[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 104 (Thursday, July 12, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                     HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 26, 2012

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5972) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chair, I rise to note a provision in H.R. 
5972, the Transportation-HUD Appropriations legislation for FY2013 
which appears to have been accepted with virtually no debate and 
contains even less merit.
  H.R. 5972 contains a provision redirecting funds from the Maglev 
Deployment Program to other programs. Section 154 reads--
  SEC. 154. The unobligated balance of funds provided under sections 
1101(a)(18) and 1307 of Public Law 109-59 shall be used for the 
elimination of hazards at railway highway crossings described in 
section 104(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code, to remain available 
until expended.
  In a statement in support of this amendment, the claim was made that 
these ``unobligated funds'' were somehow lying dormant on the projects 
they were intended to support. In my opinion, and weighing the 
available facts, that was not an accurate statement. While one may 
sympathize with the need for safe grade crossings, the United States 
already has a well funded program to meet these needs.
  The Maglev Deployment Program (MDP) was authorized for far different 
purposes--to promote leading-edge high speed rail/technologies. And as 
is the case with all major multistate undertakings, the planning 
processes that precede construction take time and coordination to 
complete. Under the Federal Railroad Administration's program for the 
MDP, a feasibility study must have been completed, followed by detailed 
environmental review--either a full-scale Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) or a phased approach, requiring a Tier 1 EIS followed 
by a Tier 2 EIS.
  Anyone who has observed the NEPA process knows that it sometimes 
proceeds in fits-and-starts. And even if it appears that at times not 
much is happening, these detailed planning phases sometimes take years 
to accomplish. The funds in question date to SAFETEA-LU, passed in 
2005, and the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections, passed in 2008.
  As the result of these two statutes, the Federal Railroad 
Administration issued a Notice of Funds Availability or NOFA, in 2008, 
inviting applications for a portion of these funds. Applications were 
due in early 2009. Several projects applied competitively, and the 
Administration deliberated carefully over the applications. Two 
projects which had applied were awarded funds; the Atlanta-Chattanooga 
and Pittsburgh projects.
  The FRA advised a third project applicant, a route from Baltimore to 
Washington, DC, that there was a deficiency in Maryland state law that 
prevented FRA from awarding funds. Far from standing still, my State of 
Maryland worked to cure that deficiency, and last year repealed the 
offending section of its state law, with the Governor's support. Since 
then, various stakeholders have been working with the Congress to 
ensure that SAFETEA-LU provisions were carried over in the Surface 
Transportation reauthorization legislation, which was passed by a 
bipartisan vote in the House after a conference with the Senate. Thus, 
I am pleased to report my understanding that the Maglev Program was 
preserved, and, in fact, maglev was specifically advanced in various 
sections of H.R. 4348, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, 
or ``MAP-21''.
  We can understand from this congressional action that there remains 
broad support for the program, its promise for the future, and the need 
for our nation to pursue, not curtail, next generation high speed rail 
technology. The remaining projects, I am told, have been striving in 
good faith to complete their required planning phases. Indeed, one 
project has been working with the FRA to obligate its funds even as 
Congress voted to approve the MAP-21 conference report.
  Mr. Chair, the Congress as a whole authorized and funded the Maglev 
Deployment Program in 1998 and 2005 and 2008. My State of Maryland 
competed successfully to become one of the original seven maglev 
programs, and then on the basis of the merits of our Feasibility Study, 
one of two projects was down-selected for further work. We are pledged 
to continuing that work, and have acted in our state in the good-faith 
knowledge that those funds were secure.
  For that reason, I would like to urge the sponsors of the relevant 
language to look elsewhere for funds for their initiatives, and I stand 
ready to work with the leadership of the House and of the Committee to 
return the MDP funds to their historic purpose, to help build 
infrastructure and to promote economic revitalization.

                          ____________________