[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 118 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8257-H8280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 558 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3074.
{time} 1955
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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,
with Ms. Baldwin in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to present to the House the fiscal year
2008 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations
bill.
I thank Members for their input and work on this bill. I especially
recognize the important contributions of my ranking member Mr.
Knollenberg in putting this bill together. As former chairman of this
subcommittee, he had numerous valuable insights that make the bill and
report stronger, and I have appreciated his advice and counsel during
this process.
I also thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee Mr. Obey
and the ranking member of the full committee Mr. Lewis for their
support.
I must also recognize the hard work of the staff on both the majority
and minority side. Kate Hallahan, Cheryle Tucker, David Napoliello,
Laura Hogshead, Alex Gillen, Mark Fedor and Bob Letteney with the
majority staff, and Dena Baron, David Gibbons and Jeff Goff with the
minority have spent many late nights putting this bill together, and we
would not be here today without their great dedication.
This is a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill. Indeed, this bill
should not be partisan because a broad consensus affirming the great
needs for transportation infrastructure investments and for affordable
housing exists countrywide.
The bill provides $50.7 billion in discretionary funding for
transportation and housing programs, and is within the subcommittee's
302(b) allocation.
Nonetheless, due to current budgetary constraints, the subcommittee
was forced to either flat-fund or reduce numerous programs.
Furthermore, there are no major expansions of existing programs and
only a handful of new initiatives.
Our first hearings this year sought a broad assessment of the future
challenges this country faces in transportation and housing. Not
surprisingly, our hearings showed that there's a great and growing need
for transportation infrastructure and affordable housing, particularly
in metro areas experiencing explosive growth, such as Atlanta, Dallas,
Phoenix and Las Vegas; but also in older metropolitan areas such as
Boston, New York, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, whose infrastructure is
aging and in need of extensive repair; and even in rural communities
and counties suffering from a loss of population and disinvestment in
both housing and transportation.
To meet these challenges we have restored the President's deepest
cuts and have continued important investments in transportation and
housing started by my predecessors. In short, we've tried to make our
core programs whole and function better, rather than start a lot of new
initiatives.
With regard to transportation, our bill fully funds the highway and
transit guarantees contained in the current transportation
authorization bill known as SAFETEA-LU.
The bill contains $40.2 billion for highways, which is $631 million
over the President's request; and $9.7 billion for transit investments,
$334 million over the President's request.
Adequate investments in our highways and transit systems are critical
to the economic and social future of our country. Vehicle miles
traveled on our Nation's roads have doubled since 1980.
While we have fully funded the highway guarantees this year, I must
warn my colleagues about the future solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
The Office of Management and Budget recently estimated that by the end
of the fiscal year 2009, the Highway Trust Fund will have a $4 billion
deficit. This deficit is far greater than any other previous projection
and will inhibit our ability to fully fund the highway guarantees in
the future without additional transportation revenues which must be
provided through the authorization process.
Our bill also continues to make critical investments in aviation. In
1995, our aviation system handled 545 million passengers, but that
system must handle 1 billion passengers by 2015. We must provide
adequate infrastructure to deal with that growth.
Our bill includes $3.6 billion for the Airport Improvement Program,
restoring the President's $765 million cut, and adding $85 million
above fiscal year 2007. The bill restores funding for the Essential Air
Service Program so that no existing service will be lost.
[[Page H8258]]
{time} 2000
We have also invested over the President's request for transportation
safety. Specifically, an increase of $20 million for critical aviation
safety inspectors and engineers; a $2 million increase for additional
investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board; a $3
million increase to preserve highway safety staff at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and a $6.2 million increase for
staffing and research programs related to pipeline and hazardous
materials safety.
Investments in intercity passenger rail, especially in high-density
travel corridors, must also be part of a valid transportation system.
The bill provides $1.4 billion for Amtrak, plus $50 million for a new
intercity passenger rail State matching grant program requested by the
administration; thus, the bill leverages a total of $1.5 billion for
intercity passenger rail. This funding will help create a faster,
safer, and more reliable intercity passenger rail system.
With regard to housing, four major categories of HUD programs provide
assistance for very low-income families, the elderly, the disabled, and
their communities. First, HUD provides our 3,200 public housing
authorities funding for the operation and capital needs of the Nation's
public housing stock. Public housing is home to 2.6 million people,
more than half of whom are seniors and persons with disabilities.
Second, HUD administers rental assistance programs, largely under the
section 8 tenant- and project-based programs. Section 8 tenant-based
rental assistance serves about 1.9 million low-income families,
seniors, and people with disabilities, while the project-based section
8 assists more than 1.4 million households, two-thirds of which include
elderly or disabled persons. Both the tenant- and project-based
programs serve very low-income individuals and families, overwhelmingly
those whose incomes are below 50 percent of the median household income
for their area.
Third, HUD administers housing production programs, including the
HOME program; the HOPE VI program, which revitalizes or replaces
severely distressed public housing; and construction programs for the
elderly and disabled.
Finally, HUD administers a number of community and economic
development programs, the largest being Homeless Assistance Grants and
Community Development Block Grants.
My colleagues are all very familiar with CDBG, the Community
Development Block Grant program. But many of our constituents may be
unaware of the importance of CDBG in their communities. CDBG funds are
used by communities to rehabilitate and construct affordable housing;
to construct public facilities improvements, such as streetscaping and
community centers; and to promote local economic development and job
creation. About 70 percent of CDBG dollars go directly to communities
with populations of about 50,000 or more. The remaining funds go by
formula to the States and are distributed to smaller towns and rural
communities. Taken together, HUD programs address the large unmet need
for affordable housing throughout the country.
The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Howard University has
documented that, from 1993 to 2003 alone, we lost 1.2 million
affordable housing units. In fact, approximately three-fourths of
American households which, by household income, are eligible for HUD
assistance receive none.
In the face of this, we have done our best to restore the President's
cuts to housing. Some accounts we have only been able to freeze at last
year's funding level. In other accounts we have targeted increases
where the people served by the HUD program 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 above the President's request
for tenant-based rental assistance and nearly double that increase for
project-based assistance.
Within the section 8 funding provided in the bill, we have $30
million for 4,000 incremental housing vouchers for nonelderly disabled
individuals, some of whom will be homeless veterans.
The President's fiscal 2008 budget request cut CDBG by over $700
million from the 2007 enacted level, cut housing for the elderly by
$160 million, cut housing for disabled by 50 percent below fiscal year
2007, and for HOPE VI zeroed the program out for 2008 and rescinded
2007 funding.
Our bill rejects all of these cuts for our Nation's most vulnerable
citizens. We have funded CDBG at $4.18 billion, which is $400 million
over the enacted 2007 budget but still $400 million below the CDBG
budget for fiscal year 2001, 6 years ago. We have restored funding to
last year's level of $735 million for elderly housing, the 202 program,
and $237 million for housing for the disabled, the 811 program, as well
as provided $120 million for HOPE VI, a small increase from last year.
With our funding decisions, we have also promoted sustainability by
encouraging more environmentally friendly transportation and housing
practices. We have restored the President's cuts to transit and to our
intercity passenger rail system, which are more fuel efficient than
other transportation modes. Thanks to Mr. Knollenberg's leadership, we
have increased funding for the clean fuel bus program by $26 million.
In the area of housing, we have included language in urging HUD to
incorporate stronger energy efficiency standards into the HOPE VI
program as well as other HUD programs.
Madam Chairman, this bill is a compromise, and we have had to balance
a number of competing needs. There are areas where I would have liked
to provide more dollars. However, we have done our best with limited
dollars to invest in our transportation networks and affordable
housing. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The bill before us, H.R. 3074, the fiscal year 2008 Transportation,
Housing, and Related Agencies funding bill is, as the chairman noted, a
balanced bill and a bill that I can support.
I am not going to repeat the funding proposals described by the
gentleman from Massachusetts, but I will say that the vast majority of
the legislation and the principles behind the funding levels are very
similar to prior year House-passed bills for housing and
transportation.
Crafting this bill is not for the faint of heart. There is no easy
formula when you consider the authorizations and expectations of both
the housing and the transportation communities. Neither group is shy
about vocalizing what it wants, and both communities have needs and
issues that need attention. Some of these needs are intertwined,
however, and we do have different approaches for the solution. The
chairman proposes that these issues need to be handled at a Federal
level and has even included funds for a commission between DOT and HUD
to coordinate housing and transportation policies.
I am of the school that the Federal Government needs to be aware of
these issues and provide guidance on these issues, but we need to
recognize that housing and transportation decisions are local decisions
made by cities and metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs. I
don't think any of our districts would appreciate the Federal
Government's telling our cities where a bus should run or where housing
should be located. The majority of these funds in this bill, from
highways and transit to Section 8 and the Community Development Block
Grant program, even flows to the States and localities without a lot of
specific input from the Federal Government on how these funds are
spent.
I want to thank the chairman for his wise and steadfast decision to
keep new authorizing matters off this bill. There are a number of ideas
in both housing and transportation being considered in the various
committees of jurisdiction in both houses of Congress, and I agree that
we need those committees to do their work and present to the Congress
what might be the best proposal. I will work with the chairman and
oppose any authorizing amendments to this bill.
In transportation, I thank the chairman for keeping the Amtrak pro-
reform language in the bill. I am optimistic that with continued
oversight
[[Page H8259]]
from the committee, the IG and the GAO, we can find a sensible
operating scheme for Amtrak.
In highways, I know SAFETEA-LU and the budget resolution support the
inclusion of the highway RABA funds. I don't know of any State that
could not use more highway funding; however, as we have discussed in
numerous hearings, the highway trust fund is speeding towards
bankruptcy, and the mid-season review shows that receipts are down even
further than originally anticipated. For the first time ever, the
number of vehicle miles traveled declined. Eventually the rubber will
hit the road, and this committee does not have jurisdiction over the
income and expenditures of the highway trust fund, nor does this
committee have the general funds to make up for any shortfall in the
trust fund.
I do have some concerns about the size of the highway trust fund
rescission. I will not deny that in the past we have used the
rescission to ensure that programs in this bill are funded at an
acceptable level; however, we did not propose a rescission of this
magnitude so early in the game. I am hopeful that as we move through
the conference, this number will go down.
In housing, I support the chairman's decision to bring the programs
up at least to last year's level where the budget request proposed to
make cuts, especially in CDBG, assisted housing, and housing for the
elderly and disabled.
I am most appreciative of the chairman's decision to keep the Section
8 program a budget-based program in fiscal year 2008. I firmly believe
that we need to see some continuity in the programs after the change is
mandated in the fiscal year 2007 CR before we can evaluate what
direction the program should go in the future.
In Section 8, the bill proposes adding 4,000 new vouchers, as I think
the chairman referenced, of which 1,000 are directed by law to homeless
veterans. The remainder of the new vouchers are for nonelderly disabled
people, the so-called ``Frelinghuysen vouchers,'' as we used to call
them thanks to Mr. Frelinghuysen's work on behalf of this community. We
are supportive of the increase, but we cautiously remind the Congress
that the cost increase each year to maintain the vouchers is
substantial. The program baseline increases by $30 million each year
into the future. This is not an increase to sneeze at.
Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend
Mr. Olver, and his staff for their willingness to work with us to
address my concerns and the concerns of many on my side of the aisle.
He and his staff have been very fair and accommodating, holding true to
a process that has been in place for years as he has crafted this bill.
While we may agree to disagree on some specific policies, we agree on
this introduced bill. I appreciate very much his decision to leave
authorizing issues with the authorizers, and the directives and funding
levels in this proposal are ones that I can support.
I also thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their continued
hard work during this past year. I know this has been a tough year on
them, but I think their hard work is demonstrated in this decent and, I
think, very thoughtful bill.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee's HUD Subcommittee, Mr.
Pastor.
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time.
And since this is his first bill as chairman, I congratulate him on
doing an excellent job, and I also thank the ranking member.
Madam Chairman, this bill addresses two of the most basic and very
important aspects of every American citizen's life: transportation and
housing.
Unfortunately, the President's budget proposed severe funding
reductions for transportation which could not be realistically
sustained without negative impacts on the Nation's economy.
{time} 2015
The budget's proposal in housing would have cuts that harm those most
in need, including the disabled and the elderly.
I am proud to say that, based on extensive hearings, this bill
rejects those short-sighted proposals in a fair and measured manner and
balances national priorities with fiscal realities.
One of the most difficult issues discussed this year involved the
long-term health of the Highway Trust Fund. Because the resolution of
the Highway Trust Fund requires the cooperation of the administration
and the authorizers, the problem could not be solved solely by
appropriators. But this bill grants all parties a reasonable starting
point for the resolution of this problem.
With regard to aviation, the committee found itself challenged with
the Federal Aviation Administration's authorization about to expire at
the same time with the severe air traffic congestion which requires an
entirely new approach in technology. The committee has responded to
this situation in a very deliberate manner geared to ensure an open
path to future solutions as we look forward to the passage of the FAA
reauthorization bill in the coming months.
On the issue of housing assistance, the committee has rejected the
President's proposal to substantially reduce much-needed housing
options for the economically disadvantaged, disabled and senior
citizens. While we, regretfully, do not have the resources to fully
address all the needs of these people, today's bill aims to leverage
funding in a way that stretches Federal dollars to the maximum extent
possible.
This is a fiscally sound bill. It employs none of the financial
gimmicks to distort Federal investment. I am proud of this legislation,
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a valuable member of our subcommittee.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank our fine chairman from Massachusetts for
recognizing this Buckeye. And I thank Chairman Olver for doing a
phenomenal job on this bill. And also Ranking Member Knollenberg of
Michigan, my sister State, thank you so very much for your fine work.
To both these gentlemen, let me thank them for their outstanding
leadership and for their commitment to investments in America. We see
so much money going abroad, indeed billions, hundreds of billions of
dollars, and these gentlemen have done something for our country, for
our fundamental infrastructure, for transportation, and for housing,
the most important investment any American has, their most important
form of savings.
In the transportation area, I want to just focus in one area
important to Ohio, and that is Amtrak. This bill is funded at a level
of $1.4 billion. And the funding in this bill is providing critical
capital and operating assistance to maintain our national passenger
rail system in a manner that is environmentally friendly and necessary.
No major industrial country in the world does not have a modern rail
system. We need a ways to go in order to make ours better. This bill
takes a step in that direction. Though President Bush and some of his
allies in Congress were trying to kill passenger rail service in the
country, they cannot succeed, because Amtrak is far too important for
the Nation.
In 2006, more than 24 million passengers traveled on Amtrak. More
than 67,000 passengers ride on up to 300 Amtrak trains per day. And
just in our section of Ohio, 57,000 riders make their way through
Toledo, Ohio, as a part of that. I wish we could do more for our high-
speed rail corridors and for alternative fuels for the large trains.
That is for the future, but at least we make investments in the
fundamental system.
Secondly, in the area of housing, I'm really proud of what the
committee has done, particularly to meet our Nation's most essential
housing community development programs. Mayors around this country will
appreciate the increase of nearly $1 billion above the President's
request for the Community Development Block Grant program, the most
important program for over 1,180 communities to get some of their tax
dollars back to do what they must to run their own communities, their
own cities.
[[Page H8260]]
In addition to that, housing for the elderly is maintained at $735
million, $160 million above the President's request. For every single
available unit of affordable housing, there are 10 seniors on the
waiting list. So we don't meet the need, but we take a step in the
right direction.
Housing for the disabled is funded $236.6 million above the
President's request. For U.S. housing markets which are in distress, in
some areas literally dead in the water, HOPE VI is funded. The program
is not killed to demolish deteriorating public housing, develop mixed-
income housing and otherwise help revitalize our distressed
neighborhoods. And importantly, the bill provides for proper
administration and maintenance of our public housing stock.
I urge all my colleagues to support this very well-balanced bill for
investment in the United States of America. Isn't it time?
And again, thank you, Chairman Olver, for your fantastic work that
touches every single corner of our Nation.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), also a member of this subcommittee.
(Mr. BOYD of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOYD of Florida. I thank my friend Chairman Olver.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the FY08 Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act.
This is a bill, Madam Chairman, that the American people can be proud
of. This bill's spending levels fall within the fiscally responsible
budget resolution passed earlier this year by providing $50.7 billion
for the Transportation Department and Housing and Urban Development.
Our tax dollars are well used by investing in our road and airway
infrastructures. I'm very supportive of the $1.5 billion this bill
provides for Amtrak, and I'm hopeful this money can provide for the
reinstatement of the Sunset Limited line that crossed into north
Florida and traveled throughout the State.
This bill also invests $4.2 billion in economic development which
folks all across our Nation find essential for their communities' well-
being. The improvements made with these funds serve all of the American
people, whether it be the overnight delivery of important documents to
our workplaces, or the timely travel to and from schools, or the
arrival of fresh produce at our grocery stores across the country.
Efficient state-of-the-art transportation infrastructure ensures that
our economy continues to be the strongest economy in the world, and
that our citizens continue to have the highest quality of life
throughout the world. The Federal Government is fulfilling the role
envisioned by the Founding Fathers by providing these community
benefits with our tax dollars.
I want to thank Chairman Olver, Ranking Member Knollenberg and their
staff for their hard work in producing this legislation.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in yielding
time.
I see what the subcommittee has done here is not an effort to somehow
dictate to local governments what they have to do, but instead,
structuring how to get more out of scarce Federal investments.
As has been noted on the floor by people on both sides of the aisle,
we are approaching a transportation infrastructure funding crisis in
this country. There is not enough money remaining in the trust fund to
deal with the existing level of programming, let alone what is going to
be required as we move it in the next three authorizations. And
countries around the world are spending trillions of dollars in China,
in the European Union, in Japan, while we're falling behind.
I appreciate the big-picture approach that the subcommittee has taken
in terms of dealing with location efficiencies, with balanced
transportation, with initiatives to green the infrastructure. I am
hopeful that the instruction that the subcommittee has given to some of
the Federal transportation agencies on how to have maximum impact by
weighing factors of economic development and trip reduction to stretch
more of those scarce dollars.
I applaud funding the $1.4 billion for Amtrak, which hints at
efficiencies that we can have in the long run. Because adequate funding
of our rail passenger infrastructure is the cheapest, fastest way to
increase airport capacity and reduce congestion, it's the cheapest,
fastest way to get additional highway capacity while saving energy and
reducing greenhouse gases.
This is an unprecedented effort on behalf of the subcommittee to look
at the big picture under its jurisdiction in the appropriations
process. I think it's going to have a dramatic impact in the years to
come. I appreciate what they're doing, and I look forward to working
with them in the future.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls 8\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan controls 24\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Olver,
Ranking Member Knollenberg and Chairman Obey for their hard work in
crafting this bill.
One thing I want to specifically focus on here is the provision of
$35 million for the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program. This
was authorized under the SAFETEA-LU transportation bill, but has not
been funded up until now.
Under this program grants would be provided to a wide range of rail
projects throughout the Nation that would fill various critical needs,
including safety improvements, congestion mitigation, quiet zone
creation, and the facilitation of local economic development.
For far too long our Nation's rail infrastructure has gone without
adequate investment, and the needs continue to mount. By funding this
program, we are taking an important step toward modernizing our
Nation's antiquated rail system and helping communities who are
dependent on rail lines. Any community with a rail line in it knows the
good and the not so good with having that line there. This bill will
help them to do more with the good that these rail lines can provide
for communities.
I would also like to thank Ms. Matsui, my colleague from California,
for her work in moving this provision forward.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3074, the
Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies, THUD, Appropriations Act of 2008. First and foremost,
I am pleased that the bill fully funds the Federal highway, transit,
and highway safety programs at the levels guaranteed by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users, SAFETEA-LU.
At the same time, I regret that the bill rescinds $3 billion in
highway funds that have been apportioned to the States, but are not
available for obligation. However, I understand the significant funding
constraints faced by the Committee on Appropriations in crafting the
fiscal year 2008 THUD appropriations bill. If the Committee did not
rescind this excess contract authority, it would have had to make real
cuts in Amtrak funding, Federal Aviation Administration operations, and
other critical programs. Given the Committee on Appropriations' limited
choices, I have refrained from objecting to this rescission.
I appreciate Chairman Obey's and Subcommittee Chairman Oliver's
willingness to work with me on this issue. The Committee on
Appropriations did agree to my request that this rescission be applied
proportionally to all Federal-aid highway programs. I have been very
concerned with the way States have been implementing previous
rescissions, and language included in H.R. 3074 would ensure that the
rescission contained in this legislation will not undermine the
priorities established in SAFETEA-LU.
I am particularly concerned with the treatment of the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, CMAQ, program under previous
rescissions. The CMAQ program provides funding for projects and
programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in
[[Page H8261]]
areas that do not meet Clean Air Act air quality standards (i.e.,
nonattainment and maintenance areas). While representing about 4-5
percent of highway apportionments each year, CMAQ funds have accounted
for about 20 percent of total highway funds rescinded in recent years.
In FY 2006 alone, States rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds, an
amount that is equal to 55 percent of the total amount apportioned to
the States for the CMAQ program that year.
Comparing the treatment of CMAQ to other highway programs further
illustrates the disproportionate effects of these rescissions. In FY
2006, looking at rescissions as a percentage of the amounts apportioned
for each program, the rescission of 55 percent of CMAQ funds compares
to a rescission of only 12 percent of Interstate Maintenance funds and
seven percent of National Highway System funds.
The Transportation Enhancements program has also received
disproportionate contract authority cuts under the rescissions. The
Transportation Enhancements program provides funds for bike paths,
pedestrian walkways, historic preservation, and other activities that
expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation
experience.
In FY 2006, States rescinded $602 million in Transportation
Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in that year. Texas
alone rescinded $223 million of Transportation Enhancements funding and
the Texas Department of Transportation stated that it would not fund
any transportation enhancement projects in that fiscal year. Texas'
actions are directly contrary to our Federal efforts to develop a
balanced, multimodal surface transportation system.
The language of H.R. 3074 is 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, and will ensure that the priorities
set by Congress in SAFETEA-LU are implemented as intended. I greatly
appreciate the Committee on Appropriations' willingness to address my
concerns on this issue.
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 million of unobligated
balances of contract authority for research programs conducted by the
Federal Highway Administration. Earlier this year, the House passed
H.R. 1195, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act, which provides
additional resources to ensure that the highway research program
receives the funding necessary to continue essential programs.
Unfortunately, section 124 of the bill before us today rescinds some of
these necessary research funds.
The final concern I would like to address today is the earmarking of
Airport Improvement Program funds. The report accompanying H.R. 3084
includes a listing of 72 airport projects which the Federal Aviation
Administration, FAA, is directed to fund. The law governing the Airport
Improvement Program 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 as it deems necessary to
improve the aviation system as a whole. 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 in report language,
and will continue to resist such designations. I urge the Committee on
Appropriations to do so as well.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record.
Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3074
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 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, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary,
$90,678,000, of which not to exceed $2,305,000 shall be
available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to
exceed $724,000 shall be available for the immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $15,753,000 shall be
available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to
exceed $12,100,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed
$8,903,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed $2,382,000
shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $23,568,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration; not to exceed $1,984,000 shall be available
for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed $1,498,000
shall be available for the Office of the Executive
Secretariat; not to exceed $1,314,000 shall be available for
the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization;
not to exceed $2,737,000 for the Office of Intelligence and
Security; not to exceed $12,273,000 shall be available for
the Office of the Chief Information Officer; and not to
exceed $5,137,000 shall be available for the Office of
Emergency Transportation: Provided, That the Secretary of
Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated
for any office of the Office of the Secretary to any other
office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided further, That
no appropriation for any office shall be increased or
decreased by more than 5 percent by all such transfers:
Provided further, That notice of any change in funding
greater than 5 percent shall be submitted for approval to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That not to exceed $60,000 shall be for allocation
within the Department for official reception and
representation expenses as the Secretary may determine:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, excluding fees authorized in Public Law 107-71, there
may be credited to this appropriation up to $2,500,000 in
funds received in user fees: Provided further, That none of
the funds provided in this Act shall be available for the
position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Page 2, lines 8 and 19, after the first dollar amount
insert ``(reduced by $6,200,000)''.
Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased
by $6,200,000)''.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I have earlier indicated my
appreciation of what the subcommittee has done, looking at the big
picture and trying to squeeze additional efficiencies out of
transportation and housing initiatives. And in that regard, I offer
this amendment and hope to inquire of the Chair and ranking member to
see if there is something we can do to move this forward.
I'm prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I at least would like my
3\1/2\ minutes here to put it before the committee and seek their
assistance as it moves forward.
{time} 2030
My amendment deals specifically with the Conserve by Bike program.
[[Page H8262]]
This was unanimously adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and
subsequently signed into law. It was authorized at $6.2 million, a
program that would establish 10 pilot projects across the country.
These projects would utilize education and marketing tools to encourage
people to replace some of their car trips with bicycle trips.
The law also directs the Transportation Research Board of the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a national study to help us
understand the benefits from converting cars to bike and how to educate
people about these benefits.
Nationally, less than 1 percent of trips are by bicycles currently.
But in many bicycle-friendly communities, the percentage is much
higher. In my home town of Portland, Oregon, like yours, Madam
Chairman, that percentage is 2 or 3 percentage points. In our community
of Portland, we have the highest percentage of bicycle commuting in the
country, despite the fact that it rains all the time.
Were we to increase bicycle trips by just 2 percent nationally, we
would save more than 693 million gallons of gasoline per year, up to $5
billion. Increasing bicycle usage has additional benefits of reducing
our dependence on foreign oil and improving public health. When we are
concerned about an obesity epidemic among our young people, having
bicycles is an opportunity to reduce vehicle emissions; and combating
adult and childhood obesity would seem to be a logical step.
For all of these reasons, Congress had the foresight to include the
Conserve by Bike program in the 2005 energy policy. Unfortunately, the
program has not yet been implemented, because the Department of
Transportation does not have the contract authority to fund the
program. This appropriation is necessary to get the program off the
ground.
Given its modest price tag and innumerable benefits, I was
disappointed to see that the program did not receive funds under the
Secretary's account for Transportation Planning and Research,
especially considering the committee's laudable commitment to other
green and efficiency measures.
Many cities and nations, particularly in Europe, have seen how
converting car trips to bike trips can have measurable benefits for all
its citizens. We have all perhaps been reading about Paris's recent
inauguration of their bike-sharing program featuring over 10,000 bikes
across the city to demonstrate that people will ride bikes when the
infrastructure exists.
Madam Chairman, I would strongly urge that the committee consider
working with me to make sure that this important authorized program
find funding in the conference report. As I say, I deeply appreciate
the work that the committee has done. This is a relatively low-cost,
high-impact area. Given the fact that we have come forward with over
$5.5 billion in transportation infrastructure for bicycles, for trails,
and for pedestrian activities, this would seem to be a relatively
modest program to be able to jump-start the Conserve by Bike.
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I would like to make a comment on the
gentleman's amendment since the gentleman has indicated that he is
willing to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate that. The gentleman and
I have worked for several years now together on biking and rail-trail
issues, so I can remember just a few years ago that we actually were
closely involved in saving the transportation enhancement program on
this very bill.
We both recognize the environmental and public health benefits of
bicycling. Even though I have stopped bicycling, I watch the Tour de
France rather than bicycling myself these days. So I applaud the
gentleman's concern and support for the Conserve by Bike program.
As we move toward conference, I will do my very best to try to
accommodate this, and just remind the gentleman that we have language
in the bill to make certain that enhancements are not
disproportionately cut in the case of rescissions, which is a balancing
act in any case. The gentleman may wish to take part in that
discussion, which may occur later this evening.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3074. As
a new member of the subcommittee, it has been an honor to work with
Chairman John Olver and Ranking Member Joe Knollenberg. I commend them
for crafting a quality, bipartisan bill in the face of serious
budgetary constraints. I also commend clerk Kate Hallahan and the
committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their professionalism
and hard work on this bill.
Madam Chairman, the bill before us is carefully crafted to make
important investments to meet our Nation's crucial housing and
transportation needs. For the first time in over 5 years, this bill
provides new section 8 vouchers to help address our Nation's housing
shortage. It also fully funds authorized section 8 housing vouchers,
essential to States like California, where there are over 300,000
vouchers in use. This number is more than one-seventh the national
total.
While there still remains a great need for additional vouchers, I am
pleased that this bill is an important step forward in helping to meet
the housing needs of our most vulnerable populations.
I am also pleased that this bill has restored funding for the Public
Housing Capital fund. The administration's proposed cut would have had
a severe impact on the ability of public housing authorities to
renovate our Nation's dilapidated housing facilities, including those
in my Thirty-fourth Congressional District. By restoring funding to
last year's level, public housing authorities can continue critically
needed renovations.
Under the leadership of Chairman Olver, this bill also funds our
Nation's transportation systems in a way that reaffirms the natural
link between housing and transportation. The bill directs HUD and the
Transportation Department to better coordinate public transportation
with housing policies and programs. Improved coordination will help
ensure that affordable housing is located closer to public
transportation systems and job centers. The bill supports that
directive through increased funding for transit.
To enhance the public's use of mass transit and alleviate congestion
on our Nation's highways and city cores, the bill provides additional
Capital Investment Grants for commuters and light rail transit systems.
Funding for these Capital Investment Grants is expected to generate as
many as 17,400 new jobs and yield $1.8 billion in economic benefits to
State and local communities.
Our highways remain a critical element of our Nation's transportation
system. This is especially true in my community of Los Angeles. To
improve and maintain our Nation's aging highway infrastructure, the
bill includes increased investments designed to ease automobile traffic
and improve the flow-of-goods movement from our seaports to communities
across the Nation. The investment in highway infrastructure will create
over 59,000 additional jobs across all sectors of our economy.
The passage of this bill is essential to maintaining our Nation's
transportation infrastructure to keep America moving, our economy
strong and our country's most vulnerable sheltered. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of Civil Rights
For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$9,140,900.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
For necessary expenses for conducting transportation
planning, research, systems development, development
activities, and making grants, to remain available until
expended, $8,515,000.
Working Capital Fund
Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays
of the Working Capital Fund,
[[Page H8263]]
not to exceed $128,094,000, shall be paid from appropriations
made available to the Department of Transportation: Provided,
That such services shall be provided on a competitive basis
to entities within the Department of Transportation: Provided
further, That the above limitation on operating expenses
shall not apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That
no funds appropriated in this Act to an agency of the
Department shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund
without the approval of the agency modal administrator:
Provided further, That no assessments may be levied against
any program, budget activity, subactivity or project funded
by this Act unless notice of such assessments and the basis
therefor are presented to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
For the cost of guaranteed loans, $370,000, as authorized
by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $18,367,000. In addition, for administrative expenses
to carry out the guaranteed loan program, $523,000
Minority Business Outreach
For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center
outreach activities, $2,970,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C.
332, these funds may be used for business opportunities
related to any mode of transportation.
Payments to Air Carriers
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
(including transfer of funds)
In addition to funds made available from any other source
to carry out the essential air service program under 49
U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, $60,000,000, to be derived from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That, in determining between or among
carriers competing to provide service to a community, the
Secretary may consider the relative subsidy requirements of
the carriers: Provided further, That, if the funds under this
heading are insufficient to meet the costs of the essential
air service program in the current fiscal year, the Secretary
shall transfer such sums as may be necessary to carry out the
essential air service program from any available amounts
appropriated to or directly administered by the Office of the
Secretary for such fiscal year.
compensation for air carriers
(rescission)
Of the remaining unobligated balances under section
101(a)(2) of Public Law 107-42, $22,000,000 are cancelled.
Administrative Provisions--Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Sec. 101. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to
transfer the unexpended balances available for the bonding
assistance program from ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries
and expenses'' to ``Minority Business Outreach''.
Sec. 102. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Transportation may be obligated for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve
assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds
appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except
for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act,
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the
normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Sec. 103. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be obligated or expended to establish or implement a
program under which essential air service communities are
required to assume subsidy costs commonly referred to as the
EAS local participation program.
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations
(airport and airway trust fund)
For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation
Administration, not otherwise provided for, including
operations and research activities related to commercial
space transportation, administrative expenses for research
and development, establishment of air navigation facilities,
the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of
aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and
maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made
available by Public Law 108-176, $8,716,606,000, of which
$6,317,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $6,958,413,000 shall be
available for air traffic organization activities; not to
exceed $1,076,103,000 shall be available for aviation safety
activities; not to exceed $12,549,000 shall be available for
commercial space transportation activities; not to exceed
$100,593,000 shall be available for financial services
activities; not to exceed $89,101,000 shall be available for
human resources program activities; not to exceed
$286,848,000 shall be available for region and center
operations and regional coordination activities; not to
exceed $162,349,000 shall be available for staff offices; and
not to exceed $38,650,000 shall be available for information
services: Provided, That not to exceed 2 percent of any
budget activity, except for aviation safety budget activity,
may be transferred to any budget activity under this heading:
Provided further, That no transfer may increase or decrease
any appropriation by more than 2 percent: Provided further,
That any transfer in excess of 2 percent shall be treated as
a reprogramming of funds under section 405 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section:
Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the Federal Aviation Administration to finalize
or implement any regulation that would promulgate new
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after
the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That
there may be credited to this appropriation funds received
from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities,
other public authorities, and private sources, for expenses
incurred in the provision of agency services, including
receipts for the maintenance and operation of air navigation
facilities, and for issuance, renewal or modification of
certificates, including airman, aircraft, and repair station
certificates, or for tests related thereto, or for processing
major repair or alteration forms: Provided further, That of
the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than
$8,500,000 shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing
program: Provided further, That funds may be used to enter
into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting
organization to assist in the development of aviation safety
standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available for new applicants for the second
career training program: Provided further, That none of the
funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay
under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration
employee unless such employee actually performed work during
the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting
and cartography are available for activities conducted by, or
coordinated through, the Working Capital Fund: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated
or expended for an employee of the Federal Aviation
Administration to purchase a store gift card or gift
certificate through use of a Government-issued credit card.
Facilities and Equipment
(airport and airway trust fund)
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
acquisition, establishment, technical support services,
improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of air
navigation and experimental facilities and equipment, as
authorized under part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United
States Code, including initial acquisition of necessary sites
by lease or grant; engineering and service testing, including
construction of test facilities and acquisition of necessary
sites by lease or grant; construction and furnishing of
quarters and related accommodations for officers and
employees of the Federal Aviation Administration stationed at
remote localities where such accommodations are not
available; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft
from funds available under this heading; to be derived from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, $2,515,000,000, of which
$2,055,027,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2010, and of which $459,973,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2008: Provided, That there may be credited to
this appropriation funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private
sources, for expenses incurred in the establishment and
modernization of air navigation facilities: Provided further,
That upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal
year 2009 President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation
shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital
investment plan for the Federal Aviation Administration which
includes funding for each budget line item for fiscal years
2009 through 2013, with total funding for each year of the
plan constrained to the funding targets for those years as
estimated and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(airport and airway trust fund)
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
research, engineering, and development, as authorized under
part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code,
including construction of experimental facilities and
acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant,
$140,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2010:
Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation as
offsetting collections, funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private
sources, which shall be available for expenses incurred for
research, engineering, and development.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(airport and airway trust fund)
For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid
for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility
planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of
chapter 471 and subchapter I of
[[Page H8264]]
chapter 475 of title 49, United States Code, and under other
law authorizing such obligations; for procurement,
installation, and commissioning of runway incursion
prevention devices and systems at airports of such title; for
grants authorized under section 41743 of title 49, United
States Code; and for inspection activities and administration
of airport safety programs, including those related to
airport operating certificates under section 44706 of title
49, United States Code, $4,399,000,000 to be derived from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to remain available until
expended: Provided, That none of the funds under this heading
shall be available for the planning or execution of programs
the obligations for which are in excess of $3,600,000,000 in
fiscal year 2008, notwithstanding section 47117(g) of title
49, United States Code: Provided further, That none of the
funds under this heading shall be available for the
replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of
terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that
are necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of funds limited under this heading, not more than
$80,676,000 shall be obligated for administration, not less
than $10,000,000 shall be available for the airport
cooperative research program, not less than $18,712,000 shall
be for Airport Technology Research and $10,000,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be available and transferred
to ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses'' to
carry out the Small Community Air Service Development
Program.
(rescission)
Of the amounts authorized for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and prior years under sections 48103 and
48112 of title 49, United States Code, $185,500,000 are
rescinded.
Administrative Provisions--Federal Aviation Administration
Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
airports may transfer without consideration to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems
(along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway
visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and
performance specifications, the purchase of which was
assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport
development aid program or airport improvement program grant:
Provided, That the Federal Aviation Administration shall
accept such equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and
maintained by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
Sec. 111. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
compensate in excess of 375 technical staff-years under the
federally funded research and development center contract
between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center
for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year
2008.
Sec. 112. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport
sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration
without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for
services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or
weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in
this section does not apply to negotiations between the
agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the
FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Sec. 113. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration may reimburse amounts made available to
satisfy 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) from fees credited under 49
U.S.C. 45303: Provided, That during fiscal year 2008, 49
U.S.C. 41742(b) shall not apply, and any amount remaining in
such account at the close of that fiscal year may be made
available to satisfy section 41742(a)(1) for the subsequent
fiscal year.
Sec. 114. Amounts collected under section 40113(e) of title
49, United States Code, shall be credited to the
appropriation current at the time of collection, to be merged
with and available for the same purposes of such
appropriation.
Sec. 115. (a) Section 44302(f)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``2006,'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2008,''.
(b) Section 44303(b) of such title is amended by striking
``2006,'' and inserting ``2008,''.
(c) Section 44310 of such title is amended by striking
``March 30, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
Sec. 116. None of the funds appropriated or limited by this
Act may be used to change weight restrictions or prior
permission rules at Teterboro airport in Teterboro, New
Jersey.
Federal Highway Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Not to exceed $384,556,000, together with advances and
reimbursements received by the Federal Highway
Administration, shall be paid in accordance with law from
appropriations made available by this Act to the Federal
Highway Administration for necessary expenses for
administration and operation.
Federal-Aid Highways
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
(including transfer of funds)
None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for
which are in excess of $40,216,051,359 for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal
year 2008: Provided, That within the $40,216,051,359
obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction programs, not more than $429,800,000
shall be available for the implementation or execution of
programs for transportation research (chapter 5 of title 23,
United States Code; sections 111, 5505, and 5506 of title 49,
United States Code; and title 5 of Public Law 109-59) for
fiscal year 2008: Provided further, That this limitation on
transportation research programs shall not apply to any
authority previously made available for obligation: Provided
further, That the funds authorized pursuant to section 110 of
title 23, United States Code, for the motor carrier safety
grant program, and the obligation limitation associated with
such funds provided under this heading, shall be transferred
to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Provided
further, That the Secretary may, as authorized by section
605(b) of title 23, United States Code, collect and spend
fees to cover the costs of services of expert firms,
including counsel, in the field of municipal and project
finance to assist in the underwriting and servicing of
Federal credit instruments and all or a portion of the costs
to the Federal Government of servicing such credit
instruments: Provided further, That such fees are available
until expended to pay for such costs: Provided further, That
such amounts are in addition to administrative expenses that
are also available for such purpose, and are not subject to
any obligation limitation or the limitation on administrative
expenses under section 608 of title 23, United States Code.
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States
Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, not
otherwise provided, including reimbursement for sums expended
pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $40,955,051,359
or so much thereof as may be available in and derived from
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account),
to remain available until expended.
(RESCISSION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned to each
State under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
$3,000,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That such rescission
shall be distributed within each State, as defined in section
101 of such title, among all programs for which funds are
apportioned under such chapter for such fiscal year, to the
extent sufficient funds remain available for obligation, in
the ratio that the amount of funds apportioned for each
program under such chapter for such fiscal year, bears to the
amount of funds apportioned for all such programs under such
chapter for such fiscal year: Provided further, That funds
set aside under sections 133(d)(2) and 133(d)(3) of such
title shall be treated as being apportioned under chapter 1
of such title for the purposes of this provision.
Administrative Provisions--Federal Highway
{time} 2045
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mica:
Page 18, beginning on line 9, strike the colon and all that
follows through line 21 and insert a period.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman and Members of the House, I offer an
amendment tonight to try to alleviate some of the pain that I believe
will be inflicted on State departments of transportation across the
United States, and that pain will be inflicted by a $3 billion
rescission in highway contract authority that is included in this bill
tonight.
My preference would be to strike this rescission from the bill
altogether. I did not have an opportunity to do that the way the rules
were crafted. A $3 billion rescission of highway contract authority
will have an adverse effect on State highway work across the country
and plans all across the country for construction projects. However, I
do think we do have the votes to eliminate the rescission provision
from this bill in its entirety.
If this bill were being considered pursuant to the rules of the
House, we would not have to vote on striking this rescission. This
rescission is authorizing in nature and actually under normal
circumstances would have been subject to a point of order which I would
have offered pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXI, authorizing on an
appropriations measure. However, the rule that was adopted earlier this
evening governing this debate waived this point of order; therefore, I
am forced tonight to offer this amendment.
[[Page H8265]]
This amendment is designed to make it easier for our State
departments of transportation to handle rescissions of this size and
magnitude. This amendment strikes language in the bill that requires
the State departments of transportation to apply part of their
rescission proportionately across all highway programs.
I know you will hear some others say that this is going to not assist
CMAQ and some of the air quality programs and all that. But when you
have a rescission of this magnitude in this bill of $3 billion in size,
this is going to dramatically affect some of the work projects in many
of the districts of many of the Members who are listening tonight.
By striking this provision in the bill, this amendment will restore
the flexibility of the State departments of transportation they had in
applying rescissions contained in previous appropriations measures.
The current language in the bill will force all State departments of
transportation to apply the rescission in the same way. Each State
would have to rescind funding from its highway programs in the same
ratio that it receives from the Federal Highway Administration.
Unfortunately, this cookie-cutter approach does not work for every
State. Some States have very little balances in certain highway
programs from which they will be required to apply this mandated
rescission. This will have, unfortunately, a really severe impact on a
State's highway work plan, many of them, as I said, in progress.
Projects in every one of our districts will be impacted.
I have a letter here from the American Association of State and
Highway Transportation Officials supporting my amendment. Attached to
this letter is a table showing how this rescission will impact every
State. I include these documents for the Record.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.
Hon. John Mica,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Mica: I am writing on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), which represents the departments of transportation
in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
As we indicated to the Committee last month, we are alarmed
that the Fiscal Year 2008 spending bill contains a provision
that would rescind $3 billion in apportioned contract
authority from the unobligated balances of total
apportionments. Since 2002, Congress has rescinded a total of
$9.822 billion in state apportioned highway contract
authority. This most recent proposal would bring the total to
almost $13 billion.
These recurring rescissions of already apportioned contract
authority are likely to have a severe and immediate effect on
some States. How the States will be affected will vary to
some degree because the amount of unused contract authority
varies widely from State to State and among categories within
each State. However, after almost $13 billion in rescissions,
all States will be affected.
A provision in the bill that would require the States to
distribute the rescission proportionately among all program
categories would further interfere with States' ability to
manage their highway programs, set priorities and craft long-
term financial strategies. Therefore we urge you to adopt an
amendment which we believe will be offered by Rep. John Mica
to strike this provision.
In the future we would like to work with Congress to
identify alternatives which would not be detrimental to
continuing the long-term financial stability of the federal-
aid highway program.
Sincerely yours,
John Horsley,
Executive Director.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
[Estimated rescission of FY 2007 unobligated balances pursuant to H.R. 2701, section 252]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface transportation program
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Congestion
State Interstate National Areas by population Bridge mitigation Metropolitan Recreational Equity bonus Share of
maintenance highway system Transportation ---------------------------------------------- Available for improvement planning trails rescission
enhancements >200K <200K <5K any area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA .................... $11,765,147 $13,325,688 $1,646,465 $2,477,606 $1,254,493 $5,115,442 $5,311,325 $9,376,464 $1,123,330 $270,095 $147,743 $6,705,165 $58,518,963
ALASKA ..................... 4,839,975 5,888,342 630,651 0 0 0 5,306,245 3,171,608 1,768,289 140,070 106,001 5,490,181 27,341,362
ARIZONA .................... 13,846,913 15,812,556 1,573,151 6,256,429 1,015,687 1,576,861 5,312,089 2,001,372 4,706,700 543,773 151,038 7,153,791 59,950,360
ARKANSAS ................... 7,851,869 8,963,213 1,062,060 859,864 1,135,148 3,776,535 3,464,935 5,829,472 1,028,379 140,070 112,522 3,434,529 37,658,596
CALIFORNIA ................. 43,002,378 60,612,413 7,088,017 28,738,341 2,546,925 5,046,502 21,813,142 38,781,177 39,076,416 4,176,863 528,405 14,016,756 265,427,335
COLORADO ................... 8,630,375 11,853,852 1,096,822 3,812,237 1,133,170 1,224,216 3,704,097 2,797,057 3,056,116 447,046 128,383 2,369,324 40,252,695
CONNECTICUT ................ 6,005,429 5,567,549 840,647 2,733,881 423,291 827,447 2,179,754 14,155,980 4,131,526 396,333 87,046 4,110,161 41,459,044
DELAWARE ................... 572,823 4,829,075 330,829 1,092,876 304,344 446,245 1,106,813 1,600,501 892,324 140,070 75,855 504,447 11,896,202
DIST. OF COL ............... 240,956 4,878,277 301,418 1,664,200 0 0 999,254 3,326,364 803,511 140,070 69,155 0 12,423,205
FLORIDA .................... 29,840,702 43,321,856 4,691,123 19,113,924 1,591,674 5,681,972 15,839,948 12,611,715 1,260,673 1,874,199 283,441 21,940,067 158,051,294
GEORGIA .................... 25,784,599 23,544,967 3,196,254 8,892,481 1,645,146 6,721,709 10,360,721 7,710,565 5,433,362 697,096 180,586 13,717,373 107,884,859
HAWAII ..................... 906,134 4,833,948 351,993 0 0 0 2,972,372 2,075,371 900,961 140,070 78,648 589,951 12,849,448
IDAHO ...................... 4,876,974 6,522,359 521,972 592,375 756,295 1,462,316 1,687,486 2,340,258 1,117,331 140,070 116,292 2,546,833 22,680,561
ILLINOIS ................... 24,040,962 20,621,254 2,618,032 10,642,902 1,734,744 2,348,784 8,841,196 14,500,387 8,613,891 1,354,849 185,051 7,241,932 102,743,984
INDIANA .................... 18,369,239 18,928,485 2,127,377 5,146,842 1,424,392 5,395,263 7,183,465 7,075,373 4,304,971 474,589 120,208 9,946,949 80,497,153
IOWA ....................... 6,429,057 9,475,225 906,594 986,519 1,277,015 2,836,057 3,061,908 6,307,632 837,809 155,109 118,924 508,853 32,900,702
KANSAS ..................... 6,002,504 8,196,712 1,009,464 1,896,313 1,200,065 2,080,643 3,108,463 5,348,008 822,062 168,055 112,791 308,180 30,253,260
KENTUCKY ................... 10,833,854 12,593,382 1,215,493 2,120,692 1,254,698 3,225,317 3,962,807 6,835,583 1,121,829 217,995 116,957 3,470,914 46,969,521
LOUISIANA .................. 8,243,528 7,614,874 1,100,166 2,207,351 1,016,744 2,369,619 3,358,480 17,245,502 894,422 352,799 145,608 2,017,876 46,566,969
MAINE ...................... 2,484,659 2,949,509 326,517 0 529,665 1,204,052 1,040,997 3,231,812 804,554 140,070 104,475 0 12,816,310
MARYLAND ................... 9,457,381 10,616,959 1,170,312 4,535,997 602,983 1,405,302 3,928,949 8,692,461 5,184,640 598,306 105,068 3,446,876 49,745,234
MASSACHUSETTS .............. 8,080,825 8,177,563 1,133,561 4,724,088 631,870 279,149 3,383,435 16,981,797 5,767,012 784,059 116,713 1,258,248 51,318,320
MICHIGAN ................... 16,589,188 20,270,721 2,551,170 7,726,955 1,812,466 4,542,828 8,454,310 13,090,381 7,016,977 915,328 204,762 7,252,195 90,427,281
MINNESOTA .................. 9,798,443 11,931,707 1,527,276 4,171,220 1,496,055 2,923,652 4,711,001 4,142,497 2,658,804 377,307 159,857 3,508,643 47,406,462
MISSISSIPPI ................ 6,944,918 9,167,487 1,012,057 1,105,330 1,108,799 3,358,148 3,345,486 6,205,762 936,422 140,070 128,551 2,061,052 35,514,082
MISSOURI ................... 14,385,613 16,240,862 1,789,707 4,916,131 1,626,068 3,516,718 5,512,445 14,727,219 1,919,154 430,025 140,269 5,561,382 70,765,593
MONTANA .................... 7,215,081 9,711,458 549,580 0 1,115,111 1,968,225 1,850,943 1,784,441 1,159,066 140,070 118,545 3,524,775 29,137,295
NEBRASKA ................... 4,249,488 7,330,986 633,623 1,625,494 950,235 948,543 2,116,027 2,697,071 852,591 140,070 99,215 561,701 22,205,044
NEVADA ..................... 5,128,096 5,685,131 522,412 2,379,444 559,126 0 1,764,188 1,217,351 2,146,956 233,238 96,293 1,630,067 21,362,302
NEW HAMPSHIRE .............. 2,095,059 3,815,331 369,451 148,396 304,344 1,455,265 1,145,538 2,650,444 927,698 140,070 90,443 781,553 13,923,592
NEW JERSEY ................. 11,249,797 16,955,778 1,725,170 8,698,642 560,094 445,344 5,825,766 21,639,208 9,555,408 1,078,844 115,304 7,438,901 85,288,256
NEW MEXICO ................. 7,119,338 9,508,149 676,714 1,306,879 1,005,049 1,494,589 2,285,279 1,676,469 989,589 140,070 119,943 2,251,221 28,573,289
NEW YORK ................... 19,440,788 22,137,553 2,751,031 11,059,892 1,845,520 1,182,360 8,458,202 44,548,025 16,481,001 2,157,276 171,897 6,573,402 136,806,947
NORTH CAROLINA ............. 16,625,710 19,668,122 2,250,514 4,134,958 1,901,896 6,622,284 7,599,512 12,674,525 4,641,438 523,279 161,011 9,313,725 86,116,974
NORTH DAKOTA ............... 2,979,202 8,252,505 415,180 0 721,623 1,539,299 1,357,457 1,087,852 887,749 140,070 85,392 734,172 18,200,501
OHIO ....................... 22,889,407 22,595,065 2,753,977 8,912,079 1,933,436 4,645,608 9,299,891 16,777,142 8,925,176 1,017,276 165,577 10,424,730 110,339,364
OKLAHOMA ................... 8,636,614 11,438,681 1,380,999 3,048,771 1,198,153 3,311,761 4,537,917 7,644,351 991,081 206,430 125,184 3,671,878 46,191,820
OREGON ..................... 5,968,159 8,590,614 856,550 2,366,532 1,042,247 1,271,549 2,810,139 8,665,328 1,428,693 274,953 117,251 934,939 34,326,954
PENNSYLVANIA ............... 20,162,242 21,300,856 2,662,892 7,985,354 2,302,975 3,284,153 8,148,592 45,640,965 9,785,802 1,142,457 170,832 8,328,833 130,915,953
RHODE ISLAND ............... 1,001,136 3,965,331 306,942 1,469,726 190,343 0 909,418 6,494,816 841,767 140,070 75,570 0 15,395,119
SOUTH CAROLINA ............. 11,730,513 11,385,043 1,461,531 2,573,436 979,895 4,667,782 4,935,251 6,696,688 1,126,032 260,719 110,759 5,844,226 51,771,875
SOUTH DAKOTA ............... 3,763,591 7,335,794 497,853 0 786,971 1,930,238 1,488,681 1,528,588 957,691 140,070 87,853 1,351,540 19,868,870
TENNESSEE .................. 14,622,882 15,916,658 1,764,329 3,966,094 1,432,502 4,345,080 5,648,639 6,665,666 3,031,078 412,504 128,964 6,159,258 64,093,654
TEXAS ...................... 53,363,790 67,225,761 7,240,656 23,761,651 3,845,557 13,121,484 24,449,666 19,079,799 13,416,341 2,058,662 330,397 30,916,854 258,810,618
UTAH ....................... 7,591,648 5,142,238 585,706 2,338,048 672,680 233,774 1,947,918 1,236,926 944,318 243,224 123,984 1,335,408 22,395,872
VERMONT .................... 1,550,310 3,334,214 301,418 0 304,344 1,361,142 1,000,026 3,274,366 804,524 140,070 83,816 0 12,154,230
VIRGINIA ................... 17,800,251 17,391,796 2,150,287 6,839,247 1,370,369 3,885,746 6,633,146 10,528,408 5,015,455 655,798 126,970 8,428,116 80,825,589
WASHINGTON ................. 9,356,868 10,727,524 1,201,406 3,819,675 1,058,758 1,879,479 4,057,525 14,579,704 3,082,792 598,821 160,953 1,341,135 51,864,640
[[Page H8266]]
WEST VIRGINIA .............. 5,033,122 5,142,248 567,261 0 777,821 2,413,020 1,749,590 5,965,550 1,017,622 140,070 101,286 2,118,597 25,026,187
WISCONSIN .................. 10,864,418 18,006,043 1,759,290 3,059,446 1,390,944 5,445,616 5,940,664 3,428,288 2,341,543 395,498 153,427 7,102,388 59,887,565
WYOMING .................... 5,005,208 8,643,797 341,927 0 732,299 1,159,261 937,243 1,128,600 921,002 140,070 108,552 1,080,736 20,198,695
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total .................. $575,267,163 $707,945,511 $77,545,827 $225,908,318 $56,504,029 $135,976,379 $256,848,341 $479,472,889 $198,453,878 $28,014,065 $7,053,767 $251,009,833 $3,000,000,00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madam Chairman, these State departments of transportation have asked
us to give them the maximum flexibility in how they will be required to
implement this very onerous rescission provision. They would like to
eliminate the rescission altogether, as I would, but they are forced
to, unfortunately, accept the rescission as offered, and we have no
chance to alter that. All they are asking for here is flexibility.
This amendment gives them that flexibility. Your State departments of
transportation, fellow Members, support this amendment, and I will ask
all of my colleagues to support it as well.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This amendment strikes the language on page 18 of the bill that
delineates how the rescission will be applied. I remind the gentleman
from Florida, although I suspect he does already know this, that the
rescission in the 2006 bill was $3.8 billion. The rescission in the
2007 bill was $4.2 billion. The first of those was passed by the
Republican majority, and the second was in its final form through the
CR that came in the Democratic majority.
Mr. MICA. Would the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. OLVER. Surely.
Mr. MICA. It is my understanding that is the case, but they were
allowed the flexibility to decide on how the funds would be expended.
Mr. OLVER. That is correct. The gentleman is correct, the flexibility
was there. But what we find out in that process is that the States very
disproportionately focused that rescission upon enhancements and took
enhancements in some places completely out of the budget, which, under
the highway fund, we are supposed to be giving 10 percent of the
highway formula moneys to enhancements.
So this language was, in fact, exactly or very similar to language
which was passed out of the T&I Committee of which the gentleman is the
ranking member a couple of days after we had marked up in committee. So
the T&I Committee already has agreed to the idea that enhancements
should not be disproportionately targeted for rescissions when they
occur when they are required by the legislation.
In fact, we were asked by the T&I Committee to do something very
similar to this, if not exactly this, which we have done, in making
certain that there would not be disproportionate cuts to enhancements
in the process of applying rescissions. And those data do not really
affect what has happened to the 2007 or 2006 bills because we don't
have the final numbers on those, but the data that I am describing is
all through the rescission process in every year that there has been
rescissions, that those have in sum total gone heavily against the
enhancement parts of the formula funds. So we have striven to correct
that in the language that we have put in at this point, and I would ask
the membership to oppose this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Mica
amendment.
I understand that there is a lot of meat to what you just discussed,
Mr. Chairman, but I think the real problem is, if you look at the
AASHTO letter, the acronym for the State group, they recognize this as
something that should be done.
We need to maintain the rescission to meet the funding requirements
of the bill. I do support giving States the greatest flexibility to
meet that rescission.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida for his closing comments.
Mr. MICA. I think the gentleman raised some good points on the other
side. We had a vote on this, and it is a closely divided question. But
I think all Members will hear from their State department of
transportation. We have granted flexibility in the past. I am a great
supporter of enhancements. I think we need things that some people may
consider not asphalt and concrete, but things that enhance the beauty
of our highways and transportation system in this country.
But when you take a rescission of $3 billion, and States have
obligations, and we have done this in the past to them, we have
rescinded money in the past to them, I think we need to give them as
much flexibility as possible to make the decisions, to make those cuts
and to adjust their budgets.
They get obligated for huge amounts of money and significant projects
that are underway. And Members throughout this body will hear from
their State department of transportation that they have projects
underway that will have to be put on hold, that will be delayed, and
that will cause a great disruption in their transportation planning and
construction projects. So that's the reason that I think we should give
them the same flexibility that they have had in the past. I am not
asking for any more or any less.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica), the ranking member of the committee, is misguided and an
inappropriate amendment.
As the gentleman has already acknowledged, we discussed this in
committee on our climate change legislation. We had a voice vote in
which the gentleman's amendment failed.
It would strike the provision that is in this appropriation bill to
require States to implement their future rescissions on a proportional
basis; rescissions, that is cuts of unobligated contract authority, to
make those reductions proportional.
States have applied previous rescissions in a disproportional way.
They have disproportionately cut funding from the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement Program that helps cities clean their air
and move people more expeditiously.
They have disproportionately cut funds from the bridge program, from
transportation enhancement funds, all of which play critical roles in
creating mode choices and options and alternatives for moving people in
our major metropolitan areas and in rural areas.
Flexibility, States have an enormous amount of flexibility under the
current SAFETEA-LU law. They have the ability to transfer up to 50
percent of their programmatic apportionments to other apportioned
programs. The National Highway System, States can transfer 100 percent
from NHS funds to surface transportation.
This language will not in any way restrict States' flexibility in
implementing the highway programs to meet
[[Page H8267]]
their priorities. It will restrict the practice of targeting specific
programs for disproportionate cuts to meet their rescission
requirements.
Now, the Equity Bonus Program, here is an example of the enormous
flexibility States have under the current highway law. Funds under
Equity Bonus are distributed to eligible States and apportioned to the
interstate maintenance, the National Highway System, to the Bridge
Program, to the Surface Transportation Program, Highway Safety Program
and to CMAQ. States can use those funds to distribute the Equity Bonus
account around to the eligibilities of these programs as they see fit
to the needs of their specific State.
In fiscal year 2007, States got $8.327 billion in Equity Bonus
accounts. They have a lot of flexibility with that amount of money.
States have significant unobligated balances of contract authority
available in all categories of the Federal-aid highway program.
{time} 2100
As of May 31 of this year, States had a total of $46.5 billion in
unobligated funds. That's $3.16 billion in the CMAQ program, 2 years'
worth of apportionments.
They have got plenty of flexibility. They can use this money where
they choose. Yet States have consistently chosen to target specific
programs for disproportional cuts. Example, congestion mitigation and
air quality improvement. That's only 4 or 5 percent of the total
SAFETEA-LU program. But CMAQ funds account for 20 percent of the total
rescissions in recent years.
States rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds in 2006. That's $1 out of
every $4 out of this one little program that metropolitan areas have to
reduce congestion and pollution.
In 2006, rescissions were distributed this way. They cut 55 percent
out of CMAQ. They cut 12 percent out of interstate maintenance. They
cut 7 percent out of the national highway system.
In 2006, they cut $602 million out of the enhancements program. It
was specifically set up to benefit communities that want to provide
other transportation opportunities for their people. That's 15 percent
of the rescissions just out of enhancements.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, in Texas, for example, of the $305
million assigned to Texas under the 2006 rescission, a total of $241
million of their cuts came from CMAQ and transportation enhancements.
That's 79 percent of the amount that Texas alone cut out of these very
small proportion programs.
Now, we should not allow States to just target certain programs. We
have created a structure within the Federal-Aid Highway Program of
categories of funding. We all voted for it. It's now law, and if
they're going to cut, their cuts ought to be proportional across the
board.
The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations supports our
position, National Association of Counties, regional councils, Rails-
to-Trails Conservancy, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. The
gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, it should not pass. States have
enormous amounts of flexibility. We ought to defeat the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Administrative
(including rescissions)
Sec. 120. (a) For fiscal year 2008, the Secretary of
Transportation shall--
(1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid highways amounts authorized for administrative
expenses and programs by section 104(a) of title 23, United
States Code; programs funded from the administrative takedown
authorized by section 104(a)(1) of title 23, United States
Code (as in effect on the date before the date of enactment
of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users); the highway use tax evasion
program; and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
(2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation
for Federal-aid highways that is equal to the unobligated
balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety programs for previous fiscal
years the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
(3) determine the ratio that--
(A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways,
less the aggregate of amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2), bears to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
(other than sums authorized to be appropriated for provisions
of law described in paragraphs (1) through (9) of subsection
(b) and sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of
title 23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to
in subsection (b)(10) for such fiscal year), less the
aggregate of the amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1)
and (2) of this subsection;
(4)(A) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
highways, less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2), for sections 1301, 1302, and 1934 of
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users; sections 117 (but
individually for each project numbered 1 through 3676 listed
in the table contained in section 1702 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users) and section 144(g) of title 23, United
States Code; and section 14501 of title 40, United States
Code, so that the amount of obligation authority available
for each of such sections is equal to the amount determined
by multiplying the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by
the sums authorized to be appropriated for that section for
the fiscal year; and
(B) distribute $2,000,000,000 for section 105 of title 23,
United States Code;
(5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid highways, less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraph (4), for each of the programs
that are allocated by the Secretary under the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users and title 23, United States Code (other than
to programs to which paragraphs (1) and (4) apply), by
multiplying the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the
amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such program
for such fiscal year; and
(6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid highways, less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5), for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs (other than
the amounts apportioned for the equity bonus program, but
only to the extent that the amounts apportioned for the
equity bonus program for the fiscal year are greater than
$2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian development highway
system program) that are apportioned by the Secretary under
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and title 23, United States
Code, in the ratio that--
(A) amounts authorized to be appropriated for such programs
that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear
to
(B) the total of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
for such programs that are apportioned to all States for such
fiscal year.
(b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation
limitation for Federal-aid highways shall not apply to
obligations: (1) under section 125 of title 23, United States
Code; (2) under section 147 of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under section 9 of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under subsections (b) and (j) of
section 131 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of
1982; (5) under subsections (b) and (c) of section 149 of the
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act
of 1987; (6) under sections 1103 through 1108 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (7)
under section 157 of title 23, United States Code, as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; (8) under
section 105 of title 23, United States Code, as in effect for
fiscal years 1998 through 2004, but only in an amount equal
to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years; (9) for
Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation authority
was made available under the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century or subsequent public laws for multiple years
or to remain available until used, but only to the extent
that the obligation authority has not lapsed or been used;
(10) under section 105 of title 23, United States Code, but
only in an amount equal to $639,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2005 through 2008; and (11) under section 1603 of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, to the extent that funds obligated
in accordance with that section were not subject to a
limitation on obligations at the time at which the funds were
initially made available for obligation.
(c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a),
[[Page H8268]]
the Secretary shall, after August 1 of such fiscal year,
revise a distribution of the obligation limitation made
available under subsection (a) if the amount distributed
cannot be obligated during that fiscal year and redistribute
sufficient amounts to those States able to obligate amounts
in addition to those previously distributed during that
fiscal year, giving priority to those States having large
unobligated balances of funds apportioned under sections 104
and 144 of title 23, United States Code.
(d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to
Transportation Research Programs.--The obligation limitation
shall apply to transportation research programs carried out
under chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, and title V
(research title) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,
except that obligation authority made available for such
programs under such limitation shall remain available for a
period of 3 fiscal years and shall be in addition to the
amount of any limitation imposed on obligations for Federal-
aid highway and highway safety construction programs for
future fiscal years.
(e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the distribution of obligation limitation under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds
that--
(A) are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year
for Federal-aid highways programs; and
(B) the Secretary determines will not be allocated to the
States, and will not be available for obligation, in such
fiscal year due to the imposition of any obligation
limitation for such fiscal year.
(2) Ratio.--Funds shall be distributed under paragraph (1)
in the same ratio as the distribution of obligation authority
under subsection (a)(6).
(3) Availability.--Funds distributed under paragraph (1)
shall be available for any purposes described in section
133(b) of title 23, United States Code.
(f) Special Limitation Characteristics.--Obligation
limitation distributed for a fiscal year under subsection
(a)(4) for the provision specified in subsection (a)(4)
shall--
(1) remain available until used for obligation of funds for
that provision; and
(2) be in addition to the amount of any limitation imposed
on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety
construction programs for future fiscal years.
(g) High Priority Project Flexibility.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), obligation
authority distributed for such fiscal year under subsection
(a)(4) for each project numbered 1 through 3676 listed in the
table contained in section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users may be obligated for any other project in such section
in the same State.
(2) Restoration.--Obligation authority used as described in
paragraph (1) shall be restored to the original purpose on
the date on which obligation authority is distributed under
this section for the next fiscal year following obligation
under paragraph (1).
(h) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the distribution of
obligation authority under subsection (a)(4)(A) for each of
the individual projects numbered greater than 3676 listed in
the table contained in section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users.
Sec. 121. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data
products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways
account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such
expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the
obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction.
Sec. 122. Of the unobligated balances made available under
sections 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106(a), 1106(b), 1107, and 1108
of Public Law 102-240, $1,292,287.73 are rescinded.
Sec. 123. Of the unobligated balances made available under
section 1602 of Public Law 105-178, $6,138,880.54 are
rescinded.
Sec. 124. Of the unobligated balances made available under
section 188(a)(1) of title 23, United States Code, as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of Public Law
109-59, and under section 608(a)(1) of such title,
$162,253,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 125. Of the amounts made available under section
104(a) of title 23, United States Code, $43,358,601 are
rescinded.
Sec. 126. Of the unobligated balances made available under
title 5 of Public Law 109-59, for the implementation or
execution of programs for transportation research,
$172,242,964 are rescinded.
Sec. 127. Of the amounts made available for ``Highway
Related Safety Grants'' by section 402 of title 23, United
States Code, and administered by the Federal Highway
Administration, $11,314 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
Sec. 128. Of the unobligated balances made available under
Public Law 101-516, Public Law 102-143, Public Law 103-331,
Public Law 106-346, Public Law 107-87, and Public Law 108-7,
$4,753,687.26 are rescinded.
Sec. 129. Funds authorized under section 110 of title 23,
United States Code, for fiscal year 2008 shall be distributed
in accordance with the distribution set forth in section
110(b)(4) (A) and (B) of such title, except that before such
allocations are made, $219,250,000 shall be set aside for the
Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program
under section 1117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. at 1177-1179) and administered
in accordance with section 1117(g)(2) of such Act.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
(including rescission)
For payment of obligations incurred for administration of
motor carrier safety operations and programs pursuant to
section 31104(i) of title 49, United States Code, and
sections 4127 and 4134 of Public Law 109-59, $228,000,000, to
be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account), together with advances and reimbursements
received by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
the sum of which shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That none of the funds derived from the Highway
Trust Fund in this Act shall be available for the
implementation, execution or administration of programs, the
obligations for which are in excess of $228,000,000, for
``Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs'', of which
$10,296,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2010, is for the research and technology
program and $1,000,000 shall be available for commercial
motor vehicle operator's grants to carry out section 4134 of
Public Law 109-59: Provided further, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds under this heading
for outreach and education shall be available for transfer:
Provided further, That $3,469,553 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
Motor Carrier Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
(including rescission)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out
sections 31102, 31104(a), 31106, 31107, 31109, 31309, 31313
of title 49, United States Code, and sections 4126 and 4128
of Public Law 109-59, $300,000,000, to be derived from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and
to remain available until expended: Provided, That none of
the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for
which are in excess of $300,000,000, for ``Motor Carrier
Safety Grants''; of which $202,000,000 shall be available for
the motor carrier safety assistance program to carry out
sections 31102 and 31104(a) of title 49, United States Code;
$25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial driver's
license improvements program to carry out section 31313 of
title 49, United States Code; $32,000,000 shall be available
for the border enforcement grants program to carry out
section 31107 of title 49, United States Code; $5,000,000
shall be available for the performance and registration
information system management program to carry out sections
31106(b) and 31109 of title 49, United States Code;
$25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial vehicle
information systems and networks deployment program to carry
out section 4126 of Public Law 109-59; $3,000,000 shall be
available for the safety data improvement program to carry
out section 4128 of Public Law 109-59; and $8,000,000 shall
be available for the commercial driver's license information
system modernization program to carry out section 31309(e) of
title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That of the
funds made available for the motor carrier safety assistance
program, $29,000,000 shall be available for audits of new
entrant motor carriers: Provided further, That $11,260,214 in
unobligated balances are rescinded.
Motor Carrier Safety
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations Acts, $32,187,720 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
national motor carrier safety program
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this hearing in prior
appropriations Act, $5,212,858 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
Administrative Provision--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Sec. 130. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall
be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section
350 of Public Law 107-87 and section 6901 of Public Law 110-
28, including that the Secretary submit a report to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees annually on the safety
and security of transportation into the United States by
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and Research
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary, with respect to
[[Page H8269]]
traffic and highway safety under subtitle C of title X of
Public Law 109-59, chapter 301 of title 49, United States
Code, and part C of subtitle VI of title 49, United States
Code, $125,000,000, of which $26,156,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That none of
the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated or
expended to plan, finalize, or implement any rulemaking to
add to section 575.104 of title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations any requirement pertaining to a grading standard
that is different from the three grading standards
(treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance) already in
effect.
Operations and Research
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, $107,750,000, to be derived from
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)
and to remain available until expended: Provided, That none
of the funds in this Act shall be available for the planning
or execution of programs the total obligations for which, in
fiscal year 2008, are in excess of $107,750,000 for programs
authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.
National Driver Register
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out chapter
303 of title 49, United States Code, $4,000,000, to be
derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) and to remain available until expended:
Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the implementation or execution of programs the
total obligations for which, in fiscal year 2008, are in
excess of $4,000,000 for the National Driver Register
authorized under such chapter.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 406, 408, and 410 and
sections 2001(a)(11), 2009, 2010, and 2011 of Public Law 109-
59, to remain available until expended, $599,250,000 to be
derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account): Provided, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available for the planning or execution of
programs the total obligations for which, in fiscal year
2008, are in excess of $599,250,000 for programs authorized
under 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 406, 408, and 410 and sections
2001(a)(11), 2009, 2010, and 2011 of Public Law 109-59, of
which $225,000,000 shall be for ``Highway Safety Programs''
under 23 U.S.C. 402; $25,000,000 shall be for ``Occupant
Protection Incentive Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 405;
$124,500,000 shall be for ``Safety Belt Performance Grants''
under 23 U.S.C. 406; $34,500,000 shall be for ``State Traffic
Safety Information System Improvements'' under 23 U.S.C. 408;
$131,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program'' under 23 U.S.C.
410; $18,250,000 shall be for ``Administrative Expenses''
under section 2001(a)(11) of Public Law 109-59; $29,000,000
shall be for ``High Visibility Enforcement Program'' under
section 2009 of Public Law 109-59; $6,000,000 shall be for
``Motorcyclist Safety'' under section 2010 of Public Law 109-
59; and $6,000,000 shall be for ``Child Safety and Child
Booster Seat Safety Incentive Grants'' under section 2011 of
Public Law 109-59: Provided further, That none of these funds
shall be used for construction, rehabilitation, or remodeling
costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State,
local or private buildings or structures: Provided further,
That not to exceed $500,000 of the funds made available for
section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures
Grants'' shall be available for technical assistance to the
States: Provided further, That not to exceed $750,000 of the
funds made available for the ``High Visibility Enforcement
Program'' shall be available for the evaluation required
under section 2009(f) of Public Law 109-59.
Administrative Provisions--National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
(including rescissions)
Sec. 140. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
limitation on the use of funds made available under section
403 of title 23, United States Code, an additional $130,000
shall be made available to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, out of the amount limited for section
402 of title 23, United States Code, to pay for travel and
related expenses for State management reviews and to pay for
core competency development training and related expenses for
highway safety staff.
Sec. 141. Of the amounts made available under the heading
``Operations and Research (Liquidation of Contract
Authorization) (Limitation on Obligations) (Highway Trust
Fund)'' in prior appropriations Acts, $12,197,113.60 in
unobligated balances are rescinded.
Sec. 142. Of the amounts made available under the heading
``National Driver Register (Liquidation of Contract
Authorization) (Limitation on Obligations) (Highway Trust
Fund)'' in prior appropriations Acts, $119,914.61 in
unobligated balances are rescinded.
Sec. 143. Of the amounts made available under the heading
``Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Liquidation of Contract
Authorization) (Limitation on Obligations) (Highway Trust
Fund)'' in prior appropriations Acts, $10,528,958 in
unobligated balances are rescinded.
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and Operations
For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad
Administration, not otherwise provided for, $148,472,000, of
which $12,268,890 shall remain available until expended.
Railroad Research and Development
For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $33,250,000, to remain available until expended.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to
the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations
pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as
amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be
necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the
guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under
sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist
as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding:
Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as
amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments
shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium
during fiscal year 2008.
rail line relocation and improvement program
For necessary expenses of carrying out section 20154 of
title 49, United States Code, as authorized by section 9002
of Public Law 109-59, $35,000,000.
OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly
grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for
operation of intercity passenger rail, $475,000,000 to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of
Transportation shall approve funding to cover operating
losses for the Corporation only after receiving and reviewing
a grant request for each specific train route: Provided
further, That each such grant request shall be accompanied by
a detailed financial analysis, revenue projection, and
capital expenditure projection justifying the Federal support
to the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided further, That the
Corporation is directed to achieve savings through operating
efficiencies including, but not limited to, modifications to
food and beverage service and first class service: Provided
further, That the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation shall report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations beginning three months after the
date of the enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter
with estimates of the savings accrued as a result of all
operational reforms instituted by the Corporation: Provided
further, That not later than 120 days after enactment of this
Act, the Corporation shall transmit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations the status of its plan to
improve the financial performance of food and beverage
service and its plan to improve the financial performance of
first class service (including sleeping car service):
Provided further, That the Corporation shall report quarterly
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on its
progress against the milestones and target dates contained in
the plan provided in fiscal year 2007 and quantify savings
realized to date on a monthly basis compared to those
projected in the plan, identify any changes in the plan or
delays in implementing these plans, and identify the causes
of delay and proposed corrective measures: Provided further,
That not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, the
Corporation shall transmit, in electronic format, to the
Secretary, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
a comprehensive business plan approved by the Board of
Directors for fiscal year 2008 under section 24104(a) of
title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That the
business plan shall include, as applicable, targets for
ridership, revenues, and capital and operating expenses:
Provided further, That the plan shall also include a separate
accounting of such targets for the Northeast Corridor;
commuter service; long-distance Amtrak service; State-
supported service; each intercity train route, including
Autotrain; and commercial activities including contract
operations: Provided further, That the business plan shall
include a description of the work to be funded, along with
cost estimates and an estimated timetable for completion of
the projects covered by this business plan: Provided further,
That the Corporation shall continue to provide monthly
reports in electronic format regarding the pending business
plan, which shall describe the work completed to date, any
changes to the business plan, and the reasons for such
changes, and shall identify all sole source contract awards
which shall be accompanied by a justification as to why said
contract was awarded on a sole source basis: Provided
further, That the Corporation's business plan and all
subsequent supplemental plans shall be displayed on the
Corporation's website within a reasonable timeframe following
[[Page H8270]]
their submission to the appropriate entities: Provided
further, That the leases and contracts entered into by the
Corporation in any year that the Corporation receives a
Federal subsidy after the date of enactment of the Act,
regardless of the place the same may be executed, shall be
governed by the laws of the District of Columbia: Provided
further, That none of the funds under this heading may be
obligated or expended until the Corporation agrees to
continue abiding by the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 9,
and 11 of the summary of conditions for the direct loan
agreement of June 28, 2002, in the same manner as in effect
on the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That
none of the funds provided in this Act may be used after
March 1, 2006, to support any route on which Amtrak offers a
discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal, peak
fare: Provided further, That the preceding proviso does not
apply to routes where the operating loss as a result of the
discount is covered by a State and the State participates in
the setting of fares: Provided further, That of the amounts
made available under this heading not less than $18,500,000
shall be available for the Amtrak Office of Inspector
General.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Bachmann
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Bachmann:
Page 38, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $106,000,000)''.
Page 83, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $106,000,000)''.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chairman, the proposed amendment that I'm
bringing before the body today removes $106 million from Amtrak
funding, restoring it back to the fiscal year 2007 level, and it adds
that amount to the Homeless Assistance Grants.
Madam Chairman, Amtrak has run a deficit for over $1 billion every
year. It is now funded at $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2008 in the
Democrats' THUD bill, an increase of $106 million over the fiscal year
2007 levels. It's $600 million over the President's request.
Much of this deficit stems from Amtrak's long-distance routes, which
carry only 15 percent of Amtrak's passengers, but that creates 80
percent of its cash operating losses.
Although Congress has made several attempts at getting Amtrak to
reform itself, these attempts have resulted in very little improvement,
I'm afraid, and tax dollars are continuing to be wasted on a service
that is used by only a very small fraction of our American population.
It just seems to me that rather than pouring money into this
colossally losing investment, we should stop pouring good money after
bad, and Congress ought to be funding programs that are proven to help
people that are in need and deliver results. We need to help poor
people. We shouldn't help poor programs. I think we should be saying
no, Madam Chairman, to poor programs because we should not be saying no
to poor, homeless people just to continue to prop up a bloated
government bureaucracy.
One such program is the Homeless Assistance Grants program. It has
been awarding competitive grants to cities, to counties, to nonprofits,
to housing authorities to provide transitional and permanent housing
for the homeless.
In Minnesota, we have some great programs. Grants have gone to
Lutheran Social Services in Minnesota, the Amherst H. Wilder
Foundation, the Tubman Family Alliance, great groups. These have proven
themselves to be very successful in housing programs in Minnesota.
The problem with Amtrak is not that rail is bad, but this program
again has been running in the red. It's been bleeding, it's been
hemorrhaging, and it needs transfusion, a big transfusion of over $1
billion in tax money every year. It's running in the red. We do not
want to be owners of a loser of a program. It requires Federal
assistance to cover these losses and the losses from their capital
investment. Clearly, for all the years it's been in existence, Amtrak
would not survive without this Federal funding.
In Minnesota, we have an old Lakota Indian proverb, and it says, if
your horse is dead, get off. And the wisdom of our Native American is
pretty clear, and I think that we should follow our Lakota elders when
they have enough sense to dismount.
This bill would fund Amtrak again at $1.4 billion for fiscal year
2008. That's $106 million more than the 2007 level, $600 million over
the President's request. $1 billion is worth a lot. If you fraction it
out, it it's $1,000 a day every day, including Sundays, for 2,440
years. Even for government, that's a lot of money, and still after 35
years, Amtrak hasn't been able to get it right, Madam Chairman.
The Federal Government has provided $30 billion to Amtrak. On
average, that's a Federal subsidy of over $210 per passenger per
thousand miles that are traveled. It seems that the Federal Government
can't even get people to ride Amtrak, so we almost pay them to ride the
line. In fact, in 2005, the Sunset Limited route connected L.A. with
Orlando. That route required a subsidy of $433 per passenger each way.
That's on top of the round-trip fare of about $950 that each passenger
paid. That's more than enough to buy a plane ticket for each passenger
and save them a trip lasting 68 hours, but that's only if the trains
run on time, and only 41 percent of the time do the trains run on time.
It gets worse, though, Madam Chairman. The passengers on sleeper cars
are the most heavily subsidized. The average passenger in a sleeper car
gets an additional $206 subsidy. That reaches an extra $358 per
passenger depending on the route. So that means that the highest
government subsidies go to passengers sitting in first class. We could
be giving this money to homeless people, and that's our priority.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
First of all, I think that the subcommittee and the full committee,
this legislation was passed out of full committee unanimously without
dissent, by voice vote but without dissent, and we've tried to strike
an appropriate balance in funding the transportation and housing
problems in the bill.
As in previous bills in previous years, I've opposed amendments that
take funding from housing to increase the funding for transportation
programs, and similarly, I've opposed amendments which take funding
from transportation and transfer those funds to housing programs.
{time} 2115
I think that's entirely appropriate. We have this bill where we
cannot have one portion. Each has its important features, and we cannot
have one portion of this bill taking sizeable funds from another
portion, which has equally important priorities within the bill.
I would point out to my colleagues that in the bill before us, the
appropriation for the homeless is $1.56 billion. That's $119 million
already above the 2007 enacted sum for the Homeless Grant Program.
That's 8 percent already above the level of the 2007 enacted program
from just last February.
The amendment that the gentlewoman has proposed would move another
$106 million into that, which would then put it far over the
President's request, that program. I don't think that that's really
necessary here.
What we do have is a situation where year after year the Amtrak
program has gone through reform, substantial reform, to try to reduce
their cost and to provide greater service, as has been requested by
this Congress over the last several years. To take that money away from
them at a time when the other body, the Senate, has passed
authorization legislation or has reported out of committee
authorization legislation, and our own T&I Committee is working on
authorizing legislation for Amtrak, which is considerably higher than
even the level of the funding that we have in this bill.
For both of those reasons, the balance of the legislation not moving
money from housing into transportation or vice versa, which I will
oppose at every point that it comes up, because I think we are trying
to keep a reasonable balance of the priorities in each of those very
important areas, and because the homeless program is already funded at
almost $120 million above the 2007 funded amount, that this is not a
necessary amendment, not an appropriate amendment. I hope that we will
not pass this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
[[Page H8271]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, this same amendment was offered in the
last Congress and got 60 votes. It's as misguided now as it was then.
The Committee on Appropriations for the first time in a dozen years
has provided a net increase in funding for Amtrak. We are not going to
be here tonight or tomorrow when we vote on this and cut those funds
and reduce Amtrak to the beggar position that it has been in for the
last dozen years.
For the last 12 years, supporters of Amtrak have been reduced to
pleading to just restore the funding; not to increase, not to advance
the cause of Amtrak, but simply restore to where it was with the
inadequate amounts that this administration has proposed. Most of the
time they proposed to cut Amtrak.
In fact, when I hear Amtrak reform, I know what it means. It means
cut the funds, tie their hands, submit Amtrak to a board that's going
to run it into the ground, not run it into the 21st century.
As the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, has said, the
committee bill provides nearly $120 million increase in funding for the
homeless. That's the first time in 4 years. A 23 percent increase,
that's substantial. I'm for it. We don't need to take money out of
Amtrak to increase funds for the homeless. Amtrak needs help.
I hear this old saw time and again. Oh, Amtrak is bleeding money, and
we are subsidizing it. What do you do for the airlines? What do you do
for highways? We provide funds for the highway program. We provide
funds for aviation.
Amtrak is the residue of what was left when the railroads abandoned
their passenger service in the 1960s and to the eve of 1970 when Amtrak
was created. Time and again, they conspired with the Postal Service to
take the railway post office off the passenger service so that then
they would have a losing proposition, and they could apply for
discontinuance to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and they did.
They shut down passenger rail service to small towns, and they also
lost less-than-carload service, and towns went out of business because
they didn't have a small shipping service on freight rail with
passengers to move their goods.
So what did Amtrak get? When we created Amtrak in 1970, we got the
dregs of what was left of intercity passenger rail service, and the
Congress for several years was trying to build up Amtrak to provide
funds for improved rail, and railbed and rolling stock. But over the
last 12 years, we haven't had the funds to do that with Amtrak.
Every industrialized Nation in the world has high-speed intercity
passenger service. In France you can travel on the TGV a distance from
International Falls to Minneapolis-Saint Paul, 185 miles an hour, 220-
some miles, in 80 minutes, 80 minutes, in France. They can do that in
Spain on the Talgo. They can do it in Germany on the ICE. They can do
it in Japan on the Shinkansen. We don't have a high-speed, 185-mile-an-
hour passenger rail service anywhere in America. The best Amtrak can do
is 150 miles in a few segments of its track.
But if we make the investments, if we invest in improving the tracks,
if we invest in the catanaries and improve the patographs on the
existing locomotives in the Northeast corridor, we can have that high-
speed rail service. We should have it. We should have it on the
Northern Tier. We should have it from Chicago down to New Orleans. With
we ought to have it all through the Southwest and the Southeast.
We need Amtrak rail passenger service in this country. We need a
high-speed, modern, intercity rail passenger service in this country.
We are a proud industrialized Nation. We have the highest mobility of
people in the world.
In the aftermath of September 11, what did people take? They couldn't
fly, and the highways were crowded. They took Amtrak.
We need to upgrade Amtrak. We need to invest in Amtrak. We need to
invest in its future. This is where America has an opportunity to move
from this highway-dependent economy of ours, reduce our dependence on
imported oil, move people more efficiently and more effectively with
high-speed intercity passenger rail, as every industrialized nation in
the world does except the United States.
This is a misguided amendment. I regret that my dear friend, the
lovely gentlewoman from central Minnesota, has offered this amendment,
one of her first offerings in the House, but I have to say, it is
misguided, it is the wrong thing to do. We need to defeat this
amendment as we did in the last Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 38, strike line 5 and all that follows through page
41, line 18.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would eliminate funding for
the operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, or Amtrak, and save the taxpayer $475 million.
The FY 2007 funding level was $490 million. The President requested
to eliminate funding for this grant program in the FY 2008 budget.
According to the committee report, operating subsidy grants allow the
Department of Transportation to make quarterly grants to Amtrak after
receiving and reviewing a grant request for each train route. This
would be accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue
projection and capital expenditure projection. Receipt of these grants
also requires Amtrak to achieve savings through operating efficiencies,
yet Amtrak has been plagued by inefficiencies and debt since its
inception.
Amtrak's model for providing intercity rail service has been a
failure since it began in 1971. Historically Amtrak has carried has
less than 1 percent of the traveling public. It is it has required
annual Federal subsidies to cover operating losses and capital costs in
every year since its existence, some $29 billion in taxpayer resources
to date.
It lacks adequate cost controls. It has deferred capitalized repair
projects, and it confronts increasing debt-service costs.
Now, we were told 30 years ago that Amtrak started from the ruins of
what was then passenger rail service. Whatever its origins, the market
has simply apparently vanished for passenger rail service of this kind.
The Heritage Foundation reported that even if Amtrak increases its
passenger load, for every passenger that is increased, the taxpayer
pays more in subsidies. So, it's like the retail shop owner saying that
I am losing money with every sale, but I am going to make up for it in
volume. The taxpayers are making up for it in volume every time.
There has been a slight increase in passenger service in terms of
passengers served over the past couple of years, or at least there was
from 2001 to 2004, and still it bleeds red ink all over.
Now, contrast this with some cargo service provided by rail. It's
largely free of subsidy. It's done by the private sector. There are
huge profit margins there. In many routes they do very well. But
Amtrak, passenger rail service, simply can't get there. There simply
isn't a market for it.
Now, those providing cargo service wouldn't want to provide passenger
service, because there is no market. But we continue to let the
taxpayer subsidize it. As the last speaker mentioned, some routes the
subsidy is between $400 and $500 per ticket. The Federal taxpayer could
buy each person on a long-distance Amtrak service on some of the routes
a plane ticket for what it costs to subsidize their Amtrak
[[Page H8272]]
travel. That's after they have paid a lot more than a plane ticket
would cost in the first place.
There simply isn't a market for it. How long will we go on not
recognizing it, not recognizing that we need some competition from the
private sector to allow it to take it over? If there isn't a market at
some point, the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize it any
longer.
Let me just finish. We will hear that we need passenger rail service.
We will need to catch up to countries like Germany and Japan who are
doing it. Apparently they are doing a better job than we are.
Who among us here thinks that with the current model of government
subsidizing a private corporation like this is going to get us where
Germany is or Japan is? As has already been noted, people who study
this issue note that with every new passenger added, every net increase
in passengers, it's actually more subsidies. So under the current
model, unless they change or reform somehow, if they increase
ridership, we actually have to pay more in subsidies.
That simply doesn't work. It wouldn't work in the private sector. No
private businessman would stand it. But the taxpayers are simply on the
hook for about $1.2 billion a year. It continues year after year after
year. I have been here 6 years. I have heard it every year. I suppose
if we go the next 25 years, we will hear it again. It will just be an
increase in subsidies, like we are doing this year.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2130
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts continue with his
reservation?
Mr. OLVER. I withdraw my reservation.
The CHAIRMAN. The reservation is withdrawn.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, this is an effort to bring Amtrak to a
stop, simply. Over the last couple of years, we have had the President
recommend no funding for Amtrak. We have refused that and funded them
so they could continue service at the level that they were. We have
added reform programs to them to require substantial savings out of the
first-class service and the meals service and things of that sort,
which have been quite substantial, and they have saved each year $80
million to $100 million a year on that program. So we are moving to
make the system more efficient, though there is not any passenger rail
system anywhere in this world that operates without some operating
subsidy.
Where we have public transportation systems, any subway system, the
fares never get to as high as 50 percent of the cost of the service,
and the remaining service is then part of a subsidy for the operation
of that service. In fact, most of our transit programs function at
considerably less than a 50-percent fare box amount. So Amtrak is not
any different from any other rail program which provides great energy
efficiency in the movement of large numbers of people, and it is very
important in our very densely populated corridors.
We as a Congress have then added the idea of having a national rail
system that covers long-distance rail. And those even require a greater
subsidy, but it has been our decision to do that over the years.
We have to have a rail program in this country. We have somehow to
get over making Amtrak ultimately, somehow, to morph Amtrak into a
system that will provide high-speed passenger rail in corridors of
relatively short distance. But in the meantime, we also have to keep
Amtrak running, and this amendment would take the operating monies
completely away from a system which cannot operate without that
operating subsidy.
The rest of the money, the gentleman believes most of the remainder
was in there for capital improvements. Well, there isn't any point in
having the capital improvements if you are not going to have an
operating subsidy unless you can move the monies around, and then you
have to cut seriously the total amount of service that is being
provided by Amtrak with the amendment that the gentleman has offered.
So it is really a killing amendment for Amtrak.
Amtrak cannot function with the amendment that the gentleman from
Arizona has offered in this instance. We have gone through this fight
time and time again, and each time the end result is that Amtrak is
supported because Amtrak service is provided in over 40 of the States.
In some cases, it is the only rail passenger service that is available
to people in some of those States on some of the very long-distance
rail lines that people complain are the ones that carry the highest
subsidy. And those are supported the strongest because they are the
only rail service, passenger service that is available in a good number
of those States.
So I think that this amendment should be defeated, I think it will be
defeated, and I hope it will be defeated.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. This is, as the chairman of the subcommittee has said,
a shutdown amendment. It would totally eliminate operating grants for
Amtrak and guarantee a shutdown. I suppose that is what the gentleman
wants as he offers the amendment. He knows what he is doing. He is a
very astute Member of this body. But I want to widen the perspective
here.
The effects would ripple through our economy, through our national
transportation system, stranding millions of passengers and force them
onto already congested roadways and airways.
People in 106 cities served by Amtrak who are without air service
would have to find new means of transportation; 19,000 Amtrak workers
would lose their jobs. Their local economies, businesses would suffer.
The railroad retirement and unemployment programs that cover employees
of freight rail as well as passenger rail would eventually be depleted.
We would be scrambling around here trying to restore the railroad
retirement fund. It would disrupt commuter operations with whom Amtrak
has contractual arrangements, stranding millions more passengers. GAO
has reported to our committee that an abrupt cessation of Amtrak would
result in major disruptions or shutdowns of commuter rail service
throughout the country, stranding and straining regional transportation
systems as hundreds of thousands of regular commuter rail passengers
would have to look for alternative transportation.
It would increase costs for our freight rails. If Amtrak were to shut
down, the freight rail industry would lose some $5.3 billion over the
next 6 years. That would also include the loss of $57 million Amtrak
pays each year to the four class I railroads for access to their
infrastructure and increase tier II taxes to keep the railroad
retirement system solvent. It would shut down operations of freight
railroads in the northeast corner. Norfolk Southern relies on Amtrak's
dispatch and infrastructure systems throughout that corridor to provide
rail service to major mid-Atlantic markets. Without Amtrak, cost of the
freight rails to maintain operations on those lines would be very
substantial.
The real issue with Amtrak is it has been on a starvation diet
practically since the time that we created Amtrak in 1970. But little
by little, people are seeking alternative operations. They learned in
the aftermath, as I said a moment ago, of September 11, that the only
option to travel without air was inner-city passenger rail.
Amtrak, in 2006, had 24.3 million passengers. President Alex Kummant
of Amtrak told us very recently on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee that they expect 2007 to far surpass 2006
ridership levels. So far this year, just in the first quarter of this
year, Amtrak had 2.17 million passengers. That is nearly a 7 percent
increase over the previous year.
So keep funding Amtrak, give it an opportunity to breathe, give it
this additional investment that it needs. Soon our committee will come
to the floor with a substantial increase in funding for Amtrak to put
it on course to be a real world-class competitor in inner-city
passenger rail service.
[[Page H8273]]
When I was a student just graduating from college in St. Paul, the
College of St. Thomas, I won a scholarship to study at the College of
Europe in Belgium. I traveled from my home in Chisolm by bus to the
Twin Cities, and there I talk the Milwaukee 400: 400 miles to Chicago
in 400 minutes. And in Europe, I took the train from Paris to Brussels
and then on to Brugge in Belgium for this program. That was a 6-hour
trip. Today, that 6-hour trip is 80 minutes traveling at 185 miles an
hour on the TGV.
Today you can't get to Chicago in 400 minutes from Minneapolis, not
even by air. By the time you travel, drive to the airport, park your
car, go through security, wait for the plane, get off the plane, try to
get to your destination, you can't do it. We need a restructure, a
rebuild, a reinvigorated Amtrak. Don't kill it with this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be
postponed.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3074, the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development appropriations bill.
The distinguished chairman, Mr. Obey, and Chair of the Subcommittee
on Housing, Mr. Olver, had to make many difficult decisions in drafting
this bill, and I am pleased that most of our vital housing programs see
increases over the President's budget request for funding year 2008. As
Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I
believe this bill will preserve many of the housing programs we have
fought for over the years.
On July 12, the House passed H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform
Act, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. A central purpose of H.R.
1851 is to provide reliable, adequate funding for the Nation's largest
subsidized housing program, buffeted in recent fiscal years.
In light of this, I am troubled that the President once again grossly
underfunded section 8 in his budget request, asking for a mere $8
million above last year's funding level for the renewal of section 8
housing vouchers, an amount that won't even cover the cost of
inflation. I commend Chairman Olver for rejecting this abysmal funding
level and putting the dollars needed back into the section 8 program.
I also urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up the Section 8
Voucher Reform Act and to pass the companion bill so that we can make
needed reforms and bring stability and security to this critical
program.
I am honored to be an original cosponsor of the National Affordable
Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007, H.R. 2895, which will provide for the
preservation and construction of 1.5 million units of affordable
housing over the next 10 years. Because preservation begins with
funding the units we have now, I am pleased that the bill increases the
funding for project-based rental assistance by $667 million over the
President's request; however, I am dismayed at the news that the
Department has not paid some project-based owners for the month of
July. It isn't enough for us to appropriate the dollars; HUD has to get
them out of the door. I urge the Department to make these payments on
time so that we do not risk losing owners of precious affordable
housing units.
For too many years, the Nation's public housing program has been
grossly underfunded. In 2007, PHAs will only receive between 82 cents
and 85 cents for every dollar it costs to run public housing, impacting
their ability to repair and maintain public housing units. By
increasing funding for public housing programs to levels above the
President's request, this bill maintains our investment in public
housing. I am also pleased that the committee has rejected the
administration's attempt not only to kill the HOPE VI program, but to
take back prior-year funds appropriated by this House. The HOPE VI
program needs to be updated, but it is a valuable program. That is why
we'll soon introduce a bill to reauthorize and improve HOPE VI
providing for, among other things, one-for-one replacement and the
right of residents to return to a revitalized public housing unit.
Again, I want to applaud the committee for ensuring that the CDBG
program is not severely underfunded. The CDBG program is funded at
$3.396 billion, representing a $225 million increase compared to
funding year 2006 funding level and $959 million above the President's
funding year 2008 request. CDBG is vital to communities all over the
country, providing valuable resources for almost every program
imaginable from seniors programs to gang violence eradication programs.
Without this increased level of funding, one of the Federal
Government's only poverty fighting tools would have been stretched to
the limit, leaving many communities desperate.
In addition, the bill provides funding for other key programs the
administration sought to zero out, including the Brownfields, the
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, and rural housing and economic
development. The bill also maintains critical funding for the HOME
program, Native American and Hawaiian housing grants, fair housing
enforcement, and housing counseling.
{time} 2145
Some of these important programs were scheduled to expire without
reauthorization, but reauthorization without funding is the equivalent
of killing a program.
Finally, the House today passed a resolution that I was pleased to
cosponsor with Congressman Shays commemorating the 20th anniversary of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. While this is not a
birthday for any of us we would prefer to be celebrating, these
programs remain effective and desperately needed. Therefore, I am
pleased that the bill funds the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Grant at $1.561 billion, a full $234 million over funding year 2006.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly
grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for the
maintenance and repair of capital infrastructure owned by the
Corporation, including railroad equipment, rolling stock,
legal mandates and other services, $925,000,000 to remain
available until expended, of which not to exceed $285,000,000
shall be for debt service obligations: Provided, That the
Secretary may retain up to one-quarter of one percent of the
funds under this heading to fund the oversight by the Federal
Railroad Administration of the design and implementation of
capital projects funded by grants made under this heading:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall approve funding
for capital expenditures, including advance purchase orders
of materials, for the Corporation only after receiving and
reviewing a grant request for each specific capital grant
justifying the Federal support to the Secretary's
satisfaction: Provided further, That none of the funds under
this heading may be used to subsidize operating losses of the
Corporation: Provided further, That none of the funds under
this heading may be used for capital projects not approved by
the Secretary of Transportation or on the Corporation's
fiscal year 2008 business plan: Provided further, That
$35,000,000 of amounts made available under this heading
shall be available until expended for capital improvements if
the Corporation demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction
that the Corporation has achieved operational savings and met
ridership and revenue targets as defined in the Corporation's
business plan: Provided further, That of the funds provided
under this section, not less than $5,000,000 shall be
expended for the development and implementation of a
managerial cost accounting system, which includes average and
marginal unit cost capability: Provided further, That within
90 days of enactment, the Department of Transportation
Inspector General shall review and comment to the Secretary
of Transportation and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations upon the strengths and weaknesses of the
system being developed by the Corporation and how it best can
be implemented to improve decision making by the Board of
Directors and management of the Corporation: Provided
further, That not later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Corporation
and the States on the Northeast Corridor, shall establish a
common definition of what is determined to be a ``state of
good repair'' on the Northeast Corridor and report its
[[Page H8274]]
findings, including definitional areas of disagreement, to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 41, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $425,000,000)''.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would reduce funding in the
bill by $500 million for capital grants to Amtrak, reducing the funding
level to the President's fiscal year 2008 request from $925 million to
$500 million.
Here the same arguments really apply that were made in the last
amendment debate, so I won't go over them all again, but let me respond
a little to what was said before.
It was mentioned that these amendments are just designated to kill
Amtrak. If these accounts were funded at the levels that we're talking
about here, certainly there would be a restructuring somewhere. There
has to be. It is likely that in some of the corridors, some of the
corridors there is only a per-passenger subsidy of around $3 per
ticket. In some corridors it's up to $466. I suppose that what would
happen is that in those corridors, there are a lot of assets sitting
with Amtrak now. If it wasn't shielded from private competition, others
would come in and be able to run that service effectively and without
subsidy in some of the corridors. Perhaps there'd be a smaller subsidy
on some of the corridors.
But I can tell you on the corridors where we're having a subsidy of
$466, in addition to the per-passenger ticket price of, in some cases,
$900, I don't think that that would run at all, nor should it in any
reasonable place where you believe in free markets or even limited
subsidies.
There is no more call for passenger rail service to some places in
this country than there is for stagecoach service. At some point you've
got to say, how much can we subsidize? Four hundred sixty-six dollars
per ticket probably is above that threshold somewhere.
So, under any reasonable system, yes, this would cause significant
restructuring with Amtrak for that system, and that's what we're
calling for. That's what we should be calling for. We can't continue to
go down this road, because, as mentioned, even if you increase the
number of passengers per train, if you increase ridership, it simply
means more subsidy.
In any reasonable system that wouldn't be the case, but we have a
system here that doesn't respond to market forces. Part of the problem
with Amtrak, and we can't just blame the system there, but it's the
requirements that we've placed on it. You have politicians in this
small town here or this small town here designating routes that Amtrak
has to follow, routes that can't even come close to being economical.
As mentioned, not many passenger rail or public transit systems
anywhere in the world go unsubsidized. It's one thing to subsidize
public transit; it's another to be paying $466 per ticket when the
passenger is already paying $900. That simply doesn't pass any test of
reasonableness. And unless we come in and really strike funding here
and force change, it's simply not going to happen.
Who here in this body or who listening tonight thinks that Amtrak is
suddenly going to become better and provide better service, more
efficient service, given the numbers that we've given them here?
Some will call it a starvation diet. They've been on a starvation
diet, but we've increased funding significantly many times. It hasn't
improved. It's because we're shielding them from market forces, in some
cases, and subsidizing routes that have no business running in others.
So I would offer this amendment to strike funding, or to actually
bring it down to the President's level, what he has requested.
I've heard the chairman of the Appropriations Committee say many
times and point out that the administration is wasting money here and
there and everywhere. They are. Here's one case where we should say,
there's too much money being wasted by the agencies. Let's direct them,
let's exercise the oversight that this body is supposed to exercise and
actually say, let's pull some funding back, let's force Amtrak to go
through the restructuring that they're going to have to go through at
some point. We're simply delaying the inevitable and forcing the
taxpayer to subsidize at higher levels than they should until that time
is reached.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I again oppose this amendment. This is
just a continuation of the effort to strangle Amtrak.
In this instance I think that what I'd like to do is to just try to
review with the, whoever is still listening at this hour of the night
what the President's budgets have looked like over the last several
years. I may be slightly wrong, because I maybe have 1 year misplaced
as to what happened, but I have been the ranking member for 2 years,
the last 2 years, in the 2006 and 2007 budgets. My recollection is that
the 2006 budget that the President provided no money, and we had to
fill the hole completely to keep whatever was functional functioning in
the case of Amtrak.
And then in the 2007 budget, that year we ended up providing between,
by the time the conference process was complete, $1.3 billion for a
mixture of operating subsidies and capital programs. In the 2007
budget, the administration came up with a number which was much lower
than what had been appropriated the previous year, and again we had to,
it was around 8- or $900 million in total, and we, again we had to come
up with a higher sum of money, back to the $1.3 billion, in order to
complete, to keep the level of service where it was, which includes the
whole of the Northeast corridor, which carries half of all the
passengers and is trackage that is owned by Amtrak, and all the
services that go out of Chicago and the other metropolitan areas, and
the long-distance services on the west coast and across the country.
So what we have this year is that the President came up with an
amount of $500 million for capital, and $300 million for efficiency
incentive grants, which is sort of an oxymoron because in the previous
year, we had provided some sort of incentive grants which Amtrak, after
they had provided the savings and made serious savings in the accounts,
they then found that they got exactly nothing in the way of incentive
grants that were released to them. So what's the point, really, of
trying to save money?
But we've included that language, included the mandate essentially,
that they are to continue to look for savings in the system. In the
meantime we provided, again, the $1.3-, now up to $1.4- because of
inflation, a total of $1.4 billion of which now the amount was put up
to $925 million for capital, which the gentleman wishes to reduce to
$500 million for capital, which was never adequate in the first place.
On the Northeast corridor, we have done so little upkeep, we are
nowhere close to a state of good repair, which is dangerous. It is
causing safety problems in the Northeast corridor, where more than half
of our total passengers are being handled, so that the gentleman's
amendment takes away capital monies now. This is the second hit at it,
the capital monies that would be necessary to make progress on dealing
with the backlog of capital deficiencies that have been built up over a
period of years.
There are tunnels and bridges and trackage and the cantanary lines,
the electric lines and so forth that go with it, all of which are in
need desperately of capital repair and a steady infusion of money to
bring that up to date. These are expensive propositions when nothing
has been done or so little has been done over a period of time.
So first the gentleman has made an effort to reduce the operating
subsidy, which no rail system anywhere in the world can function
without it, and now he's reducing the capital grant program down to a
level which leaves us with an ever-worsening state of safety and repair
on the part of the system that is actually owned by the Federal
Government.
[[Page H8275]]
So this should not be done. This is a bad amendment. This is another
killer amendment for Amtrak, and I hope that the amendment will be
defeated.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The chairman has said it very well. The gentleman from
Arizona first wants to cut the operating account, and then, after
Amtrak is unable to operate, then cut their capital and debt service
funds, and then, I guess, bury passenger rail service in America. He
doesn't provide for a burial service, however, and we're not about to
do that.
This would cut the $425 million in capital and debt service grants
that would go below the level recommended by Amtrak's Board of
Directors, who haven't been known to be generously supportive of their
own organization. It would undermine the solvency of Amtrak. The
capital needs are critical to operating Amtrak, to bring it to a state
of good repair and maintain it in a state of decent and good repair.
The capital overhead program on rolling stock is critical to keep aging
equipment in safe working order and minimize failures.
You should go out sometime to the Amtrak repair facility in
Indianapolis and see the highly skilled technicians who are working to
repair and restore locomotives and passenger cars and the dining
service cars. They are meticulous workers who are saving Amtrak
hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars a year by restoring
old equipment, putting it into a good state of operation. This
amendment would cut the guts out from that operation. That doesn't make
any sense whatever.
Amtrak has been investing in its deferred capital needs since 2003,
incrementally, with not enough money, by far too little to reach the
goals that they must attain, but they're doing it nonetheless. And the
result is that with those very skilled workers, 70 percent of Amtrak's
passenger car fleet and 85 percent of its locomotives will be in a
state of good repair by the end of fiscal 2007.
Now, if you cut this money out, they'll never be able to bridge the
gap and go on to make the other improvements that are needed.
I heard the gentleman say, well, we need to cut the funding and force
change, and subject Amtrak to market forces. Well, in a hospital you
don't cut off the blood supply to a patient and say, we're going to
push the patient into a state of good health. That idea went out with
applying leeches to the body and draining the body's fluids and
essential operations. It doesn't make any sense.
And the gentleman, as many others have misguidedly said, we need to
subject Amtrak to market forces. That implies that there's some other
competitive passenger rail service in this country. There isn't. The
railroads abandoned it in the 1960s. They didn't want to operate
passenger rail service. It was much easier to carry freight than to
carry people in this country. And they ran the passenger rail service
into the ground, and then they handed it over to the Federal Government
and said, here you take it. You do it. You do something good for the
country.
{time} 2200
Well, Congress did. I was here on the staff at the time when Amtrak
was created. There was great hope for it. There were going to be
capital investments made. The rail was going to help out with all the
support that was needed for the infrastructure of intercity passenger
rail. None of that happened.
Freight rails last year earned $4.5 billion net after-tax profit
hauling freight. Amtrak is on a starvation diet made worse over the
last 12 years by this previous leadership in Congress refusing to
provide funding. But with a few enlightened Members on the other side
supporting us over here, we were able to keep Amtrak alive, just keep
it moving along, just hand-to-mouth existence.
Well, no more. There's a new leadership in this Congress. The
gentleman from Massachusetts has seen the need, seen the opportunity to
make investments. He has provided the funding in this bill. We need to
move ahead. We should not cut the operating funds nor the capital
grants. We ought to be doing far more than we are doing already in this
bill. But this is at least a start and moves us in the right direction.
We have to defeat this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be
postponed.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 60, line 16, be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:
Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program
To enable the Secretary to make grants to States in support
of intercity passenger rail, $50,000,000 as authorized by
section 26101 of title 49, United States Code, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That States may apply to
the Federal Railroad Administration for grants up to 50
percent of the cost of planning and capital investments
necessary to support improved intercity passenger rail
service that either requires no operating subsidy or for
which the State or States agree to provide any needed
operating subsidy: Provided further, That priority shall be
given to planning and infrastructure improvement projects
that improve the safety, reliability and schedule of
intercity passenger trains, reduce congestion on the host
freight railroads, involve a commitment by freight railroads
to an enforceable on-time performance of passenger trains of
80 percent or greater, involve a commitment by States of
financial resources to improve the safety of highway/rail
grade crossings over which the passenger service operates,
and that protect and enhance the environment, promote energy
conservation, and improve quality of life: Provided further,
That to be eligible for this assistance, States must include
intercity passenger rail service as an integral part of
Statewide transportation planning as required under 23 U.S.C.
135: Provided further, That the specific project must be on
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan at the time of
the application to qualify.
Administrative Provision--Federal Railroad Administration
Sec. 150. The Secretary may purchase promotional items of
nominal value for use in public outreach activities to
accomplish the purposes of 49 U.S.C. 20134: Provided, That
the Secretary shall prescribe guidelines for the
administration of such purchases and use.
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative Expenses
For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal
Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of
title 49, United States Code, $92,500,000: Provided, That of
the funds available under this heading, not to exceed
$1,504,000 shall be available for travel and not to exceed
$20,719,000 shall be available for the central account:
Provided further, That any funding transferred from the
central account shall be submitted for approval to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further,
That none of the funds provided or limited in this Act may be
used to create a permanent office of transit security under
this heading: Provided further, That of the funds in this Act
available for the execution of contracts under section
5327(c) of title 49, United States Code, $2,000,000 shall be
reimbursed to the Department of Transportation's Office of
Inspector General for costs associated with audits and
investigations of transit-related issues, including reviews
of new fixed guideway systems: Provided further, That upon
submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2009
President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall
transmit to Congress the annual report on new starts,
including proposed allocations of funds for fiscal year 2009.
FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS
(Liquidation of Contract Authority)
(Limitation on Obligations)
(highway trust fund)
(including rescission)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310, 5311,
5316, 5317, 5320, 5335, 5339, and 5340 and section 3038 of
Public Law 105-178, as amended, $6,855,000,000, to be derived
from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and
to remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
available for the implementation or execution of programs
authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310,
5311, 5316, 5317, 5320, 5335, 5339, and 5340 and section 3038
of Public Law 105-178, as amended, shall not exceed total
obligations of $7,872,893,000 in fiscal year
[[Page H8276]]
2008: Provided further, That $28,660,920 in unobligated
balances are rescinded.
RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5306, 5312-
5315, 5322, and 5506, $65,500,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That $9,300,000 is available to carry out
the transit cooperative research program under section 5313
of title 49, United States Code, $4,300,000 is available for
the National Transit Institute under section 5315 of title
49, United States Code, $7,000,000 is available for
university transportation centers program under section 5506
of title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That
$44,900,000 is available to carry out national research
programs under sections 5312, 5313, 5314, and 5322 of title
49, United States Code.
Capital Investment Grants
(including rescission)
For necessary expenses to carry out section 5309 of title
49, United States Code, $1,700,000,000, to remain available
until expended of which $200,000,000 is for section 5309(e):
Provided, That $17,760,000 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
Administrative Provisions--Federal Transit Administration
Sec. 160. The limitations on obligations for the programs
of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any
authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for
obligation, or to any other authority previously made
available for obligation.
Sec. 161. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
made available by this Act under ``Federal Transit
Administration, Capital investment grants'' and bus and bus
facilities under ``Federal Transit Administration, Formula
and bus grants'' for projects specified in this Act or
identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by
September 30, 2010, and other recoveries, shall be made
available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Sec. 162. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated before October 1, 2007, under any section
of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain
available for expenditure, may be transferred to and
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for
any such section.
Sec. 163. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
unobligated funds made available for a new fixed guideway
systems projects under the heading ``Federal Transit
Administration, Capital Investment Grants'' in any
appropriations Act prior to this Act may be used during this
fiscal year to satisfy expenses incurred for such projects.
Sec. 164. During fiscal year 2008, each Federal Transit
Administration grant for a project that involves the
acquisition or rehabilitation of a bus to be used in public
transportation shall be funded for 100 percent of the net
capital costs of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid
electric propulsion system and any equipment related to such
a system: Provided, That the Secretary shall have the
discretion to determine, through practicable administrative
procedures, the costs attributable to the system and related-
equipment.
Sec. 165. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this Act, to enable the Secretary of Transportation to
make grants to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 of Public Law 109-59,
$26,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Sec. 166. The second sentence of section 321 of the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1986 (99 Stat. 1287) is repealed.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation,
and in accordance with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the
programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the
current fiscal year.
Operations and Maintenance
(harbor maintenance trust fund)
For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of
those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and
maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, $17,392,000, to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.
Maritime Administration
Maritime Security Program
For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a United
States-flag merchant fleet to serve the national security
needs of the United States, $156,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
Operations and Training
For necessary expenses of operations and training
activities authorized by law, $118,646,000, of which
$24,720,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2008,
for salaries and benefits of employees of the United States
Merchant Marine Academy; of which $14,139,000 shall remain
available until expended for capital improvements at the
United States Merchant Marine Academy; and of which
$10,500,000 shall remain available until expended for
maintenance and repair of schoolships at State Maritime
Schools.
Ship Disposal
For necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete
vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the Maritime
Administration, $17,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed
loan program, not to exceed $3,408,000, which shall be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Operations and Training'', Maritime Administration.
Ship Construction
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$3,526,000 are rescinded.
Administrative Provisions--Maritime Administration
Sec. 170. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish
utilities and services and make necessary repairs in
connection with any lease, contract, or occupancy involving
Government property under control of the Maritime
Administration, and payments received therefore shall be
credited to the appropriation charged with the cost thereof:
Provided, That rental payments under any such lease,
contract, or occupancy for items other than such utilities,
services, or repairs shall be covered into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 171. No obligations shall be incurred during the
current fiscal year from the construction fund established by
section 53716 of title 46, United States Code, or otherwise,
in excess of the appropriations and limitations contained in
this Act or in any prior appropriations Act.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Administrative Expenses
For necessary administrative expenses of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, $18,130,000, of
which $639,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety
Fund.
hazardous materials safety
For expenses necessary to discharge the hazardous materials
safety functions of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, $28,899,000, of which $1,829,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That up
to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall
be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as
offsetting receipts: Provided further, That there may be
credited to this appropriation, to be available until
expended, funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training, for reports publication
and dissemination, and for travel expenses incurred in
performance of hazardous materials exemptions and approvals
functions.
Pipeline Safety
(pipeline safety fund)
(oil spill liability trust fund)
For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the
pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a
pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107,
and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $78,875,000, of which $18,810,000
shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
shall remain available until September 30, 2010; of which
$60,065,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
of which $32,683,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2010: Provided, That not less than $1,043,000 of the
funds provided under this heading shall be for the one-call
State grant program.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(emergency preparedness fund)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5128(b),
$188,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That
not more than $28,318,000 shall be made available for
obligation in fiscal year 2008 from amounts made available by
49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5128(b)-(c): Provided further, That
none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i),
5128(b), or 5128(c) shall be made available for obligation by
individuals other than the Secretary of Transportation, or
his designee.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Research and Development
For necessary expenses of the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, $12,000,000, of which $6,036,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided,
That there may be credited to this appropriation, to be
available until expended, funds received from States,
counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and
private sources for expenses incurred for training.
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 3), $66,400,000: Provided, That the
Inspector General shall have all necessary authority, in
carrying out the duties specified in the Inspector General
Act (5 U.S.C. App. 3),
[[Page H8277]]
to investigate allegations of fraud, including false
statements to the government under 18 U.S.C. 1001, by any
person or entity that is subject to regulation by the
Department: Provided further, That the funds made available
under this heading shall be used to investigate, pursuant to
section 41712 of title 49, United States Code: (1) unfair or
deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by
domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket agents; and (2)
the compliance of domestic and foreign air carriers with
respect to item (1) of this proviso.
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $26,495,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $1,250,000 from fees established by the
Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board shall be
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and
used for necessary and authorized expenses under this
heading: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 2008, to result in a final appropriation from the
general fund estimated at no more than $25,245,000.
General Provisions--Department of Transportation
(including transfers of funds)
Sec. 180. During the current fiscal year applicable
appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be
available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of
passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability
insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries
on official department business; and uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 181. Appropriations contained in this Act for the
Department of Transportation shall be available for services
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals
not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an
Executive Level IV.
Sec. 182. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and
Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation:
Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this
provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside the
Department of Transportation.
Sec. 183. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 184. (a) No recipient of funds made available in this
Act shall disseminate personal information (as defined in 18
U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtained by a State department of motor
vehicles in connection with a motor vehicle record as defined
in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provided in 18 U.S.C. 2721
for a use permitted under 18 U.S.C. 2721.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall not
withhold funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Sec. 185. Funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training may be credited
respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's
``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit
Administration's ``Research and University Research Centers''
account, and to the Federal Railroad Administration's
``Safety and Operations'' account, except for State rail
safety inspectors participating in training pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 20105.
Sec. 186. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, rule
or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized
to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to
the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the
payment to the Department of an amount determined by the
Secretary.
Sec. 187. None of the funds in this Act to the Department
of Transportation may be used to make a grant unless the
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full business
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent,
or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more
is announced by the department or its modal administrations
from: (1) any discretionary grant program of the Federal
Highway Administration other than the emergency relief
program; (2) the airport improvement program of the Federal
Aviation Administration; or (3) any program of the Federal
Transit Administration other than the formula grants and
fixed guideway modernization programs: Provided, That no
notification shall involve funds that are not available for
obligation.
Sec. 188. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees
and other funds received by the Department of Transportation
from travel management centers, charge card programs, the
subleasing of building space, and miscellaneous sources are
to be credited to appropriations of the Department of
Transportation and allocated to elements of the Department of
Transportation using fair and equitable criteria and such
funds shall be available until expended.
Sec. 189. Amounts made available in this or any other Act
that the Secretary determines represent improper payments by
the Department of Transportation to a third party contractor
under a financial assistance award, which are recovered
pursuant to law, shall be available--
(1) to reimburse the actual expenses incurred by the
Department of Transportation in recovering improper payments;
and
(2) to pay contractors for services provided in recovering
improper payments or contractor support in the implementation
of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002: Provided,
That amounts in excess of that required for paragraphs (1)
and (2)--
(A) shall be credited to and merged with the appropriation
from which the improper payments were made, and shall be
available for the purposes and period for which such
appropriations are available; or
(B) if no such appropriation remains available, shall be
deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts:
Provided, That prior to the transfer of any such recovery to
an appropriations account, the Secretary shall notify the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of the amount
and reasons for such transfer: Provided further, That for
purposes of this section, the term ``improper payments'', has
the same meaning as that provided in section 2(d)(2) of
Public Law 107-300.
Sec. 190. Funds provided in Public Law 102-143 in the item
relating to ``Highway Bypass Demonstration Project'' shall be
available for the improvement of Route 101 in the vicinity of
Prunedale, Monterey County, California.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 191. Funds provided under section 378 of the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-346, 114 Stat. 1356,
1356A-41), for the reconstruction of School Road East in
Marlboro Township, New Jersey, shall be available for the
Spring Valley Road Project in Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
At the end of title I, insert the following:
Sec. 192. Out of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act to the Surface Transportation Board
of the Department of Transportation, when considering cases,
matters, or declaratory orders before the Board involving a
railroad, or an entity claiming or seeking authority to
operate as a railroad, and the transportation of solid waste
(as defined in section 1004 of 42 U.S.C. 6903), the Board
shall consider any activity involving the receipt, delivery,
sorting, handling or transfer in-transit outside of a sealed
container, storage other than inside a sealed container, or
other processing of solid waste to be an activity over which
the Board does not have jurisdiction.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, in 1995 the Congress passed
and President Clinton signed the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act, Public Law 104-88. As a direct consequence, the
Surface Transportation Board created by the law is now in the business
of facilitating solid waste transfer stations that are not subject to
local or State environmental laws or regulations.
This Federal preemption of local environmental laws is fraught with
danger to the public and must be reversed, which would be accomplished
if my amendment or a similar amendment that has been proffered by
Senator Lautenberg and already adopted in committee were to become law.
During the past several years, small rail companies, many apparently
formed for the expressed purpose of securing Federal exemption from
local and State regulations, have filed numerous verified notices of
exemption with the STB for the purpose of establishing solid waste
transfer stations along rail lines and spurs. In one case in North
Bergen, New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection fined the New York Susquehanna & Western Railway Corporation
$2.5 million for violation only to have this year a Federal judge
nullify that important State enforcement. Thus far the STB has not
acted on New Jersey's complaints of health, environmental, and fire
risk and concerns the State raised concerning high levels of lead,
arsenic, mercury, and copper.
[[Page H8278]]
Now at the property in my district in Freehold, New Jersey, a small
class 3 rail company, Ashland Railroad, has filed a verified notice of
exemption with the STB to operate a 1.5 mile track for the
establishment of another solid waste transfer station. The proposed
site would be situated right next to a wetlands area that poses
significant hazards to the health, safety, and well-being of my
constituents. This is especially important in light of the fact that
the wetlands feed directly into the Manasquan Reservoir, the source of
the potable water for hundreds of thousands of people in the Monmouth
County area. The proposed site is also adjacent to residential housing,
again raising serious concern, especially because there are many
prevailing winds and other issues concerning the health and safety of
those folks.
A waste transfer station, Madam Chairman, should not be established
without significant local input. Preemption voids numerous meaningful
State health and safety environmental laws, including those enacted in
my State. I believe that people deserve the protection of these laws
and the protection that these policies do provide.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I support the gentleman's effort here.
The Surface Transportation Board has attempted to insert itself into a
matter that the gentleman has very well and thoroughly described, but
it is sadly mistaken in its effort to preempt State rights in this
arena. So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman for that support.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to my friend.
Mr. OLVER. It has been my understanding that you were going to
withdraw the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I understand. I thought you might be
persuaded by Mr. Oberstar's very eloquent intervention, but I
understand this is legislating on appropriations.
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I think we got a little bit confused by
the chairman of the authorizing committee's involvement here. But in
any case, I very much sympathize with the gentleman from New Jersey's
point of view. There is language in our report that deals specifically
with businesses using railroad properties as waste transfer handling
points and urges the Surface Transportation Board to ensure that these
types of operations are subject to local, State, and Federal
regulations as other solid waste facilities are.
So, again, I sympathize with the gentleman from New Jersey and
Members from other affected States. My subcommittee will work with the
STB to close this legal loophole and prevent instances of illegal
handling of solid waste on railroad facilities. But it is an
authorizing issue, and we have not allowed authorizing issues in the
legislation this year. My ranking member has been particularly
insistent and I have been insistent about that as we have moved thus
far. And so I would have insisted on my point of order, and I
appreciate the gentleman's withdrawing the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This title may be cited as the ``Department of
Transportation Appropriations Act, 2008''.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Public and Indian Housing
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
(including transfer of funds)
For activities and assistance for the provision of tenant-
based rental assistance authorized under the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) (``the Act''),
not otherwise provided for, $16,330,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $12,137,000,000 shall be
available on October 1, 2007, and $4,193,000,000 shall be
available on October 1, 2008: Provided, That the amounts made
available under this heading are provided as follows:
(1) $14,744,506,000 for renewals of expiring section 8
tenant-based annual contributions contracts (including
renewals of enhanced vouchers under any provision of law
authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the Act):
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
from amounts provided under this paragraph, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development for the calendar year 2008
funding cycle shall provide renewal funding for each public
housing agency based on the amount public housing agencies
received in calendar year 2007, by applying the 2008 Annual
Adjustment Factor as established by the Secretary, and by
making any necessary adjustments for the costs associated
with deposits to Family Self-Sufficiency Program escrow
accounts or the first-time renewal of tenant protection or
HOPE VI vouchers or vouchers that were not in use during the
12-month period in order to be available to meet a commitment
pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the Act: Provided further,
That the Secretary shall, to the extent necessary to stay
within the amount provided under this paragraph, pro rate
each public housing agency's allocation otherwise established
pursuant to this paragraph: Provided further, That except as
provided in the following proviso, the entire amount provided
under this paragraph shall be obligated to the public housing
agencies based on the allocation and pro rata method
described above and the Secretary shall notify public housing
agencies of their annual budgets not later than 45 days after
enactment of this Act: Provided further, That public housing
agencies participating in the Moving to Work demonstration
shall be funded pursuant to their Moving to Work agreements
and shall be subject to the same pro rata adjustments under
the previous proviso: Provided further, That up to
$75,000,000 shall be available for additional rental subsidy
due to unforeseen exigencies as determined by the Secretary
and for the one-time funding of housing assistance payments
resulting from the portability provisions of the housing
choice voucher program: Provided further, That none of the
funds provided in this paragraph may be used to support a
total number of unit months under lease which exceeds a
public housing agency's authorized level of units under
contract.
(2) $150,000,000 for section 8 rental assistance for
relocation and replacement of housing units that are
demolished or disposed of pursuant to the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-134), conversion of section 23 projects to
assistance under section 8, the family unification program
under section 8(x) of the Act, relocation of witnesses in
connection with efforts to combat crime in public and
assisted housing pursuant to a request from a law enforcement
or prosecution agency, enhanced vouchers under any provision
of law authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the
Act, HOPE VI vouchers, mandatory and voluntary conversions,
and tenant protection assistance including replacement and
relocation assistance: Provided, That additional section 8
tenant protection rental assistance costs may be funded in
2008 by utilizing unobligated balances, including recaptures
and carryover, remaining from funds appropriated to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development under this
heading, the heading ``Annual Contributions for Assisted
Housing'', the heading ``Housing Certificate Fund'', and the
heading ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'', for fiscal year
2007 and prior years; Provided further, That not more than
$12,000,000 may be used for section 8 assistance to cover the
cost of judgments and settlement agreements.
(3) $48,000,000 for family self-sufficiency coordinators
under section 23 of the Act.
(4) $30,000,000 for incremental vouchers under section 8 of
the Act for nonelderly disabled families affected by the
designation of a public housing development under section 7
of the Act, the establishment of preferences in accordance
with section 651 of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13611), or the restriction of occupancy to
elderly families in accordance with section 658 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 13618), and to the extent the Secretary determines
that such amount is not needed to fund applications for such
affected families, for other nonelderly disabled families, of
which remaining amount such amount as is necessary shall be
made available to provide 1,000 vouchers for rental
assistance for homeless veterans in accordance with section
8(o)(19)(B)(ii) of the Act: Provided, That incremental
vouchers made available under this paragraph for nonelderly
disabled families or for homeless veterans shall, to the
extent practicable, continue to be provided to such families
or veterans, respectively, upon turnover.
(5) $6,494,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital
Fund.
(6) $1,351,000,000 for administrative and other expenses of
public housing agencies in administering the section 8
tenant-based rental assistance program, of which up to
$5,000,000 shall be available as an incentive bonus as
determined by the Secretary for administrative expenses for
public housing agencies that voluntarily consolidate, and of
which up to $35,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary
to allocate to public housing
[[Page H8279]]
agencies that need additional funds to administer their
section 8 programs with up to $30,000,000 for fees associated
with section 8 tenant protection rental assistance: Provided,
That not less than $1,351,000,000 of the amount provided in
this paragraph shall be allocated for the calendar year 2008
funding cycle to public housing agencies on a basis as
provided in section 8(q) of the Act as in effect immediately
before the enactment of the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-276): Provided
further, That if the amounts made available under this
paragraph are insufficient to pay the amounts required by
this paragraph, the Secretary may decrease the amounts
allocated to agencies by a uniform prorated percentage
applicable to all agencies receiving funding under this
paragraph or may, to the extent necessary to provide full
payment of amounts required under this paragraph, utilize
unobligated balances, including recaptures and carryovers,
remaining from funds appropriated to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under this heading, the heading
``Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing'', the heading
``Housing Certificate Fund'', and the heading ``Project-Based
Rental Assistance'', for fiscal year 2007 and prior years:
Provided further, That all amounts provided under this
paragraph shall be only for activities related to the
provision of tenant-based rental assistance authorized under
section 8 of the Act, including related development
activities.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Chabot:
Page 61, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $330,000,000)''.
Page 61, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $330,000,000)''.
Page 61, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $330,000,000)''.
Mr. CHABOT (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, the section 8 program is a program I
believe is in serious need of fundamental reforms, not more money.
Two weeks ago, the House debated H.R. 1851, the so-called Section 8
Voucher Reform Act. But rather than making the program more effective
for the individuals who use it and more accountable to the taxpayers
who fund it, the bill will create 100,000 more vouchers at a cost of
$2.4 billion over the next 5 years.
I offered several amendments to strengthen the bill and bring about
some much-needed responsibility to the program, to add, for example,
work requirements and time limits and to stop the creation of new
vouchers. Unfortunately, those amendments were voted down. And now 2
weeks later, we find ourselves considering a bill that would reward
this flawed program by increasing its funding by hundreds of millions
of dollars.
When we committed ourselves sometime ago to welfare reform, it was
with the understanding that the program should no longer be a tax-
funded handout but should instead offer people a way out of poverty,
helping them obtain job and education skills they needed to become
self-sufficient. Ending welfare cycle of dependencies have cut the
welfare rolls in half, promoted individual responsibility, and saved
billions of tax dollars in the process. Sadly, current housing programs
closely resemble the failed welfare policies of the past.
Like the old welfare programs, the section 8 housing program
discourages work and allows people to stay on the program indefinitely.
It is also too often mismanaged by local governments or housing
authorities.
I represent most of the city of Cincinnati, its western suburbs and
few townships in Butler County, Ohio. Too many neighborhoods in my
district have had to witness the crime, despair, and hopelessness that
are inherent in a government program that asks virtually nothing of the
recipients and that encourages dependency rather than responsibility
and waste rather than work.
Whether it is the funding provided by the Federal Government or
mismanagement of the program by local governments and agencies, section
8 has failed those who use it and those who pay for it: the American
taxpayers.
It is also important to point out that the dependency that section 8
has created is so great that there are long waiting lists to get
vouchers. Why? Because too many of those who gain access to the program
don't leave. They don't really have an incentive to. The average stay
is about 7 years.
Madam Chairman, this is a very modest, straightforward amendment. My
amendment would simply reduce section 8 vouchers, the funding, by $330
million to bring it in line with the administration's budget request.
This bill would spend $16.3 billion on vouchers, asking virtually
nothing of its recipients.
On behalf of the American taxpayers, I don't think it is asking too
much of this Congress to settle for a smaller increase to a program
that spends far too much with too little accountability.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment to cut the $330 million from the Tenant-based
Rental Assistance account will not hold the program steady at the
fiscal 2007 level. It will actually cut somewhere between 40,000 and
80,000 families that are currently in the program. That means that
somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 families, that is a large margin
but that is families, that is real people, that currently have a
section 8 voucher will find themselves without a home in fiscal year
2008.
Now, we know that rents increase each year. This is a market-based
program, and market-based programs do escalate, are subject to
inflation.
{time} 2215
And that's what this $330 million amount was. It was a deficiency in
the President's budget, where the President's budget was presented to
the Congress before the actions in this continuing resolution in
February of this year were acted upon, were taken by the Congress, and
the President signed, ultimately, that legislation in the continuing
resolution.
So, his original amount of money was for an entirely different set of
circumstances because there was a restructuring of the section 8, the
tenant-based section 8 program in the continuing resolution. And
keeping the people with the number of vouchers, the vouchers that have
been out there, we had to come up with the additional money in this
bill which only allows the same number of people to have vouchers.
There is one $30 million amount in here for the first incremental
vouchers added to the system in about 6 years; $30 million to be used
for new vouchers for nonelderly disabled people and homeless veterans.
As my ranking member pointed out, while we were affording 4,000 new
vouchers, 3,000 of them go to nonelder disabled people, and 1,000 of
them go to nonelder disabled people who also happen to be homeless
veterans. That's how the 4,000 is structured. It's a very good, one of
only a handful of initiatives in this bill for new vouchers for that
particular program.
I can't really fathom why anybody would want to deny thousands of
people with disabilities and homeless veterans a chance to live in a
safe, affordable home.
I strongly oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, the thing that I have a problem with
is we seem to be, and I know the gentleman is well-intentioned in terms
of what he's doing, but we're losing more and more vouchers, and this
is one way we're going to lose a substantial amount. If you reduce it
by 330 million in tenant-based vouchers, you would have an adversive
impact, a significant impact on the number of families that would
receive assistance in 2008. So I must rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The program today is administered based on the number of vouchers
that are under lease. Currently, 13 percent
[[Page H8280]]
of the 2 million vouchers authorized turn over each year. This means
that about 240,000 vouchers are relinquished each year and provided to
new families or individuals.
The amendment, if adopted, would mean that about 47,000 vouchers
could not be renewed upon turnover nationwide. And after years of
trying to increase the use of vouchers so more families could receive
assistance, this amendment would greatly undermine that effort.
While it is true that in 2007 the appropriations bill provided
significantly more funding than was called for or was needed, reducing
next year's funding level will offset the overage provided in 2007.
Instead, 2007 funds should be recaptured and used by the Congress. So
therefore, I must stand in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would also like to point out to the gentleman from Ohio that we
have available about, under authorization, 2.1 million vouchers of
which this bill only funds 1.9 million of them at the level that we
have provided the money with the 4,000 additional vouchers.
I would like to remind that the authorizing committee just brought
out legislation and has added 20,000 in authorization for each of the
next 5 years. Whether we will have the funding next year to actually
provide that money, I do not know, but they're asking for us not only
to move upward toward filling the vouchers that presently are
authorized, but also adding some additional ones.
And the reason for that is that we have 8 million families roughly, 8
million households in this country which are living at incomes below 30
percent of the median income in their areas, and we are only providing
somewhere in the range of 2 million, a little bit less even in this
funding, of money for rental assistance for those people. So we're not
coming anywhere close to dealing with the poorest people who are
eligible under the law as it is written for that rental assistance
because their income lies below 30 percent of median income in the area
involved.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Hirono) having assumed the chair, Ms. Baldwin, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________