[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.
____________________