[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 118 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8245-H8253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3074, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND 
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 558 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 558

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 3074 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). The gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today, the House will take up the ninth of 12 
appropriation measures where we will continue the effort to take 
America in a new direction, where we focus on priorities of concern to 
average Americans throughout this country.
  Through these bills, the new Congress is restoring our focus on a 
domestic agenda that helps all Americans, not just the wealthy few and 
not just the well-connected corporations.
  We will make sure, as we have, that our veterans have the care they 
need. We'll reverse neglect in environmental protection that's been 
abandoned, been neglected for the past several years, and we'll fund 
housing programs for low- and moderate-income Americans. We will 
provide resources to ensure that children arrive at school ready to 
learn and have the health care that they need, and we will make certain 
that our law enforcement officials have the tools that they need to 
protect our citizens.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 558 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 3074, the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations Act for 2008. This will be done under an open rule. This 
is a bipartisan bill that was presented before the Rules Committee by 
Chairman Olver and Ranking Member Knollenberg. It was a pleasure, 
frankly, to see the cooperation of these two gentlemen and the members 
of that committee coming together to present to the House for its 
consideration a very impressive plan to meet our infrastructure and 
housing needs in the future.
  As you know, demographic changes and growth patterns in the United 
States over the next decade will continue to have a major impact on 
transportation networks and the need for affordable housing. This bill 
seeks to ensure that our Nation's transportation system is safe and 
efficient and that our citizens have access to safe and affordable 
housing. The bill does so in a way that strengthens the economy and is 
environmentally and fiscally responsible.
  The bill safeguards the regional needs of our Nation by rejecting 
administration proposed cuts that provide air service to rural 
communities, and it invests in transit projects for our urban areas 
that will help our commuters save time and money getting to work. The 
bill also rejects administration cuts to Amtrak, protects national rail 
service, and fully funds the highway and transit guarantees set forth 
in the SAFETEA-LU authorization bill.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recognized the need 
to support rural airports, something very important to people like me 
from a rural State like Vermont. Investments in airports, like the 
Rutland State Airport in Vermont, are critical to rural States and an 
effective transportation system. The bill includes $110 million for 
essential air service to continue service to small and/or rural 
communities as well as $10 million for the Small Community Air Service 
Development Program that will continue the Department of Transportation 
grant program to help our small communities to attract commercial air 
services.
  Among other things, the committee also includes $75 million for the 
FTA's Clean Fuels Grant program, $26 million above 2007 for clean fuel 
bus technology. Public transportation companies like the Chittenden 
County Transportation Authority in Vermont are taking responsibility 
for their fleet's emissions by making investments in new, fuel-
efficient, low-carbon-emitting buses; and this legislation supports 
those efforts.
  In housing, the bill rejects a $2 billion cut proposed by the 
administration to eliminate housing programs for the poorest citizens 
in this country and, instead, aims to make sure that all Americans have 
adequate shelter. The proposed cuts that this bill would reject include 
deep cuts to HUD, Community Development Block Grants and programs that 
provide housing for the elderly and disabled. Funding is included so 
that anyone with a voucher will not lose it. The President's proposed 
cuts come at a time when fully three-quarters of households that are

[[Page H8246]]

actually eligible for HUD assistance are not receiving that assistance.
  And more than 1 million low-income households across New England, 
including elderly, disabled and families, live in federally assisted 
housing. Most of these households have annual incomes of less than 
$8,000, and they're obviously at serious risk of homelessness. Even 
larger numbers of households are struggling to survive in a private 
housing market and are paying more than 50 percent of their income for 
rent.

                              {time}  1715

  The Community Development Block Grant is a valuable resource for 
cities and States struggling to ensure opportunities for residents to 
live in safe and affordable communities. It's a tool that helps our 
local officials do, locally, something that builds up their 
communities. This program has funded projects that improve the quality 
of life across the country, including infrastructure improvement and 
economic development.
  In 2007, again using Vermont as an example, we received $8.4 million 
in CDBG funds. This bill provides $4 billion for CDBG grants across the 
country. That's $228 million above the 2007 appropriation.
  The need to recommit to housing and transportation priorities is 
necessary in every State in the country. It's a priority we must 
address head on in this body. This bill takes a big step in the right 
direction.
  I also commend the committee for including very strong language 
requiring HUD to incorporate strong green building and rehabilitation 
standards into its housing program, particularly focusing on improved 
energy efficiency, good for the environment, a pretty quick payoff and 
good for keeping costs down. While green building is relatively new, 
it's clearly vital to our Nation's homes and buildings, and to our 
country, that those homes and buildings become more environmentally 
friendly.
  Finally, this bill also reinforces the link between housing and 
transportation. It establishes a new interagency working group to 
coordinate transportation and housing policies on the Federal, State 
and local level.
  I again applaud Chairman Olver and Ranking Member Knollenberg for 
their hard and cooperative work in crafting this excellent bill, and 
thank them and their staffs for their attention to the needs of the 
people of Vermont and all States in this country.
  I will be urging all of my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
legislation, which spends $3.2 billion more than last year's 
Republican-crafted legislation. It also spends $2.8 billion, almost 6 
percent, more than requested by President Bush for this year's 
transportation and housing funding.
  Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record the President's Statement of 
Administration Policy pledging a veto of this legislation due to its 
fiscal irresponsibility.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

     H.R. 3074--Transportation. Housing; and Urban Development. 
         and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2008
       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3074 because, in 
     combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it 
     includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and 
     includes other objectionable provisions.
       The President has proposed a responsible plan for a 
     balanced budget by 2012 through spending restraint and 
     without raising taxes. To achieve this important goal, the 
     Administration supports a responsible discretionary spending 
     total of not more than $933 billion in FY 2008, which is a 
     $60 billion increase over the FY 2007 enacted level. The 
     Democratic Budget Resolution and subsequent spending 
     allocations adopted by the House Appropriations Committee 
     exceed the President's discretionary spending topline by $22 
     billion, causing a 9 percent increase in FY 2008 
     discretionary spending. In addition, the Administration 
     opposes the House Appropriations Committee's plan to shift 
     $3.5 billion from the Defense appropriations bill to non-
     defense spending, which is inconsistent with the Democrats' 
     Budget Resolution and risks diminishing America's war 
     fighting capacity.
       H.R. 3074 exceeds the President's request for programs 
     funded in this bill by $3.4 billion, part of the $22 billion 
     increase above the President's request for FY 2008 
     appropriations. The Administration has asked that Congress 
     demonstrate a path to live within the President's top line 
     and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions 
     elsewhere, while ensuring the Department of Defense has the 
     resources necessary to accomplish its mission. Because 
     Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if H.R. 3074 
     were presented to the President, he would veto the bill.
       The President has called on Congress to reform the 
     earmarking process that has led to wasteful and unnecessary 
     spending. Specifically, he called on Congress to provide 
     greater transparency and full disclosure of earmarks, to put 
     them in the language of the bill itself, and to cut the cost 
     and number by at least half. The Administration opposes any 
     efforts to shield earmarks from public scrutiny and urges 
     Congress to bring full transparency to the earmarking process 
     and to cut the cost and number of earmarks by at least half.
       The Administration would like to take this opportunity to 
     share additional views regarding the Committee's version of 
     the bill.


                   Department of Transportation (DOT)

       Federal Highway Administration. The Administration strongly 
     objects to increasing funds for the Federal Aid Highway 
     program based on adjustments determined through a revenue 
     aligned budget authority (RABA) mechanism. At authorized 
     levels, the Highway Account is spending beyond its means and 
     will be insolvent by 2009. Providing additional funding 
     through RABA adjustments only exacerbates the situation, 
     making the highway account oversubscribed by an additional 
     $500 million before the end of the SAFETEA-LU authorization 
     in FY 2009. Further steps will ultimately be needed, but 
     withholding RABA is an important first step to avoid the 
     threat of gas tax increases or a raid on the general fund.
       Amtrak. The Administration strongly objects to providing 
     $1.4 billion for Amtrak, which will perpetuate a flawed model 
     for intercity passenger rail. While the bill provides some 
     funding for Intercity Passenger Rail Capital Grants, which 
     will help encourage sustainable, demand-driven service, the 
     bill fails to include reform provisions proposed by the 
     Administration to improve accountability and encourage 
     competition.
       Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Administration 
     is disappointed that the Committee did not adopt the 
     President's proposal to align FAA's budget accounts with its 
     lines of business and to delineate the specific uses of the 
     General Fund contribution. These proposals would provide 
     greater transparency, improve management of resources, and 
     complement the reforms proposed by the Administration in the 
     NextGen Financing Reform Act of 2007.
       Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund. The Administration 
     opposes the one-year extension for the war risk insurance 
     program for domestic air carriers, which crowds out private 
     sector mechanisms for diversifying risk. The Administration 
     has proposed reforms in the NextGen Financing Reform Act that 
     ensure that air carriers more equitably share in the risks 
     associated with this program.
       US.-Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot. The Committee 
     report highlights a number of issues related to the U.S. 
     Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot. The Administration 
     assures the Committee that the pilot will be conducted in 
     compliance with the conditions and reporting requirements set 
     forth in P.L. 110-28. However, the Administration would 
     strongly oppose any amendment that is intended to delay or 
     restrict the pilot program.
       Reduction Proposals. The Budget proposed reductions in some 
     programs, such as DOT's Essential Air Service program, FAA's 
     Airport Improvement Program, and the Federal Transit 
     Administration's Capital Investment Grants. These reductions 
     are programmatically justified and would reduce Federal 
     spending. In addition, the House should consider reductions 
     to unrequested items, such as the Rail Line Relocation and 
     Improvement Program.


           Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

       The bill exceeds the request for HUD programs by more than 
     $3.5 billion. The President's Budget provides increases for 
     high-performing and high-priority programs, ensures effective 
     implementation of HUD programs, and reduces funds for lower 
     performing programs.
       Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The 
     Administration objects to the $1 billion increase for the 
     CDBG program through a formula that is long outdated and, in 
     many cases, provides more money to wealthier communities than 
     poorer ones. The Administration urges Congress to pass the 
     CDBG legislative reform proposal that was transmitted on June 
     5, 2007, which improves targeting to the neediest communities 
     and provides incentives to expand economic growth more 
     strategically. In addition, the Administration recommends 
     eliminating the $180 million in funding for congressional 
     earmarks.
       HOME/American Dream Downpayment Initiative. The 
     Administration objects to the more than $200 million 
     reduction to the request for the HOME Investment Partnerships 
     Program. In spite of the growing need for affordable housing, 
     the House bill would cut this high-performing program with an 
     effective track record of housing production for

[[Page H8247]]

     low-income families and flexibility for communities to tailor 
     housing assistance to their unique needs. Moreover, the 
     Administration objects to the lack of funding for the 
     American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides crucial 
     assistance to increase first-time homeownership.
       Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. The House bill reflects 
     support for the Administration's proposal to reform the 
     Housing Choice Voucher program. This includes tying Public 
     Housing Authority (PHA) administrative expense payments to 
     the number of assisted families, maintaining rental 
     assistance to the 2007 allocations based on the prior-year's 
     actual expenditures, and providing incentive funds for 
     smaller PHAs to consolidate. The House bill should also 
     eliminate the cap on the number of families PHAs can assist 
     to unlock PHA funds to permit greater housing assistance. The 
     Administration's request would aid significant numbers of 
     additional families and renew approximately 1.9 million 
     vouchers currently in use, without the Committee's addition 
     of $330 million in unrequested funds.
       Reducing Chronic Homelessness. The bill supports the 
     Administration's goal of reducing and ending chronic 
     homelessness; however, the House should also fund the 
     Prisoner Re-Entry program.
       Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The bill supports the 
     Administration's proposal to increase multifamily loan limits 
     in high-cost areas and lift the statutory cap on the number 
     of Home Equity Conversion Mortgages that HUD can insure 
     through the end of FY 2008. However, the Administration would 
     prefer to permanently lift the cap to allow HUD to continue 
     assisting the market in providing this financial vehicle. The 
     Administration also is concerned that the Committee report 
     purports to direct HUD to reverse its implementation of 
     certain recently enacted asset disposition reforms for FHA 
     multifamily programs, which would increase the deficit by $38 
     million in FY 2008.
       Other Housing Programs. The Administration's request 
     provides a program base funding level for public housing that 
     can be sustained in future years and, hence, the 
     Administration does not support the substantial increases for 
     these programs in the reported bill. The Administration also 
     objects to the funding provided for the HOPE VI program. HOPE 
     VI has accomplished its original goal. The Administration 
     also opposes the unreasonably high amount of new section 202 
     and 811 housing unit construction in the bill, which 
     simultaneously reduces resources dedicated to tenant 
     services, threatens future preservation, and exacerbates a 
     large and growing fiscal responsibility.
       Working Capital Fund. The Administration strongly objects 
     to the $95 million reduction. HUD has made significant 
     improvements in strategically and responsibly investing its 
     IT system resources, with demonstrated success The requested 
     funds are needed to continue to improve HUD financial 
     management and provide proper program delivery and 
     compliance. In addition, the requirement for Committee 
     approval of E-Government funding transfers should be removed. 
     These systems support HUD's core mission and operations.
       Lower Performing Programs. The Administration opposes the 
     funding provided for lower performing programs such as 
     section 108 loan guarantees, Brownfields, and Rural Housing. 
     These programs are duplicative, lack long-term outcome 
     measures, and have been unable to produce transparent 
     information on results.
       Exemption from Credit Reform. The Administration opposes 
     section 218, which would prohibit using funds provided in 
     this or any other act to implement the requirements of the 
     Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 beyond those already being 
     implemented by the Government National Mortgage Association. 
     Congress enacted credit reform in 1990 to more accurately 
     budget for the full cost of credit programs and to bring 
     greater transparency to credit programs in the budget 
     process. This provision of the bill begins to unravel this 
     important reform by setting a precedent that could undermine 
     ongoing efforts to accurately estimate and report the costs 
     of credit programs in the Federal budget and Federal 
     financial statements.


               Employment Eligibility Verification System

       The Administration supports the use of the Employment 
     Eligibility Verification System, previously known as the 
     Basic Pilot Program, but urges the Congress to provide for a 
     transition period to permit agencies to effectively implement 
     acquisition policies and procedures.


                        Constitutional Concerns

       Sections 405 and 406 purport to require approval of the 
     Committees prior to Executive Branch action. Since these 
     provisions would contradict the Supreme Court's ruling in INS 
     v. Chadha, they should be changed to require only 
     notification of Congress.
  This year House Republicans proposed an alternative budget that would 
have achieved balance by 2012 and ended the raid on Social Security 
without raising taxes, simply by raising a strong economy, reforming 
currently unsustainable entitlement programs and exercising 
accountability in government spending.
  Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected by the majority of 
Democrats who have, instead, chosen to pass a budget containing the 
second largest tax increase in history and one that spends more than 
$22 billion more than President Bush had proposed for our Nation's 
priorities.
  While today's legislation does find a number of worthy projects 
across the country, it also spends $1.4 billion, or $600 million above 
President Bush's request, for a program that has proven to be one of 
the Federal Government's worst fiscal black holes, Amtrak.
  For the last few years, I have worked to address the rampant cost 
overruns and fiscal mismanagement in Amtrak by offering amendments and 
legislation to cut funding for the 10 worst money-losing lines and to 
competitively source some of Amtrak services so that the private-sector 
efficiencies could be used to help fix this broken system.
  This week I am going to take a much narrower approach to fixing the 
fiscal disaster at Amtrak by offering a very simple amendment to cut 
funding for the most fiscally wasteful train line in the country, the 
Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Los Angeles, 
California.
  If a passenger were to ride the Sunset Limited from New Orleans to 
Los Angeles, it would take 46 hours and 20 minutes to complete the 
journey, assuming, of course, the train runs on time, which is highly 
unlikely, as this happens only 10 percent of the time. According to 
Amtrak's most recent performance report, the Sunset Limited ranks as 
the third most delayed route in 2007.
  Perhaps because of this poor performance, this route lost a 
staggering $117 million between 2003 and 2006, losing an average of 
$29.27 million a year for the last 4 years. Taxpayers across the 
country are being asked to subsidize the fares of each passenger on 
this train by a whopping 57 cents per mile for each passenger.
  In 2006, the Federal Government spent $524 per passenger getting 
these passengers from New Orleans to Los Angeles, meaning it would have 
been far cheaper, and, I'd add, faster, if we would just buy each 
passenger a plane trip ticket for their travel. The Federal Government 
could come out way ahead.
  If my amendment were approved last year, Congress would have saved 
taxpayers $20.4 million. I believe it is not too much to ask for 
Congress to show a small bit of common sense and fiscal restraint by 
prohibiting funds to continue to be spent on the absolute worst line in 
Amtrak's system.
  Madam Speaker, I look forward to debating this amendment and many 
others that have been proposed on the Republican side of the aisle to 
pare down the excessive spending contained in this bill and to bring 
some fiscal sanity back to the appropriations process that will 
ultimately increase discretionary spending by $82 billion, or a 
whopping 9 percent increase in spending if all the new spending 
proposed by the Democrat majority is signed into law.
  This Congress must do better, especially for a large group of people 
who have been jumping up and down talking about how spending money and 
balanced budgets are important. But, once again, I know what happens 
here on this floor of the House of Representatives. Democrats want to 
tax, and they want to spend. What they want to do is they want to grow 
the Federal budget, and what I want to do is keep it from encroaching 
on family budgets and taxpayers from my home State of Texas and those 
all across the United States.
  I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation as it's currently 
drafted.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, to respond to a couple of 
comments that my friend from Texas said, this bill complies with PAYGO. 
It absolutely meets the commitment that this Congress made to pay the 
bills that go along with the legislation we propose. It is a commitment 
to fiscal responsibility.
  The past Congresses, as is well known and is just factually beyond 
dispute, abandoned PAYGO, and it has resulted in the largest deficit of 
this country. That's number one.
  Number two, there really is a bipartisan desire to keep taxes as low 
as possible and spending as low as possible, but this bill also 
reflects a bipartisan commitment to build our infrastructure, to 
provide our citizens with the transportation that they need and

[[Page H8248]]

the housing that we need. It was passed on a very strong voice vote, 
bipartisan work by this committee.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Chair of 
the subcommittee, Mr. Olver from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for 
yielding time and for his good work along with Chairwoman Slaughter, 
Ranking Member Dreier and Members on both sides of the aisle in 
granting this open rule for the debate governing the fiscal year 2008 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act.
  We requested an open rule with some necessary waivers. The Rules 
Committee has granted that, and for that we are grateful. The 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill is a bipartisan, 
nonpartisan bill, as it should be. I urge the adoption of the rule and 
passage of the bill.
  Let me briefly summarize the highlights of the bill. With regard to 
Transportation, the bill meets the highway and transit funding 
guarantees mandated by the authorizations, SAFETEA-LU. In meeting the 
guarantees, we were required to increase above the President's request 
the highway obligation limit by $631 million and funding for transit 
programs by $334 million.
  Airport development grants are funded at $3.6 billion, which 
represents an increase of $850 million over the budget request, but 
only $85.5 million over the last year. The Essential Air Service 
program is funded at $110 million, which will preserve all existing air 
service at small and rural communities.
  The President's request for Amtrak was woefully inadequate and would 
have resulted in the loss of intercity passenger rail service to many 
communities. Therefore, this bill includes $1.4 billion for Amtrak in 
order to preserve a national system and to assist the railroad in 
making capital investments to improve the railroad's overall service 
and reliability.
  For the first time, the bill includes $50 million for State matching 
grants for intercity passenger rail and $35 million for the Rail Line 
Relocation and Improvement Program.
  With regard to HUD, each year the President's HUD budget arrives at 
severe cuts to vital programs, such as the Community Development Block 
Grant Program, known as CDBG, housing for the elderly and disabled, and 
Hope VI. In the face of this, the committee has done its best to 
restore the cuts to the programs that serve our most vulnerable 
citizens. In some cases we have frozen funding at last year's funding 
levels. In other places we have targeted increases where the people 
served by HUD programs were particularly harmed.
  Funding is included to renew all current section 8 tenant-based 
vouchers so that no one who has a voucher will lose it. To that end the 
bill provides an increase of $330 million from the President's request 
for tenant-based rental assistance and nearly $667 million increase for 
project-based rental assistance. Included within this amount is $30 
million for 4,000 incremental housing vouchers designated for 
nonelderly disabled individuals, but which will simultaneously serve 
1,000 homeless veterans.
  We have funded CDBG at $4.18 billion, which is $400 million over last 
year, but still $400 million below the CDBG budget for fiscal year 
2001. We have restored funding to last year's level of $735 million for 
section 202 elderly housing construction and to $237 million for 
section 811 housing construction for the disabled. We have also 
provided $120 million for the redevelopment of severely distressed 
public housing through the Hope VI program, a slight increase over the 
last year.
  Once again I would like to thank our colleagues on the Rules 
Committee for their assistance in moving this bill forward, and I urge 
the adoption of the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member 
of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, as we consider the rule for H.R. 3074, that's the 
bill, of course, that makes the appropriations for the Department of 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, crafting the underlying 
bill before us has not been easy. While there are both certain funding 
and policy issues in the bill that I have concerns with, this bill 
represents a reasonable approach at funding our highways, transit 
systems, airports and housing programs.
  The chairman from Massachusetts and I have worked together to resolve 
our differences as best possible. While we don't agree on everything, 
this bill is something, I believe, I can support.
  Under this bill, highway programs will receive $40.2 billion. This 
meets the level guaranteed in the highway authorization bill called 
SAFETEA-LU, as required under House Rules.
  Now, this is the next and most important line I am going to present 
this evening. For those that don't fully grasp the significance of 
this, if the bill does not meet the authorization levels, the bill can 
be struck on a point of order.

                              {time}  1730

  Further amendments that ultimately underfund the authorization levels 
will sink the bill.
  One specific area I would like to highlight is the $75 million for 
FTA's Clean Fuels Grant program, a $26 million increase above fiscal 
year 2007. Promoting clean fuel bus technology such as hybrid buses can 
be an important aspect to reducing our carbon footprint, and I thank 
the chairman for working with me to include this additional funding.
  I also want to point out that all specific projects included in the 
report were requested and certified by Members. This open rule will 
provide Members with the opportunity to offer amendments that would 
strike some projects. I would just say that both the majority and the 
minority reviewed all requests closely and required certifications from 
requesting Members.
  These projects are important for local communities. I am sure, if 
there is a mayor city council member, or county administrator who 
doesn't want these funds to improve their communities, I haven't met 
them; and I thank again the chairman for making that inclusion.
  I would conclude by saying that I look forward to the debate on the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I am pleased 
to stand in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  I deeply appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done, 
producing a critical piece of legislation for times of escalating 
energy costs, congestion, pollution. The work that the committee has 
done, in particular putting the big picture together looking at the 
intersection between transportation, land use, and energy, is to be 
commended.
  I am particularly pleased of the work that the committee has done in 
zeroing in on three particular areas. One that is of a particular 
interest to me has been the Small Starts program, which permits things 
like street cars to be reintroduced into American communities. It was 
something that I was able to work on and insert in the last 
reauthorization. Sadly, it has been 3 years since that bill was 
enacted, and the Federal Transit Administration has been unable to get 
the rules together to be able what should have been a simpler small 
scale program to be able to operate.
  I deeply appreciate the work that the committee has done to be able 
to make clear that the FTA needs to get its act together; that, rather 
than using a single means of cost effectiveness and disregarding all 
the other factors required under the underlying legislation, that the 
FTA must weigh economic development and land use effects of the 
project. This is critical. It is something that 82 communities across 
the country are now looking at for the reintroduction of street car and 
Small Start. This committee language is an important step in that 
direction, to help the administration obey the law, something they have 
been unable to do for 3 years.
  I am also pleased that there is clarification of the utilization of 
the CMAQ, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality.

[[Page H8249]]

The administration has unfairly limited the application of this funding 
simply to new bus services, leaving out rail transit all together. 
There are projects in my district and others around the country that 
would be unfairly impacted by the narrow implementation of this rule. 
It would be the wrong thing to do in a time of rising oil costs, 
transportation congestion, and the economic and environmental concerns. 
I appreciate that the committee directs the Federal Highway 
Administration to reinstitute the CMAQ eligibility regarding operating 
assistance for New Starts projects for up to 3 years. This is back to 
the original intent, it is a great step forward, and I appreciate them 
doing it.
  Last but not least, ``location efficiency,'' particularly as relates 
to HOPE VI programs, is very, very important to where a project is 
located and how it is constructed. The committee has taken some 
pioneering work to be able to look at the application, to be able to 
deal with the implementation in a location-efficient way that will 
stretch transportation dollars. It will make a huge difference for low-
income families who spend more on gasoline in many cases than they do 
on food, on education, or any other major discretion. In fact, many 
low-income people actually spend more on transportation than on 
housing.
  I must conclude by noting that there are still some who hold on to 
the pathological notion that the United States should be the only 
country in the world with unsubsidized rail passenger service. I would 
note that the airline industry has made a net profit of zero in its 75-
year history despite massive Federal subsidies. I think this 
legislation is a step forward by simply giving a little bit of what is 
necessary for a national rail passenger network. It is cost effective, 
it is energy efficient. It brings us in line with where the rest of the 
civilized world is. And I commend the committee for it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to 
the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. And I 
appreciate the work that the Rules Committee has done on this. I also 
appreciate the work of the Transportation, HUD, and related agencies 
appropriations subcommittee, and Mr. Olver, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, and also the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Knollenberg.
  And I am not here to criticize their work product. I am here, though, 
to set a marker, partly a historical marker; and I will speak in 
opposition to this rule and also the way the rule was crafted.
  Madam Speaker, while the Committee on Rules calls this resolution an 
open rule, it is unfortunately extremely restrictive in nature. While 
the rule will allow for most amendments, unfortunately it weighs most 
points of order against consideration of the bill.
  Under clause 2 of rule XXI, the rules of the House allow for a point 
of order to be raised against any provision that is considered 
authorizing on an appropriations bill; however, this resolution that we 
are considering now waives that point of order.
  Now, again, I come here because, as the ranking member, the 
Republican leader on the House Transportation Committee, I said we need 
to set a marker. I was checking with the Parliamentarian, and as far 
back as we can look, the Founding Fathers and those that preceded us in 
these Chambers separated the authorizing process, authorizing projects 
and policy, from the appropriations policy. And here, tonight, we 
abandon the prerogative of the authorizing committee to cite a point of 
order that should be raised against a number of provisions in this 
legislation that in fact authorize on an appropriations matter. What 
good is the transportation and infrastructure authorizing committee? It 
is the largest committee in the House of Representatives, and the 
action we take here tonight makes really chopped liver out of that 
process. I think that is unfair, and it also sets a bad precedent.
  There are several provisions of the bill that we will consider 
tonight that are authorizing, as I said, in nature and that would be 
subject to a point of order if this is truly an open rule tonight. The 
most egregious of these provisions is the proposed rescission of $3 
billion of unobligated highway contract authority. A rescission of this 
size will have a very severe impact on the ability of our State 
departments of transportation to implement their highway programs 
throughout the Nation. To compound the effect of this rescission, the 
provision also restricts how a State can apply the rescission. During 
consideration of H.R. 3074 this evening, I will offer an amendment that 
will address this issue.
  My amendment is simple. It will seek to provide the State departments 
of transportation maximum flexibility in how the rescissions should be 
administered. It is nice for us to make these rescissions, but we 
should give the States some prerogative in how they apply those 
rescissions to their own States and their priority of projects.
  If the rule was truly an open rule and did not waive points of order, 
then I would not have to offer this amendment. I could have simply 
raised a point of order, which I have done in the past. Mr. Young, who 
was the chairman, would have taken the same measure. He would have been 
out here if he was in the majority and Chair, Mr. Shuster before him, 
and the language would have been stricken from the bill. However, this 
rule waives that point of order, and for this reason I will vote 
against the rule this evening, and I encourage all of my colleagues to 
do the same.
  I would insert in the Record at this point a letter from Chairman 
Oberstar of the T&I Committee dated July 18, 2007, to Mr. Obey, and it 
states a whole series of concerns that he raised about, again, 
authorizing on a legislative appropriations.
         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
           Transportation and Infrastructure
                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 2007.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Obey: I would like to share my views on 
     several issues related to H.R. __, the Transportation, 
     Housing and Urban Development (``THUD'') Appropriations Act 
     for fiscal year (FY) 2008, as ordered reported by the 
     Committee on Appropriations last week. Although these issues 
     include provisions that violate Rule XXI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives, I have not asked that the Committee 
     on Rules allow me to raise a point of order against these 
     provisions. I would like to work with you to resolve these 
     issues.


                                highways

       I regret that the bill rescinds $3 billion in unobligated 
     balances of funds that have been apportioned to States under 
     the Federal-aid highway program. However, I understand the 
     funding constraints that led to this decision, and I 
     appreciate that the bill requires the rescission to be 
     applied proportionally to all Federal-aid highway programs, 
     consistent with the approach taken in H.R. 2701, the 
     Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation 
     Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       Throughout the bill, there are a number of other 
     rescissions of highway, motor carrier safety, highway safety, 
     and transit funds that raise concerns for the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. In particular, section 124 
     rescinds $172,242,964 of unobligated balances of contract 
     authority for research programs conducted by the Federal 
     Highway Administration (FHWA). Earlier this year, the House 
     passed H.R. 1195, which provides additional resources to 
     ensure that the FHWA research program receives the funding 
     necessary to continue essential programs. Under SAFETEA-LU, 
     the contract authority for research programs is available for 
     a period of three fiscal years. A portion of this unobligated 
     balance of contract authority is needed to conduct research 
     programs in FY 2008. H.R. __, the THUD Appropriations Act, 
     rescinds some of these necessary research funds.


                                Aviation

       The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure recently 
     ordered H.R 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, to be 
     reported. Section 404(b) of H.R. 2881 amends section 41742(b) 
     of title 49, United States Code, to require overflight fee 
     collections in excess of $50 million to be distributed as 
     follows: one-half to the Small Community Air Service 
     Development (``SCASD'') program, and one-half to the 
     Essential Air Service (``EAS'') program, or if not needed for 
     EAS, then for rural air safety improvements. In addition, 
     section 121 of H.R. 2881 requires the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to increase the overflight fee rates beginning 
     on October 1, 2008. This provision will result in a 
     significant increase in overflight fee collections in the 
     future.
       These provisions of H.R. 2881 could be undermined by the 
     proviso on page 15, lines 1 through 5, of the Committee Print 
     of the FY 2008 THUD appropriations bill. This proviso waives 
     section 41742(b) of title 49, United

[[Page H8250]]

     States Code, and instead requires overflight fee collections 
     in excess of $50 million to be carried over to FY 2009 and 
     used to help satisfy the $50 million funding requirement for 
     EAS in FY 2009. With this language, and steadily increasing 
     overflight fee collections, a balance of unexpended 
     overflight fees would quickly build up over time, a situation 
     I would strongly oppose. As the aviation reauthorization and 
     FY 2008 appropriations processes continue to move forward, 
     care must be taken to ensure that contradictions such as this 
     do not remain in the final legislation.
       Similarly, Title VII of H.R 2881 extends the aviation war 
     risk insurance program through 2017, followed by a transition 
     to an airline industry-sponsored risk sharing arrangement 
     after 2017. These provisions could be undermined by section 
     115 of the FY 2008 THUD appropriations bill, which extends 
     the program for a much shorter period of time. This is 
     another case in which the aviation reauthorization and FY 
     2008 appropriations bills must be carefully coordinated.
       Aside from these issues related to the FAA reauthorization 
     bill, there are several other aviation-related provisions in 
     the FY 2008 THUD appropriations bill that are of concern to 
     me. The paragraph beginning on page 5, line 23, of the 
     Committee Print appropriates $60 million for the EAS program. 
     These funds are in addition to the EAS funding from 
     overflight fees. While I support funding for this program, 
     this is an unauthorized appropriation from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund. The EAS program does not exist for the 
     benefit of aviation system users. Rather, it exists to help 
     small communities maintain their link to the national 
     aviation system and, therefore the economic life of this 
     nation. As such, there is no compelling policy reason to fund 
     the EAS program from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, 
     rather than the General Fund. Furthermore, the uncommitted 
     cash balance in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund has dropped 
     significantly over the past several years. The remaining 
     balance in the Trust Fund must be preserved for expenditure 
     on programs that are authorized to be funded from the Trust 
     Fund. Therefore, I request that you consider deriving this 
     appropriation from the General Fund, rather than the Trust 
     Fund.
       Regarding the Airport Improvement Program (``AIP''), I have 
     three areas of concern. First, the proviso on page 13, lines 
     2 through 10, of the Committee Print earmarks AIP funds for 
     several activities that, under H.R. 2881, are not authorized 
     to be funded from AIP and would be a violation of the 
     aviation capital funding guarantee. I am particularly 
     concerned about the earmarking of AlP funds for research 
     programs, and the expansion of this practice to include a 
     new program--Airport Technology Research.
       Second the bill rescinds $185.5 million of AIP contract 
     authority that remains unobligated due to the failure of the 
     Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (P.L. 110-
     5) to fully fund the AIP program. I will not object to this 
     rescission because I do not want to further constrain the 
     funding that is available for transportation programs in FY 
     2008. However, this AIP contract authority is within the 
     guaranteed levels and should not be rescinded.
       Third, the report accompanying the FY 2008 THUD 
     appropriations bill includes a listing of 72 airport projects 
     which the FAA is directed to fund. The law governing the AIP 
     requires the FAA to establish a priority system to decide 
     which projects will receive funding. The FAA's National 
     Priority System, which has been in use for many years, gives 
     highest priority to projects that will bring airports into 
     compliance with safety standards. Second priority is given to 
     projects that are necessary to meet security requirements. 
     Third priority is given to reconstruction or rehabilitation 
     projects that are needed to preserve existing airport 
     infrastructure. Fourth priority is given to projects needed 
     to achieve compliance with current FAA standards. Fifth 
     priority is given to capacity enhancement projects. Aviation 
     projects are not like projects in other modes of 
     transportation. For example, an improvement to a highway 
     project in one city does not necessarily benefit highway 
     users in any other city, but in the national system of 
     integrated airports, an improvement in one airport, 
     particularly a major hub airport, could benefit aviation 
     travelers throughout the system. For this reason, the FAA 
     should have, and does have, discretion to fund improvements 
     to increase capacity, to improve safety, to meet standards, 
     and reduce bottlenecks. To limit the FAA'S discretion in this 
     regard would only worsen the congestion and delays we are 
     already experiencing today.
       I want to make it clear that the language in a report 
     cannot override a priority system established under the 
     governing law. I would like to quote from the decision of the 
     Comptroller General on a similar situation. The Comptroller 
     General wrote: ``It is our view that when Congress merely 
     appropriates lump sum amounts without statutorily restricting 
     what can be done with those funds, a clear inference arises 
     that it does not intend to impose legally binding 
     restrictions, and indicia in committee reports and other 
     legislative history as to how the funds should be or are 
     expected to be spent do not establish any legal requirements 
     on Federal agencies.''
       Throughout my career, I have steadfastly resisted 
     designating airport improvement projects in authorizing 
     legislation and will continue to resist such designations. I 
     urge you to resist including such earmarks, as well.


                               Railroads

       The proviso beginning on page 39, line 22, of the Committee 
     Print requires leases and contracts entered into by Amtrak to 
     be governed by the laws of the District of Columbia. I 
     recognize that this is intended to address a specific 
     situation in Maryland, and I agree that there is a compelling 
     reason to address that situation. In fact, a similar 
     provision that is specific to Maryland was included in the 
     rail security bill, and is expected to be included in the 9/
     11 Conference Report. However, this proviso is much broader 
     and would preempt all state and local laws (except the 
     District of Columbia's laws) dealing with contracts and 
     leases with respect to Amtrak. To avoid any unintended 
     consequences that may result from such a broad approach, this 
     issue should be considered under regular order, and addressed 
     in the Amtrak reauthorization bill currently being developed 
     by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       Finally, I would like to comment on the proviso beginning 
     on page 40, line 8, of the Committee Print which prohibits 
     Amtrak from using Federal funds for supporting any route on 
     which Amtrak offers a discounted fare of more than 50 percent 
     off the normal, peak fare. Oftentimes passenger travel 
     providers will seek to maximize revenue on certain routes or 
     travel times by offering travel discounts. For example, the 
     airline industry has developed sophisticated pricing 
     practices that maximize revenues by ensuring that seats that 
     would otherwise fly empty (contributing nothing to revenues), 
     are filled at whatever price point the market will support. 
     Restricting Amtrak from employing similar pricing practices 
     seems unfair, and contrary to the notion that Amtrak should 
     operate in a more business-like fashion.
       Thank you for your consideration of these views. Although 
     there are numerous other legislative provisions that are 
     included in the THUD Appropriations Committee Print, my 
     principal concerns are with the provisions discussed above. I 
     look forward to working with you to resolve the critical 
     issues outlined in this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                          James L. Oberstar, M.C.,
                                                         Chairman.

  May I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. MICA. I think in 45 seconds let me cite for the record, then, 
verbally here the provisions authorizing in nature and rescissions in 
this bill:
  In addition to the $3 billion in Federal Highway Contract Authority, 
a rescission of $172 million in Highway Research Funding; a rescission 
of $50 million in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; a 
rescission of $20 million from the Highway National Traffic Safety 
Administration; a rescission of $30 million from the Federal Transit 
Administration; a rescission of more than $200 million from the Federal 
Aviation Administration; and, finally, there is authorizing for Amtrak 
that was poorly crafted in this bill that deals with the problem with 
MARC in Maryland.
  In this poorly crafted authorizing on an appropriations legislative 
measure, they poorly drafted a provision that deals with the problem 
with MARC in Maryland, their transit system; and the bill requires that 
all leases and contracts entered into by Amtrak be governed by the laws 
of the District of Columbia, drafted in error, but authorizing that 
step in this important bill. So these are the points that I would raise 
and need to be addressed.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank the gentleman from Vermont, my friend from the 
Rules Committee, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation for the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing 
and Urban Development Appropriations Act.
  I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee and the ranking member for reporting out the bill. It does 
not pay lip service, but makes critical investments in our Nation's 
transportation and infrastructure at the levels guaranteed under 
SAFETEA-LU.
  Madam Speaker, this bill rejects the administration's proposed 
funding cuts to the FAA Airport Improvement Program, highway programs, 
and Critical Housing in Community Development programs. The bill 
provides $140 million more than current funding for the Federal 
Aviation Administration, and $850 million more than the President's

[[Page H8251]]

request for the FAA Airport Improvement Program, which provides grant 
and aid for airport planning, construction, and development.
  Recipients of the AIP funds, such as Griffis Park Airfield in my 
Upstate New York district, have benefited greatly from the program. 
Over the last few years, AIP funds have helped Griffis continue to 
fully develop as a regional aviation facility, become the new home to 
Oneida County Airport, and create long-term regional economic growth 
for a region often strained to attract new investment.

                              {time}  1745

  The bill also maintains our commitment to keeping our airways safe by 
providing $7 billion, 219 million more than the current funding, to 
hire more than 1,400 new air traffic controllers to replenish the 
workforce as the rate of retiring air traffic controllers continue to 
grow.
  This bill also provides $20 million more than the President's request 
to hire and train more safety inspectors and other aviation safety 
activities.
  The bill boosts funding for the Federal Transit Administration by 
providing $288 million more than the President's request for mass 
transit programs. Local transit authorities such as Central New York 
Regional Transit Authority and CENTRO in my district will now be able 
to expand their hybrid bus fleet and continue to provide low-cost, 
convenient, clean, energy-efficient transportation services to 
commuters in both upstate and New York City.
  The President's budget request seeks to eliminate funding for the 
Hope VI program, but I am so pleased that this legislation will 
maintain our commitment to providing affordable housing for the many 
disadvantaged individuals across the country, individuals that still 
struggle daily to meet their families' needs, even while working full-
time jobs.
  H.R. 3074 restores funding for the Community Development Block Grant 
Program, which this administration has cut since 2001 by nearly 35 
percent. This bill provides $1.1 billion more than the President's 
request for CDBG grants, which allows local governments in cities such 
Utica, Rome and Auburn, New York, to provide critical services to 
revitalize neighborhoods, promote economic development and improve 
quality of life for those starved of financial resources.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from the Land of Enchantment, New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. For those of you sitting in your offices 
tonight, and for those staff members who are watching this debate, I'd 
like you to listen real carefully to what I have to say because I think 
it's important, probably more important than many of the things that we 
do around here.
  We are going to have a vote tonight on the previous question on this 
rule. And if the previous question is defeated, I will immediately 
bring to the floor an amendment that will update important elements of 
the foreign intelligence surveillance law.
  On May 1, in an unclassified session in front of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, Admiral Mike McConnell, who's the Director of 
National Intelligence, urged the Congress to modernize this law. And he 
said this: ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we 
should be getting.''
  And today the Attorney General of the United States wrote to the 
Congress and said that merely adding resources will not solve the 
critical problem that we face.
  We are providing protections to foreign targets overseas. The law in 
this country should not require a warrant to use our communications 
systems to protect this country, and the irony is that is exactly what 
we're doing. Terrorists who are trying to kill Americans are using our 
communications networks, and we are forcing our intelligence agency to 
jump through hoops and get warrants to listen to foreigners in foreign 
countries communicating with each other.
  We must update this law to protect Americans. Intelligence is our 
first line of defense in the war on terrorism. The administration has 
told us it is critical. The Members, Democrat and Republican, in the 
intelligence committees know that I'm telling the truth, and the 
leadership, both Democrat and Republican, know the same thing.
  I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, to 
immediately change these laws, and to protect Americans from terrorist 
attack.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I'm the last speaker on this 
side. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, for the last 2 years, I've worked to kill 
funding for the bridges to nowhere, one connecting Alaska to an island 
with 50 people and the other to an island with just 22. These federally 
funded structures would be almost as long as the Golden Gate Bridge, 
and would be taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. Never in the history of 
the Congress has so much money been spent for so few.
  Now, last year the House Appropriations Committee backed my amendment 
and put this House on record against funding the bridges to nowhere. We 
also completely deleted the Federal earmark that required spending on 
these projects, and that was the right decision.
  The Federal Government spends too much, and higher spending leads to 
higher taxes, higher taxes to a smaller economy and fewer jobs, and we 
should not follow that road. But that is the direction that the Bridge 
to Nowhere leads.
  This year was different. A new party and a new leader promised change 
here in Washington. Amazingly, under the Republicans, this House came 
out against funding the Bridge to Nowhere. But under the Democrats, the 
Appropriations Committee now voted to block an amendment cutting off 
funding for the bridges.
  Under this Congress, leaders promised to kill pensions for Members of 
Congress convicted of a felony, but after 7 months, no such reform has 
been enacted.
  And now, under this Congress, many Members promised back home to kill 
the bridges to nowhere, but under this bill, they will be funded, and 
funded for years to come because these bridges will take at least $400 
million to build the structures. And one of the bridges is already $37 
million over budget, a number that will likely rise.
  Madam Speaker, my amendment to kill the funding for the bridges to 
nowhere is technically out of order because, according to our 
Parliamentarian, he says it violates clause 3 of rule XXI because it 
would trigger Alaska losing funding guaranteed by the previously 
enacted transportation bill.
  The Appropriations Committee, my committee, is at its best when it 
decides to appropriate taxpayer money and also when it decides not to 
appropriate taxpayer money.
  Amazingly, it is not in order to offer an amendment to this 
appropriations bill to deny appropriations. Our rules do not make 
sense, of course, unless you support the Bridge to Nowhere or like 
government spending.
  We will be at this again next year, and we'll look closely at the 
cost overruns already with the bridges to nowhere and their burden on 
American taxpayers. But today, a simple amendment to block funding for 
the bridges to nowhere, an amendment that would be overwhelmingly 
approved if offered, cannot be offered because a point of order would 
be leveled against it.
  Americans should know that, despite promises to reform this House 
under new leaders, the new leaders of this House has flipped the House 
of Representatives from being anti-Bridge to Nowhere to now being for 
the waste of taxpayers' money.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the 
Department of Transportation, HUD and related agencies appropriations.
  The ranking member of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Mica, has 
made compelling and passionate remarks regarding the objections shared 
by many members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. Numerous 
provisions in the underlying bill constitute

[[Page H8252]]

legislating on an appropriations bill and fall within the jurisdiction 
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  As the ranking member of the Railroad Subcommittee, pipelines and 
hazardous materials, I would like to voice my opposition waiving points 
of order under clause 2, rule XXI, which is the rule against 
authorizing on appropriations bills.
  In House Resolution 558, I'm especially concerned about the language 
that places all Amtrak contracts and leases that make them subject to 
the Washington, D.C., law. This language should be removed from the 
bill because it is authorizing on an appropriations bill.
  This provision was apparently intended to help resolve a pending 
Amtrak negotiation with the State of Maryland. That negotiation 
involved a dispute of a disputed clause in the MARC commuter railroad 
operating agreement. Amtrak wants all disputes handled under D.C. law, 
but Maryland State requires that it's handled under their jurisdiction, 
which is appropriate.
  Instead of a narrowly tailored provision, this provision is unlimited 
in scope and states that all leases and contracts entered into by 
Amtrak shall be governed by D.C. law. This could be construed to 
include all D.C. laws, including building codes, environmental permits 
and security deposits, et cetera, et cetera.
  In addition, Amtrak trackage agreements with computer railroads such 
as the New Jersey Transit, Long Island Railroad, Virginia Railway 
Express and freight carriers would ultimately be placed under D.C. law. 
This could lead to many unintended consequences such as changing the 
law on all rail leases, contracts and perhaps rail labor contracts.
  Again, I voice my opposition for House Resolution 558 and the waiver 
of the point of order based on clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Since the Democratic majority has taken over the House, we've seen a 
chipping away of the authority and the jurisdiction of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. So I would urge the 
chairmen of the committee to join together in a bipartisan fashion to 
oppose this rule which continues to erode the jurisdiction of the 
Transportation Committee and thus, I believe, sets a precedent for all 
committees in the House, all authorizing committees, to continue to see 
their authorities and their jurisdictions to erode and given away to 
the Appropriations Committee.
  So again, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to stand for the continuing erosion of our 
authorities and our jurisdictions to these committees that were given 
historically to these committees.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, under the agreement that we just had 
with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), I'm going to go ahead and 
close, and then we are now through with our speakers and allow the 
gentleman to do the same thing.
  Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous 
question for this rule. Our country is facing a very serious problem 
that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August, and, to 
date, the majority Democrats have not shown a commitment to deal 
seriously nor quickly enough with one of the most serious threats 
facing America.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that clarifies one very 
simple and critical thing; that the United States Government will no 
longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who 
are not even located in the United States.
  The Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell and the 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Hayden, have 
testified to Congress that, under current law, their hands are tied. As 
Director McConnell recently testified, FISA is outdated and has been 
made obsolete by technology. Today our Intelligence Community is forced 
to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside of our Nation, and, 
as a result, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we 
should be getting.'' I'll say it in my own way: The things that we 
would expect our government to know and be prepared for.
  We simply cannot allow ourselves to be deaf and blind to terrorist 
communications that threaten our very existence because of a law that 
is woefully outdated. All of us have heard public reports from the 
Department of Homeland Security that terrorist chatter is at record 
levels that we have not seen since 2001. We have to open our ears, we 
have to open our eyes to keep this Nation safe. It can be done tonight 
with our part of this, Madam Speaker.
  If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are serious about facing 
down the threat, they will join me in defeating the previous question 
so that the House will be able to address this very real and very 
serious threat immediately.
  I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous 
material in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I have a newfound respect for 
the Chair of this committee and the ranking member, Mr. Olver and Mr. 
Knollenberg. They have an incredibly difficult job, and that is to take 
the responsibility that this House of Representatives has, Democrats 
and Republicans, to put together a transportation infrastructure 
program and a housing program, and to do that when they have 435 
Members of Congress tugging on their arms every day asking them to 
include projects in their districts because the Members from those 
districts sincerely believe that those are essential to the economic 
development and the transportation needs and the housing needs of the 
people who live there.

                              {time}  1800

  And they managed to do it. They came in, treated every Member of this 
body with enormous courtesy and patience, listened to what our requests 
were, and then put together a bill that was bipartisan. It was quite 
extraordinary. And it was a pleasure to be a member of the Rules 
Committee and to see these two gentlemen come up and be mutually 
complimentary after a hard process of allocating $50 billion of 
taxpayer money for infrastructure and housing improvement in this 
country. They are to be commended for that.
  We then come down to the floor and we get into the back and forth 
about specific projects and try to pick and cherry pick examples of 
what is bad when it was the recommendation of the chairman of the 
committee that this be an open rule; so anybody who has got a problem 
with any particular project is going to have an opportunity to offer 
amendment to strike that project and make whatever arguments they want.
  This issue of how we restore the transportation infrastructure of our 
country is vital. The fact is we spend too little, not too much, and it 
is the funding issue that is a challenge in every Congress. But our 
infrastructure compared to many of the countries with which we compete 
economically is woefully behind what the economy of our country needs 
and the citizens of our country deserve.
  I applaud the work of this subcommittee, bipartisan work. And why it 
is that we have to beat up on the work of the committee by claiming it 
is partisan, Democrat and Republican, really escapes me. There is 
nothing partisan about meeting the infrastructure needs of our country. 
There may be fierce debates about the best way to do it, which projects 
should get funding, how much you allocate towards the air system versus 
rail; but the fact is we have got an obligation to improve a crumbling 
infrastructure in this country, and the bill that has been presented to 
this Congress on a bipartisan basis, under the leadership of Mr. Olver 
and Mr. Knollenberg, takes us a solid step forward.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule so 
that the House can consider H.R. 3074.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 558

                    Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution insert the following:

[[Page H8253]]

       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     printed in section 4 of this resolution if offered by 
     Representative Hoekstra of Michigan or his designee. All 
     points of order against consideration of the amendment 
     printed in section 4 are waived.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following: Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is 
     amended to read as follows--
       `(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--
       `(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, 
     or other surveillance device for acquiring information by 
     intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known 
     person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States 
     under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable 
     expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for 
     law enforcement purposes; or
       `(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any 
     which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a 
     warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, if 
     both the sender and all intended recipients are reasonably 
     believed to be located within the United States.'.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________