[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 107 (Thursday, June 26, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6122-H6143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAVING ENERGY THROUGH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304 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. 6052.
{time} 1408
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. 6052) to promote increased public transportation use, to promote
increased use of alternative fuels in providing public transportation,
and for other purposes, with Ms. DeGette 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 Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6052, the
Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008.
The purpose of the bill, very simply stated, is to promote energy
savings for all Americans by increasing use of public transportation
throughout this country, a fact that has been a need, let us say, that
has been driven home dramatically by $4 a gallon oil and gasoline
prices since Memorial Day, and I thank the Speaker and majority leader
for making time for us to bring this bill to the House Floor.
Basic law of economics is that the price of gas is a two-part
equation: Supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor in the cost of
oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate ways we can
attack the high cost of gasoline prices. And our fellow citizens
understand this. They are making choices. They have been making choices
for several years.
Over the last 3 years, in particular, there has been growth of 1
million new riders a day on public transportation systems across
America, for 375 million new transit trips nationwide last year, a
total of 10.3 billion transit trips throughout the country.
There was a time when New York City accounted for 60 percent of all
transit trips in the United States, but no longer. In the last 3 years,
New York's share of transit ridership nationwide has slipped to 38
percent, not because New Yorkers are riding transit less; they are
riding more. But more Americans have found their way to public
transportation, and increasingly in droves since the skyrocketing price
of gasoline.
Transit systems throughout the United States have found every new
transit project, every new light rail project has more than tripled its
original projections of ridership nationwide.
Innovative cities like Denver under then-Mayor Wellington Webb, said:
Ride our transit system free in the center city. Keep your pollution
out of the center city. Ride the transit system free. And it has been
an enormous boost and benefit to the city of Denver.
I can and I will cite some very specific ridership improvements in my
own State. In Minneapolis, the Hiawatha light rail, 20 years in the
waiting, finally was constructed; ridership opened, and 9 months later,
10 months ahead of schedule, they achieved their 10 millionth rider.
Dramatic improvements.
Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Francisco all have similar increases
in transit ridership. The Charlotte Area Transit System recently opened
a new light rail line. They have increased ridership 34 percent from
February of last year to February of this year.
CalTran, the commuter rail line that serves the San Francisco
Peninsula and Santa Clara Valley, set a record for average weekday
ridership in February of this year with a 9.3 percent increase over
last year.
The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, my good friend,
the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) knows well,
posted a rise of more than 20 percent ridership from Miami, Fort
Lauderdale, West Palm Beach in March and April of this year as compared
to last year.
Americans are making the choice. They have decided. We need to help
them with that choice. And the bill before us will make a huge step in
that direction.
This legislation provides substantial support for States and public
transportation agencies increasing incentives for computers to make
their choice to ride transit: 1.7 billion, 2 years for transit agencies
that are reducing transit fares or expanding the services to meet the
needs of growing transit commuters. We increase the Federal share for
clean fuel and alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, and locomotive
related equipment or facilities, helping transit agencies become more
fuel efficient.
{time} 1415
In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share for these
activities will go from 90 percent to 100 percent of the net capital
cost of the project.
We also provide authority to extend the Federal transit pass benefit
program which has operated over the past few years on a pilot basis in
the National Capital Region and in a few selected areas throughout the
country. After evaluating the transit pass program, the U.S. Department
of Transportation recommended that it be expanded nationwide. We do
that in this legislation. There was an executive order signed by
President Clinton in 2000 that launched this initiative. It was
supported in the SAFETEA legislation. The 3-year pilot program under
our legislation would be substantially expanded nationwide.
The Department of Transportation says that expanding this program
will implement their own department recommendation by giving more
Federal employees incentives to choose transit options. And we also
create a pilot program to allow the funding expended by private
providers of public transportation for van pools to acquire the vans to
be used as their non-Federal share for matching Federal transit funds
in five community pilot projects. Under current law, only public funds
can be used as the local match. This pilot program will induce private
funds to participate in the van pooling initiative.
I would observe we had a very successful van pooling program in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area in the mid-1980s when companies like 3M,
Control Data, and Minneapolis Honeywell bought the vans for their
employees and provided a fuel subsidy and encouraged their employees to
join together. The vans were full. The program was successful. It cut
down on congestion in the greater metropolitan Twin City area, and
reduced cost for all of the riders. We should do that nationally, and
we provide further authority to make that change and to take that
initiative.
There are other provisions in this bill that are important, and I
will submit those for the Record, but I want to close this part of my
remarks with an observation by Paul Weyrich in a very thoughtful
publication, Free Congress Foundation. ``Does Transit Work: A
Conservative Reappraisal.'' It begins, ``The first recorded example of
mass transportation was the movement of Adam and Eve from the Garden of
Eden. At that time, 100 percent of the population was moved at once in
a single trip; a record never equaled since.'' Then he says,
``According to most studies of mass transit, it has gone straight
downhill from there.''
Well, we are on the way up and we are going to lift mass transit and
speed its acceptance and its use by the public with the legislation
that we bring before you today.
Toward that purpose, I express my great appreciation to the gentleman
from Florida, the ranking member, Mr. Mica, for the partnership he has
engaged in with us and for the thoughtful, constructive suggestions he
has made every step of the way. I appreciate very much the gentleman's
participation.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6052, the
``Saving Energy
[[Page H6123]]
Through Public Transportation Act of 2008''. This bill promotes energy
savings for all Americans by increasing public transportation use in
the United States.
As gas prices have skyrocketed past $4 per gallon since Memorial Day,
everyone is talking about how we need more oil. I thank the Speaker and
the Majority Leader for scheduling today's bill, H.R. 6052, so that we
can also talk about using less.
Let us all remember the basic law of economics that the price of gas
is a two-part equation: supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor
in the cost of oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate
ways that we can tackle the high cost of gas.
Americans understand this. They are making choices today that are
decreasing our global demand for oil. We're seeing record ridership on
public transportation all across the country, as well as decreases in
the number of miles traveled in cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks. Without
doubt, many Americans are making these choices based on the economic
hardship caused by the high price of gas. However, in my discussions
with constituents in my district and people across the country,
Americans are also considering transit alternatives because they're
sick and tired of knowing that our great nation imports 60 percent of
its oil, much of it from the Persian Gulf.
As a result, across America, public transportation has experienced a
renaissance in big cities, suburban communities, and small towns. In
2007, Americans took more than 10.3 billion trips on public
transportation, the highest level in 50 years. In the first quarter of
2008, commuters took more than 2.6 billion transit trips nationwide, an
increase of 3.3 percent over the first quarter of 2007.
Now that the price of gas has surpassed $4 a gallon, even more
commuters are choosing to ride the train or the bus to work rather than
drive alone in their cars. Public transit systems in metropolitan areas
are reporting increases in ridership of five, ten, and even 15 percent
over last year's figures. Light rails saw the largest jump in ridership
with a 10 percent increase to 110 million trips in the first quarter.
Some of the biggest increases in ridership are occurring in many areas
in the South and West where new bus and light rail lines have been
built in the last few years.
In Denver, for example, ridership was up eight percent in the first
three months of 2008 compared with last year, and Minneapolis, Seattle,
Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Francisco all reported similar increases.
The Charlotte Area Transit System, which recently opened a new light
rail line, has increased ridership more than 34 percent from February
2007 to February 2008. Caltrain, the commuter rail line that serves the
San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Clara Valley, set a record for
average weekday ridership in February with a 9.3 percent increase over
2007. The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, which
operates a commuter rail system from Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West
Palm Beach, posted a rise of more than 20 percent in ridership in March
and April as compared to the same time last year.
Madam Chairman, Americans are proving that riding transit is an easy,
immediate, and important part of the solution to decreasing our demand
for foreign oil. However, meeting this impressive new demand for public
transportation services is no small task for our transit agencies. With
these record-breaking numbers of commuters riding transit, many of our
nation's transit systems are busting at the seams. In addition, the
cost of fuel and power for public transportation providers has sharply
increased, compounding costs of serving all of these new transit
riders.
Currently, public transportation reduces gas consumption by 1.4
billion gallons a year (3.9 million gallons per day), which equates to
more than 33 million barrels of oil. It's equal to 108 million fewer
cars filling up year.
Although those fuel savings are incredible, we can do better, and we
must.
H.R. 6052 provides much needed support to states and public
transportation agencies and also increases incentives for commuters to
choose transit options, thereby reducing their transportation-related
energy consumption and our nation's reliance on foreign oil.
To increase public transportation use across the United States, H.R.
6052 authorizes $1.7 billion in funding over two years for transit
agencies nationwide that are temporarily reducing transit fares or
expanding transit services to meet the needs of the growing number of
transit commuters. It is important to note that the funds authorized by
this bill will be distributed to States and local communities in the
same manner as they currently receive Federal transit urban and rural
formula funds. However, in an effort to provide transit choices to
smaller urban and rural areas, which may not currently have any transit
service, this bill specifically increases the relative share of the
transit funds that will be going to the rural areas.
H.R. 6052 also increases the Federal share for clean fuel and
alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, or locomotive-related equipment or
facilities, thereby assisting transit agencies in becoming more fuel
efficient. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share
for these activities is 100 percent of the net capital cost of the
project.
H.R. 6052 also extends the Federal transit pass benefits program to
require that all Federal agencies offer transit passes to Federal
employees throughout the United States. Current law requires that all
Federal agencies within the National Capital Region implement a transit
pass fringe benefits program and offer employees transit passes.
Data from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority
covering the first three years of the National Capital Region transit
pass program show that more than 15,500 automobiles were eliminated
from roads in the Washington, DC area as a result of Federal employees
shifting their travel mode away from single occupancy vehicle (``SOV'')
use to public transportation use for commuting to work. DOT estimated
the energy savings from this mode shift included the reduction of more
than eight million gallons of gasoline for each of the three years that
they studied. DOT also studied the results of a nationwide pilot
program and found that, within the three agencies, 11 percent of the
participants shifted their travel mode away from SOV use to public
transportation use for commuting to work, again producing marked energy
savings.
The Department of Transportation has determined that both the
National Capital Region transit benefits program and the nationwide
pilot program produce marked energy and emissions savings, congestion
reductions, and cleaner air, and recommends that the transit pass
benefits program be extended to Federal employees nationwide. This
provision will implement the Department's recommendation by providing
more Federal employees the incentives to choose transit options,
thereby reducing their transportation-related energy consumption and
reliance on foreign oil.
H.R. 6052 also creates a pilot program to allow the amount expended
by private providers of public transportation by vanpool for the
acquisition of vans to be used as the non-Federal share for matching
Federal transit funds in five communities. Under current law, only
local public funds may be used as local match; this pilot program would
allow private funds to be used in limited circumstances. The Department
of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool pilot
projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs, benefits, and
efficiencies of the vanpool projects.
Finally, H.R. 6052 increases the Federal share for additional parking
facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway stations. This provision
increases the total number of transit commuters who will have access to
those facilities.
Public transportation use in all of its forms--bus, rail, vanpool,
ferry, streetcar, and subways to name a few--saves fuel and reduces our
dependence on foreign oil. As such, increasing public transportation
use by providing incentives for commuters to choose transit options is
a priority of this Congress.
Given the price of gas, Americans are more focused on the costs of
commuting than at any time in recent history. And they want choices. We
need to provide them. With passage of this bill, we have an opportunity
to provide transit choices that will change the way that Americans
travel.
The impact of such changes on our nation's dependence on foreign oil
would be extraordinary. According to a recent study, if Americans used
public transit at the same rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of
their daily travel needs--the United States could reduce its dependence
on imported oil by more than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550
million barrels of crude oil that we import from Saudi Arabia each
year.
That's the difference this bill can help make.
I strongly support H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy Through Public
Transportation Act of 2008'', and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportaiton and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Oberstar: I am writing to confirm our mutual
understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 6052,
the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008,
which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform on May 14, 2008.
In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 6052,
the Oversight Committee will not separately consider this
legislation. The Oversight Committee does so, however, with
the understanding that this does not prejudice the
Committee's jurisdictional interests and prerogatives
regarding this bill or similar legislation.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the
[[Page H6124]]
Oversight Committee should H.R. 6052 or a similar Senate bill
be considered in conference with the Senate. I also request
that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Report on
H.R. 6052 or in the Congressional Record during consideration
of this legislation on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman.
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.
Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Waxman: I write to you regarding H.R. 6052,
the ``Saving Energy through Public Transportation Act of
2008''.
I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further
consideration of H.R. 6052, notwithstanding the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice
any further jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this
legislation or similar language. Furthermore, I agree to
support your request for appointment of conferees from the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform if a conference
is held on this matter.
This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee
report and inserted in the Congressional Record as part of
the consideration of H.R. 6052 on the House floor. Thank you
for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding
this matter and others between our respective committees.
I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
James L. Oberstar, M.C.
Chairman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I want to thank our chair of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, my Democrat counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, for
his work on this piece of legislation that does deal with some of the
issues that we are facing right now and follows some of the discussions
that we have had on the floor relating to energy and energy
conservation.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a very small
piece of the puzzle, but it is nonetheless an important piece and we
have tried to exercise our jurisdictional responsibility in coming
forth with this, again, small piece of the puzzle.
This bill does provide for expansion of some of the transit grants
around the country, and I think that there are some beneficial
provisions for those in rural areas, suburban areas, and for much of
the public that relies on public transportation.
This bill further does allow sort of an unprecedented ability to use
some of the money traditionally used for projects to assist some of the
local transit authorities that are suffering now with high fuel costs.
Just like the average family is suffering with high fuel costs, transit
agencies have also experienced the same problem. They are cutting back
on services, sometimes when people really need to have an option and
don't have that option, by cutting out routes, and that has been
announced even in my area. So I think we are doing a responsible thing.
This is a 2-year authorization. It is an expansion of the
authorization of $1.7 billion that does give some of the folks on my
side some hiccups, but it is authorization, it is not appropriation and
each Member is going to have to judge their support or opposition based
on the final product. But I have joined Chairman Oberstar in support of
this authorizing bill. I think again it fills our small piece of the
puzzle.
I did want to take just a minute or two, I didn't get a chance to
speak on the rule or on the energy legislation that was before the
House earlier, and there was quite a bit of banter. And some people
were bashing the President and this administration for not having a
plan. In fact, someone said he didn't recall a plan, which is kind of
funny.
I am very fortunate to have outstanding staff, but this summer I also
have some outstanding interns. They come from all over the country to
Congress, and I have gotten some from my district and elsewhere. So you
have a little more staff to do research rather than just keep on the
track that we are on here every day. I said wasn't there a Bush plan?
And all be darned, there was a Bush energy plan. So I had a little
research done on that.
Lo and behold, very shortly into his term, it was May 17, 2001, the
President of the United States, George Bush, just a few months into
office, he set two major priorities, one being education. You remember
on 9/11 he was in a Florida classroom talking about his plan to improve
education. But even before that, in May as one of his first priorities,
he announced his plan. He announced his plan actually in the home State
of the chairman, in St. Paul, Minnesota. On that day when he announced
it he said, ``If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant
on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the
hands of foreign nations, some of whom do not share our interests.''
On that same day when he announced his plan, he said regarding part
of his plan, ``We will underwrite research and development into energy-
saving technology. It'll require manufacturers to build more energy-
efficient appliances. We will review and remove obstacles that prevent
business from investing in energy-efficient technologies.''
Furthermore, President Bush said, ``The second part of our energy
plan will be to expand and diversify our Nation's energy supplies.
America today imports,'' and now this is May of 2001, ``America today
imports 52 percent of all of our oil. If we don't take action, those
imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we
will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home.''
The President called for burning coal more cleanly, expanding nuclear
power, and drilling for new oil in new places, that included the Arctic
area in Alaska. The President said that is banned now, but the
President said it can be done safely.
Listen to this one. This is the President in St. Paul. ``ANWR can
produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What
difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be
exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We're not just
short of oil; we're short of the refineries that turn oil into fuel. So
while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent of capacity,
our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.''
That was part of the President's plan, and how prophetic could you
be. This was before 9/11. This was in May of 2001, announcing his plan.
I can't take up all of the time, but I have Mr. Gephardt's response:
Congress will take action to stop them. Mr. Kerry vowed to filibuster,
and the Sierra Club is already running ads against it. Those were some
of the responses.
It is interesting how quickly we forget that there have been plans,
and those plans could have made a big difference.
Here today we are trying in a bipartisan fashion to make a small
difference to give some of our Federal employees outside the Capital
Beltway the opportunity to have the same transit advantages and
payments that we give within the Beltway to Federal employees outside,
expand some of the grants for transit, and also help some of those
transit operations that are suffering like the American family is with
cutbacks because of high fuel costs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just
remind my good friend that the bill before us is not ANWR or the other
subjects. It is about moving people more efficiently with lower costs
and lower energy consumption. I think we do ourselves service by
sticking to the subject matter at hand.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who as
chair of the Surface Subcommittee has held 22 hearings on the future of
transportation in America and has done a superb service for the Nation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman of the full committee for his
outstanding work over the many years for transit. How prophetic many of
his positions have been. I remember during the last reauthorization
fighting to just get a tiny bit more for transit. We didn't get what we
wanted and said we would need, but we did get a little more, despite a
particular opposition from a number of Republican Senators.
We are loving our transit systems to death today. Americans of
necessity, or with changes in life-style, are flocking
[[Page H6125]]
onto mass transit at record rates, rates not seen in half a century in
the United States of America. That's the good news.
The bad news is so many Americans are flooding onto our transit
systems, the most in 50 years, that our transit systems are having to
curtail service and cut routes. There is something very wrong with this
picture.
At the very time that the American people are demanding an
alternative because they can't afford the $4.50 a gallon for their car
or they are tired of the congestion and commute, which have not yet
been effectively dealt with because of our lack of investment in other
infrastructure, they are turning to transit as an alternative.
But transit is confronted with, if it is a bus, a doubling of the
cost of diesel. And other modes that are electrically driven have seen
their energy costs go up. But beyond that, the rate of utilization, the
people crushing on, are wearing the equipment out even faster and we
haven't been keeping up with the replacement cycle because of the
under-investment in the system.
I was talking to someone who came in from Rockville today. They said
you wouldn't believe how packed it was. I said I think we are going to
have to adopt the Japanese system where we hire little guys with white
gloves to start pushing people onto our Metro cars, or our MAX cars in
Oregon, because there are so many people who want to get on, we have to
utilize what isn't enough capacity.
So this bill is the first, little, baby, incremental step to giving
some assistance to those transit agencies who want to give assistance
to an American public that is hurting because of failed energy
policies.
I am not going to re-debate the energy policies with the gentleman
from Florida, but that was an incredibly creative recapitulation of the
failed energy policies of the Bush-Cheney administration over the last
6 years.
{time} 1430
So we need now to deal with some of the results of those failures.
And we've debated other bills to help provide relief to the American
consumers there. But here we have to provide relief and help to our
transit agencies who are going to extend a hand to our American
commuters and families. Unfortunately, this is, as yet, only a promise.
It's an authorization. And the budget is a little tight around here
unless you're one to fund a war with emergency funding. The President
won't declare a transit emergency, I don't think. Maybe we can get him
to do that. But we need to get some funding and flesh out the bones of
this bill.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have been sitting down here and listening for about a couple of
hours to the debate on the whole question of energy, and I would like
to, from my perspective, tell you what I have gleaned from this debate.
First of all, Americans are suffering. That is a fact. The price of
gasoline is too high. Another fact is that everything that is
associated or has anything to do with transportation is being affected,
and the prices are going up for groceries, for everything. And the
American people are suffering.
I'm very concerned about the future of our economy if we don't get
more oil and gas to market.
Now, a while ago, the chairman of the previous committee said that
we're importing 61 percent of our oil, up from about 48 percent some
time ago. This was the chairman on the Democrat side. I would agree
with that. We are importing 61 percent, up about 13 percent from what
we did a couple of years ago. The reason is we're not drilling enough
here in America. We're not producing enough in America, and we're
buying it from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela and other parts of the
world.
We need to move towards energy independence, and if we don't, I
predict we're going to have severe, severe economic problems over the
next few years. We could have a major economic recession or depression
if we don't get control of our energy prices because it's going to
spread into every other area of our lives. And the American people, I
think, sense that. And that's why I said to my colleagues, Go home and
talk to your friends and neighbors at the gas station and ask them, Do
you want to get the gas prices down, or do you want to make sure that
we don't drill in America, that we're more concerned about
environmental concerns than we are of taking care of our economy?
Obviously we want a better economy or better environmental situation.
We want to go to alternative fuels. We want to do all of those things.
Clean air, clean water. But at the same time, we don't want the entire
economy of the United States to go down the tubes. And unless we get
that energy independence by drilling here at home, that's a very real
risk. We could have a real severe economic downturn.
Fact: Prices are too high. Fact: It's hurting our entire economy.
Fact: We have enough oil and gas in oil shale to make us energy
independent if we get it out of the ground and out of the ocean into
the market. Fact: 68 percent of oil well explorers are small companies.
That's been brought out here today. And 87 percent of gas producers are
small businesses. We talk about these permits. Why would they not want
us to drill? It's their livelihood.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Why would these oil producers and gas
producers not want to drill?
So I think it's a bogus argument to say, Hey, they're holding these
permits and not drilling. They want to make money, and if they don't
drill, they're not going to make money.
In fact, 97 percent of the Continental Shelf and 94 percent of
onshore areas are exempt from drilling, and the oil's there, the gas is
there, and the coal shale is there; and we're not doing a darn thing
about it, and we are arguing about it. There has to be a bipartisan
move to solve this problem. It ain't gonna solve itself, and the
American people continue to suffer.
So I would like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, let's sit down and work this out because if we don't, everybody
is going to suffer, and this blame game ain't solving anything.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Chair of the Subcommittee on FEMA and Economic Development and other
related subjects, the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I owe the chairman and the ranking member many thanks for
today's bill. I appreciate that you have worked together on it, and I
appreciate that you have brought forward the only available remedy for
driving down $4-a-gallon gas.
Sometimes, Madam Speaker, the remedy is so obvious that we can't see
it. But who has made us see it are the American people because they
have found that remedy, and they are leading the way. That's why this
bill is on the floor today, notwithstanding the leadership of a
chairman, who for a long time has wanted to pass this bill.
I have great respect for our ranking member. But the fact is that
wherever you stand on offshore or in Alaska, this is the only way to
have an effect tomorrow. And that is what the American people are
saying: Don't tell me about digging. Don't tell me about drilling. Tell
me that I can get to work tomorrow. There is only one ``tomorrow''
remedy, and that is this public transportation remedy.
Moreover, we know what to do. What makes me want to cry is the
Federal Government has done it to a fare-thee-well with incentives
right here in the national Capital area where more than half of the
Federal presence is located for decades because we've been giving
financial incentives to Federal employees to hop on the metro and to
hop on buses to get to work instead of taking to the roads. And boy,
they've done it.
That's why I thank this House for last year authorizing a bill that
will help us take care of the capital costs because Federal employees
have hopped the metro and bus so that they've broken down our own
metro.
But Madam Chair, small communities and a lot of others don't have
their metro, their subway. Guess what they are doing? They are hopping
on buses. They are crowding on buses. They understand there is only one
way to defeat gas prices tomorrow, and that is public transportation.
[[Page H6126]]
I am very pleased that this bill leads by example because what we
have done for a long time in the national Capital region in offering
incentives to Federal employees will now be available to Federal
employees countrywide. Everywhere in the United States Federal
employees will get this incentive. When you consider that we're talking
about more than a million employees, we're going to have an effect
there.
If you need any further proof, look at what the American people have
done in leading us to this point. This is 2008. In less than a year,
they have already dropped 100 million miles that they were driving
before that. Where have those miles gone? The same people have taken
more than 85 million more trips on public transportation. There's the
proof. The proof is that people have voted in the best way to do it,
crowd the trains, make it happen. Now we're going to make it possible
so that they don't have to crowd, so that we're partnering with local
jurisdictions, in fact, to help them to do it.
We say to the American people today, we hear you, we're following you
with this bill.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, as the gas prices continue to rise, the
most effective and immediate way to offer relief is to provide
incentives for mass transit use. According to a study published by the
American Public Transportation Association, public transportation use
saves an annual 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline, almost 4 million
gallons per day. Factoring in the national average of gas at $4 a
gallon, it saves consumers nearly $16 million a day in gas costs.
Now, I support our public transportation system, and I'm pleased to
support an extensive grant program to help expand transit use across
the country. But I am disappointed in this bill because it only
requires that Federal employees be offered transit benefits. While I
support expanding the current transit benefit program, all Americans
should have this benefit.
Now, more than a month ago, Congressmen Lipinski and Biggert and I
introduced bipartisan legislation, the Creating Opportunities to
Motivate Mass-transit Utilization to Encourage Ridership Act, the
Commuter Act of 2008. Our legislation offers employers a 50 percent tax
credit for all transit benefits provided to employees. And under its
provisions, employees would receive up to $1,380 in free mass-transit
funds this year, with the employer receiving a $690 tax credit.
According to Forbes, the average gasoline costs in the ten worst
commuter cities is $6.35 per day. Should businesses take advantage of
this incentive, they would save their employees $1,600 per year. As
family budgets tighten, an extra $1,600, or if there's two commuters,
$3,200 would really ease burdens of health care and education. Such a
benefit should also include Americans who are not lucky enough to have
a Federal job.
I support H.R. 6052, but I'm surprised that this bill stands for the
principle that if the taxpayer already pays your salary, we will help
you more. But what if you're not lucky enough to have a government-paid
position? Under this bill, you're out of luck. But under our bipartisan
Commuter Act, you would have this benefit, too.
To help commuters, we should pass the bipartisan Commute Act to help
all communities to really lower the gas bill of the United States and
not just offer assistance to people already paid by the Feds.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentleman made a thoughtful observation, and I'm sure the
gentleman is aware that there already is a tax exemption in Federal
code for private sector employers and employees. But that doesn't apply
to the Federal government or to other governmental agencies because
they don't have a tax. So the transit benefit for Federal employees is
a matter that we could do within the context of the current bill.
In the longer term, next year, when we consider the longer-term
authorization, the gentleman's suggestion would be an appropriate
matter for consideration. We will have better figures which we're
requesting now from public agencies for those matters.
Mr. KIRK. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. KIRK. The gentleman is a very good chairman of the Transportation
Committee. I know he wants to go in the right direction. I just wish we
had gotten exactly where he wants to go a little faster today, and I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I wish we could have, too, but we didn't have good
numbers to see what those costs might be.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey), a representative of the beautiful Sonoma Valley.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to thank Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica for this piece
of legislation because, Madam Chairman, it's going to take a big change
in how we do business if our country is going to meet our energy
demands for the future.
While the Republicans in Congress and President Bush chant ``drill,
drill, drill'' to appease, it appears, their big oil buddies, the truth
is we can't drill our way out of this problem. What we need is a
commonsense solution, solutions like the bill before us today. H.R.
6052 won't solve all of our problems, but it does start the process of
getting people to change their habits and get out of their cars by
providing them options of transportation that allow them to get to
where they're going without driving solo in their cars.
It's steps like this that can make a big difference because public
transportation is going to play a huge role in solving our energy
problems. It will also make a difference in what is going on in our
environment. It will help communities not have to build more and more
roads, and it will get people where they're going in a very efficient
way.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to support
the expansion of public transportation.
{time} 1445
Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the T&I Committee, the gentleman from beautiful southwest Louisiana
(Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my friend, the ranking member, and I thank the
committee.
I think this is a good bill. I rise in support of it, but I want to
emphasize that this is really just a short-term relief in what we need
to do. We have to do a whole lot more, and we could do a whole lot
more.
This will provide short-term relief in public transit for those who
use it, but short of a comprehensive policy that involves short-term
solutions, mid-term and long-term, this isn't going to get us anywhere
near to what we need to do to solve our energy problems.
I want to focus on one issue. I mean, clearly, we have to increase
supply, and it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. We've
shown that in my State of Louisiana.
We should lift this moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf, and
that's one way that we can really move things forward quickly.
I would emphasize that, in the cumulative debate that's gone on
today, there's been some misinformation because Louisiana delegations,
in a bipartisan way over the years, over the last decade-and-a-half,
have fought to open the Outer Continental Shelf and provide Outer
Continental Shelf revenue-sharing so that the States could also get
some of this revenue to rebuild their infrastructure. This is a
sensible way. We have fought for this, and we've been blocked by the
other side consistently in this.
I also want to point out with regard to the use-it-or-lose-it issue,
it's very expensive, and companies cannot even get the permitting to
assess with seismic what we know to be these reserves or what we think
are reserves. We don't have definite information. A lot of that
information is 10, 20, 30 years old, if we even have information.
I would say that it costs somewhere between $1 and $5 million just to
get the permit to do seismic. Then you have to get the lease. That's
another anywhere from $11 to over $200 million to secure these leases.
Then you go into seismic, and that can be very expensive. And those
cumulative costs continue to add. By the time you actually get to a
point where you can drill
[[Page H6127]]
a well where you have known reserves, you're talking years down the
line, and typically, it is not unusual for the costs to be up in
billions, $1.5 billion.
That's why it's important to lift this moratorium. Let's move
forward. Let's have a comprehensive energy policy that's not only
focused on supply and increasing exploration and production in an
environmentally sensitive way, but also focuses on renewables and
alternatives, nuclear and the others.
Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time remains on both sides, Madam Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 11\3/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Oregon, a long-time proponent of and advocate for and practitioner of
public transportation, a man who saves 8 barrels of oil a year by
consuming 86,000 calories on his bike.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate
his leadership.
It's interesting for us to hear from some of our friends on the other
side of the aisle, my good friend from Florida, recounting sort of the
history of the Bush administration leadership on energy. I have a
slightly different recollection of that.
One of the first things this administration did when they came to
power was to create 7 years ago a secret task force. They never really
fully released what was going on or why, but we know that it was
dominated by representatives of the industry. And the Secretary of
Energy in March of 2005 indicated that 95 percent of the objectives of
the task force were completed. And then 35 months ago, on the floor of
the House, we passed their big picture energy bill when they controlled
everything, House, Senate, White House, and it was going to envision
great changes for all American families.
Well, all American families have had some significant changes since
the Republican energy bill was passed. Most significant is that
gasoline prices have gone from $2.49 a gallon to over $4 a gallon. The
changes about altered conservation, for instance, have come over the
objections of our friends in the Republican party. Remember, for years,
they made it illegal even to study increasing CAFE standards, and lo
and behold, now George Bush is claiming credit for what we forced him
to do for the first time in 30 years, increasing those fuel standards.
But even if we give him credit for going to 35 miles to the gallon
standard, it took George Bush longer to get to that 35 miles to a
gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to the moon.
This legislation is part of a comprehensive approach. You've seen it
come to pass from our first days in Democratic control in this
Congress, where we provided more incentives for new sources of energy,
where we've worked to shift incentives from massive oil companies who
didn't need our tax dollars. Remember, George Bush said they didn't
need subsidies at $50 a barrel. Well, Big Oil didn't need it at $100
per barrel or $140, but that shift to alternative energy support was
resisted by the administration and by my Republican colleagues.
We have systematically moved forward in areas to give more choices to
Americans. I heard my friend from Louisiana talk about how it costs
money to explore the 68 million acres already available to them. Gee,
ExxonMobil spent $36 billion last year, not in alternative energy, that
was $10 million, but to buy back their own stock.
Let's get a grip. It's time for us to move forward with choices that
will make a difference. This legislation will make a difference for
every community, rural and urban, around the country. I urge its
adoption.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time at this
time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. We have several speakers, Madam Chairman, who have not
arrived yet, and does the gentleman from Florida have other speakers?
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I'm in the same situation that the
gentleman from Minnesota is.
Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman will yield back the balance of his
time, we will yield the balance of our time.
Mr. MICA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, again, I have to compliment Mr. Oberstar, and folks have to
look at what we're doing here this afternoon. This is the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We can't solve all the
energy issues. We have a very small piece, and we're trying to take
care of that small piece here today.
We don't get into some of the other issues that have been raised, but
I must say that I'm going to be going back to Florida tomorrow, and
I'll be talking to folks. And you know, it doesn't take you long to
talk to folks at home and have them get your attention. And they are
getting our attention by saying, what are you doing about $4 a gallon
gasoline, what are you doing about energy costs that are soaring, what
are you doing about the price of food and other things that are being
affected by energy costs.
The people who are on a limited income, God bless them. I don't know
how they're making it, or a fixed income, with the prices that they see
both at the pump, at the store, in their lives. They want answers.
I'm sorry that some of the other committees are not acting and the
Congress is not acting like the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, because when I go home I have to tell them that how things
are left in their Congress was that we took care of a small piece. We
provided transit grants for those Federal employees working outside of
the Beltway. We provided additional grants through eight transit
companies who are hurting because of increased fuel costs and trying to
expand transit service that people are becoming reliant on now because
of the high cost of fuel. But I can't tell them that I've done anything
about supply, that, again, the supply has been cut off.
I even agree with the child that's crying in the gallery. People are
not happy about this. They want a response from this Congress, and this
Congress has the ability to act to increase the supplies so we're not
reliant on reliable friends like Venezuela, the sheiks and leaders in
the Middle East, and that dependable source of energy, Nigeria.
Folks, that isn't going to cut it for an answer when we get home, and
this isn't complicated. It's a question of Economics 101. This is a
question of supply and demand. Right now, in the short-term, we need to
increase supply. If we had worked together over the past 7 years from
that introduction by President Bush some 7 years ago, one of his first
plans--and I cited his rollout statements, and let me just read also
what he said on May 17.
President Bush said: ``Too often, Americans are asked to take sides
between energy production and environmental protection--as if people
who revere the Alaska wilderness do not also care about America's
energy future; as if the people who produce America's energy do not
care about the planet their children will inherit. The truth is energy
production and environmental protection are not competing priorities.
They're dual aspects of a single purpose--to live well and wisely upon
the earth. Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new
tone in discussing energy in the environment, one that is less
suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We've yelled at each other
enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and act.''
Again, these are the words of our President before 9/11 on the energy
issue.
You know, again, if you want to look at the Record, and I will be
glad to submit for the Record how many Republicans and how many
Democrats opposed each of the proposals, all that's history, folks.
What the American people want is now us to act as the President said 7
years ago.
So, today, Mr. Oberstar and I don't bring an answer to the whole
energy problem. We bring our little piece. We ask the rest of the
Congress, I ask the rest of the Congress, to come forth and to act, and
that needs to be done because when we get home, those people are going
to ask you, what did you do about the high cost of energy, the high
cost of food, the businesses that are closing, the lives that are being
impacted by high energy costs, and we need to be able to give them an
answer.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. We do have a speaker on the transit subject, and I'm
very
[[Page H6128]]
pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. I'd like to thank the chairman for yielding and thank
him for his leadership on this subject.
In urban States such as mine in Rhode Island, we have more and more
of our consumers getting caught in traffic jams. The air quality is
increasingly poor, and still, people are having trouble affording to
fill their gas tanks with gas. And this is a tsunami of problems, both
with their paying for their gas, trying to get to work, and the traffic
jams, and breathing in the poor air quality.
{time} 1500
It seems to me adding this $1.5 billion for mass transit solves all
three of these problems: One, it gets cars off the road; two, it allows
us to get our air cleaned up; and three, it helps these consumers be
able to save money that they would otherwise put into their gas tank.
And in doing so, it reduces our demand on foreign oil.
So, really, to reference what some of my colleagues have said, this
is part of the approach to this problem, and I think it's well worth
our taking into account. That is why I support this legislation.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, with great appreciation, and thank him for
making it possible for us to bring this bill to the floor today.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.
Jim Oberstar is one of the most knowledgeable people in America on
energy issues and on transportation issues. And the two, of course, are
closely related. I want to thank him for his leadership and for his
service. We are fortunate, as an American people, to have him chairing
this critically important committee.
There is no stronger proponent of rail service and mass transit than
Jim Oberstar. That service has never been more important than it is
today. His vision and his service have put this country in a place
where we now have the opportunity to make additional investment which
is critically needed so that the demand for mass transit resulting from
the cost of gasoline and energy products can be met by our mass transit
system. And I thank him for his leadership.
This bill, as well as the other two bills considered on this floor
today on drilling and market speculation, is a clear recognition by
this House majority that America's energy policy cannot be one
dimensional.
We've heard a lot of finger pointing on the floor today, and finger
pointing is relatively easy. The fact of the matter is we all need to
come together. I don't just mean Republicans and Democrats and the
Congress of the United States, but all 300 million of us in this
country need to come together and understand that we have 3 percent of
the world's oil supply and 25 percent of the demand. It does not take a
great mathematician to understand, therefore, that simply drilling for
new product will not solve our problem. That is not to say by any
stretch of the imagination that that should not be done.
These bills, taken together, and when combined with other actions
taken by the majority on energy, are a clear reflection of the
alternative to the Republicans' sole focus on drilling, to the
exclusion of alternative and renewable sources of energy.
Let no one be mistaken: Democrats do not oppose further drilling,
discovery and production of product, period. All we are saying, as I
will explain in more detail shortly, is that the oil and gas companies
should utilize the 68 million acres--that's 68 million acres--currently
available to drill on which contain, according to experts, over 100
billion barrels of oil. And we use about 7.5 billion a year in this
country, so that is approximately 14 years of oil. That's what the
experts tell us, not Democrats and Republicans, the experts tell us are
available on these untapped resources currently available, currently
leased. I would tell my friends that, not only that, but they contain
hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas.
Now, as to Chairman Oberstar's bill: It promises Americans relief
from our $4 per gallon gas prices. Tomorrow? No. Next week? No. Next
month? No. Very frankly, we have been too long delaying our investment
in alternative energy sources and alternative transportation modes. But
it does promise that in the future we will have the capability both to
provide mass transit for our people, and to provide for the alternative
to lower demand which, therefore, should lower prices as well.
It authorizes $1.7 billion over the next 2 years to provide grants to
mass transit authorities to reduce public transit fares and will help
transit agencies deal with escalating costs. That is a rational
response to increased demand.
In just the first 3 months of this year, Americans took almost 85
million more trips on public transit than in the same period the year
before. Surely all of us in this body, faced with 85 million additional
trips, will want to respond in a way that provides capacity to
accommodate that growth.
Public transit reduces America's oil consumption as well as carbon
dioxide emissions. Thankfully, the administration has, very late, come
to the conclusion that, yes, global warming is a problem.
Unfortunately, for 7-plus years of this administration they denied it
was a problem, but coming to the right conclusion late is always
timely.
In addition, the legislation on market speculation that was
introduced by Chairman Peterson and Congressman Van Hollen is an effort
which I hope every Member of this body will support to address this
issue, record high gas prices, from another angle.
Oil producers are telling us they believe that a large portion of the
price is related to speculation. Can I guarantee they're right? No, I
cannot. Am I an expert on this issue? I am not. But I do know that they
have said that is the case. If it is the case, it's incumbent upon us
to find out, because if it is, and we can reduce prices for the
consumer at the pump, they expect us to do so and we want to do so.
The Bush administration, of course, insists that the spike in gas
prices is not attributable to market speculation. That may be why the
commission that is supposed to oversee this has not acted as vigorously
as they otherwise might. George Soros, a very successful investor, has
said this: ``The crude oil market has been significantly affected by
speculation.''
The legislation that we will vote on shortly simply directs the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use its full authority and
emergency tools to curtail excessive speculation and other practices
distorting the energy market. Why would any Member of this body vote
against asking this commission to look at that issue to determine
whether or not there is validity? If there is not, presumably the
commission will so find.
Finally, about Chairman Rahall's bill, let me simply say this: What
could make more common sense than saying to the oil and gas companies
that they should drill or pursue drilling on the 68 million acres of
Federal land currently under lease or simply lose those leases? After
all, they are leased for the purposes of us producing more product. If
they lie fallow and are not being worked, not being investigated, not
being explored, not being tapped, then the American consumer finds a
dwindling or short supply. And what happens in that context? Prices go
up. And yes, oil companies make record profits, but consumers lose.
This bill simply says to the oil companies, be diligent in the
development of what you have or lose the lease to someone who will
pursue the discovery and production of oil.
Democrats believe that we need to find product. I mentioned the 68
million acres that you've heard a lot about, that's a lot of acres. But
there is an additional 23 million acres in Alaska, 22 million of which
is under congressional set-aside for oil production and discovery. Nine
hundred thousand acres have already been leased for that purpose. And
experts tell us there is more oil there than there is in the Alaskan
Wildlife Refuge, but our Republican friends continue to focus on the
Alaskan Refuge.
Let no one be mistaken: The oil companies have many acres to look at
onshore and offshore. According to the Minerals Management Service and
the Bureau of Land Management, these 68 million acres on land and
waters, 74
[[Page H6129]]
percent of which we have already leased, are not producing oil and gas.
Our Republican friends have also charged that we're keeping the best
lands out of the hands of oil and gas companies. That is not the case.
They can say it again and again and again and again, but it's not the
case. In fact, 81 percent--I hope all of my colleagues hear this, and I
hope the American public will read the Record--81 percent of estimated
oil and gas resources on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf
are presently available for development. And here, perhaps, is the most
important fact: These resources are equal, as I said, to 107 billion
barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is 10
times the amount of economically recoverable oil that could be produced
from opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and more than 14 years of
current U.S. oil consumption.
Finally, Madam Chairman, let me say that there is no silver bullet,
we all understand that; to pretend otherwise would be dishonest. We
need to be honest with the American public. Unfortunately, for over a
quarter of a century we have had mostly administrations or Republican
control of the House and the Senate which essentially said that
drilling more oil and not looking for alternatives was the policy they
wanted to pursue.
When we got here, we passed an energy bill that focuses on
alternatives. If we only have 3 percent, we have 25 percent of the
demand, you can bet your sweet life that those who have the oil all
over this world are going to say to us, you pay us what we tell you to
pay us. And not until we pursue policies--which this administration has
failed to do, which this Republican leadership failed to do--not until
that time will we be able to say to our friends and, indeed, some not
so friendly, we're not going to pay your price because we have
alternatives. We have mass transit provided by Jim Oberstar. We have
alternative energies provided by the bill that we passed. We are
expecting electricity--which the Republicans oppose--to be produced by
alternatives. We have renewable fuel standards passed in this House,
sent to the Senate.
Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we have taken significant steps
last year, we're taking significant steps today, and we will continue
to take significant steps so that America will be energy independent.
That's in the best interest of our national security, our economic
security and, indeed, it is critically important for our global health.
The bills we are considering on this House floor today are key
components of a comprehensive energy strategy that seeks to provide
Americans with relief at the gas pump while we wean our Nation from its
dangerous addiction to foreign oil. The President said we're addicted
to foreign oil. And yet there was a meeting on energy in 2001, just
after the President became the Chief Executive, and they convened oil
company executives to tell us, what should our policies be? One of my
colleagues said, well, whatever they said--because the meetings were
secret--their policies failed. Perhaps. Perhaps they failed. One cannot
inevitably draw that conclusion, however, because those same companies,
7 years later, are making the greatest profits they have made in the
history of their companies. Perhaps their policies failed, or perhaps
their policies led to success.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need to pursue mass transit and invest in
expanding it so we can meet the demand of our consumers and of our
citizens and of our energy independence.
I thank the gentleman for his leadership. And I urge my colleagues to
vote for all three of these critically important bills. Are they the
sole solution? They are not. Are they the only solution? They are not.
Are they the solutions that we will take and then stop? They are not.
But they are a step, each and every one of them, in the right
direction. Let's take those steps today.
I urge my colleagues to support these three bills.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 6\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
I just want to say that we have a very severe problem in this country
on our energy supplies. In the short term, there are a series of ways
that we might save ourselves some money on the gas prices, and those
ways include driving less, driving slower, carpooling, and using public
transportation where it is available.
{time} 1515
And I have to commend the chairman for bringing so quickly to the
floor this important legislation, which provides a substantial increase
in moneys, authorization, at least, for public transportation, which is
already in place in our smaller metropolitan areas and even in our
rural areas, so that we can enhance the public transportation available
for people--what is already available--and take care of people who are
making that move toward using a bit more public transportation.
In the longer term, which is speaking about the 10-year kind of time
frame, whereas the short term is in the first year or so, in the longer
term, living closer to where we work so you don't have to commute so
far, doing the research and development on renewable energy sources,
drilling wherever it's open for leases, and I say that's in the longer
term because everybody agrees that it will take, even in the best of
circumstances, 5 years to bring new leased areas to production and more
likely 10 years to bring those new leased areas to production, that and
changing over our whole vehicle fleet, our whole vehicle fleet, which
will take a considerable period of time, to using much more fuel-
efficient vehicles, those are the longer-term ways that we can get out
of this problem.
And by far the fastest way to immediately have an effect is the
elimination of speculation. There has been much testimony before our
committees that speculation is a very significant portion of what is
going on right now. The speculative activity in the oil market has
quadrupled in just the last few months, 3 or 4 months, and that would
be the fastest and most effective way.
My friend the ranking member from Florida has pointed out that we
need to increase supply. Well, yes, it would be possible to increase
supply. But remember, as the majority leader said here a few minutes
ago, we in America have 5 percent, somewhat less than 5 percent, of the
planet's population. We are now consuming 25 percent of the oil
produced on this planet today, and we in America have only 3 percent of
the reserves. You can't drill your way out of this problem because we
do not have the reserves.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 2 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman
from Minnesota and as well his ranking member, who I hope is
recognizing the importance of the work that we are doing here today,
and, of course, the Members that have spoken.
Madam Chairman, I rise today to support the Saving Energy Through
Public Transportation Act of 2008 and also to speak to the manager's
amendment that incorporates my language that speaks specifically to
encouraging, I hope insisting, that stakeholders, whether they be
cities and counties or various transit agencies, engage the public in
the question of promoting public transportation.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has shared a recent
study that states that if Americans use public transit at the same rate
as Europeans for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs, the
United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than
40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil that
we import from Saudi Arabia.
Right as we speak, Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the
Nation, is beginning to grow its mass transit system. It started by the
advocation of many of us, including our former mayor Lee P. Brown,
which required,
[[Page H6130]]
because of the restraints here in Washington and the difficulties of
our being able to get consensus, it was started by our own tax dollars.
The 7\1/2\ mile transit system that was started at least 3 or 4 years
ago has now become one of the fastest new starts in America and is
located in my congressional district shared with my fellow colleague in
the Ninth Congressional District. What it says is that new starts
should be increased in months to come. And as we look to expanding
opportunities for transit systems and reducing our use of oil, it is
important as well that we look to collaborative efforts on efficient
transportation systems.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, let me ask my colleagues to
support this legislation, and I hope to get time on the manager's
amendment.
Madam Chairman, thank you, and thank you Chairman Oberstar for your
efforts on energy conservation with H.R. 6052--``Saving Energy through
Public Transportation Act of 2008.'' The Transportation and
Infrastructure has once again produced legislation that will help
Americans save money and develop new modes of transportation.
The primary objective of this legislation is to reduce the United
States dependence on foreign oil by encouraging more people to use
public transportation. The Transportation and Infrastructure has shared
a recent study that states if Americans used public transit at the same
rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs--
the United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more
than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil
that we import from Saudi Arabia each year.
Rising gas prices have only added to this country's economic
downturn. When we add this cost into our troubled housing markets,
soaring food prices, and a war without a clear end--the importance of
this legislation becomes even more apparent.
I urge transportation systems such as Houston METRO to work in
greater coordination with their local community to ensure that routing
lines make not only economic sense, but practical sense as well.
Community involvement is essential, which is why I offered an
amendment that would state that ``public transportation stakeholders
should engage local communities in the education and promotion of the
importance of using public transportation in cities and counties; and
in the planning, development, and design of transportation routing
lines.''
I am pleased that my amendment was incorporated into the manager's
amendment. However, I am disappointed that all the language was not
incorporated--leaving out the key portion of community involvement in
planning, development, and design of transportation routing lines.
I still support this measure and I sincerely hope that our local
public transportation agencies take the communities' use into account
as well as their thoughts on what routes would add value and which
routes may actually do more harm than good. It is our residents who
utilize the mass transit systems not the planning boards.
In my district of Houston, Texas, many residents utilize the public
transit system to alleviate congestion as well as to control cost. I
believe it is imperative that we have full community involvement in the
discussions surrounding outreach, planning, design of mass transit.
Our parents who are trying to hold one child, guide another, balance
their bags and get to work; it is our elderly who need extra time to
get onto trains and buses; and our youth who are trying to get back and
forth to school and activities--these are the people who can and will
utilize public transportation. The incentives are there for commuters
but they should be examined with community involvement so the right
message is sent.
This act will add value to our public transportation by:
Authorizing $1.7 Billion of Capital and Operating Funds for Transit
Agencies to Reduce Fares and Expand Transit Services. This section
authorizes $850 million (General Fund) for each of fiscal years 2008
and 2009 to allow public transit agencies to reduce transit fares and
expand transit services. These funds will allow transit agencies to
provide incentives for commuters to choose transit options, thereby
reducing our nation's transportation-related energy consumption and
reliance on foreign oil, as well as decreasing its greenhouse gas
emissions. These funds will be distributed under current law urban and
rural transit formulas. The Federal share for these grants is 100
percent and funds will only be available for a two-year period.
Increasing the Federal Share for Clean Fuel and Alternative Fuel
Transit Bus, Ferry, or Locomotive-related Equipment and Facilities from
90 percent to 100 percent. The bill increases the Federal share for the
alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment from 90 percent to 100
percent of the net project cost for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Extending Transit Benefits to All Federal Employees. The bill
establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and
requires all Federal agencies in the United States to offer transit
passes to Federal employees.
Requiring the Department of Transportation (DOT) to Establish
Specific Guidance for Implementing the Nationwide Transit Pass Benefits
Program. The guidance will ensure that Federal agencies have the
necessary administrative procedures to ensure that Federal employees
properly use the program. It also requires the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Department of Energy to implement a nationwide three-year pilot transit
pass benefit program for all qualified Federal employees of those
agencies.
Establishing a Vanpool Pilot Program. The bill establishes a two-year
pilot program to allow the amount expended by private providers of
public transportation by vanpool for the acquisition of vans to be used
as the non-Federal share for matching Federal transit funds in five
communities. The provision requires the private providers of vanpool
services to use revenues they receive in providing public
transportation, in excess of its operating costs, for the purpose of
acquiring vans, excluding any amounts the providers may have received
in Federal, State, or local government assistance for such acquisition.
The Department of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool
pilot projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs,
benefits, and efficiencies of the vanpool demonstration projects.
Increasing the Federal Share for Additional Parking Facilities at
End-of-Line Fixed Guideway Stations. The bill increases the Federal
share for additional parking facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway
stations to increase the total number of transit commuters who have
access to those stations.
Therefore Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6052,
which seeks to address energy conservations through public
transportation.
Amendment to H.R. 6052, as Reported
Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Page 3, after line 25, insert the following:
(10) Public transportation stakeholders should engage and
involve local communities in the education and promotion of
the importance of utilizing public transportation in cities
and counties and in the planning, development, and design of
transportation routing lines.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, this is an important debate. It's a little piece of the big
national debate that's going on now. Mr. Oberstar and I lead the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We came forward with this
measure. This measure is within our jurisdiction, as I said earlier,
and it is just a small piece of the puzzle.
Many Members come to me on my side of the aisle and ask me how I am
going to vote, and I am going to support this legislation. It does
increase the authorization. That's a fairly substantial piece of change
by any estimate, $1.7 billion over 2 years, and it does make some
significant changes in policy, in opening up authorization to spend
money to help transit companies and agencies that are suffering like
the American public is suffering with high fuel costs, and I think
that's a good thing. It expands some services for mass transit, which
is also a good thing. And it also expands from just within the beltway
to other Federal employees the benefits of using public transportation,
and that's a good thing too.
This is general debate, and we have gotten into general debate, and I
have heard the distinguished majority leader speak and he quoted George
Soros. I don't use him as a quote too much or rely on him for my
opinion seeking, but I did just happen to have some sources that quote
the American public and their opinion.
The Los Angeles Times Bloomberg Poll said when all registered voters
are asked whether they support increased exploration for oil and
natural gas, 68 percent respond in the affirmative, and that was just
within the last 2 days. Rasmussen reports, according to them, 67
percent of the American people support oil drilling off the Nation's
coasts and 64 percent think it will lower gas prices. Now, they seem to
get it. The other committees with jurisdiction and the rest of Congress
don't seem to get it.
Now, don't tell me you can't do it. I mean this is an incredible
institution
[[Page H6131]]
and can do anything. We represent the greatest ingenuity, the greatest
people that ever walked the face of the Earth. God blessed this Nation
so much, and we are the custodians of coming here and doing things.
Now, Mr. Oberstar and I on a Monday introduced a piece of
legislation. We worked together on it, and within the same week on a
Thursday night, we had the President of the United States at 7 o'clock
at night sign the legislation as is. So we can do these things that the
American people want.
Now, 1 week from tomorrow, people are going to try to celebrate
Independence Day in this great country, this great country for which so
many people made so many sacrifices, and I have to go back home and
tell them I increased transit grants for Federal employees outside the
beltway and I also helped transit agencies who are suffering like they
are to pay their fuel bill, but I don't have an answer for them. That's
not what they want to hear, folks. This is the Congress of the United
States, and we can and we must do better.
I have been here going on my 16th year, not as long as Mr. Oberstar.
He knows transportation inside and out and he's an expert renowned on a
whole host of issues, but the good thing about being here just half as
long as he is that you hear some of these things.
First, we're going to solve this problem; we'll tax it. So what do
they do? They say, windfall taxes for the oil companies that are taking
advantage. Windfall taxes, that's it. So first we'll tax it.
Well, that didn't work. People come up to me, did you ever hear of a
time when you tax something and the price goes down for consumers? Duh.
Well, that didn't work.
So now there's speculation; so we'll get 'em. We'll regulate. We're
going to regulate those speculators. That'll take care of it.
Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MICA. Oh, good. So I can tell this story, Madam Chairman.
This reminds me of sitting on a committee coming here, and this took
over some time. We always hear about high drug prices, and I sat on the
committee, and everyone was railing about the price of vaccination
drugs. So we dragged in the drug companies to sit them down, and I
remember this guy who represented a drug company, and this was an
investigative hearing. And he showed a little vial, and he said, this
vial of vaccine, this medicine, only costs about $2 to produce. So we
hammered him. It only cost $2 to produce, but he said that the
liability on it was reaching $30, so $30 and increasing.
So then we dragged in the insurance company. ``You're charging them
$30 for this vaccine?'' We hammered them. So they left.
And then the next thing we knew was we weren't producing any vaccine
in the United States because no one would insure it. So the next
hearing we held--remember this, now, folks--the next hearing we held
was on its now being produced in Great Britain and we had some bad
batches. Well, we hadn't sent enough FDA inspectors over to inspects
the batches there.
Folks, these aren't the answers: additional taxation, additional
regulation, chasing business off our shores. And the same thing isn't
going to happen with energy. The American people get it. I just read
the poll. It doesn't take a lot, folks. They know if you increase the
supply, the price will go down. And we have the capability of doing
that. We built the Alaska pipeline in 3 years.
Next Friday is Independence Day. It's going to be a sad Independence
Day because instead of America's being independent, we will be
dependent on energy. That's affecting all of us, and it's not right.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I listened with great interest to the gentleman's ruminations on a
wide range of subjects. I won't comment on those that reach beyond the
subject matter at hand, our transit bill. I do reaffirm my appreciation
for his partnership in bringing this bill to the floor.
This is an important piece of legislation. In the larger scheme of
the billions of dollars, $125 billion a year, that we need to be
investing in all levels of government in our surface transportation
system, this $1.7 billion is a relatively small step, but it moves us
in the direction of a mode shift in transportation to 10 percent of all
trips by transit. If we made just that little step in America, we would
save the equivalent of all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. That is
what we can do. It's within our grasp now. We don't need a research
program. We don't need a man-on-the-moon program. We just need the
funding to invest in what is already at hand: solid, responsible,
reliable, effective transportation systems for the public to use
instead of getting in their private vehicle.
{time} 1530
Had the administration in 2003 concurred in a $375 billion
transportation program for the next 6 years, as its own Department of
Transportation recommended, and as Mr. Young, then-chairman of the
committee, and I introduced, we would have been far better positioned
today than we are now.
Instead, that administration proposed only a $5.5 billion funding
flat out over the 6 years for transit. We wound up with $10 billion in
the SAFETEA legislation over the 5 years of the legislation. But we
have to do far better than that, and this bill moves us in the right
direction.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6052, the
Savings Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, H.R. 6052.
As gas prices continue to skyrocket to over $4 a gallon, commuters
are increasingly abandoning their automobiles in favor of public
transportation. New Jersey's public transit agency, NJ Transit, is
breaking ridership records for the sixth consecutive year, with over
900,000 trips per weekday on its trains, buses, and light-rail
vehicles. In the first 3 months of this year, public transit trips
nationwide increased by 85 million over last year's numbers. Amtrak set
record highs for its service with over 25 million users last year. This
increase in use not only takes cars off our overburdened roadways, it
conserves energy, decreases our greenhouse gas emissions, and helps our
economy.
However, mass transit agencies are also suffering from soaring gas
prices, increased demand for their services, and decreased operating
budgets. Transit agencies are paying 44 percent more for diesel fuel
than they were at the beginning of this year, and almost half of bus
operators and more than two-thirds of rail operators have increased
their fares.
The Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008 would
help State and local mass transit authorities meet the increase in
demand and allow them to provide a cost-effective alternative to
driving. This legislation would authorize $1.7 billion in grants for
mass transit agencies to upgrade and expand their transit services
without having to further increase their fares.
By taking public transportation the average American household could
save $6,251 and help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4,800 pounds
per year. However, commuters need affordable, reliable access to public
transportation if they are to utilize these benefits. This bill would
help make public transit more available to commuters, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Saving
Energy through Public Transportation Act.
My constituents are struggling to pay rising gas prices caused in
part by wild speculation in oil markets. By providing greater access to
public transportation we can reduce the demand for oil and help lower
the price of gasoline. With increased use of public transit, we can
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen the economy by removing
congestion from our already crowded roads.
I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for including the ``Capital
Cost of Contracting'' pilot program in this bill. Congressman Mike
Rogers and I have long supported this program.
The provision makes it easier for employers and communities to offer
vanpool services by leveraging their investment with Federal transit
funds. By doing this, we can lower the cost of joining a vanpool and
increase services nationwide. It is estimated that full adoption of
this program could triple vanpooling across the Nation. This would
conserve over 500 million gallons of fuel per year and greatly reduce
harmful emissions. I appreciate the inclusion of this provision in the
bill and applaud Chairman Oberstar for his determined efforts to
provide public transit to more Americans.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in
strong support of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public
Transportation Act.
[[Page H6132]]
At the onset I want to commend the bipartisan leadership of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their efforts in
getting this measure to the floor. The legislation before us is a good
bill; one that will provide a much needed hand up to our Nation's
transit agencies as they work to meet record demands for public
transportation services.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Agency, or DART, headquartered in my
congressional district and one of the best transit agencies in the
country, fully supports this bill. Similar to other agencies around the
country, DART ridership is setting records, as more north Texans
recognize the immense value transit offers.
In May, DART had its busiest month ever, providing 10.3 million
trips. North Texans are flocking to transport by rail in record numbers
as ridership by light and commuter rail is up 5.4 percent and 7.1
percent respectively over 2007 numbers. During the first 7 months of
2008, DART has witnessed a dramatic 33.8 percent increase in its
vanpool ridership.
The agency has acted aggressively to accommodate the increased
demand. The agency is utilizing a new super light rail vehicle to
increase passenger capacity.
The agency now has a record 145 vans in operation for vanpool
commuters and has reached its budget maximum. My transit agency could
benefit immediately from the tools provided under H.R. 6052.
H.R. 6052 will help transit agencies expand services and reach more
people as it authorizes $1.7 billion dollars for capital and operating
funds for transit agencies; increases the Federal cost share for
alternative fuel transit buses; extends transit benefits to all Federal
employees; establishes a vanpool pilot program; and increases the
Federal cost share for commuter parking facilities so more people may
have access to commuter stations.
Madam Chairman, without question, there is a need for an overall
expansion of transit programs across this country. However, in order
for this to happen, there must be a realignment of infrastructure
investment priorities and increased support at the local, State, and
Federal levels. H.R. 6052 is a step in the right direction as it
highlights importance of transit expansion across the Nation.
Public transit takes drivers off the road; uses one-half the fuel of
private automobiles; and saves working families billions annually in
transportation costs. Studies show transportation costs are the second
largest household expense behind housing costs.
Nationally, for every dollar a working family saves on housing, it
spends 77 cents more on transportation costs.
While public transit remains an option for some--for poor and working
families, public transit exists as a means for economic survival.
So with that said Madam Chairman, I would merely like to reiterate my
strong support for H.R. 6052 and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in
giving transit agencies across the country, and the millions of people
they service, a hand up today. This sound, bipartisan piece of
legislation is deserving of passage.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, the run-up in gas prices is
squeezing families and sending them in search of cheaper alternatives
to driving.
As a result, our public transit authorities are also feeling the
pinch as rising fuel costs and record ridership strain their systems.
Almost half of bus operators and two-thirds of rail operators have
been forced to raise their fares.
Today, we are considering H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy through Public
Transportation Act, which provides grants to mass transit systems to
reduce fares and expand services for commuters.
Using public transportation saves the average household more than
$6,000 a year and reduces dangerous carbon dioxide emissions that
contribute to global warming.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to get on the bus and support
this bill.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Chairman, l would like to recognize Chairman
Oberstar and Chairman DeFazio for their exceptional leadership on this
critical transportation issue.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6052, the Saving
Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, and urge swift
passage of the measure.
This bipartisan bill goes a long way in improving public
transportation.
By creating incentives for transit agencies to reduce fares and
expand services, H.R. 6052 makes public transportation a more
attractive option for commuters.
But this bill also provides relief to many of our transit agencies
who are struggling with operational costs.
I've heard from agencies in my district, like Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority, who have seen an increase in ridership, yet
face the problem of record fuel prices.
They are begging for more resources just to stay afloat.
So I support the additional $200 million that this bill authorizes
for formula grants to rural areas.
Additionally, I applaud Chairman Oberstar for including a fuel
provision in the Manager's Amendment, which will help our transit
agencies deal with their fuel costs.
With their increased ridership, they need help now more than ever.
I believe H.R. 6052 will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by
encouraging more people to use public transportation.
Public transit is a critical piece of cutting greenhouse gases.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6052
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Saving Energy Through Public
Transportation Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) In 2007, people in the United States took more than
10.3 billion trips using public transportation, the highest
level in 50 years.
(2) Public transportation use in the United States is up 32
percent since 1995, a figure that is more than double the
growth rate of the Nation's population and is substantially
greater than the growth rate for vehicle miles traveled on
the Nation's highways for that same period.
(3) Public transportation use saves fuel, reduces
emissions, and saves money for the people of the United
States.
(4) The direct petroleum savings attributable to public
transportation use is 1.4 billion gallons per year, and when
the secondary effects of transit availability on travel are
also taken into account, public transportation use saves the
United States the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of
gasoline per year (more than 11 million gallons of gasoline
per day).
(5) Public transportation use in the United States is
estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 37 million
metric tons annually.
(6) An individual who commutes to work using a single
occupancy vehicle can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20
pounds per day (more than 4,800 pounds per year) by switching
to public transportation.
(7) Public transportation use provides an affordable
alternative to driving, as households that use public
transportation save an average of $6,251 every year.
(8) Although under existing laws Federal employees in the
National Capital Region receive transit benefits, transit
benefits should be available to all Federal employees in the
United States so that the Federal Government sets a leading
example of greater public transportation use.
(9) Increasing public transportation use is a national
priority.
SEC. 3. GRANTS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.
(a) Authorizations of Appropriations.--
(1) Urbanized area formula grants.--In addition to amounts
allocated under section 5338(b)(2)(B) of title 49, United
States Code, to carry out section 5307 of such title, there
is authorized to be appropriated $750,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry out such section 5307.
Such funds shall be apportioned in accordance with section
5336 (other than subsections (i)(1) and (j)) of such title
but may not be combined or commingled with any other funds
apportioned under such section 5336.
(2) Formula grants for other than urbanized areas.--In
addition to amounts allocated under section 5338(b)(2)(G) of
title 49, United States Code, to carry out section 5311 of
such title, there is authorized to be appropriated
$100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry
out such section 5311. Such funds shall be apportioned in
accordance with such section 5311 but may not be combined or
commingled with any other funds apportioned under such
section 5311.
(b) Use of Funds.--Notwithstanding sections 5307 and 5311
of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary of
Transportation may make grants under such sections from
amounts appropriated under subsection (a) only for one or
more of the following:
(1) If the recipient of the grant is reducing, or certifies
to the Secretary that, during the term of the grant, the
recipient will reduce one or more fares the recipient charges
for public transportation, those operating costs of equipment
and facilities being used to provide the public
transportation that the recipient is no longer able to pay
from the revenues derived from such fare or fares as a result
of such reduction.
(2) If the recipient of the grant is expanding, or
certifies to the Secretary that, during the term of the
grant, the recipient will expand public transportation
service, those operating and capital costs of equipment and
facilities being used to provide the public transportation
service that the recipient incurs as a result of the
expansion of such service.
(c) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Federal share of the costs for which a grant is made
under this section shall be 100 percent.
[[Page H6133]]
(d) Period of Availability.--Funds appropriated under this
section shall remain available for a period of 2 fiscal
years.
SEC. 4. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR CLEAN AIR ACT COMPLIANCE.
Notwithstanding section 5323(i)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, a grant for a project to be assisted under
chapter 53 of such title during fiscal years 2008 and 2009
that involves acquiring clean fuel or alternative fuel
vehicle-related equipment or facilities for the purposes of
complying with or maintaining compliance with the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) shall be for 100 percent of the
net project cost of the equipment or facility attributable to
compliance with that Act unless the grant recipient requests
a lower grant percentage.
SEC. 5. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFITS.
(a) Requirement That Agencies Offer Transit Pass
Transportation Fringe Benefits to Their Employees
Nationwide.--
(1) In general.--Section 3049(a)(1) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (5 U.S.C. 7905 note; 119 Stat. 1711) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``Effective'' and all that follows through
``each covered agency'' and inserting ``Each agency''; and
(B) by inserting ``at a location in an urbanized area of
the United States that is served by fixed route public
transportation'' before ``shall be offered''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 3049(a) of such Act (5
U.S.C. 7905 note; 119 Stat. 1711) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking subparagraph (A); and
(ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (F) as
subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively; and
(B) in paragraph (4) by striking ``a covered agency'' and
inserting ``an agency''.
(b) Guidance.--Section 3049(a) of such Act (5 U.S.C. 7905
note; 119 Stat. 1711) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Guidance.--
``(A) Issuance.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of Transportation
shall issue guidance on nationwide implementation of the
transit pass transportation fringe benefits program under
this subsection.
``(B) Uniform application.--
``(i) In general.--The guidance to be issued under
subparagraph (A) shall contain a uniform application for use
by all Federal employees applying for benefits from an agency
under the program.
``(ii) Required information.--As part of such an
application, an employee shall provide, at a minimum, the
employee's home and work addresses, a breakdown of the
employee's commuting costs, and a certification of the
employee's eligibility for benefits under the program.
``(iii) Warning against false statements.--Such an
application shall contain a warning against making false
statements in the application.
``(C) Independent verification requirements.--The guidance
to be issued under subparagraph (A) shall contain independent
verification requirements to ensure that, with respect to an
employee of an agency--
``(i) the eligibility of the employee for benefits under
the program is verified by an official of the agency;
``(ii) employee commuting costs are verified by an official
of the agency; and
``(iii) records of the agency are checked to ensure that
the employee is not receiving parking benefits from the
agency.
``(D) Program implementation requirements.--The guidance to
be issued under subparagraph (A) shall contain program
implementation requirements applicable to each agency to
ensure that--
``(i) benefits provided by the agency under the program are
adjusted in cases of employee travel, leave, or change of
address;
``(ii) removal from the program is included in the
procedures of the agency relating to an employee separating
from employment with the agency; and
``(iii) benefits provided by the agency under the program
are made available using an electronic format (rather than
using paper fare media) where such a format is available for
use.
``(E) Enforcement and penalties.--The guidance to be issued
under subparagraph (A) shall contain a uniform administrative
policy on enforcement and penalties. Such policy shall be
implemented by each agency to ensure compliance with program
requirements, to prevent fraud and abuse, and, as
appropriate, to penalize employees who have abused or misused
the benefits provided under the program.
``(F) Periodic reviews.--The guidance to be issued under
subparagraph (A) shall require each agency, not later than
September 1 of the first fiscal year beginning after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, and every 3 years thereafter,
to develop and submit to the Secretary a review of the
agency's implementation of the program. Each such review
shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
``(i) An assessment of the agency's implementation of the
guidance, including a summary of the audits and
investigations, if any, of the program conducted by the
Inspector General of the agency.
``(ii) Information on the total number of employees of the
agency that are participating in the program.
``(iii) Information on the total number of single occupancy
vehicles removed from the roadway network as a result of
participation by employees of the agency in the program.
``(iv) Information on energy savings and emissions
reductions, including reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
resulting from reductions in single occupancy vehicle use by
employees of the agency that are participating in the
program.
``(v) Information on reduced congestion and improved air
quality resulting from reductions in single occupancy vehicle
use by employees of the agency that are participating in the
program.
``(vi) Recommendations to increase program participation
and thereby reduce single occupancy vehicle use by Federal
employees nationwide.
``(6) Reporting requirements.--Not later than September 30
of the first fiscal year beginning after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, and every 3 years thereafter,
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate a report on nationwide implementation of the transit
pass transportation fringe benefits program under this
subsection, including a summary of the information submitted
by agencies pursuant to paragraph (5)(F).''.
(c) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise specifically
provided, the amendments made by this section shall become
effective on the first day of the first fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. CAPITAL COST OF CONTRACTING VANPOOL PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish and implement a pilot program to carry out vanpool
demonstration projects in not more than 3 urbanized areas and
not more than 2 other than urbanized areas.
(b) Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 5323(i) of title
49, United States Code, for each project selected for
participation in the pilot program, the Secretary shall allow
the non-Federal share provided by a recipient of assistance
for a capital project under chapter 53 of such title to
include the amounts described in paragraph (2).
(2) Conditions on acquisition of vans.--The amounts
referred to in paragraph (1) are any amounts expended by a
private provider of public transportation by vanpool for the
acquisition of vans to be used by such private provider in
the recipient's service area, excluding any amounts the
provider may have received in Federal, State, or local
government assistance for such acquisition, if the private
provider enters into a legally binding agreement with the
recipient that requires the private provider to use all
revenues it receives in providing public transportation in
such service area, in excess of its operating costs, for the
purpose of acquiring vans to be used by the private provider
in such service area.
(c) Program Term.--The Secretary may approve an application
for a vanpool demonstration project for fiscal years 2008
through 2009.
(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing
an assessment of the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of the
vanpool demonstration projects.
SEC. 7. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR END-OF-LINE FIXED
GUIDEWAY STATIONS.
Notwithstanding section 5309(h) of title 49, United States
Code, a grant for a capital project to be assisted under
section 5309 of such title during fiscal years 2008 and 2009
that involves the acquisition of real property for, or the
design, engineering, or construction of, additional parking
facilities at an end-of-line fixed guideway station shall be
for 100 percent of the net capital cost of the project unless
the grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in House Report 110-734. Each amendment may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in House Report 110-734.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
Page 3, after line 23, insert the following:
(9) Public transportation stakeholders should engage and
involve local communities in the education and promotion of
the importance of utilizing public transportation.
Page 3, line 24, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
[[Page H6134]]
Page 4, line 10, after ``apportioned'' insert ``, not later
than 7 days after the date on which the funds are
appropriated,''.
Page 4, line 21, after ``apportioned'' insert ``, not later
than 7 days after the date on which the funds are
appropriated,''.
Page 5, line 5, after ``Secretary'' insert ``within the
time the Secretary prescribes''.
Page 5, line 7, after ``transportation,'' insert ``or in
the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity
bus service,''.
Page 5, line 9, after ``transportation'' insert ``, or in
the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity
bus service,''.
Page 5, line 14, after ``Secretary'' insert ``within the
time the Secretary prescribes''.
Page 5, line 16, after ``service,'' insert ``or in the case
of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus
service,''.
Page 5, line 18, after ``service'' insert ``, or in the
case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus
service,''.
Page 5, after line 19, insert the following:
(3) To avoid increases in fares for public transportation,
or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311,
intercity bus service, or decreases in current public
transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of
such section 5311, intercity bus service, that would
otherwise result from an increase in costs to the public
transportation or intercity bus agency for transportation-
related fuel or meeting additional transportation-related
equipment or facility maintenance needs, if the recipient of
the grant certifies to the Secretary within the time the
Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the
recipient will not increase the fares that the recipient
charges for public transportation, or in the case of
subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service,
or, will not decrease the public transportation service, or
in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity
bus service, that the recipient provides.
(4) If the recipient of the grant is acquiring, or
certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary
prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient
will acquire, clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related
equipment or facilities for the purpose of improving fuel
efficiency, the costs of acquiring the equipment or
facilities.
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 8. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
carry out a national consumer awareness program to educate
the public on the environmental, energy, and economic
benefits of public transportation alternatives to the use of
single occupancy vehicles.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for
fiscal year 2009. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment clarifies that transit agencies may use these new
grants to offset the increased cost of fuel to transit agencies. Every
penny additional to the cost of diesel and gasoline fuel, public
transportation faces a cost of $7.6 million.
The amendment clarifies that intercity bus service is an eligible
activity under the bill. The intercity bus provision was included in
the version of the bill that passed the House last year, but through a
drafting error, was left out when we reintroduced it. We correct that
mistake.
Many transit agencies, rural and small urban centers alike, contract
with intercity bus providers for more mobility. So it's important that
these services are eligible for the new grants created by this bill.
We clarify that transit agencies may use the new transit grants to
offset the increased cost of maintenance as they struggle to cope with
recordbreaking ridership increases. I have been to transit agency
maintenance centers and found very skilled workmen welding new pieces
of steel in the support structures of buses that have rusted out over
years of use.
Transit buses are now, on average, 12 to 14 years. They should be
replacing them every 7 to 8 years. We are seeing a million miles of
ridership on a bus a year. They need to upgrade and improve and
continue their maintenance.
Many transit agencies are reporting surges in ridership and, at the
same time, difficulty maintaining existing services because of higher
fuel prices. So we are providing funding to all those transit agencies
to respond to their current needs.
I want to thank several of our colleagues for agreeing to have their
amendments incorporated into the manager's amendment to expedite
consideration of the bill: The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) whose
amendment helps transit fleets become more fuel efficient by providing
more funding for clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related
equipment or facilities; the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer)
whose amendment creates a national consumer awareness program to
educate the public on environmental, energy, and economic benefits of
public transportation; and the Jackson-Lee amendment that clarifies
that public transportation stakeholders should engage and involve local
communities in the education and promotion of public transportation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MICA. I claim the time in opposition, but I do rise in support of
the manager's amendment. I particularly find most attractive in this
measure the provision that would allow grant funding to subsidize
increased full costs for some of our transit systems in the country.
My support is not based on some lobbyist from a transit agency in New
York or Washington or Orlando. My support is based on probably a little
lady whose face I have never seen, but she wrote me and said, Mr. Mica,
she said, They are going to cut one of the routes and I have no other
way to get to work, and I am a constituent in your district. They are
going to cut off those routes because of the higher fuel cost.
So the reason I support this is because someone in my district is
being dramatically affected. It may not be a big deal here in Congress,
but I can assure you in that lady's life, if she can't get to work and
make a living, it's a big deal to her. So that is why I support this
manager's amendment and this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I have no further speakers on this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McGovern
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 110-734.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from
Virginia for purposes of offering the amendment?
Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern:
Page 7, after line 12, insert the following:
(b) Benefits Described.--Section 3049(a)(2) of such Act (5
U.S.C. 7905 note; 119 Stat. 1711) is amended by striking the
period at the end and inserting the following: ``, except
that the maximum level of such benefits shall be the maximum
amount which may be excluded from gross income for qualified
parking as in effect for a month under section 132(f)(2)(B)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
Page 7, line 13, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 12, line 6, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman
from Minnesota and the gentleman from Florida for their hard work on
this important legislation. I am offering an amendment, along with my
colleague from Virginia (Mr. Davis). He has been a very important
collaborator in this effort.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Davis-McGovern
amendment. Like the underlying legislation, the purpose of this
amendment is to reduce energy consumption by promoting public
transportation. This amendment seeks to equalize the current
transportation fringe benefit offered to Federal employees who commute
to work via public transportation
[[Page H6135]]
with the current benefit for those who drive to work by themselves.
Currently, $220 per month in pretax benefits can be offered to
Federal employees who drive to work and pay for parking, while these
who opt to take a train, bus, or other form of public transit are only
eligible for $115 a month. This disparity has had the reverse effect of
what the transportation fringe benefit was geared to do, and that is to
take commuters out of their personal automobiles by incentivizing them
to use public transportation.
Madam Chairman, this bipartisan amendment will do much more than get
people to use public transportation. With fewer people driving to work,
less gasoline is consumed, less wear and tear is done to our roads and
bridges, and less emissions are released into the air. As Congress
seeks ways to combat climate change and become energy independent, one
of the best ways to make an immediate impact is by offering cleaner,
greener commuting options for our workforce.
According to the current estimates, Americans save $340 million a
year in fuel costs as a result of the transit benefit. Increasing the
transit benefit will result in a corresponding increase in that
savings. As we look for ways to provide relief from skyrocketing fuel
prices, the transit benefit is a proven part of the solution.
I ask my colleagues to support the Davis-McGovern amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MICA. I yield myself 1 minute.
I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern). As has been explained, this does provide the Federal
employee transportation benefit program, which has been so successful,
is expanded in its usage, and for that, I think that our side agrees,
and this is a bipartisan amendment and has our full support.
On behalf of Mr. Davis, I urge adoption of that.
I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I would like to reserve the remaining
time to the coauthor of this amendment, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I rise today in strong support of the Davis-
McGovern amendment to the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation
Act of 2008. This amendment will increase the cap on the monthly amount
available to Federal employees nationwide who ride mass transit. For
calendar year 2008, this would increase the reimbursement for Federal
employees who ride mass transit from $115 per month to $220 per month.
At a time when transportation costs are escalating, with no end in
sight, this amendment will have a positive impact on the lives and
well-being of the Federal workforce. In addition, it will help promote
the use of mass transit by Federal employees nationwide.
For the National Capital Region, this benefit should have a
significant impact on the commuting habit of Federal employees. An
estimated 165,000 Federal employees currently participate in the
Federal transit benefit program. We are hopeful that this amendment
will encourage additional employees to leave their cars at home and
commute using mass transit, resulting in less traffic on our region's
already congested roadways.
As an added incentive, employees using Metro would also have the
option of using this added benefit to pay for parking at mass transit
stations because employees who ride Metro use the same SmarTrip card to
pay for both rail service and mass transit parking.
As a Member of Congress representing the National Capital Region, I
have spent a lot of my career trying to find ways to promote the use of
mass transit in our workforce. I believe this amendment will be an
important step forward in both areas.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It's a
``two-fer,'' supporting the Federal workforce and promoting energy
conservation through the increased use of public transportation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman from Florida yield a minute of his
time?
Mr. MICA. May I inquire as to how much time we have.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\ remaining. The
gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I do so simply to express my support for the amendment, on which Mr.
Mica and I have agreed, but also to point out that in the body of the
bill there are protections and safeguards for the proper use of the
transit pass authority provided in the additional funding increase in
the monthly limit for the transit benefit. There have been reports of
abuse of transit passes in the past year. An investigation by the
Office of Inspector General revealed that there are some abuses.
We have provided protection against such abuses in the base of the
bill underlying this legislation. I wanted to point that out for those
who may have been concerned to assure that the committee has taken
appropriate steps to assure that transit passes are used by the person
for whom intended and for the purpose for which intended.
Mr. MICA. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
{time} 1545
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. McGovern and my friend
from Virginia. This is really important for us, to be able to start
equalizing the playing field. I think there is nothing at this point in
the game that is more critical than giving people transportation
choices. I appreciate the long-term interest and advocacy that you have
had in terms of doing this. I think it is an important step to make
sure that commuters across the country are treated in a fair and
equitable fashion.
I am hopeful that the body will embrace this, that we will be able to
deal with it in an aggressive sense, both in terms of the Ways and
Means Committee, that we can work with our colleagues to find ways in
the Tax Code to make the adjustments that are necessary to cushion the
commuter cost of transit users, as well as people who use their
vehicles; that we deal with some people who have extraordinary costs
because of the long distances commute, and I think there are ways that
we can adjust this.
I would beg their indulgence for one modest potential adjustment, and
that is while this moves forward to make a difference for people who
are commuting, I would hope there would be some way we could work
together to also include equity for people who burn calories instead of
fossil fuel, because as yet, the Tax Code and the policies do not
provide equity for Mr. Oberstar's friendly, favorite people, the
cyclists, although we have passed that three times through the House
this year previously. Being able to put cycling communities along with
transit and auto communities will make a big difference in the long
run.
I appreciate this leadership and look forward to working with them to
make progress in the future.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 110-734.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 8. EXCEPTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCUREMENT
REQUIREMENT.
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142) is amended--
(1) by striking ``No Federal agency'' and inserting ``(a)
Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
Federal agency''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page H6136]]
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not prohibit a
Federal agency from entering into a contract to purchase a
generally available fuel that is not an alternative or
synthetic fuel or predominantly produced from a
nonconventional petroleum source, if--
``(1) the contract does not specifically require the
contractor to provide an alternative or synthetic fuel or
fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source;
``(2) the purpose of the contract is not to obtain an
alternative or synthetic fuel or fuel from a nonconventional
petroleum source; and
``(3) the contract does not provide incentives for a
refinery upgrade or expansion to allow a refinery to use or
increase its use of fuel from a nonconventional petroleum
source.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mahoney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. MAHONEY of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for
bringing this bill, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act
of 2008, to the floor today.
Madam Chairman, 232 years ago, this country fought to gain its
political independence. Today, as we approach Independence Day, it is
time that we must fight for energy independence.
Madam Chairman, as we all know, Americans are suffering because of
high gas prices. But some of the recent proposals we have seen in the
past week are political opportunism at its worst. Take the proposal to
end the moratorium on offshore drilling. Not only could drilling
imperil Florida's $65 billion tourist industry, but there is
insufficient oil to meaningfully address demand.
In 2007, the Energy Department found that drilling off the coast
would not add to domestic production before 2030, and that the impact
on gas prices would be insignificant. Further, the U.S. proven reserves
are approximately 2 percent of the world's supply, yet we continue to
be the number one consumer of oil in the world, consuming about 25
percent of the world's production. So anyone who stands here and says
we are going to drill our way out of this problem is not being honest
with the American public. It is time to get real, and it is time to
take action now.
While there are no easy answers, there are significant steps that we
can take to stabilize gas prices.
First, I am a proud cosponsor of the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas
Lease Act of 2008, and I urge my colleagues to support this critical
legislation. At a time when gas prices are skyrocketing, oil and gas
companies should not be allowed to stockpile leases and they should be
required to drill on the leases they own. They should use it or lose
it.
Second, Congress needs to investigate the impact of speculation in
the commodities market and the impact that has on the price of oil. It
is time to know whether energy speculators are gaming the system to
make money at the expense of hard-working Americans.
Third, we must continue to bring alternative energy to the country
and to Florida. Recently, the farm and energy bills have set the stage
for Florida to become the biofuels capital of America. We must continue
to invest in cellulosic ethanol so we can become energy independent.
Fourth, we must recognize that the reckless fiscal policies of this
administration have racked up a $6 trillion debt and this debt is
ravaging the value of the dollar. In the past 6 years, this has
contributed to a 40 percent devaluation of the dollar, and the fact
that oil is a dollar-indexed commodity, the American people now know
that when the value of the dollar goes down, the price at the pump goes
up. The American people can no longer afford these reckless policies
and this reckless deficit spending, and this Congress must make it
stop.
Lastly, we need to reduce the barriers to importing Canadian oil,
which is why I am offering my amendment today which would clarify
language in section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 so that it does not apply to Canadian oil.
I appreciate the hard work that my colleagues Congressman Boren and
Congressman Lampson have already done on this issue. For those of you
who don't know, section 526 prevents the U.S. Government from
purchasing an unconventional fuel whose carbon footprint is higher than
a conventional fuel. Canada has vast supplies of natural gas and has
the world's second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, and
Canada is the largest supplier of crude oil and refined products to the
United States, supplying approximately 13 percent of total U.S.
imports.
My amendment will clarify that section 526 does not preclude Federal
agencies from purchasing generally available fuels, and that includes
fuel from Canada's oil sands, refined using existing commercial
processes. Through my amendment, we can address both a national energy
supply issue and a national security issue. After all, who would you
rather import oil from; our good friends up north in Canada, or from
the Middle East?
The time has come for real solutions, not rhetoric. Today's actions
take important steps to help us stop skyrocketing gas prices and put us
on the road to energy independence. I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Let me say that the only problem that I have with this
amendment as offered from my colleague from Florida is the amendment
does not go far enough in correcting or addressing all of the problems
caused by section 526 of the energy bill that prohibits the Federal
Government from using coal derived, oil shale and other non-petroleum-
based alternative fuels regardless of existing procurement rules or
what is actually cost efficient or practical.
I am not going to vote against his amendment, but I do have some
concerns I wanted to express against the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the proponent of the amendment has expired.
The gentleman has the only time remaining. The gentleman will need to
close and yield back the balance of his time.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, the reference was made by my other
friend from Florida that there was a related provision that passed last
week on a 429-1 vote. I confess to being the one person who voted
against that. I had some concerns about how that was framed.
I went back and did some research and concluded that my ``no'' vote
was ill-advised, although it wasn't determinative, and I wanted to
indicate that I personally support what is being proposed here. I think
it is a reasonable compromise to deal with issues that need to be
taken, and I appreciate my friend's courtesy in allowing me to do my
mea culpa while you wait for your other speaker.
Mr. MICA. I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point
out, again, I am not going to object. I have concerns. I would like to
have gone further.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Florida for giving me a
moment to speak on this bill.
We have had examples here all day today of the fact we are not going
to be able to pass any meaningful energy legislation in this week
before we go home for the 4th of July holiday. It is not just
Republicans who are saying this. I want to point out the fact that in
today's Politico, the story is headlined: ``Pelosi's Pump Pain.
Aggressive Pre-Recess Plan Goes By the Wayside.''
I would like to introduce this, without objection, into the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. FOXX. ``Speaker Nancy Pelosi hoped to send House Democrats home
for the Fourth of July recess with a series of votes that would show
they're
[[Page H6137]]
serious about easing the pain at the pump.''
That obviously is not going to be done. We are passing bills here
today that deserve the ``Emperor's New Clothes Award.'' Somebody has to
stand up and say the emperor has no new clothes, because the bills that
we are being asked to vote on are shams. We are not doing anything to
help average, hardworking Americans who are paying over $4 a gallon for
gasoline as a result of the Democrats' control in the last 18 months of
this Congress.
This is a sham. This is for show. They are going to go home and say
they did something, but they did nothing to help the average working
American, and it is time that people said so. We don't need to be
allowing this sham to continue without being able to talk about it.
It says here ``nothing has gone according to plan. The price-gouging
bill failed to garner the two-thirds support necessary to pass.'' Even
Democrats are speaking against the bill. They are talking about how it
is going to hurt gas-producing States and the gas-producing people are
opposed to it, the Democrats are.
So nothing that is going on here is really going to help those of you
who are paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline in this country. All we
are doing is letting the Democrats put on a show that says that they
are reducing the price of gasoline, when they are not.
Pelosi's Pump Pain--Aggressive pre-recess plan goes by wayside
(By Patrick O'Connor)
Speaker Nancy Pelosi hoped to send House Democrats home for
the Fourth of July recess with a series of votes that would
show they're serious about easing the pain at the pump.
Their wish list included legislation giving the federal
government more authority to crack down on price-gouging by
oil companies and smaller vendors, a bill requiring energy
producers to relinquish any land not currently being tapped
for oil or gas production, and a measure creating new
restrictions for commodity traders whose speculation has
driven up the price of oil.
But nothing has gone according to plan.
The price-gouging bill failed to garner the two-thirds
support necessary to pass. An accounting issue forced leaders
to put off for a day the so-called ``use it or lose it''
measure. And the legislation to curb speculation is now
caught up in a member fight over the proper path forward--a
fight that exposes the misgivings some Democrats have about
this activist agenda.
So instead of a barrage of legislation aimed at knocking
back the Republicans' gas price assault, Democrats will
settle for a measure giving local transit agencies $850
million in each of the next two years to reduce prices and
add routes, as well as a symbolic vote calling on President
Bush to crack down on ``excessive'' commodity speculation.
The Democrats' stumbles come as congressional Republicans
continue to push aggressively for more domestic oil and gas
production on the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as for an ambitious
plan to turn coal shale beneath the High Plains into natural
gas.
Republicans claim an amendment--offered by Pennsylvania
Rep. John E. Peterson--to open offshore drilling sites 50
miles off the coast has enough support to survive a committee
vote on the Appropriations panel.
The committee postponed consideration of the measure on
which Peterson planned to offer his amendment, but Chairman
Dave Obey (D-Wis.) told members Tuesday he plans to bring it
up when lawmakers return from the weeklong Fourth of July
recess.
As the Democrats struggle to hold together support for the
existing offshore drilling ban, they find themselves coming
apart on another energy issue: what to do about oil
speculators.
Some Democrats, such as Agriculture Committee Chairman
Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Rep. Bob Etheridge of North
Carolina, would like party leaders to advance a modest
measure that gives federal regulators more resources to crack
down on ``excessive'' speculation in the United States and
abroad.
``I'm not, at this point, sold that speculation is the
reason these prices are going up,'' Peterson said.
Others, such as Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Maryland
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Party's campaign chief,
have urged the speaker to go further by making substantive
changes to the current laws, members and aides said.
Add to that a jurisdictional squabble between Peterson's
Agriculture Committee and members of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee--including Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart
Stupak--who have been working on this issue for years, and
Pelosi faces a major internal challenge in bringing this
legislation to the floor.
The speaker met with these and other members for more than
an hour Wednesday morning. They were joined by Michae1
Greenberger, a law school professor at the University of
Maryland and a former director of trading and markets at the
Commodity futures Trading Commission, who has testified
before Congress that speculators are driving up the price of
oil.
But the participants who emerged from that meeting
suggested the various committees of jurisdiction will begin
looking at this legislation before leaders craft a
compromise.
``I think the consensus is that this needs to be done very
carefully,'' said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-
Md.).
``We're going to focus on the actual legislation and try to
come to a consensus,'' Peterson said.
Pelosi told reporters Wednesday that she expects
legislation on the floor sometime next month, before
lawmakers leave for the summer and for their respective
nominating conventions.
Some Democrats wanted to vote on a modest bill this week to
give themselves cover before the recess, aides said.
A number of conservative Blue Dog Democrats were also
grumbling that party leaders were planning to put them in a
bad spot politically with these aggressive oversight
measures, aides said. Pelosi met with a number of these
members Wednesday, but the speculation issue was only one of
the topics discussed.
In the meantime, both parties continued their finger-
pointing over the gas prices and the policies that might have
an effect on them.
On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior questioned
Democratic claims that energy producers could pump oil or gas
on 68 million acres of land that has already been leased.
This talking point became a common refrain last week;
Democrats argued that the lease-holding oil companies could
produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and more than 44 million
barrels of natural gas each day under the current contracts.
``The views contained in the report [issued by Democrats on
the House Natural Resources Committee] are based on a
misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process,''
wrote C. Stephen Allred, the assistant secretary of the
Interior for Land and Minerals Management, who favors
increased oil and gas exploration. ``The existence of a lease
does not guarantee the discovery of, or any particular
quantity of, oil and gas.''
In his letter--which can1e at the request of Republican
Rep. Don Young of Alaska--Allred further argued that a
lengthy permitting process creates a lag for energy producers
to extract fossil fuels from this land.
In a statement issued in response to the letter, House
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.)
called it ``a diversion from the simple fact that there are
68 million acres of leased land not producing any oil and
gas.''
Rahall said that the administration's argument about the
slow permitting process undercuts its arguments for lifting
the offshore drilling ban; a long permitting process, he
said, would slow any benefit to be gained from offshore
drilling, too.
``Roughly 80 percent of the oil and gas under federal
waters are in areas already open for leasing. They should
focus on that before trying to grab any more of our public
lands,'' Rahall said.
The fight over gas prices also has a personal component.
Pelosi has staked her speakership, in part, on aggressive
environmentalism to limit human contributions to global
warming. This puts her at odds with those in her caucus who
are more sympathetic to the oil and gas industry. That
dynamic forces her to tread lightly inside the party, but it
does not prevent her from issuing lofty challenges in the
name of the environment.
``We are in the battle of this generation,'' Pelosi told
reporters Wednesday. ``We're ready to make the fight. We are
united behind it.''
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. 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.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Reichert
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 110-734.
Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Reichert:
Page 14, at the end of line 8, insert the following: ``or
at a park-and-ride lot that serves a fixed route commuter bus
route that is more than 20 miles in length''.
{time} 1600
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Reichert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
[[Page H6138]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, as we all know, skyrocketing gas prices
and the pain they cause is one of the most daunting issues facing this
Congress and our Nation.
Today in the State of Washington, the price per gallon of regular gas
was $4.34, while a month ago it was $4.02 and a year ago it was $3.11
in the State of Washington. It is hard to believe we are now in the
position to yearn for the days of $3 gasoline.
My constituents are looking for some form of relief, an option to
paying outrageous prices to fill up their cars only to sit in gridlock
traffic. Mass transit offers relief; however, mass transit does not
succeed if the public is not convinced that it is a convenient
alternative to driving their cars.
The Transportation Research Board studied the accessibility of
transit services to suburban commuters, and has identified strategies
that improve customer acceptance and the use of transit services. The
study found that acceptance and use of transit services are clearly
influenced by the availability, convenience, and the cost of commuter
parking at rail stations and at park-and-ride lots for commuter buses.
Increasing commuter bus park-and-ride availability directly increases
transit ridership in these routes. According to Sound Transit, a local
transit agency in my district, once parking lots are 80 percent full at
commuter bus stations, the public perceives them to be completely full
and they continue to drive by, bypassing an opportunity to ease the
pain of high gas prices in an environmentally friendly way.
Expansion of these facilities incentivizes transit systems and the
communities they serve by increasing their suburban park-and-ride lot
capacity and increases the use of transit.
Like every community, people in the Puget Sound region of Washington
State are parking their cars and taking transit more often. In my
district alone, the number of people who rode Sound Transit's buses and
trains in 2007 increased by nearly six times the nationwide increase.
A few bus ride examples. In the first quarter of 2008, the express
bus service connecting two suburbs of Seattle, Lynnwood, Washington and
Bellevue, Washington, grew by more than 31 percent over the first
quarter of 2007. Ridership on Sound Transit service between Everett,
Washington and Bellevue, Washington is up 24 percent. And between
Federal Way, another suburb of Seattle, and the Microsoft campus in
Redmond, it is up 12 percent. Those are some great examples of mass
transit working in my district.
I urge you to support my amendment. My amendment will simply allow
bus park-and-ride lots the same Federal funding as commuter rail park-
and-ride lots receive in this bill.
Join me in giving Americans a choice on how they go to work, go to
the grocery store, or move about town other than painfully paying at
the pump to fill up their cars. This amendment will ease congestion,
help the environment, and save commuters from high gas prices.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to
the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. First, a point of order, Madam Chairman.
I observed the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) ask
unanimous consent to include an article in the Record. That request
must be made in the House under the rules of procedure, not in the
Committee of the Whole.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentlelady's request will
be covered by general leave.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I have no objection to it, but I just want the
procedure to be proper.
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
was very thoughtfully expressed and explained, and I commend the
gentleman on his statement, very thoughtfully done, to increase the
Federal share for parking facilities that serve commuter bus routes.
The Transportation Research Board has addressed this issue and
evaluated the accessibility of transit services to suburban commuters,
and they have found that acceptance and use of transit services are
clearly influenced by the availability, convenience, and cost of
commuter parking at transit stations and park-and-ride lots, quoting
from the report.
States that have successful long-distance suburban-to-central
business district commuter bus operations found that increasing the use
of commuter bus services and park-and-ride facilities is directly
influenced by the availability of those park-and-ride services.
Increasing the Federal share to 100 percent would create additional
incentives for transit systems to build more of these facilities to
serve the communities, and I really appreciate the initiative of the
gentleman.
In his reference to Microsoft, I know that Microsoft in past years
has purchased in the range of 13,000 fares a year for its employees to
ride the Sounder and other transit options in Seattle. It is very
commendable of a company to engage in that kind of service to its
workers, to encourage them to get to work in a better frame of mind, to
help the environment, and to serve the public need.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend
from Florida, the ranking member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman so much, that we have a distinguished
member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee offering this
well thought out amendment. It is going to clearly provide
availability, convenience, and assist the cost of making eligible again
these bus end-of-the-line parking facilities. Well thought out. There
was a gap here, and I am glad the gentleman from Washington filled that
so adequately, and we support the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and look
forward to moving forward on this amendment. I think it balances a
potential inequity.
But I would hope that as we move forward to reauthorization, that the
folks on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that we might be able
to look at more Federal flexibility for the land that is used with
these park-and-ride items, because in many cases they are frozen in
time. We have inflexible Federal rules about what can be used for that
land, and they have a habit of not being at the end of the line. So if
we can in the future be able to use them as an anchor for community
development and redevelopment where people can live and work at that
point, rather than having to drive vast distances to get there in the
first place, these facilities can leverage significant redevelopment
opportunity, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and be able to reduce the
operating cost for the lines.
So I have no objection to this proposal as it goes forward, but I
would hope that we would be creative as we move to reauthorization that
we don't freeze in arbitrarily what local communities can do with
transit agencies and the Federal Government to be able to leverage them
to get more out of it in the long run so we don't have to unnecessarily
force people to drive to use it in the first place.
Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman is an alumnus of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, a refugee who has been taken in by
the Ways and Means Committee; and he will be most welcomed at further
hearings of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee to elaborate on
this very thoughtful proposal that he has set forth. We welcome that
contribution as we shape the next transportation legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate
the leadership of the committee. One cannot get back to the committee
often enough. And I would look forward to working with you and with the
gentleman from Washington to make sure that we get the most out of
these resources.
Mr. REICHERT. In conclusion, I would just like to thank the chairman
[[Page H6139]]
and ranking member for their support, and the gentleman's kind
suggestions and thoughtful suggestions. I would urge passage of this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hodes
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in House Report 110-734.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hodes:
Page 5, after line 19, insert the following:
(3) If the recipient of the grant is establishing or
expanding, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the
Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the
recipient will establish or expand commuter matching services
to provide commuters with information and assistance about
alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use, those
administrative costs in establishing or expanding such
services.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HODES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I rise in support today of my carpool
promotion amendment.
First, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Transportation
Committee and the ranking member for introducing this important bill to
encourage the use of public transportation in this country.
Public transportation obviously needs to be part of a forward
thinking 21st century energy strategy. However, in my home State of New
Hampshire, many of my constituents live in rural areas where they don't
have access to public transit, and many in my district have to commute
by car 20 or 30 miles or more just to get to work.
Today, in intraday trading, oil hit a record of $140 a barrel, and
gas prices are over $4 a gallon for regular gas in New Hampshire. The
people I represent are struggling. Many drive more than an hour to
work. And we have seen carpooling begin to increase in New Hampshire.
With an extremely limited public transportation network, except for
city bus service in the cities of Manchester and Concord, often the
only option for alternative transportation is carpooling, and the
opportunities are often limited for that.
Since the average local commuter is spending more than $2,000 a year
in gas just to drive to work, if a driver shares his car with just one
other occupant and those carpoolers share the cost of gas, obviously
they cut their costs for gas in half.
Now, New Hampshire Department of Transportation has introduced a
great program called Ride Share. They work with the New Hampshire
Regional Planning Commissions and employers to encourage ride sharing,
and they have implemented a Statewide ride sharing program. The program
is dedicated to finding an alternative way for commuters to travel to
and from work.
These days, our highways and byways are increasingly gridlocked; and
many of those cars stuck in gridlock, and all you have to do is go
outside this building to see the kind of gridlock that Washington is
famous for, and many of the cars that are sitting there are single
occupant vehicles. Driving alone is not only expensive, but it also
contributes to increased traffic congestion and air pollution.
To help commuters cut costs and to reduce traffic congestion and air
pollution, New Hampshire Ride Share uses geographical computer matching
to provide commuters with information and assistance about ride sharing
and alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, which can include
carpools, van pools, buses and trains. Right now, two other States,
Missouri and Michigan, have introduced similar programs.
The amendment that I have propose will help provide additional
funding for programs like Ride Share across the country. We have seen
in one month a tripling of interest in participation in ride sharing in
some parts of New Hampshire, and we need to see more.
With the record high gas prices, rising food prices, the mortgage
crisis, and the credit crunch, families across our Nation are feeling
the economic squeeze. Commuters across our Nation are suffering under
the strain of record gas prices, and they have to sacrifice more of
their paycheck just to earn one.
This amendment provides a real-time way to help commuters save money,
reduce air pollution, and increase efficiency. It is a win-win all
around. I urge my colleagues to adopt this important amendment to help
commuters across our Nation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, we are pleased to support the gentleman
from New Hampshire's amendment. And it will also, I think, encourage
commuters to find other ways other than single occupancy vehicles to
get to and from work. He has the support of the American Association of
Commuter Transportation.
Again, it is a small piece in the larger puzzle. We only have
jurisdiction, as I said earlier, over transportation issues; we can't
resolve all the other problems we have with energy. But I commend the
gentleman, and our side supports the amendment and urges its adoption.
{time} 1615
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HODES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida, and I
yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Transportation
Committee.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in support of the amendment which I am certain
arises out of the experience of the New Hampshire Department of
Transportation which has a program helping commuters find alternatives
to riding alone. The State of North Carolina has created RIDE NC to do
the same thing.
I just want to observe that this bill pending before the House now is
the 110th bill reported from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure to the House, 110th bill in the 110th Congress. We have
completed action on 63 bills and resolutions including 29 bills enacted
into law; in addition to that, eight concurrent resolutions and 26
House resolutions. That's a remarkable record of bipartisan
participation for which I express my appreciation to the gentleman from
Florida. On all of these, we've had bipartisan support.
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I don't want to take the time, but we are concluding debate on this
amendment, the Hodes amendment. I urge its adoption. I urge those who
feel it is appropriate to support the measure, as I said it does have
an increased authorization, not appropriation, of $1.7 billion. It does
expand some of the transit grants to transit agencies that are hurting
across the country. It does expand the transit benefits that are now
restricted to those within the Beltway to Federal employees outside.
It does not solve the problem. It is a small piece of the solution,
and I have been pleased to work with Mr. Oberstar in a bipartisan
fashion to do our small part.
I must conclude, however, by saying that the House and the Congress
can do a better job. My side of the aisle does not control the Congress
this time. We have heard that there is a larger energy plan. We need to
bring that energy plan forward.
I didn't have the time that the majority leader had in his remarks,
and this isn't a blame game situation nor should it be. People are
suffering in this country with $4-plus a gallon gas. I just saw this
$5.25, which must be from California. That's not why our constituents
sent us here. They sent us here to solve problems. In the same
bipartisan spirit that Mr. Oberstar and I are bringing forward this
little piece, we need a much larger piece.
[[Page H6140]]
A week from tomorrow is Independence Day, and that is a day we should
be celebrating, not lamenting that we are not independent of foreign
oil. We can work our way out of this. We can't tax our way out, we
can't regulate our way out, but we have the means of moving forward and
increasing the supply and lowering the price for the American people.
We haven't done this, this Congress hasn't done this, and I am sorry
that I have that to report at the end of my remarks, both in favor of
the Hodes amendment and in favor of this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mahoney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421,
noes 0, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 465]
AYES--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Calvert
Cannon
DeLauro
Doolittle
Ellison
Faleomavaega
Forbes
Fortuno
Jones (OH)
Keller
Lewis (KY)
Norton
Rush
Schakowsky
Smith (WA)
Tancredo
Weller
Wexler
{time} 1645
Messrs. NUNES, ISSA and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. NORTON, Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 465, had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 465, I was stuck in
traffic trying to get to the vote and I ran out of time. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ross) having assumed the chair, Ms. DeGette, 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. 6052) to
promote increased public transportation use, to promote increased use
of alternative fuels in providing public transportation, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 1304, she reported the bill back
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Walden of Oregon
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. In its present form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Walden of Oregon moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6052
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report the same back to the House promptly,
in the form to which perfected at the time of this motion,
with the following amendments:
Page 5, after line 19, insert the following:
(c) Use of Funds for Meeting Fuel-Related Needs of School
Bus Transportation.--
[[Page H6141]]
(1) In general.--If school bus transportation services
within the urbanized area or State to which funds are
apportioned under subsection (a) have been adversely impacted
by increased fuel costs, and if any school districts within
the urbanized area or State are considering or have
implemented service cuts in school bus transportation as a
result of increased fuel costs, the recipient of the
apportioned funds shall immediately make such funds available
to the Governor of the State in lieu of using the funds for
the purposes described in subsection (b).
(2) Allocation of funds to school districts.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Governor of a
State who receives funds under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) allocate the funds to school districts within the State
that have been adversely impacted by increased fuel costs and
are considering or have implemented service cuts in school
bus transportation; and
(B) provide that such funds be used for operating and
capital costs in providing school bus transportation service
in order to reduce or eliminate cuts in such service as a
result of increased fuel costs.
(3) Priority.--The Governor of a State shall give priority
in the allocation of funds under paragraph (2) to school
districts in rural and suburban areas where school buses
travel greater distances in transporting students.
Page 5, line 20, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 5, line 23, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue reading.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say I have a
long history of supporting mass transit in the urban areas of my State,
including light rail development and bus transportation systems. I've
received State-wide recognition for this work.
Unfortunately, there are no light rail routes, and few successful bus
routes, in rural Oregon and in most of my district. In fact, the most
important public mass transit in most of rural Oregon and, indeed,
across most of rural America is a bright yellow school bus, like this
one, that safely transports American children to and from school each
day.
No one in America is immune from the impact of record-high gas
prices, but for those of us from rural areas, the impact has been
particularly severe not only on farms, families and small businesses,
but also on our local governments that are struggling to pay sky-high
fuel prices to maintain basic services.
Before you know it, our public school doors will open, and millions
of our children will return to school, many of them on that familiar
yellow school bus.
Yet all across this country, school superintendents are struggling
mightily to figure out exactly how they'll afford to operate those
school buses and to get our children to school.
Newspapers are filling with accounts of school districts and how
they're going to respond to the cost of fuel. Some districts, including
one just a few miles from here in Maryland, are considering reducing
bus services and forcing children to walk up to 2 miles to school. Some
schools are even discussing going to 4-day school weeks in order to
reduce fuel consumption.
As profound as this problem is in urban and suburban area, it is even
worse for those of us from rural communities where school buses must
travel long distances to pick up and drop off children.
This is what the Yakima Herald-Republic in Washington State had to
say just 5 days ago: ``Some of the surrounding districts in rural areas
feel the pinch from increased costs a bit more because their buses have
to travel farther to transport students. The Mt. Adams School District,
which has about 1,000 students, is the third-largest district in the
State with an area of 1,325 square miles. The district's 10 buses still
travel more than 200,000 miles in a year.''
All the way across the country in Franklin County, Virginia, the
Roanoke Times reports that ``a school official advised the board of
supervisors Tuesday that the division could face an extra $690,000 in
added fuel costs.''
Yet, today we have before us a bill that does absolutely nothing,
nothing to lower the price of gasoline or diesel and nothing to help
our schools, our school districts, and to help them pay for the bus
transportation costs they're incurring.
Instead, it proposes to increase subsidies for public transit systems
that reduce their fares and expand taxpayer-funded travel perks for
Federal employees.
What's even worse is that existing Federal law would actually
prohibit the funds authorized under this bill from being used to
provide assistance to struggling school districts. Let me repeat that.
This law, and the law on the books, don't allow the use of these funds
for our school systems.
As the school year approaches, it's time to get our priorities right
and to take care of our kids first.
My motion to recommit would fix this problem by sending this bill
back to committee with instructions that they revise it, to
specifically provide that in an area where school bus services are
being cut back because of high fuel prices, that the funds under this
bill shall be used first and foremost to help restore those school bus
services, and that preference shall be given to rural and suburban
areas where school buses have to travel greater distances to transport
our children.
If the Democratic leadership's going to refuse to even allow a vote
on proposals to increase domestic energy supplies so that we can lower
gas prices for all Americans, then the least we can do is try to soften
the blow for our Nation's schools, our school bus system and our
children.
As currently drafted, this bill does not do that. We have a chance to
fix it. We have a chance to help our school districts, particularly
those in rural areas.
Now, the majority will undoubtedly try to rally their Members against
this motion, but I ask, given that Congress is recessing tomorrow,
what's wrong with sending this bill back to committee where the staff
can review the amendment over the break and the full committee can
carefully consider the importance of helping local schools cope with
their busing needs and report this bill back in 10 days?
Or you can reject this on some sort of procedural grounds, and leave
local schools in the lurch, and literally put our school children on
the shoulder of the roadways, dodging traffic on their way to and from
school this fall.
When schools start closing a day a week early, when parents can't
figure out how to get their children to and from school, Americans will
look back on this moment and see who stood with our rural and suburban
schools and with our children and who stood against them.
This is a reasonable motion to recommit. The committee clearly has
the time to take this up. It is of no disservice to the committee or
this process to say our first priority in this House, if we're not
going to allow greater access to American fuel, is to at least take
care of America's school children and their busing needs.
Every paper in your district is probably writing about this issue or
will be as skyrocketing fuel costs cost them the ability to run their
bus routes. You can smirk and you can laugh, but this reality is coming
to us here and now.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to
the motion?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in the
introductory paragraph of the motion, to strike the word ``promptly''
and substitute therefor the word ``forthwith.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oregon yield for
that request?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent.
{time} 1700
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reserving the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oregon yield for the
making of that request?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Yes.
[[Page H6142]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. To my friend and the Chair of the
Transportation Committee, I would be happy to agree to the unanimous
consent request provided that you and your side would also agree to
allow us to add a proposal to reduce gas prices for struggling American
families. Specifically, would the gentleman agree to add to the bill
either the No More Excuses Energy Act, H.R. 3089, or at a minimum, the
proposal to allow the deep ocean oil exploration, H.R. 6108, the Deep
Ocean Energy Resources Act?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I made a unanimous consent request dealing with the
motion of the gentleman, not the extraneous items the gentleman has now
proposed.
If the gentleman is serious about his motion to recommit, we're
serious about accepting it where it's forthwith and bringing that
language immediately back to the House.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. While I appreciate the gentleman's position,
clearly there is an opportunity for the committee to consider this and
other issues related to transportation, so I would object.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Did the gentleman object? I could not hear.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objection is heard.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Then the gentleman is not serious about this motion,
and this is a sham motion.
Under the language ``promptly,'' we would not be able to consider
this legislation again until well after the 4th of July recess of the
Congress, which the gentleman fully understands.
The substance of the motion is well-intentioned. However, under title
23 and title 49 of the U.S. Transportation Code, school buses are
specifically not eligible for public funds out of the Highway Trust
Fund, nor would they be under the provisions of the bill that is before
us.
Since the gentleman from Oregon objects to accepting his language and
making that change in Federal law to make school buses eligible, then I
would suggest that he come back to the committee at an appropriate
time, we're going to continue hearings--we've had 22 hearings already
in the Surface Transportation Subcommittee last year and this year on
the future of transportation--and make the case for such a provision to
be included in the authorization that we will have next year. We would
certainly be delighted to hear the gentleman's case for this provision
and to perfect it. But as it stands, this ``promptly'' simply kills the
transit expansion funding that we provide in the underlying bill.
Therefore, because the gentleman objected to my unanimous consent
request, I say the motion is not offered in good faith, not offered
with good intentions. It is a sham motion, and we should defeat it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, were the gentleman's words in
order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot render an advisory opinion.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Is it in order to call a Member's motives in
question, Mr. Chairman?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not issue advisory opinions.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and motions to
suspend the rules with respect to H.R. 6377, H.R. 6251, and House
Resolution 1098.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 221, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 466]
AYES--199
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--221
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
[[Page H6143]]
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Calvert
Cannon
Doolittle
Forbes
Gilchrest
Gutierrez
Lewis (KY)
Miller, Gary
Rush
Smith (WA)
Tancredo
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1721
Messrs. KIRK and LINDER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 322,
noes 98, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 467]
AYES--322
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--98
Akin
Alexander
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carter
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Dreier
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--14
Aderholt
Calvert
Cannon
Doolittle
Everett
Forbes
Lewis (KY)
Miller, Gary
Rush
Smith (WA)
Tancredo
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1728
Messrs. CONYERS and BILBRAY and Mrs. BACHMANN changed their vote from
`` no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 467, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________