[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26260-26261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2989, TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2989) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and 
agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Olver

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. OLVER moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 2989, be instructed to insist on the Senate 
     position with respect to Transit New Starts and Job Access 
     and Reverse Commute funding, and be further instructed to 
     insist on the House position with respect to National 
     Archives and Records Administration's Electronic Records 
     Archives and National Historical Publications and Records 
     Commission grants.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) 
will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate versions of the Transportation-
Treasury bill have substantial differences on a wide range of issues 
that we will have to reconcile in our conference negotiations, and some 
of those reconciliations will not be easy. Many of these, such as the 
differences in funding level for Amtrak and election reform are widely 
publicized and well known.
  The two versions of the Transportation-Treasury bill contain a number 
of issues that have not been as widely noted, but will have 
nevertheless a significant impact on people's lives.
  The motion to instruct that is at the desk and has been read this 
morning highlights just a few of those issues that I believe and we 
believe on this side deserve the attention of the conferees.
  First, the motion insists upon the Senate's funding level for Transit 
New Starts projects. The House bill provided $1.21 billion, more than 
$100 million below the Senate level of $1.32 billion, and even the 
Senate bill is in turn more than $200 million below the President's 
request.
  Under the House funding level, the Members on both sides of the aisle 
were not able to secure funding for many of the light rail projects in 
their districts. Several of the projects that did receive funding are 
well below the actual needs of the project in fiscal year 2004.
  The New Starts program which covers heavy and light rail, commuter 
rail, and rapid bus systems has helped create or extend hundreds of 
transit fixed guideway systems across the country. These investments in 
turn provided greater mobility for many millions of urban and suburban 
Americans. They have helped to reduce congestion and improve air 
quality in areas that they serve, and they have fostered the 
development of safer and more livable communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that the President's budget request 
sought $1.51 billion, which is $300 million more than is provided in 
the House bill, and that this motion supports $100 million of that 
difference. President Bush's request and the Senate's funding level 
acknowledge the need for additional major investment in transit light 
rail projects. We need to pass this motion to ensure that the conferees 
share this priority.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, today's motion to instruct insists upon the 
Senate level of funding of $125 million for the Job Access and Reverse 
Commute funding.

                              {time}  1030

  This program is designed to assist welfare reform efforts by 
providing better transportation services for low-income individuals, 
persons who often cannot afford automobiles in this society, including 
former welfare recipients who are traveling to jobs or training 
centers. The House-passed bill is $40 million below the Senate funding 
level and $64 million below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, which 
was $149 million for that program.
  The Senate funding is already 15 percent below last year's enacted 
level, but the House bill provides something more than a 40 percent cut 
in last year's enacted funding level for that program. Reducing funding 
for those trying to get to work or for those trying to get training to 
reenter the workforce seems to be the wrong priority under the current 
circumstances.
  Since 2001, the economy has lost over 3 million private sector jobs 
and 2.6 million jobs overall. The unemployment rate is hovering near 6 
percent with little sign of improvement. For those who see improvement 
in the economy, there is a general acknowledgment that this has been 
thus far a ``jobless recovery.'' Given this economy, I would suggest 
that we should not want to reduce the funding aimed squarely at getting 
people back to work.
  Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the motion insists upon the House funding 
levels for the National Archives electronic records archives initiative 
and for the National Historic Publications and Records Commission 
grants. These two programs, administered by the National Archives and 
Records Administration, are both critical for properly maintaining our 
Nation's history. The House bill fully funds the budget request of 
$35.9 million for the electronic records initiative and this funding 
will help build the infrastructure necessary for properly maintaining 
the Federal Government's electronic records. It also serves as a 
standard for States and municipalities as they deal with issues 
involving electronic records archiving.
  Unfortunately, the other body neglected to provide the necessary 
resources for these vital programs. Without funding at the House level, 
hundreds of thousands of electronic records and historic records will 
not be maintained as they should be.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion to instruct conferees.

[[Page 26261]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees, of course, is not 
binding upon the conferees. It is intended, I know, by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts as an expression of intent. Although I would not 
pretend to agree with all the priorities that he seeks to express in it 
or to bind us, but in the spirit of advancing this issue through the 
House, the bill, in the spirit of comity, I am willing to accept the 
amendment. Then we will do the best we can on that and other priorities 
in conference.
  I should point out, of course, that if we do as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts suggests and guarantee that there be over $100 million 
additional for new starts, that money might come out of highways. I do 
not know how we are going to work through these things, but I do 
believe that it is best, rather than fight over things on the floor, to 
accept the amendment and let the conferees do the best they can in 
working on this and on the other priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to 
accept the motion. I have just one or two speakers that I would like to 
allow time for. Then we will go on to other things.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me this time, and I thank the chairman of the subcommittee 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support the Olver motion to 
instruct the conferees, the transportation appropriations conferees 
for, I think, a very well-thought-out instruction that emphasizes the 
direction that is crucial for this country. To maintain or support the 
Senate level for the new starts, I believe, is absolutely crucial.
  As I look at the Nation's needs as a member of the Select Committee 
on Homeland Security, one of the issues that we have spoken about is to 
ensure the safety of the Nation's byways, highways, freeways and 
certainly to reassess the needs for improved and increased regional 
mobility, clean, secure, efficient regional mobility opportunities. 
These new-start moneys will assist in light rail, it will assist in 
guideways, it will assist in helping urban and suburban areas, and it 
will assist in rapid buses and commuter systems.
  It is interesting that, as we debate this question, we in Houston are 
in the throes of moving forward on our light rail projects; and 
certainly a city that is the fourth largest city in the Nation clearly 
would have a very ready opportunity, if you will, on its plan to be 
able to secure Federal funds. We do know that in the appropriations 
process now, there are about 30 cities with others standing in line. I 
believe in the 21st century this is no time to turn around on our 
commitment to transit issues. It helps us improve the quality of life, 
and it helps us in particular to improve the opportunity for air 
quality and for the ability of our citizenry to move about. Clearly, 
the Senate level for the job access and reverse commute grants is 
imperative. Right now we know we have totally about 4.6 million in 
dislocated workers around the Nation. In Texas we have over 131,000 
unemployed individuals and growing. Therefore, this question of being 
able to access your job without necessarily having a car and also to 
access training is crucial, particularly in States that have been hard 
hit by unemployment.
  I would hope that my colleagues would see the reason of this motion 
to instruct and know that this is no time to shortchange the 
opportunities of growth in mobility that we have before this Congress. 
Local communities look to the Congress to be bipartisan, to be 
embracing, to be smart, and to move forward on transportation issues 
where they cannot. All over our country they are looking to improve 
many of their systems. Let it be known that regional mobility is not 
singular. It is rapid buses. It is guideways. It is light rail. In some 
instances it may be expansion of our roadways. But whatever it is, 
those Federal funds are imperative for us to have. I would ask my 
colleagues to enthusiastically support the decision that this Congress 
needs to make.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Istook, Wolf, Lewis of California, Rogers 
of Kentucky, Tiahrt, Mrs. Northup, Messrs. Aderholt, Sweeney, 
Culberson, Young of Florida, Hoyer, Olver, Pastor, Ms. Kilpatrick, and 
Messrs. Clyburn, Rothman and Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________