disposition of the property, the impact
of the disposition on parking facilities available at the
Vienna Metrorail station, and the effect of the disposition
on the capacity of the Vienna Metrorail station and the
entire Metrorail system.
(2) Property described.--The property described in this
subsection consists of approximately 3.75 acres located in
Fairfax County, Virginia, and is contained in all or part of
the following parcels on the Fairfax County tax map:
(A) Parcel 48--1((1)), 90 Portion.
(B) Parcel 48--1((1)), 91B Portion.
(C) Parcel 48--1((6)), 7A.
(D) Parcel 48--1((6)), 8B.
(E) Parcel 48--1((24)), 38A.
(b) Conditions For Disposition of Certain Property.--
(1) In general.--The Transit Authority may not sell, lease,
or otherwise convey or dispose of the property described in
paragraph (2) unless the Transit Authority meets each of the
following conditions:
(A) The Transit Authority has met with the Mayor and
members of the Council of the City of Takoma Park, Maryland,
and community representatives to discuss each of the
following issues related to the disposition of such property:
(i) The movement of buses and other vehicles, pedestrians,
and bicycles to and from the Takoma Park Metrorail station.
(ii) The provision of bus bays, based on recommendations of
the Transit Authority and the Maryland Transit
Administration's Ride-On program.
(iii) The enhancement of public green space on the
property, based on the Central District Plan for Takoma DC.
(B) The Transit Authority will work with residents and
elected officials of Takoma Park, Maryland, and the Takoma
area of the District of Columbia throughout the planning
phase of the development of such property.
(C) The Transit Authority has submitted a statement to the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate certifying that the
Transit Authority has met the conditions described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(2) Property described.--The property described in this
paragraph consists of Lots 820, 821, 822, 823, 829, 831, 832,
833, 839, 840, 841, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, and 851 in
Square 3352 and Lots 811, 812, and 813 in Square 3353 of the
District of Columbia Real Property Assessment Database.
(c) Restrictions on Development of Certain Properties.--
(1) Restriction.--The Transit Authority may not sell,
lease, or otherwise convey any of the real property described
in paragraph (2) other than in accordance with a development
plan for the property which meets the following requirements:
(A) The plan shall require that any portion of the property
used for residential purposes shall be used only for owner-
occupied, multi-family dwellings.
(B) The plan must provide for the use of a portion of the
property for commercial purposes.
(C) The plan shall be developed in consultation with
appropriate representatives of the local governments and
communities for the area in which the property is located.
(2) Property described.--The property described in this
paragraph is any real property of the Transit Authority which
is located within one mile of the Largo Town Center Metro
Rail Station.
(d) No Effect on Other Authorities.--Except as specifically
provided, nothing in this section may be construed to affect
any law, rule, or regulation governing the development or
disposition of real property of the Transit Authority.
SEC. 5. STUDY AND REPORT BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
on the use of the funds provided under section 18 of the
National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (as added by this
Act).
(b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the study conducted
under subsection (a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, is the gentlewoman opposed to the
motion? If not, I request the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia opposed to the motion?
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the legislation, nor
should anybody else in this Chamber be.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas opposed to the
motion?
Mr. HENSARLING. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XV, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling)
[[Page H5236]]
will be recognized for 20 minutes along with the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3496, as amended,
the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2006. This
important legislation would establish critical new oversight and
accountability mechanisms for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority, including an inspector general and an increased Federal
presence on the Authority's board of directors. These steps are being
taken to ensure that the funding provided to the Authority by Virginia,
Maryland, the District of Columbia and the Federal Government are being
spent as effectively and efficiently as possible. I urge my colleagues
to support this important legislation.
In 1960, President Eisenhower signed the National Capital
Transportation Act to provide for the development of a regional rail
system for the Nation's Capital. He did so in recognition of the need
to provide reliable access to government facilities for Federal
workers, contractors, and citizens. Over the years, other Presidents
have also recognized this need: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and
most recently, President George H.W. Bush.
Past Congresses have done so as well. In 1969, the National Capital
Transportation Act was signed into law. Subsequently, Congress passed
amendments to this act in 1979 and 1990. The sentiment expressed by
Congress in supporting Metro in 1979 remains the same today: ``Congress
finds that an improved transportation system for the National Capital
region is essential for the continued and effective performance of the
functions of the Government of the United States, for the welfare of
the District of Columbia, for the orderly growth and development of the
National Capital region, and for the preservation of the beauty and
dignity of the Nation's Capital.''
The sole purpose of the previous authorizations was to provide the
easy and reliable access to government for Federal employees and
citizens that President Eisenhower envisioned. Today, the Metro system
remains an indispensable resource for the Federal Government. At peak
times, over half of Metro riders are Federal employees and contractors.
Metro's record riderships have occurred during historic events, where
people from all over the country flocked to the Nation's Capital for
the national gathering; President Reagan's funeral, the Fourth of July
celebrations, Presidential inaugurations.
{time} 1430
In times of national crisis, the Metro system has also proved
indispensable to the Federal Government, such as during the September
11 terrorist attacks in which Metro served as the primary means out of
a city under lock-down.
In many ways, the Metro system is the lifeblood of the Federal
Government. More than 15 Federal agencies in the National Capital
region are located adjacent to Metro stations. This is not a
coincidence. Federal agencies rely on the Metro system to get their
employees to and from the workplace year round in all types of weather.
Unfortunately, as was recently evident when Metro suffered delays due
to torrential rains that hit the region, when Metro shuts down, the
Federal Government shuts down.
In 1965, 1969, 1979 and 1990, Congress recognized the unique
relationship between the Federal Government and Metro, acknowledging
the shared responsibility in maintaining the Metro system to make sure
it keeps pace with the growing service demands.
Without a similar commitment today, Metro will no longer remain a
viable transportation option to the Federal Government or the region.
Last month, as part of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, the House
voted to devote funds from future OCS receipts for Metro
revitalization.
The bill today sets out other measures necessary to ensure that these
dollars are well spent. Before I detail what this bill does, let me
detail what it does not do. It does not authorize any additional
appropriations for the Metro system. This bill is about good
government, something I am sure we can all agree on.
Specifically, this bill requires the three jurisdictions comprising
WMATA, Maryland, Virginia Virginia and the District, to come up with a
dedicated revenue source to cover capital and operational expenses.
As GAO recently reported, Metro is unique among major transit systems
in that it only derives a tiny amount of its budget from dedicated
sources. This legislation would require the local jurisdictions to come
together and rectify a long-standing discrepancy.
The bill also creates an Inspector General for the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Most major transit systems have an
IG in place already. There is no question Metro is a complex
organization with many moving parts. Thus, it is especially important
that appropriate controls are in place to identify and address
managerial, financial, and operational discrepancies and problems.
Without the legislation we are considering today, the Federal funding
for Metro that was authorized as part of the Deep Ocean Energy
Resources Act last month would have no strings attached to it. The
purpose of H.R. 3496 is to establish an Inspector General to monitor
the operations and to ensure that the Federal funding generated by the
OCS receipts would not be allocated unless the local jurisdictions have
committed to equally share the financial responsibilities with the
Federal Government.
Finally, the bill adds four Federal members to the WMATA Board of
Directors, including for the first time a Federal presence on the WMATA
board. Since Metro is such an integral part of the Federal Government's
day-to-day operations, it stands to reason there should be a direct
Federal representation in Metro's affairs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about funding; it is about the good use
of funding. Congress has long recognized the national significance of
the Metro system. The provisions of this bill will ensure our Nation's
subway is a model of efficiency and good performance.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 3496
for several reasons. Number one, Mr. Speaker, I don't quite understand
why this is on the suspension calendar today.
Second of all, Mr. Speaker, the Federal taxpayer is paying a lot of
money already to help subsidize this particular transit system. I am
not sure if more payments are really worthwhile at this time.
Next, Mr. Speaker, we have over 10,000 Federal programs today. At
what point do we say enough is enough? And, Mr. Speaker, I am very
concerned that when the dots are connected, the dust settles, whatever
metaphor you want to use, that unfortunately the taxpayers will be on
the hook for an additional $1.5 billion that they had not counted on.
And that money ultimately, Mr. Speaker, has to come from somewhere.
First, Mr. Speaker, let me address the concern I have of why we have
this on the calendar in the first place. Certainly under our House
Republican Conference rules, legislation creating new Federal programs,
I thought, was not supposed to be put on the suspension calendar.
As we all know, typically our suspension calendar is used frequently
to honor somebody with the naming of a post office, to congratulate a
sports team, to declare breast cancer awareness week. I don't think it
is to put
[[Page H5237]]
taxpayers on the hook for $1.5 billion, which ultimately, if this bill
passes, I believe could be the result.
Now, I have no doubt that since it is on the suspension calendar that
it will receive a very, very healthy vote as Members just start to
arrive and, frankly, do not pay as close attention to the suspension
calendar as opposed to bills coming up in regular order.
But I fear at the end of the day, again, this does authorize a new
program. If it did not authorize a new program, why are we here today?
Why did we not simply have a Member propose an amendment to perhaps the
transportation bill or the homeland security bill? So in that respect,
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this is being handled on this
particular calendar.
Next, Mr. Speaker, how much is enough? I admit the Federal Government
has had a lengthy partnership with the Washington Metropolitan Transit
Authority. $6.2 billion or 60 percent of the construction costs, I
believe, were picked up by the Federal taxpayer; 40 percent of the
capital costs over the last decade. But the WAMTA is already receiving
formula grants under titles 5307 and 5309. So they are already
receiving Federal funds, if you will, a dedicated revenue source from
the Federal Government already. I believe in inflation-adjusted terms
that is about $1.5 billion over the last 10 years.
And I think if you look back, these annual grants are now more or
less three times what they were 10 years ago. Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask
the question, how much is enough? You add it all up, Mr. Speaker, that
is a lot of money.
Now, I certainly applaud the gentleman from Virginia for wanting to
put in greater oversight and greater accountability into the system. I
know that his committee provided a number of articles from a Washington
Post expose, I think, dating back 9, 10, 11 months ago, that indicated
that trains broke down 64 percent more often now than several years
ago, that the Washington Metro Transit Authority had spent $383 million
on 192 rail cars, and those cars break down almost as often as the old
cars.
Several hundred million, according to The Washington Post, was spent
to refurbish old cars from the 1980s and those refurbished break down
even more often. $9 million was spent to renovate 178 escalators, and a
third break down more often than before renovation.
So I would say if there was a system that perhaps was in need of a
little greater oversight and a little greater accountability, this is
it. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I fear that what we would be doing is
punishing success and rewarding failure. I certainly hope that the
gentleman from Virginia indeed did take these steps in his bill. And
for that aspect of the bill, I certainly congratulate that portion of
it.
But, Mr. Speaker, the thing that concerns me the most is at a time
that our Nation is facing unparalleled national debt, when we are a
Nation at war, at what point do you say ``no'' to a new program? Again,
according to the Heritage Foundation, we have over 10,000 Federal
programs spread across 600 different agencies. How much is enough?
I believe in our last budget we have $75 billion, more or less, in
transportation funding. Now that is up 83.5 percent in just 10 years.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have almost doubled the Federal
contribution to transportation, almost doubled in just a decade.
Again, how much is enough? I believe we have over 28 Federal programs
dedicated to mass transit. And I believe in the most recent SAFETEA-LU
bill, that translates to $45.3 billion.
Are the number of government programs only limited by our
imagination, the imagination of Members to come to the floor and
propose it? No matter how worthy they are, again, how many are enough?
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we should start limiting government programs by the
ability of taxpayers in future generations to pay for them.
Now, I certainly want to applaud the gentleman from Virginia from
attempting to offer an offset to the spending. I think I may agree to
disagree with the gentleman, but my fear is again when the dots are
connected and the dust settles, I am not sure it is a real offset. My
fear is that it will prove to be a mirage.
What happens here, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman is claiming
offsetting receipts from H.R. 4761. Now, when that bill was originally
written, it was coming to the floor violating our Budget Act, violating
our budget resolution. I am happy to say that that was corrected by a
manager's amendment.
But it appears that receipts from the Outer Continental Shelf
drilling are spoken for, between State revenue sharing and several new
entitlement programs that were included in H.R. 4761. I know that this
is an authorization bill; but had it been a mandatory bill, if it had
ultimately resulted in real spending, CBO would have scored this money
in such a way that it would have busted the budget.
And, Mr. Speaker, if the funding does materialize, again in the years
that it is spent, it will end up contravening our budget. And I don't
see that the revenue-sharing agreement is going away with the States. I
don't see these other mandatory programs going away. So maybe the
gentleman did indeed secure an offset. Maybe his program is fully
offset. But, Mr. Speaker, if his program is fully offset, somebody
else's program is not.
At the end of the day, it is a little bit like musical chairs; and I
fear when the music stops, the taxpayer is the only one who is left
standing.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned about what is happening in
our Congress with respect to earmarks. According to the Heritage
Foundation, this particular bill, weighing in at $1.5 billion, may
constitute the largest earmark ever. I thought this was the House that
wanted to start reforming earmarks, which among other things I would
hope would lead to fewer of them, and perhaps less costly earmarks.
I mean, recently we have had the bridge to nowhere, weighing in at
about $250 million; the railroad to nowhere, weighing in at about $750
million; and now we have everything, the bike improvements, the curb
extensions, the bus bays, the new rail cars of the WMATA weighing in at
about $1.5 billion.
Again, Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of money. And ultimately, Mr.
Speaker, the bottom line is, someone is going to have to pay for all of
this; and part of our job in Congress is to decide upon priorities and
make some very, very tough decisions. But, again, if this all comes to
fruition, ultimately there is $1.5 billion more that is going to be
spent over 10 years than was expected.
There are only three places that money ultimately comes from: either
we place more debt on our children, we raise taxes, or we end up
spending less somewhere else. Now, right now we are awash in tax
revenues. We have the highest number of tax revenues we have had in the
history of America. Corporate tax revenues are up roughly 40 percent
last year. Individual tax revenues are up roughly 15 percent. We do not
seem to have a taxing problem in the Nation's Capital.
I do think, though, Mr. Speaker, maybe we have a spending problem. We
are spending over $23,000 per American household for only the fourth
time in our Nation's history. Since I was born, the Federal budget has
grown seven times faster than the family budget.
In the last 10 years alone, Federal funding for international affairs
is up 89 percent; agriculture, 118 percent; education, 113 percent; and
as I mentioned earlier, the transportation function, 83 percent.
Meanwhile, inflation over the same period grew 25 percent; median
family income, 33 percent. We are more than spending over inflation,
and the Federal budget is growing beyond the family budget. When do you
say enough is enough? Let's look at the national debt. Although we have
had great news recently in reducing the Federal deficit, the debt
continues to increase.
We have gone from roughly $5.5 trillion to $8 trillion in just 5
years. Unless we balance the budget tomorrow, every new program's cost
is going to get added to the national debt, and ultimately that burden
is borne by our children and our grandchildren.
We know that our entitlement spending, Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid, is growing way beyond our ability to pay for it. And we know
that we are facing a rather nasty fork in the road. If you look at CBO,
OMB, GAO and anybody who has looked at Federal budgetary trends, they
will tell you.
{time} 1445
Within one generation, either we are going to have no Federal
Government,
[[Page H5238]]
except Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There will be nothing
else left to give the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, much
less the border security or FAA or anybody else. Or the other fork in
the road is we will have to double taxes on our children and
grandchildren just to balance the budget.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we have to make tough decisions, and I have no
doubt that the gentleman is sincere in that this money would go for a
very, very good purpose. But there are lots of good purposes out there,
Mr. Speaker, including the purpose of ensuring that our children and
grandchildren do not inherit an America with greater debt and less
freedom and less opportunity.
If we say ``yes'' to every Member's program today, no matter how
worthy it may be, we are going to end up saying ``no'' to our
children's future tomorrow. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to say ``no'' to H.R. 3496.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Could I ask how much time is remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis)
has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been a champion of
transportation in the Washington area during his tenure in Congress.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. The bill brings
accountability. I have a note here and I quote, ``CBO expects that the
proposed amendment would not authorize any additional appropriations.''
I would read that one more time: ``CBO expects that the proposed
amendment would not authorize any additional appropriations.''
I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 3496, the National Capital
Transportation Amendments Act. The legislation would ensure, and what
Mr. Davis is trying to do, accountability for the Federal funding that
is provided to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, or,
as they call it, Metro. The bill would require an IG office to be
established and to provide oversight of the system.
You would have thought that the system would have had an IG, but it
requires Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia to identify
dedicated funding sources to the Metro system.
The bill also adds Federal members to the Metro board of directors,
and I think these are good ideas. The Metro system in Washington, as
Mr. Davis has said, is known as the Nation's subway system.
Visitors from all over the country and the world use the system daily
when visiting our Nation's Capital, and Metro's highest ridership, as
Mr. Davis said, occurs when national events are taking place, such as
Presidential inaugurations when people come from all over the country.
The Metro system also supports the Federal workforce. Federal
employees rely on the system. Many people up here on Capitol Hill and
other agencies, FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA, all the other ones, commute back
and forth to work every day. During peak times, over half of Metro's
riders are Federal employees.
Finally, this system is vital to the emergency needs of the region.
During the terrorist attack of 9/11, Metro was a reliable way to ensure
that thousands of people were able to safely and quickly evacuate the
city. In order to help hold Metro accountable, which Mr. Davis's bill
has done, is accountability for Metro for the use of its Federal funds.
I urge adoption of this measure.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I recognize the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, when I was asked did I want to accept time
in opposition, when I said nor should any Member of this body, I was
not being rhetorical. This bill is indispensable to the Federal
Government, and it is indispensable to the 20 million visitors who come
every year.
I don't want anyone to think that the chairman and the Members who
have come forward would have the chutzpah to come forward and say
support a local transportation system.
This system was created by the National Transportation Act. It was
not created by Maryland, Virginia, or the District of Columbia but by
the Federal Government. It was created by the Federal Government,
because by 1969, the Federal presence had spread to Maryland and
Virginia, and it was very clear that the Federal Government itself
could not operate without a modern transportation system allowing what
amounts to 200,000 workers today to get from one place to the other.
Meanwhile, the gentleman from Texas has cited the many programs and
the transportation funds that the local jurisdictions get, and that, of
course, is what has supported this system ever since. What this funding
is necessary for is capital funding in order to keep the system up and
operating because of pressure put on the system by the Federal
Government and nobody but the Federal Government. Almost half of those
who ride every day are Federal employees.
Without dedicated funding, and here is where the chairman and the
Members of the region deserve real credit because there is no dedicated
funding for the system, so it has to be funded on an annual basis. The
chairman's bill, supported by all of us, essentially says no funding is
available unless there is a dedicated funding source.
So it performs the task that is responsible to the Federal Government
by saying, here is your share that you must give, and it says to the
local jurisdictions, you do not get the Federal share unless you come
forward not just with funding, but with dedicated funding. The purpose
of this bill is to deal with the initial investment that the Federal
Government made, which is now going down the drain because the local
jurisdictions cannot in fact, by themselves, deal with the maintenance
and capital costs that Federal pressure has put on it.
Let me tell you what I mean by Federal pressure. We are so dependent
on this system, that we subsidize Federal workers to, in fact, take
Metro. As it is, you cannot, in fact, get on the roads here, even with
Metro. Imagine what would happen if Metro were not available; but it is
becoming unavailable because its cars are so crowded that there are
many Federal workers who believe that they should just as well take a
car, something that the roads coming to and from the District cannot
stand.
I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I do not believe
there is a single Member who would not not understand what in the post-
9/11 world this transportation system means to the safety and security
of this region. But I can tell you from my work, and the chairman is
also on the committee, that it adds to the necessity that President
Eisenhower saw in 1969, and an additional one that we cannot turn our
heads from.
Ask your own constituents how they get around Washington when they
come. There are 20 million of them. They are not my constituents, and
they are not Chairman Davis's constituents, they are yours. And they
would be lost without the Metro system.
The beauty of the bill is that it is going to get the local
jurisdictions to do what all of our hectoring has not made them do
until now, and that is to get the dedicated funding so that the cars,
which are now overloaded with Federal workers every morning, you cannot
get on these cars, will indeed have additions to them; so the
facilities, indeed, can be maintained. The gentleman complained about
that. He was perfectly right. There are not the funds to maintain it
and keep it operating if you depend only on the three local
jurisdictions.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a strong transportation
advocate.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Davis,
the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, for his leadership on
this very important national issue.
As my colleague Ms. Norton pointed out, the Federal Government was
there at the creation of the Washington Metro system, and has a huge
investment already in the Washington Metro system. This legislation is
designed to
[[Page H5239]]
help protect the Federal investment, the investment taxpayers have
already made in that national system. I don't know why anybody would
not want to provide the accountability measures to ensure that this
investment is protected going forward.
We have, as we know, a system that the Federal Government relies upon
to bring thousands of employees to work every day: workers who work in
our national security agencies, workers who work at the Department of
Health and Human Services, and all the other Federal agencies that help
provide services to the American people every day.
This system is also a critical link in any evacuation plan of the
Nation's Capital. Imagine everyone trying to get out of this city
without using the Metro system to take thousands of people out. You
would have gridlock. You wouldn't be able to do it.
Now, Mr. Davis has already pointed out this House is already on
record just a few weeks ago in providing the Federal investment. We
have done that. The only question now is whether we are going to
provide the accountability piece, whether we are going to say to the
Washington Metro system, you are going to be held accountable for that
Federal investment in order to protect the Federal taxpayers. That is
what it is all about.
I think it is worth underscoring the four major accountability
provisions. Number one, we are asking the local jurisdictions that
contribute to the system to make sure that they do it.
Why would we, the Federal Government, want to be at the whim, on a
year-to-year basis, of whether local jurisdictions are going to be able
to provide their part of this Federal-local partnership? That doesn't
make any sense from the point of view of the Federal Government.
Second, it requires the establishment of the inspector general. Don't
we want somebody there to make sure we protect that investment, an
independent auditor who can look after that Federal taxpayer
investment?
Third, we add four new members to WMATA's board. Right now, none of
the board members are accountable to the Federal Government. Don't we
want board members who are accountable to the Federal taxpayer, as well
as board members who are accountable to the other contributing
jurisdictions?
Fourth, it requires that Metro take on some other issues that have
festered over a period of time and which make it more difficult to
fulfill its Federal mandate and its responsibilities to the Federal
Government.
Now, I want to commend the Metro system for doing what they have done
with the budget they have got. But there is no doubt in order to keep
the system viable going forward, the Federal Government needs to
maintain its historic contribution and the local partners need to
continue to make theirs.
The only question with this bill is whether we are going to be asking
WMATA to make sure it has accountability provisions in place to protect
that very important Federal investment. I would say, why wouldn't we
want to protect the taxpayers who have made an investment in this very
important national transportation infrastructure right from the
beginning?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would recognize my
distinguished colleague from northern Virginia, a neighbor, and also a
strong transportation advocate, Mr. Moran, for 3 minutes
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the
Government Reform Committee and applaud him for his leadership, as well
as Mr. Wolf's, particularly when Mr. Wolf was chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation, Ms. Norton representing
the District of Columbia, and Mr. Van Hollen representing the Maryland
suburbs.
We are a team. We are a team, but we are representing the interests
of the entire Congress. The principal reason why we need the Metro
system is to transport our employees, the Federal workforce. If we did
not have this Metro system, our Federal Government could not function.
We don't have the road capacity to get them to and from work.
Even with Metro, we have the second-worst congestion in the country,
and it is the most expensive. We need a better Metro system, and the
only way that we can meet today's demands is by having a dedicated
source of revenue. That is what this bill does.
But the funding has already been taken care of. It passed the House.
The House voted for it. This is not about finding the money for Metro.
This is about insuring that it gets used properly.
{time} 1500
This is about putting limitations on Metro, providing more Federal
oversight for the Metro system, ensuring that local governments in the
Washington area contribute their fair share, as should the State
governments. The local and the State governments are willing to do
that, as long as the Federal Government does; and the Federal
Government should, because the principal people it serves are the
Federal workforce.
President Eisenhower condemned the land that established the transit
system. President Nixon and President Carter both signed legislation to
get Metro on track.
Imagine if we did not have a Metro system when we have the
Presidential inauguration, when we have these major national events in
our Nation's Capital. We could not function. We are primarily dependent
upon this transportation system so that this government, the government
of the Nation's Capital, the principal government of the entire free
world can function.
Everything does not happen here on Capitol Hill. Everyone can't live
here. People have to travel to get here. They have to get back home.
You have to have a regional economy and a regional population; and in a
dense metropolitan area you have got to have a Metro system, so that
they can function. And it ought to be a first-class Metro system. This
does not even ensure it is going to be first class, but at least it
ensures it is going to be able to be adequate to meet the needs of the
local, the State and the national governments, and it ensures that
there is going to be Federal oversight and that it will serve the needs
of our Federal workforce.
Again, I applaud the chairman for bringing it to the floor today and
securing its financing last week.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to this debate, and I am
unconvinced at the end of the day that the combination of these two
bills is not spending additional taxpayer money. In fact, I have in my
hand the committee report, before the two bills were separated, dated
April 26 that on page 11 it clearly says for those grants, the bill
would authorize the appropriation of $1.5 billion to the Secretary. I
admit that is a report before the two bills were separated.
But a combination of the two, again, is going to put the taxpayer on
the hook for an additional $1.5 billion, and I think, Mr. Speaker, what
we have to do is peel away the layers of the onion here and see what we
have.
Again, we already have Federal programs in place to help fund WMATA.
We already have moneys flowing. So either we are looking at new funding
today, or we are looking at a new program, or we are looking at both.
Regardless, a combination of the two, I believe, will spend more
money, and Mr. Speaker, even if it was budget neutral, even if it was
budget neutral, when we are looking at a Federal debt that has gone
from roughly $5.5 trillion to $8.5 trillion in just about 5 years, I am
not sure I want any new Federal programs until we do a better job in
preventing this debt from being imposed upon our children, at a time
when we have the highest level of tax revenues we have ever had in the
Nation's history.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a taxing problem. We have a
spending problem, and I am not here to say that there are not many
worthy provisions of this bill, and I am glad to hear about all the
accountability features of the bill. I don't quite know why that has to
be combined with a billion and a half new spending since, again, the
Federal taxpayer is already contributing to this mass transit system at
a very healthy clip.
But one of the reasons I would be leery of authorizing new funds, as
President Reagan, one of my favorite Presidents, once said that the
closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. So what
happens in the
[[Page H5240]]
outyears as this program continues on and on and on? I am not sure
anybody here on this floor today knows for certain.
I can tell you this: I got into the fatherhood business 4 years ago.
I now have a 4-year-old daughter and 2\1/2\-year-old son; and I can
tell you once I helped bring them into the world, they have been very
hungry, very expensive, and very needful people. Now, I love them very
much, but again, using this analogy, they can get very expensive in the
outyears.
So, Mr. Speaker, another point I would like to address as many
speakers came here today to make a very compelling argument that this
was a vital transportation program, that it was a very vital program
related to our homeland security, God forbid should another 9/11 occur.
But if this is true, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question, why was this
program not originally funded in the homeland security appropriations
bill? Why was this project not originally funded in the transportation
appropriations bill? Many competing interests come together in those
bills, hopefully within a budget constraint, and decisions are made
about Federal priorities. So, again, if this is such a priority, I am
wondering why it was not included there.
But again, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, my concern here is
that somehow, some way a combination of these two bills is going to
mean at a time when tax revenues are at their highest, at a time when
the national debt is at its highest, at a time where we already have
10,000 Federal programs and they grow each day, that we are going to
have a new Federal program, and again, no matter how worthy it may be,
without taking away some other lower-priority Federal program, and I
just do not believe that the OCS dedicated revenue stream that was
already spoken for, that even if the gentleman from Virginia has been
successful, and maybe he has been, in dedicating that funding to his
bill, then some other program has gone unfunded; and therefore, again
the Federal taxpayer today in the future will be on the hook.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would urge defeat of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Before I begin, I would ask unanimous
consent to put the memorandum from Greg Waring of the Congressional
Budget Office into the Record noting that CBO has reviewed the proposed
amendment and it does not authorize any additional appropriations,
score of zero.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Natural & Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit
Congressional Budget Office,
From: Greg Waring
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:42 PM
To: Puccerella, Ed
Cc: Robert Murphy; Mark Hadley
Subject: HR 3496 budgetary impact
Ed: CBO has reviewed the proposed amendment to H.R. 3496.
The language would link funding for the capital and
preventive maintenance projects to the authorization of
appropriation provided in Section 30 of H.R. 4761, as passed
the House of Representatives on June 29, 2006. CBO expects
that the proposed amendment would not authorize any
additional appropriations.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Gregory Waring,
Analyst.
____
From: Puccerella, Ed
Sent: 7/11/2006 4:52 PM.
Greg: Per our conversation with Budget Committee and you
all at CBO here is the revised appropriation language that
the Chairman would like to add to H.R. 3496 when it goes to
the floor. Can you please confirm that this language would
not authorize any additional appropriations that are not
otherwise authorized under H.R. 4761 as passed by the House?
We would like this language to be effectively budget neutral.
Thanks, Ed
(e) Amount.--There are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as are made available to the Secretary of Treasury to
make payments to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority pursuant to section 9(k) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) .
(f) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization under this section
(1) shall remain available until expended; and
(2) shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, amounts
available to the Transit Authority under chapter 53 of title
49, United States Code, or any other provision of law.
Edward J. Puccerella,
Committee on Government Reform,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is not a new program.
This program was authorized in 1960 and signed by President Eisenhower.
It has been reauthorized four times; and I hope it has a long life, a
long productive life, taking commuters off clogged roads and using mass
transit so we can reduce our energy dependency on foreign oil.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an authorization of funds. It is about
making sure, as my colleagues have said, that this money is spent well.
If this goes down, the money still goes through without any checks and
balances and Inspector Generals or any of these being set up. If you
vote against this bill, you are not saying we should not spend any
extra dollars on the Metro system. You are not saying that. You are
saying they can spend the extra dollars without the congressional
oversight.
Statistics show that Metro is, in fact, one of the best run systems,
but I am not willing to say they are so good that no improvements are
required and additional oversight is not required.
The provisions in this came from a GAO report. It is our
responsibility in Congress to ensure Federal dollars are well spent.
There should be nothing contentious about requiring an Inspector
General, adding Federal members to the board, or requiring the
jurisdictions to truly provide stable funding to the system.
So I urge my colleagues to offer this bill their full support.
I appreciate the comments of my colleague. He has long been a
supporter of no further Federal spending, but we are out the barn door
on this. That happened under the previous legislation, under the Deep
Ocean Energy Resources Act. This refines it and controls it and makes
sure the money is well spent.
I hope my colleagues will join us in legislation that scores zero
with the Congressional Budget Office and reauthorizes this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3496, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________