[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.

                          ____________________