[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11001-11029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, 
 THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 865 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. 5576.

                              {time}  1616


                     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. 5576) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the 
Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Dreier 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 Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to present the House H.R. 5576, the fiscal year 2007 
Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill, which was passed out 
of committee by a voice vote on June 6.
  As you know, this is only the subcommittee's second year with its 
current jurisdiction, and I believe the product before the House is 
worthy of strong support. It is a fiscally responsible bill funding 
high priority programs and eliminating Federal funds

[[Page 11002]]

for other programs that are duplicative or ineffective.
  I am aware of a number of amendments that would seek to undo these 
decisions, but I want people to know we made these decisions by looking 
at program performance, effectiveness and a balance of other priorities 
in the bill.
  The bill before us is at our 302(b) allocation of $67.8 billion in 
BA, and provides total budgetary resources, including transportation 
obligation limitations and mandatory spending of $139.7 billion, an 
increase of $8.5 billion over last year and $1 billion over the 
request.
  Many of the increases over the budget request are due to House rule 
mandating certain funding levels for highways, transit and aviation 
programs; restoring CDBG funding in the bill; and some scoring 
differences between CBO and OMB.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to salute the hard work of the 
subcommittee members, both on the majority and minority side of the 
aisle. The bill before us is the product of numerous budget hearings 
and thoughtful input of each member of the subcommittee, and they 
deserve to be saluted.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge the role the subcommittee's 
ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, played in assembling 
this bill. I consider Mr. Olver a partner in creating the product 
before you because his input has been invaluable. I believe this bill 
is stronger because of the input that Mr. Olver has provided.
  And without much fanfare, I would like to give a quick overview of 
what we have been able to accomplish under our allocation.
  In transportation, we have met all of the guarantees for surface 
transportation and safety and aviation infrastructure as included in 
SAFETEA-LU and Vision-100. For FAA operations, we have provided funds 
for 132 net new controllers, plus an additional $16 million over the 
request for safety inspectors.
  I realize there will be a lot of attention paid to Amtrak today, 
tonight, and perhaps even tomorrow. The bill provides $900 million, the 
same as the budget request, and $394 million below last year's enacted 
level. The bill continues our tough stance requiring Amtrak to reduce 
losses and achieve operational efficiencies with close supervision by 
the Inspector General.
  I would emphasize this is not the ``Amtrak'' bill. There are a number 
of priorities in this bill and any amendment seeking to just slash 
other accounts, accounts that everyone will agree cannot sustain the 
cuts proposed by these amendments, is just plainly irresponsible.
  The subcommittee had two priorities to meet for HUD in 2007. First 
and foremost was the full funding of Section 8 renewals. Failure to 
fully meet these commitments would have resulted in thousands of 
families losing their assistance and becoming homeless. We have met 
those needs.
  Our second priority is to restore, to the maximum extent possible, 
the formula funding for cities and towns across America through the 
Community Development Block Grant. As you know, the administration 
proposed to cut this program by $1 billion which was funded at $4.2 
billion last year. I am pleased to say we were able to fully restore 
funding for CDBG for fiscal year 2007.
  To achieve this, however, the committee had to do a broad sweep of 
duplicative and lower priority programs throughout the Department, 
including boutique programs that have typically been funded by reducing 
the amounts in the formula CDBG program. It is never easy to stop 
funding a program once it starts getting Federal funds, but we have to 
make these decisions in order to meet our main funding objectives.
  For the IRS, the bill provides $10.5 billion, $110 million below the 
budget request and $63 million below last year's enacted level. This 
level of funding will allow the IRS to maintain current services with 
some hard choices. I should warn everyone that further cuts to the IRS 
would severely impact their ability to meet their mission. I also note 
we took the first step to restructure the IRS accounts to more closely 
align with their core missions, taxpayer services and enforcement.
  For the Judiciary, the bill provides sufficient funding to maintain 
the current services of the Federal Judiciary, including rent and 
personnel increases.
  For the District of Columbia, we provided the budget request for 
Federal payments to the District for tuition assistance, court costs 
and school improvement. We were able to fund the Navy Yard Metro 
Station through FTA's New Starts program, and provide $1 million for 
the Central Library improvements. As for the District of Columbia's 
local budget, the bill appropriates the budget and financial plan by 
reference, carries many of the same general provisions of the past, and 
includes no new riders.
  We restored funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
Program to $227 million, slightly more than last year. Executive Office 
of the President programs are funded at the requested levels.
  All in all, after much hard work and discussion, I believe we have a 
balanced bill before us. No, we didn't fund every program, but we did 
fund the higher priorities under our jurisdiction that will deliver the 
best results to the most people, and that I believe is our 
responsibility. Also, we have included Member priorities in this bill.
  I would especially like to note that Member projects in this bill are 
less than one-third of what they were in last year's bill. I will 
repeat that: Less than one-third of what they were in last year's bill, 
demonstrating yet again the committee's commitment to earmark reform 
and the fact that it is real. Each project was a part of the budget 
request or authorized under an existing program in law, and requested 
by a Member of Congress as being important to the district and the 
people they represent.
  This is a fiscally sound bill, scored repeatedly by CBO. There are no 
gimmicks, no date changes, no unreal savings.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a balanced bill and I urge the 
Committee's support for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan and his staff for the constructive relationship we continue to 
build. As Chairman Knollenberg put this bill together, he and his staff 
considered concerns raised by the majority and the minority coming from 
subcommittee members, full committee members, and the general 
membership of the House. Where he could help, he resolved many of those 
concerns, and I thank him for that.
  I also want to thank the excellent staff on both sides of the aisle 
for their hard work on this legislation. On the majority side, Dena 
Baron, the majority clerk, Cheryle Tucker, Jason Woolwine, Tom 
McLemore, Tammy Hughes, David Napolielo, Alice Hogans and Peter Lee.
  And on the minority side, Kate Hallahan and Bob Bonner, and from my 
staff Matt Washington and David Pugach.
  This is only the second time this complex bill has come to the House 
floor, and I appreciate the work and the long hours that each and every 
one of those staff members have put in.
  I am grateful for the increase in the subcommittee's outlay 
allocation adopted in the full Appropriations Committee, but I said in 
the subcommittee markup and full committee markup as well that the 
allocation to this subcommittee is inadequate to meet the needs, and 
that is still true. The allocation, even as revised, forced Chairman 
Knollenberg and staff into a struggle to plug as many holes as they 
could as creatively as they could. In that process, several serious 
omissions and cuts proposed in the President's budget have been 
restored, notably CDBG funding, essential air services, additionally 
safety inspectors under FAA, and for construction of elderly and 
disabled housing, and for funding the important Navy Yard Metro Station 
in our capital city. That was no small feat.

[[Page 11003]]

  I particularly want to commend Chairman Knollenberg for his 
thoughtful approach to our capital city's budget which is part of this 
bill. While the District of Columbia makes up only a small portion of 
our combined bill, the value of the initiatives funded through this 
bill cannot be understated, and I thank Chairman Knollenberg for his 
commitment to ensuring no new policy riders were placed on the District 
of Columbia. I sincerely hope that we can continue to work on striking 
a balance between the congressional responsibilities for the District 
of Columbia with the desire of Washingtonians to have a direct say with 
how the District is governed.
  Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill on final passage, but if this 
were a conference report I would have to oppose its passage, and I want 
to take a few minutes to examine what I believe drives this bill this 
year and in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the impact that meeting 
SAFETEA-LU guarantees is having on other agencies and accounts in the 
bill. I believe that the transportation guarantees placed on this 
subcommittee by the authorizers ties the hands of this committee from 
properly funding other domestic programs included in this bill that are 
just as important.
  As this bill was drafted, authorized guarantees had to be met or this 
bill is subject to a point of order. For example, in FHWA the 
President's budget met all of the SAFETEA-LU guarantees. However, in 
FAA and FTA, the President's budget was well below the authorized 
level. The President's request was $607 million below the authorized 
level in the facilities and equipment account and $950 million below in 
airport improvement. In FTA, the Capital Investment Grants Program was 
$100 million below the authorized level. These shortfalls come to a 
total of over $1.6 billion. The monies being added to the 
subcommittee's allocation allowed the chairman to bring these items to 
the guaranteed level.
  I believe that the transportation guarantees are strangling other 
agencies in our bill. Without honoring the SAFETEA guarantees, the 
gentleman from Michigan could have increased funding for several key 
programs in this bill. For example, in HUD we could have used these 
funds for brownfields, HOPE VI and rural housing, which were all zeroed 
out. The additional funds could have been used to shore up the 
underfunded public housing operating fund and the public housing 
capital fund, or to add to section 8 tenant and project-based voucher 
programs which were cut below the President's request. The items that I 
have listed are only the tip of the iceberg, and the process I have 
described can only get worse as the years go by.
  Most of these shortfalls that I believe must be improved are within 
HUD, but also includes the lone transportation item that does not have 
the protection of an authorization; namely, Amtrak. I had planned to 
offer an amendment to increase funding for these programs; but, 
unfortunately, the majority of this House has once again shown that tax 
cuts for the wealthiest few in our society are more important than 
housing programs for our most needy citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by the cuts that we have been forced to 
bring forward. I hope that we will be able to continue to improve the 
bill as it moves forward in the process. We are early in the process. 
There is much work to be accomplished on this bill between now and a 
final conference report.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson) for a colloquy with the chairman.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed to learn that this bill did not 
contain funding for the SouthEast Service Line of Metra, the Chicago 
area's commuter rail service. I have provided the chairman with a 
letter from Phil Pagano, the executive director of Metra, which I will 
include in the Record.
  In the letter, Mr. Chairman, Metra states that it has a package of 
New Start projects called Metra Connects that were authorized by 
SAFETEA-LU. The SouthEast Service and the Star Line are two projects in 
that package that are new rail projects. Both are significant commuter 
rail projects for the northeastern Illinois region, and both projects 
currently are progressing on the same time schedule and are at similar 
stages of development. During the deliberation SAFETEA-LU bill, the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agreed that both lines 
would move forward and be funded equitably. Without funding for the 
SouthEast Service, this agreement is in jeopardy.
  I, along with the rest of the Illinois delegation, appreciate and 
would like to thank the chairman for the money already included for 
Metra's other new Star projects, and I understand that money overall is 
tight.
  Will the chairman work with me to try to fund this funding in 
conference?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Yes, I most certainly will work with the gentleman 
from Illinois on this project.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the chairman, and I look forward to 
working with him to make sure that the transportation needs of 
northeastern Illinois are met.

                                      Northeast Illinois Regional,


                                Commuter Railroad Corporation,

                                       Chicago, IL, June 13, 2006.
     Chairman Joe Knollenberg,
     Appropriation Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, 
         Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and 
         District of Columbia, House Committee on Appropriations, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Knollenberg: I am writing to express Metra's 
     concern that funds were provided for the STAR Line but not 
     for the SouthEast Service (SES) New Start project as part of 
     the FY '07 Transportation Appropriations Bill.
       As you know, Metra has a package of New Start projects 
     called Metra Connects that were authorized in SAFETEA-LU. The 
     SouthEast Service and the STAR Line are two projects in that 
     package that are new rail projects. Both are significant 
     commuter rail projects for the northeast Illinois region. 
     Currently, both projects are progressing on the same time 
     schedule and are at similar stages of development. During the 
     deliberation of the SAFETEA-LU bill, the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee agreed that both lines would move 
     forward and be funded equitably. Without funding for the 
     SouthEast Service, this agreement is in jeopardy.
       We urge the chairman to correct this in conference. Thank 
     you again for your support for Metra and our New Start 
     programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Philip A. Pagano,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. OLVER. And I can assure the gentleman that I too will work to try 
to correct this inequity.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that included in the 
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 2007 is $227 million for the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy's High Impact Drug Trafficking Areas Program, an 
increase of $2.27 million over last year's enacted level; is that 
correct?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the Nevada HIDTA office has done an 
outstanding job making my State's communities safer. Last year alone, 
they were successful in removing $12 million worth of narcotic from the 
streets of Nevada. While the HIDTA office is currently funded at a 
baseline of 1.4 million, rather than the 2.5 million or more that the 
other 26 HIDTA offices are funded at, in my district in southern 
Nevada, which sees thousands of new people a month moving into the area 
and tens of millions of visitors a year, coupled with the epidemic of 
methamphetamine and other drug abuses, would the chairman agree that 
the Nevada HIDTA office funding should be increased to a level more 
reflective of the challenges the district faces?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to respond.

[[Page 11004]]

  I share your concerns. And I thank my colleague for raising this very 
important issue today. He correctly points out that the bill includes 
$227 million for HIDTA, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
program. The subcommittee has funded this important program again this 
year, even though the President requested that the program be 
transferred to the Department of Justice at a reduced level of funding.
  I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Nevada as this bill 
moves forward. We can work together to make sure that the issue of 
methamphetamine and other drug trafficking as it relates to Nevada is 
forthrightly addressed in the final budget for this account.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his offer and look 
forward to working with him.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez) to engage in a colloquy.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman and ranking member, some public housing 
authorities nationwide are feeling the crunch from several years worth 
of budget constraints and the New York City Housing Authority, the 
largest PHA in the country, is not different. NYCHA is facing a $168 
million shortfall in part because of lack of flexibility in how they 
can use the three main funding streams: section 8, public housing 
operating and capital funds. Limited fungibility of funding streams 
will go a long way in helping PHAs to creatively address funding 
constraints.
  Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that as the appropriations process moves 
forward we can continue to discuss a solution to alleviate these 
funding constraints by providing limited flexibility in the use of 
funding streams.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I recognize the difficult situation that some PHAs 
across the country are facing. Providing flexibility to housing 
agencies while at the same time ensuring that HUD can effectively 
manage its programs is a no-cost solution that, if administered 
properly, will ensure continued service to low-income families. 
However, at the same time, NYCHA and other PHAs need to make sure that 
they are taking full advantage of the current flexibility that exists 
between the public housing operating and capital funds. As this process 
continues, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from New 
York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to work on 
this issue.
  Mr. OLVER. I appreciate the gentlewoman for bringing forward this 
issue. Public housing authorities and the families they serve are 
struggling. And I thank the chairman for his willingness to continue to 
engage in these discussions as we have already had part of that 
discussion at an earlier stage in the process.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure now to yield to the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis), for whatever time he may wish to consume.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much the chairman. I must 
say I have come to the floor simply to express my deep appreciation for 
the work that the chairman is doing on this very important measure, a 
bill that drives much of the infrastructure of the country, as well as 
providing housing programs. He and Mr. Olver have done a great job on 
this bill under circumstances where they are under great pressure. 
There is never quite enough money available to do all that we might 
like, so it takes very, very positive bipartisan effort to make sure 
that we provide balance as we restrain spending at the same time.
  It is a very fine bill. And I might mention further that these 
gentlemen, together, are now today producing the eighth bill out of 11 
FY 07 Appropriations bills off the floor. It is our intention to 
complete all those bills by the 4th of July break. You are giving us a 
fantastic demonstration today that anything is possible if people are 
willing to work together. So it is great to be with you. And thank you 
very much for your effort.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of 
the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain to the House that at 
this point it appears that there are more than 70 amendments pending, 
and that if each and every one of them only takes 10 minutes, 5 minutes 
a side, we will be here through all of today, through all of Wednesday, 
through all of Friday and perhaps into next week. So I would ask 
Members to keep that in mind and, if possible, to relinquish their 
ability to offer conflicting or duplicative amendments. I think points 
can be made without beating a dead horse five times over.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who is a member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman 
Knollenberg for your leadership, sir, Michigander, appreciate working 
with you. And to our ranking member, Mr. Olver, thank you very much for 
working together. As I always say, when the chairman and ranking 
members work together, it certainly makes our subcommittee work better.
  I rise in support of our TTHUD bill, that is Transportation, 
Treasury, HUD, IRS and several other agencies put together in an 
acronym we call TTHUD, the TTHUD bill, some $67 billion bill for 
transit agencies, for our roads and bridges, for our housing needs, and 
Treasury and the like.
  I think the bill is a good bill for what we had to work with, but it 
is far short of the needs that America has to fund its highway system, 
to fund its transit system, also for community development. I think 
housing in this bill takes a major hit, and it is so unfortunate. HOPE 
VI, which is a program for distressed housing in mainly urban America, 
has been zeroed out. I think that is unfortunate. And I know you can't 
fund a war at over $350 billion and think we can, at the same time, 
invest in America. That is why I think we must bring our troops home in 
the most practical time, and redeploy our troops around the theater 
area so that America is safe, and that we protect our interests at the 
same time.
  But working with the dollars that we have, the HUD part of this bill 
has been devastated. The brownfield area has been zeroed out. Together, 
the EPA, which has money in it for remediation of land that will be 
developed, there is a small amount of money there. It is only there for 
remediation. The HOPE VI monies are for building, the actual building 
of houses, and together with the Community Development Block Grant 
money will help distressed areas and mainly urban areas of our country 
be able to put people in affordable housing, to have people live in 
safe housing, to offer their children hope for the future because a 
house is the most basic thing they need, one of the most basic things. 
This bill does not do a good job with that. And I know as we go on, you 
will hear more amendments trying to put back brownfield money, trying 
to put back HOPE VI money, and I support that.
  I also want to bring up in this bill the section 8 housing choice 
voucher program. The way that the money is distributed in that program 
needs to be fixed. They take a snapshot of 3 months of the expenses, 
rather than a 12-month snapshot of the expenses in those section 8 
housing use. Thereby, States like mine, we lose millions of dollars 
that could be helpful in families needing housing, adequate, safe clean 
housing. So I would hope that as we go on, we take a look at that. And 
as I asked the chairman last year to take a look at our State's, not 
just our State's, but our choice house voucher program, where we are 
being penalized and losing money that we ought to have because of a 
flawed formula. This does not look at the 12-month expenses, but only 
the 3-month expenses. And I might add not the 3 months expenses that 
have the higher home heating costs.
  But overall, the TTHUD bill is one that can be supported. There will 
be amendments offered. Some of them are

[[Page 11005]]

some that I will support. Housing development and providing assistance 
to urban America has to be strengthened.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and our ranking member to 
make sure that we can build back some of these real programs that 
America needs. This administration has no urban program for 
development, for our schools, for our health centers; and I contend as 
we move forward in this process, we must pay attention to adequate, 
safe, clean housing. This bill falls far short.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), also a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member 
for the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend our subcommittee Chair, 
Mr. Knollenberg, and my ranking member, Mr. Olver. We have a very 
interesting subcommittee. We cover a lot of ground, a lot of very 
interesting subject matters. And I must tell you that our chairman not 
only permits a wide range of debate and discussion and questioning, 
perhaps he even encourages it, because he certainly hasn't stopped me 
and he has been very, very generous in the way he has treated the 
members of the minority, and I thank him.
  My ranking member shows great leadership on all of our issues, and 
his work is reflected in this bill which, while we all wish there were 
a lot more money because more money is deserving for this bill, I 
believe he has managed to reach the kind of compromises that were 
possible, given this shortage in money. Of course, I am disappointed in 
the amount of money for Amtrak. I am disappointed in some other 
matters; but as a former mayor, for example, I am delighted at the 
Community Development Block Grant money because that money is so 
critical.

                              {time}  1645

  And, of course, I would be remiss if I did not thank the majority 
staff and the minority staff for tolerating my obsession with various 
items, including Teterboro Airport, and once again the subcommittee has 
chosen to protect this airport from abuse. It is not a partisan matter, 
as the majority and minority have acknowledged. It is a matter that 
appeals to all the people in my district, and, again, I am just so 
grateful.
  I want to again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
kindness and cooperation throughout this year in the consideration of 
this bill.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for a colloquy.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with 
Chairman Knollenberg on this particular issue.
  First of all, I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the 
ranking member, Mr. Olver, for their hard work on this particular bill. 
I also appreciate this opportunity to speak to Chairman Knollenberg on 
this issue that is very important to my congressional district.
  My congressional district abuts the U.S.-Mexico border, which is very 
dependent on trade. Interstate Highway 35, the ``NAFTA Corridor,'' runs 
from Laredo in my district, throughout the San Antonio area, all the 
way up to San Marcos, all three areas which are large population 
centers.
  Zapata County, which is in my district, is sandwiched between Webb 
County and Starr County, both Border Commercial Zones. Zapata is not 
currently designated a Border Commercial Zone, and consequently it 
loses out on economic development opportunities since Mexican trucks 
cannot conduct business in Zapata County. The Zapata business community 
has been asking for this designation. This area of the country is 
economically challenged, and the opportunity to engage in trade with 
Mexico will make a big difference in local business community 
development.
  For example, the Zapata County master plan initiative includes an 
airport expansion project that includes a cargo facility and will offer 
shorter, direct flights into Zapata from Monterrey, Mexico. Freight 
companies in Mexico have expressed a desire to build warehouses and 
open a facility. In order to get a commercial zone, it takes an 
application process, but it is a long, burdensome process for a goal 
that is quite simple.
  I am asking for your help, Mr. Chairman, to expedite Zapata County's 
application to be designated a Border Commercial Zone. Getting this 
locality on the fast track will be good for the local residents and 
businesses in this area for economic development.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your support to help Zapata County apply 
for and expedite the process to become a Border Commercial Zone, and I 
thank you for the opportunity.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would just say that I agree to work with you on 
this. I appreciate your bringing it forward. And we will also work with 
the FMCSA on this issue. So thank you.
  Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I would be happy, 
especially after that trip through his district, to work with the 
gentleman from Texas on the issue that he has raised.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I too understand that there 
are tremendous challenges that are faced by the subcommittee with its 
interesting and broad jurisdiction.
  I rise to speak on one particular element that actually should help 
the subcommittee, and that is dealing with the Small Starts provision. 
The Small Starts provision was carefully crafted in last year's 
reauthorization after 3 years of work with people around the country to 
provide a simple, cost-effective way to reduce congestion, to promote 
economic development, and to streamline the bureaucracy, instead of the 
massive effort that is undertaken for the New Starts, the elaborate 
cost-effectiveness, the massive amount of money that is involved, and I 
know and appreciate that. I appreciate what the committee has done in 
approving the administration's recommendation for a project in my 
community. These are difficult, expensive, hard projects. That is why I 
have been working on the Small Starts. The Small Starts projects are 
ones that do not need massive Federal outlay. Small Starts do not mean 
that you have to rip up communities for weeks, months, in some cases 
years to construct them. The technology is available now to build a 
streetcar, a trolley, 3 weeks per block face. That's 3 weeks per block. 
They do not need to be massive projects with huge amounts of money.
  The program of Small Starts was designed to be smaller amounts that 
will deal with relieving congestion and relieving the necessity of 
other more elaborate efforts for economic development.
  We have 84 communities around the country with people that are 
looking at the streetcar technology and using the Small Starts program. 
If the committee will work with us and the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee with what we have authorized in SAFETEA-LU, we 
have the potential of providing the same sort of economic jolt and the 
relief of congestion without the costs, without the elaborate 
procedure, without the delay, and without the community disruption that 
are attendant with light rail and heavy rail.
  I was disappointed that the subcommittee decided not to be funding 
it, but I am more concerned about the language in the subcommittee 
report that betrays a lack of understanding about why we developed this 
program to begin with. It is something that can help large cities like 
Chicago, where there is great interest in it; small cities like 
Kenosha, Wisconsin; and cities in between like Little Rock and 
Charlotte. And I would hope that as this legislation works its way 
through Congress that we will be able to work with the subcommittee and 
people in the

[[Page 11006]]

other body to be able to harness the potential savings, economic 
development, congestion mitigation that can be a part of the Small 
Starts program.
  I would think given the very difficult task that this subcommittee 
faces, with which I sympathize, that we ought to embrace this approach 
because in the long run it will give you more bang for the buck, more 
satisfied communities, more reduction in congestion, and more economic 
opportunities.
  I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this for a moment and look 
forward to working with the subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to point out to the gentleman from Oregon that in 
fact the guarantee, and it is a guarantee under the TEA-LU bill, is 
included in what is called the Capital Investments Fund. So there is 
money available there. But I need also to point out that we have been 
told at the subcommittee level that the Department of Transportation, 
the FTA, will not have rules and regulations until at least a year from 
now, maybe 15 months from now, which is the very end of the next fiscal 
year.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, we are having some interesting ongoing 
conversations with the Department of Transportation. I went across the 
street to visit with him at FTA immediately after the enactment of the 
legislation. There is no need for us to delay this process for months 
and years.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with that point. 
I think that if people from the authorizing committee will make that 
point strongly to the Department of Transportation, that would be very 
helpful because I agree with virtually everything the gentleman has 
said. This is a process that ought to get moving, but the money is 
there. We can deal with this later on in this process. We are at an 
early stage in the process. They need to get the rules and regulations 
out faster than 15 months from now.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 4 years, I will 
not offer an amendment to this bill to block the implementation of the 
May 2003 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 regulations for 
contracting out work that is performed by Federal employees around the 
country.
  The difference this year, Mr. Chairman, is that Chairman Knollenberg 
and Ranking Member Olver agreed to my request to include satisfactory 
language in the bill that is before us. I want to thank them for 
addressing this issue this year.
  Both Federal Government employees and private contractors had serious 
legitimate concerns and complaints about the A-76 competitive sourcing 
process. The amendment I offered in past years essentially required OMB 
to go back to the drawing board and develop a uniform competitive 
sourcing process that addresses everybody's concerns. Despite strong 
objections and veto threats from the White House, we had spirited 
debates in the three previous appropriations cycles on the Van Hollen 
amendment, and each year the House approved the amendment with 
bipartisan majorities.
  We passed the Van Hollen amendment for the last 3 years because we 
recognized that the contracting out process was unfair. That was 
evidenced by the fact that we passed a number of bills to change the 
contracting out process on an ad hoc basis in numerous Federal 
agencies, including Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and 
Agriculture. But the result was a patchwork of inconsistent 
regulations. The Van Hollen amendment was intended to replace that 
patchwork of inconsistent regulations with a uniform set of rules fair 
to all. It did not get rid of the competitive sourcing rules. In 
essence, it required OMB to go back to the rules that were in place 
before May 2003 until it fashioned a new set of rules that make sense 
for everybody.
  In fiscal year 2005 the Senate approved language similar to the Van 
Hollen amendment, but even though both Houses approved similar language 
it did not survive a closed-door TTHUD conference. Last year, in fiscal 
year 2006, the Senate approved language that was widely viewed as 
acceptable to the White House, however begrudgingly, and that language 
survived the conference and was signed into law. That language provided 
funding for A-76 competitions that allowed Federal workers to present 
their own most efficient organization, MEO, bid in a competitive 
sourcing competition, and required private contractor bids to provide 
for a minimum cost differential, MCD, savings of at least 10 percent or 
$10 million over the MEO bid. While these public-private competition 
requirements did not address all of the concerns of Federal employees 
pertaining to appeal rights, these requirements were considerable 
improvements in the competitive sourcing process.
  But now, Mr. Chairman, we are in a brand new fiscal year cycle and 
once again we need to address critical matters related to the 
contracting out process. We should not have to do this every year in 
the appropriations process, Mr. Speaker, but we will repeat this debate 
year after year until Congress takes definitive action and authorizes 
competitive sourcing regulations that are fair to Federal employees and 
private contractors.
  This year is somewhat different, however. This year, Chairman 
Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver have had the foresight to include 
competitive souring language in the base fiscal year 2007 
appropriations bill that mirrors the MEO/MCD language that was signed 
into law last year. Therefore, there is no need to offer the amendment 
I have offered in the past.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the TTHUD appropriations bill on the 
floor today includes forward-looking language pertaining to A-76 
competitive sourcing that precludes the need to offer my amendment 
again this year. I look forward to working with the leadership of the 
Appropriations Committee and with the authorizers on the House 
Committee on Government Reform in the future to devise a permanent fix 
to the A-76 process that is fair to Federal workers and private 
contractors and that provides American taxpayers with the efficient, 
cost-effective and quality services they demand and deserve.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment 
that the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban 
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent 
Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 does not fully fund 
the Help America Vote Act, HAVA.
  HAVA was passed in the wake of the 2000 election, and authorized 
almost $4 billion to improve the administration of elections in this 
country. The 2004 election was a strong indication that there is much 
work yet to be done in the area of election reform in this country. And 
yet here we are, fast approaching Federal elections which are to be the 
first ones that take place under virtually all of HAVA's requirements, 
and hundreds of millions of dollars in funds authorized under the bill 
remain unappropriated.
  Although the appropriations bill before us includes almost $17 
million in funding for the Election Assistance Commission, EAC, which 
is nearly $3 million more than was appropriated to the EAC for fiscal 
year 2006, it still provides no funding whatsoever to help States meet 
their voting system requirements--especially the disability and 
language access requirements--under title III of the act. HAVA 
authorized $3 billion in so-called ``requirements payments,'' and has 
to date appropriated only $2.328 billion. States across the Nation are 
struggling to meet HAVA's voting system requirements, and $672 million 
in authorized funds remain unappropriated. And not one dime of that 
amount has been requested in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget 
nor provided for in this appropriations measure.
  HAVA also authorized $100 million to promote access to the polls for 
disabled voters, of which only $44 million has been appropriated to 
date, and $40 million for protection and advocacy systems, of which 
just under $17 million has been appropriated to date. I understand that 
the Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations bill to be 
reported out of committee today will include approximately $11 million 
in funding for the former accessibility grants, and approximately $5 
million in additional funding for the latter protection and advocacy 
systems. However, these new appropriations still leave a total of 
approximately $63 million in authorized disability access payments 
unappropriated.
  There are certainly many important demands upon us, but I ask you, 
Mr. Chairman, what is more important in a democracy than the fairness 
and integrity of the electoral system. I rise today to register my 
disappointment that the measure before us provides no funding to help 
States meet their title III requirements under HAVA, and to urge my 
colleagues to work with me when the Departments and Labor and Health 
and Humans Services appropriations bill comes to the floor

[[Page 11007]]

next week to fully fund HAVA's disability access payments.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
5576, the appropriations act for the Departments of Transportation, 
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development.
  I want to note two important Houston-area projects that received 
funding in this legislation: METRO Solutions and the Harrisburg grade 
separation.
  The $2.5 million for METRO is a very small amount compared to our 
need for transit investment in Houston, particularly for light rail.
  However, we are very grateful for this amount, because in previous 
years members of our Houston delegation blocked any funding in this 
bill for Houston light rail.
  We will never know how many millions went to other projects around 
the country because our delegation was not united behind a plan.
  Thankfully, this situation has now changed, and we have a commitment 
from our delegation to pursue $1 billion over 10 years for Houston 
light rail.
  Unfortunately, it does not look like we will be able to meet that 
commitment. As a result, the process at the FTA is taking on much 
greater importance.
  METRO must cut through the red-tape at FTA and get approval for their 
project and a full funding grant agreement if the Northside Line and 
East End Line are going to be a reality.
  We are going to need all the funding we can get if we want to upgrade 
the BRT to light rail as quickly as possible to meet the expectations 
of the voters in the referendum.
  The other important project for Houston is the Harrisburg Grade 
Separation. The bill contains $300,000 to get this project started in 
the design phase.
  East End Houston has entirely too many inconvenient and unsafe grade 
crossings, and a grade separation at Harrisburg will provide easy 
access and prevent rail/auto/truck accidents for area residents.
  We have just started construction on our Manchester grade separation, 
so it is fitting that we are starting at the beginning of the process 
for another very important intersection.
  This project will fit in well with the effort to reorganize the 
freight rail system for Harris County and surrounding counties, because 
the most relief from freight rail traffic needs to be in the areas with 
the most impact.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee and the full committee for their work on this bill and 
also thank our Houston area appropriator, John Culberson for his help, 
particularly with the METRO funding.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5576

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, 
     the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary, 
     $92,558,000, of which not to exceed $2,255,000 shall be 
     available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to 
     exceed $717,000 shall be available for the immediate Office 
     of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $15,681,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to 
     exceed $11,684,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed 
     $10,002,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed 
     $2,319,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $25,108,000 
     shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
     for Administration; not to exceed $1,932,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed 
     $1,478,000 shall be available for the Office of the Executive 
     Secretariat; not to exceed $707,000 shall be available for 
     the Board of Contract Appeals; not to exceed $1,286,000 shall 
     be available for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged 
     Business Utilization; not to exceed $2,722,000 for the Office 
     of Intelligence and Security; not to exceed $12,281,000 shall 
     be available for the Office of the Chief Information Officer; 
     and not to exceed $4,386,000 shall be available for the 
     Office of Emergency Transportation: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds 
     appropriated for any office of the Office of the Secretary to 
     any other office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided 
     further, That no appropriation for any office shall be 
     increased or decreased by more than 5 percent by all such 
     transfers: Provided further, That notice of any change in 
     funding greater than 5 percent shall be submitted for 
     approval to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That not to exceed $60,000 
     shall be for allocation within the Department for official 
     reception and representation expenses as the Secretary may 
     determine: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, excluding fees authorized in Public Law 
     107-71, there may be credited to this appropriation up to 
     $2,500,000 in funds received in user fees.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Knollenberg

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Knollenberg:
       Page 2, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000)''.
       Page 72, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $20,748,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to reaching ahead in the amendment 
process to get to this point?
  Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, following the full committee amendment 
process, CBO's scoring of our bill resulted in slightly more than $20.7 
million in savings.
  This amendment will place this funding in the IRS operations support 
account, which was reduced by $50 million below the President's 
request.
  I understand that this has been cleared with the minority, and 
therefore I ask for the adoption of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. LaTourette

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. LaTourette:
       Page 2, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $23,814,000)''.
       Page 2, line 11, after the second dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $79,000)''
       Page 2, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $26,000)''.
       Page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $650,000)''.
       Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $150,000)''.
       Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,602,000)''.
       Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,319,000)''.
       Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,297,000)''.
       Page 2, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,932,000)''.
       Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,478,000)''.
       Page 3, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $12,281,000)''.
       Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,090,000)''.
       Page 37, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $34,650,000)''.
       Page 38, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $129,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $85,000,000)''.
       Page 58, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,693,000)''.
       Page 58, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,693,000)''.
       Page 192, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,179,990)''.
       Page 194, line 1, after ``2007'' insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $559,641,000)''.

  Mr. LaTOURETTE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous

[[Page 11008]]

consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate 
on my amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, 10 
minutes by the proponent and 10 minutes by the opponent, equally 
divided and controlled by each.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today offering this amendment 
with my good friend, Mr. Oberstar from Minnesota, the ranking member of 
the full Transportation Committee. I will yield him half of my time 
when he arrives on the floor.
  Unlike aviation, highways and transit, there is no dedicated funding 
for investing in our Nation's passenger rail service. This is a pretty 
simple amendment. All it does is restore $214 million to the Amtrak 
account, taking it to $1.114 billion, which is still about $300 million 
less than we had during the course of last year's discussion.
  As the chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee, we have had exhaustive 
hearings, oversight hearings, dealing with the Amtrak situation, and we 
have done a number of things. The CEO has been fired by the board. We 
have looked at their food service. They have entered into a new food 
service contract. If you look at this bill, and I want to commend Mr. 
Knollenberg, because last year he had an impossible task. The President 
sent up a budget of zero for Amtrak. We had an amendment process that 
we went through this time.
  This time we are up to $900 million in the bill, which I give him 
great credit for. But if you look at that $900 million, there is only 
$500 million for capital expenditures, out of which has to come a debt 
service of $280 million, which only leaves $220 million for the capital 
needs of this country for Amtrak, for passenger rail.
  There is nothing for operation, and I know that the response to that 
is going to be that there are some incentive grants in the bill. But 
that really does not get the thing done.
  Mr. Chairman, we have tried to be judicious with this amendment and 
looked for pots of money located within the bill solely within the 
jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I 
think we have achieved that.
  I believe it is a good amendment and I urge adoption by my 
colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding 
for Amtrak by gutting and eliminating critical programs, including 
safety programs, resulting in reductions in force at several agencies.
  This bill was put together by making some very difficult decisions to 
balance a wide variety of critical needs from some very diverse 
programs. The amendment would undermine the difficult work done by the 
subcommittee by haphazardly making unrealistic and undisciplined cuts 
throughout the bill.
  It would cut the Office of the Secretary of Transportation by 25 
percent. That is well below the fiscal year for 2006. This will result 
in reductions in force for OST and will impact mission critical 
operations, including security planning as well as coordination and 
response efforts.
  These areas proved critical during last year's hurricanes, and we 
have now entered the hurricane season again. It would eliminate the 
critical rail safety research programs under the Federal Railroad 
Administration. This is a little confusing, because several years ago 
it is this research program that pinpointed the problem associated with 
Amtrak's brakes on the Acela and found the solution and allowed Acela 
to get up and running again.
  The amendment would severely reduce funds for the Federal Maritime 
Commission and the Surface Transportation Board, resulting in RIFs for 
both of these agencies, and cutting the Federal Buildings Fund by $560 
million will leave the fund without the resources it needs to build 
critical, secure crossings on our Southern border with Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, it would not strengthen the Federal buildings against 
threatening terrorism attacks. Let me repeat this. Vote for this 
amendment and you are voting against building border crossings on the 
U.S.-Mexico border and against funding to secure the Federal buildings 
against terrorism.
  Let me go a little further and explain that these cuts would 
completely eliminate GSA's new construction of six border stations at 
the crossing at McAllen, Texas, at El Paso, Texas, Santa Teresa, New 
Mexico, Columbus, New Mexico, Calexico, California, and Nogales, 
Arizona.
  In addition, the amendment would eliminate the Food and Drug 
Administration Montgomery County, Maryland Project, as well as remove 
the delivery facility in Anacostia for mail sorting for the Federal 
Government, something that is sadly needed, and with the threat of 
anthrax and other deadly substances in government mail.
  Repairs and alterations to Federal buildings will be stopped or 
slowed, repairs and alterations that are needed to secure government 
workers and the general public from possible terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Chairman, cutting border security and funds to protect Federal 
workers against terrorism is irresponsible. I ask my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I used, please?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, while I credit my colleague 
from Michigan for doing a great deal of work on this bill, and I know 
it is a tremendously difficult bill, rail passenger service in the 
United States is the worst in all of the industrialized world.
  It does not have to be that way. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, 
Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Spain and Portugal have better rail 
service, more rapid rail service, more frequent rail service, more 
efficient rail service than the United States. It does not have to be 
this way.
  The degradation of the Amtrak system goes on apace, whether it is the 
right-of-way or equipment. Equipment needs to be replaced. Right-of-way 
needs to be maintained. The Canton area, the electric, the Canton area 
in the Northeast Corridor needs to be maintained as well. Witness the 
blackout just 2 weeks ago.
  We need to have a modern, efficient, dependable rail passenger 
service in the United States. The only way we can do it is to fund it. 
It is the most efficient way to carry people. And I must say that no 
system in any industrialized country in the world is profitable. They 
are all subsidized. It is part of the cost of doing business. It is 
part of the cost of running an efficient government. It is part of the 
cost of keeping our economy going.
  Please support the LaTourette amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire about how much time is 
left on our side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of 
the subcommittee, Todd Tiahrt from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me time.

[[Page 11009]]

  Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development has done a fine 
job. We are a nation of priorities. Each year we must decide where the 
resources that have been given to us by the taxpayers will be spent.
  This bill is a good example. The chairman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg) made good decisions on the allocations within this bill. 
The subcommittee worked its will, making sure that the allocations were 
filled to the best of our ability.
  Then the bill went to the full committee appropriations process, and 
the amendments were conducted. And again the will of the committee was 
worked. Not all of the requests were funded. It is the same with 
Amtrak. Their request was not funded, and it is because Amtrak is 
undergoing some financial stress that they have asked for more funding.
  But this is not new to our economy. Other portions of our economy 
have also been under financial stress. For example, the airlines have 
been faced with similar shortfalls in revenue. And yet when they were 
faced with these shortfalls, they undertook a search of every cost. 
They went to their workers. They went to their pilots. They went to 
their flight attendants. They went to the mechanics. And they asked 
them, could you help out under this current period of financial stress? 
And the unions and the workers all weighed in to help with the cost 
structure.
  The same thing happened in our auto manufacturing industry, where the 
United Auto Workers weighed in and helped bear some of the reductions 
in costs so that they could keep their companies afloat.
  They came to the table, they did the right thing for their jobs, for 
their families, and they made themselves more competitive in times of 
financial stress. Now we come to Amtrak. Amtrak has looked at some of 
their costs, but their workers have never weighed in.
  Mr. Chairman, I think when you look at the costs that Amtrak is 
asking for, we need to look across the spectrum, at the union 
agreements, at the wages that are being paid, at the benefits, as well 
as the cost of the infrastructure, the cost to operate, the energy 
costs, so that each and every facet of Amtrak weighs into these costs. 
We have done that. The reforms are in place. We hope to see the reforms 
completed,
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we have these reforms that we 
have put in the bill become enacted, so that we can take each facet of 
the cost in Amtrak into the formula to come up with a plan to make sure 
that Amtrak is solvent in the future.
  I thank the gentleman from Michigan for spending the time on these 
allocations within this bill. I think he has done a fine job. I would 
oppose the gentleman from Ohio's amendment, let the reforms take place 
and make sure that Amtrak is solvent in the future.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we still 
have 7 minutes remaining on our side of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Oberstar from 
Minnesota, the co-author of the amendment, and ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to yield time from that 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment shows quite clearly how 
difficult the job was for the chairman in the first place, and that it 
is very difficult to find offsets for the kind of money that was 
necessary to put together this amendment.
  But all of the offsets come out of the jurisdiction of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the full Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. And I think that it makes it clear 
that if the offsets are used in this way to fund Amtrak, which is 
needed, that then we will go to the later stages in the process and try 
to make corrections in the later stages of the process.
  Mr. Chairman, it will be no more difficult to re-fund the items that 
have been taken out of their own jurisdiction, out of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's jurisdiction, it will be 
no more difficult to fund them later than it is to fund Amtrak now.
  Clearly with this amendment, we will still be $180 million below the 
enacted number for 2006, and the Amtrak board has asked this year for 
$1.598 billion. That is the most recently appointed board of members 
from the President.
  So we are still very far short of what they believe is necessary to 
run the national rail passenger system. So I am, with some trepidation, 
supporting the amendment that has been put forward. I certainly intend 
to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, again I would like to inquire about 
the time remaining for our side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Minnesota has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, by the way, let me thank Mr. 
LaTourette for suggesting the 20-minute situation divided by two. I 
appreciate that very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, giving Amtrak more money would 
be like giving at this point an alcoholic another drink and asking him 
to sober up.
  I sort of feel like I am repeating, Mr. Chairman, the Ground Hog Day. 
We have been through this debate over and over, and we keep putting 
more and more taxpayer dollars into Amtrak. And I have no problem with 
subsidizing mass transit or any type of long distance service or high 
speed service. We will need to subsidize it. But, folks, Amtrak has 
been and remains out of control. I served on the Rail Subcommittee for 
most of my time in Congress. Let us just review, if we give them a 
little bit more money, where that is going to go.
  Right now we subsidize every ticket for $47. That is absolutely 
outrageous, ladies and gentlemen. In fact, some tickets are 
subsidized--I have the report right here, the latest information--$627. 
Could you imagine that type of subsidy? They will tell you, oh, we give 
it to airlines. That is not true. No one is subsidized like Amtrak is.
  Food service. For every dollar that we take in in food service on 
Amtrak, it costs the taxpayers $2. That is it, just give them a little 
bit more money and things work out. Legal services. They spend more 
money on legal services than they do on equipment.
  The debt has risen to some $6 or $7 billion. The maintenance backlog 
is between $5 and $6 billion. So even if you add additional money, 
whoever is in this well 1 year from now will be back here trying to 
feed the Amtrak monster.
  We must have the reforms. Some of them are in the bill. The committee 
has done a great job in trying to get their attention, to try to get 
their finances in order. Their finances and accounting is worse than 
Enron's.

                              {time}  1715

  It is time that we demand accountability, that we demand a better 
operating mass transit and public long distance service; and I have no 
problem with underwriting that. But we should look at what the private 
sector can do. They have 26 million, I believe, passengers.
  In England, they have a new route, north-south. They have 34 million. 
They actually have made a profit and turned a dividend and returned it 
back to the taxpayers.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished

[[Page 11010]]

gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I find no small irony to what we just heard. This 
bill contains billions of dollars of subsides to the airline industry 
on top of hundreds of billions of dollars that was spent in the past 
for an industry that has produced a net profit of zero in its 75-year 
history.
  Why does Amtrak have problems? We have consistently underinvested in 
their capital needs. Any objective analysis suggests that they need to 
be adequately funded for capital, but this Congress consistently 
underfunds it. We cut it by another $200 million, and we will not even 
pass the authorizing legislation.
  We are not going to kill Amtrak, because the public won't allow 
Amtrak to be killed; but it is time for us to stop this charade, give a 
modest amount of money to meet its capital needs, be able to reverse 
the outrageous act where they fired David Gunn, an operational genius 
who was dealing with the management problems of Amtrak, and they fired 
him. It is time to stop the criminal mismanagement of Amtrak by the 
political process.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, regardless of your opinion about Amtrak, 
if you are concerned about border security and want to do a better job 
of protecting our border, you need to vote against this amendment. 
Because according to the CBO's scoring, this $560 million cut from the 
Federal Building Fund would come primarily out of the repairs, 
alterations, and construction account.
  The President has asked for six new border stations on the border 
between Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona. These cuts would 
leave the building fund without the money they need to build secure, 
critical border crossings with Mexico.
  This is not just about Amtrak. This is taking critically needed money 
to build these border crossings and maintain not just Federal 
structures across the country but, more importantly, the secure, 
critical border crossings with Mexico.
  I urge Members to vote against this amendment. Whether you oppose 
Amtrak, you should vote against the amendment, as I would, because I am 
concerned about Amtrak's accounting, but because I am concerned about 
border security as the highest priority of this Congress, you need to 
vote ``no'' on this amendment so we can build these secure, critical 
border crossings.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, may I have a parliamentary 
inquiry to have unanimous consent to interject a letter into the 
Record? Do I do that during this debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. That will have to be done in the full House as opposed 
to in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. LaTourette's 
amendment. One of the things you heard talked about was the fact that 
Amtrak was making changes. That is absolutely incorrect.
  I have an article I am going to interject into the Record: 
``Passenger Railroad Improves Service on Long-Haul Trains to Lure 
Travelers.'' The Empire Builder, which is in Montana, is the rolling 
laboratory for some of these changes.
  I represent a district that spans the distance of Washington, D.C. to 
Chicago. Think about it: Washington, D.C. to Chicago. In many areas, 
this is the only form of transportation we have. Many of you have 
airlines. We do not in northern Montana. Many of you have bus service. 
We do not in northern Montana. We use this service for essential 
service to get our people to hospitals, to doctors, to school, to visit 
relatives.
  This is not just something we are wasting money on. This is an 
essential service, an essential product for the people of America. If 
you are going to build a more secure future for the people of Montana, 
then you have to be realistic.
  You don't gut and undermine the effort that they are attempting to 
make at this time to improve the service of the Empire Builder in 
Amtrak. I ask you, please support Mr. LaTourette.

                  [From Business Focus, Mar. 17, 2006]

    Passenger Railroad Improves Service on Long-Haul Trains To Lure 
                               Travelers

                         (By Daniel Machalaba)

       Shelby, Montana.--Karyn Hamilton, like many Amtrak riders, 
     had a dim view of the nation's passenger railroad as low-
     class, uncomfortable and not much better than a bus. But the 
     marketing director of a financial-management firm in 
     Portland, Ore., changed her mind during a trip last August on 
     the Empire Builder, an Amtrak long-distance train undergoing 
     a dramatic makeover that includes new carpeting and colors, 
     pleasant staff, and upgraded food service.
       After years of financial and political crisis, Amtrak is 
     making a calculated gamble: To boost revenue on its longer-
     haul trains, the railroad is altering its longstanding one-
     size-fits-all approach to passengers.
       The changes began with a major makeover of the Empire 
     Builder last summer. Now, Amtrak plans to extend the changes 
     to some other long-haul trains, while also attacking bloated 
     food-service expenses. Amtrak's board also is considering 
     cuts to its headquarters overhead by streamlining repair 
     shops, maintenance operations, reservation call centers and 
     train stations.
       The shakeup is an acknowledgment by Amtrak officials that 
     they are running out of chances to stave off pressure from 
     the Bush administration to break up or even liquidate the 
     federally subsidized--and unprofitable--railroad. ``We're 
     living on borrowed time,'' says David Laney, Amtrak's 
     chairman. ``We have to demonstrate what we can do on our own 
     before it is taken out of our hands.''
       Last year the Bush administration proposed eliminating 
     subsidies to Amtrak, which has been kept afloat with $30 
     billion in federal aid since 1971, according to the 
     Department of Transportation. While Congress approved $1.3 
     billion in funding for the current fiscal year, the Bush 
     administration latest budget request includes $900 million--a 
     31 percent cut--for fiscal 2007. And the DOT would hold back 
     nearly half of the money until Amtrak demonstrated continued 
     progress on reform. Yesterday, Amtrak said it would ask 
     Congress for $1.598 billion for fiscal 2007, almost all the 
     increase for capital spending.
       As part of the do-or-die overhaul, Mr. Laney fired Amtrak 
     President David Gunn last November. Mr. Gunn had been widely 
     praised for stabilizing Amtrak's finances, jump starting 
     repairs to the Northeast Corridor and restoring credibility 
     with Congress. But Mr. Laney, a Dallas lawyer and Republican 
     loyalist appointed to the Amtrak board in 2002, concluded 
     that Mr. Gunn was standing in the way of more-drastic 
     reforms. Mr. Gunn says he was fired because he opposed the 
     Bush Administration's Amtrak strategy.
       Mr. Laney ways the next crucial step for Amtrak is to fix 
     some notorious customer-service problems, ranging from dirty 
     cars to unhelpful and rude onboard employees. About 30 
     percent of all Amtrak trains are late. Rep. John Mica, a 
     Republican from Florida and longtime Amtrak critic, complains 
     Amtrak can ``rival some of the Third World and former Soviet 
     Union rail experiences.'' Mr. Laney acknowledges that 
     passenger service by Amtrak is ``in some cases superb and in 
     some cases miserable.''
       The restructuring likely puts Amtrak on a collision course 
     with its 17,000 unionized workers, two-thirds of whom haven't 
     had a new contract for about five years. Amtrak officials 
     estimate union restrictions cost the railroad about $100 
     million a year. Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO 
     union's Transportation Trades Department, said in a statement 
     that the Bush administration's reform effort is an attempt to 
     ``scapegoat workers for the failures of the federal 
     government and the current Amtrak board.''
       Some of Amtrak's worst problems are beyond its control. 
     Formed to relieve freight railroads of money-losing passenger 
     trains, Amtrak shares nearly 22,000 miles of track with the 
     freight trains, and congestion is worsening. Still, Amtrak 
     believes better service will lure riders and shrink losses on 
     long-distance lines. On long-distance routes that are 
     primarily used by passengers for basic transportation, 
     starting with the Texas Eagle and the City of New Orleans, 
     the railroad is rolling out a new type of dining service that 
     makes greater use of precooked meals and introduces 
     disposable plastic plates. Those changes are designed to cut 
     the number of dining-car employees to three per train from 
     five or six.
       Meanwhile, Amtrak is replacing mandatory meal-serving 
     periods with more flexible hours. Over the next few years, it 
     plans to rebuild dining cars to replace traditional table 
     seating and allow passengers to sit at the bar or watch 
     passing scenery from crescent-shaped booths that face the 
     windows. Meal service will then be available as much as 18 
     hours a day, up from about eight hours now, allowing Amtrak 
     to serve more people and boost revenue. Amtrak hopes to cut 
     $32 million from its annual food-service loss of $123 
     million.

[[Page 11011]]

       The Empire Builder is the rolling laboratory for some of 
     the changes. Its on-time record is about 68 percent, and it 
     posted an average loss or $78.57 per passenger in the fiscal 
     year ended Sept. 30.
       While the Empire Building is so far sticking with the 
     traditional dining-car format, staffing level and made-to-
     order food, its added amenities and upgraded service are 
     noticeable. Amtrak put a small fleet of rebuilt passenger 
     cars with hip blue-and-white interiors on the line--a big 
     improvement over the drab orange and brown that dominated 
     older cars. Employees now must introduce themselves to 
     passengers. Conductors must stay up all night in the dining 
     car in case they are needed.
       So far, the Empire Builder makeover appears to be enticing 
     more passengers, particularly during the off-season when 
     ridership typically declines. But David Hughes, Amtrak's 
     acting president, says it is impossible to ever make long-
     distance trains like the Empire Builder profitable. Those 
     trains are expected to generate $382 million in fiscal 2006, 
     or about one-fourth of overall Amtrak revenue, but post 
     losses of more than $493 million, or about $125 for every 
     passenger.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in opposition to the amendment, not to speak against Amtrak, but 
really where these funds would come from.
  As the previous speaker under Mr. Knollenberg's time, Mr. Culberson 
said it comes out of our border security infrastructure. Much of that 
is right in the heart of Arizona. The Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry 
and the San Luis Port of Entry are located on the Arizona-Mexico 
border, not in my district, but in the area and will enhance security 
while promoting economic development and improving the quality of life 
in the border region.
  The first project is the reconfiguration of the Nogales/Mariposa Port 
of Entry. It is the principal commercial crossing on the southern 
border during much of the year. It processes half of all the winter 
fruits and vegetables entering the United States. It was built in the 
1970s, and it was never built to handle the volume of traffic it now 
receives.
  During the peak season, it is absolutely overwhelmed. Trucks line up 
for hours and miles and miles and miles into Mexico waiting to cross. 
In addition the post-9/11 requirements of the Bioterrorism Act and 
other security measures have added to the congestion of the port. This 
is a project that would be cut under this amendment.
  The second project is the construction of the new port of entry at 
San Luis, and that is the highest priority on the southern border and 
President's requested $42 million.
  I urge that we defeat this amendment because of where the funds are 
being taken from.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because the 
funding it would remove from the bill would be terribly detrimental to 
our border security infrastructure, at precisely the time when we are 
finally turning our attention towards fixing our border and stopping 
illegal immigration.
  The Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry and San Luis Port of Entry are 
located on the Arizona-Mexico border and will enhance security while 
promoting economic development and improving the quality of life in the 
border region and across the country.
  The first project is the reconfiguration of the Nogales/Mariposa Port 
of Entry to expand the port and enhance border security. Mariposa is 
one of the principal commercial crossings on the southern border; it 
processes half of the winter fruits and vegetables entering the United 
States. Built in the 1970's, Mariposa was never intended to handle the 
volume of traffic it now receives. During the peak season, it is 
overwhelmed, as trucks line up for miles and wait many hours to cross. 
In addition, the new post 9/11 requirements under the Bioterrorism Act 
and other security measures have added to the congestion at the port. 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection therefore placed this project high 
on its list of priorities and the President requested $9 million for 
design funds in his budget. That funding is in this bill and would be 
cut by this amendment.
  The second project is the construction of a new Port of Entry at San 
Luis. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has also listed this project 
as its highest priority on the southern border and the President 
requested $42 million for design funds in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget.
  Clearly, these vital projects must not be cut precisely when we are 
trying to fix our broken borders. In light of our heightened security 
needs, particularly at our southern border, I urge a ``no'' vote on 
this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  First of all, the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arizona 
are dead wrong. Our offset does not touch the border stations. In fact, 
the Nogales is registered in the bill at $9.8 million; San Luis has $42 
million. We do not touch any of the border stations.
  In fact, the offsets are minor repair and alteration, $375 million. 
Minor construction, $10 million. Building operations, that is cleaning, 
$119 million; and the DC Old Executive Office Building at $56 million 
to cover the offsets for Amtrak. None of this is border stations, none 
of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Once again, we are up here fighting for 
the life of Amtrak, 35 years of service to the public. It just amazes 
me that constantly people, the Chair of aviation, billions of dollars 
that we have put in aviation, billions of dollars, and yet it doesn't 
pay for itself, and we do not want zero funding for Amtrak.
  This administration constantly, constantly cut down the funds for 
Amtrak. This administration has come up with a lot of wacky ideas, but 
let me tell you something. When gasoline will go up to $4 a gallon, you 
are going to see a lot of people lining up to take Amtrak.
  With the passage of the latest emergency funding, President Bush will 
have spent over $439 billion on the war in Iraq, but we don't want to 
spend money for Amtrak. During Hurricane Katrina, the way the victims 
and first responders were able to leave the gulf region and the New 
Orleans area was through Amtrak, Amtrak.
  Mr. Chairman, this year, Amtrak is celebrating 35 years of public 
service to this nation through it's commitment to passenger rail.
  I travel all over the country and the people I talk to love Amtrak. 
It is a great way to commute to work, it takes cars off our already 
congested highways, and in many areas of the country is the only mode 
of transportation available. In fact, ridership has increased in 8 of 
the last 9 years reaching a record level of over 25 million passengers 
last year. It is also important to note that Amtrak's long distance 
trains are the only inner city passenger trains in half the states in 
America.
  Amtrak was also a First Responder during hurricane Katrina, and 
helped evacuate thousands of Gulf region residents while President Bush 
and his Administration were nowhere to be found. Now they are becoming 
a key part in each states future evacuation plans.
  Now what I can't understand is why the Bush Administration is trying 
to destroy passenger rail in this country. Every Industrialized country 
in the world is investing heavily in rail infrastructure because they 
realize that this is the future of transportation. But sadly, as there 
systems get bigger and better, our system gets less and less money.
  President Bush has a lot of wacky ideas for dealing with the high gas 
prices he created, but I can assure him that as prices climb to $4 per 
gallon, you are going to see Americans lining up to use a passenger 
rail system that has been neglected by this very Administration. But 
what more do you expect when you put J.R. Ewing in the White House.
  Once again we see the Bush Administration paying for its failed 
policies by cutting funds to vital public services and jeopardizing 
more American jobs. This Administration sees nothing wrong with taking 
money from the hard working Amtrak employees who work day and night to 
provide top quality service to their passengers. These folks are trying 
to make a living for their families, and they don't deserve this shabby 
treatment from the President.
  With the passage of the latest emergency funding for the war, 
President Bush will have spent over $439 Billion on the war in Iraq, 
but

                           *   *   *   *   *

million, major infrastructure projects have been completed. All with a 
workforce that has been reduced by over 4,000 employees.
  We still have a lot of work ahead of us when it comes to Amtrak. But 
we're starting $900 million dollars closer to our goal, and I know with 
the help of the American public, we can fully fund Amtrak at $1.6 
Billion and keep Amtrak running long into the future.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

[[Page 11012]]

New York (Mr. Sweeney), who offered a similar amendment during the full 
committee markup to try to save Amtrak.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in the brief time I have, I want to just say that I 
want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Rehberg, that Amtrak is an 
essential service in my part of the country. But we have had this 
debate every year, and we go through this process in each of those 
years.
  Last year, in particular, we had a very strong and vigorous debate in 
which we were threatened with a veto at one point and demanded reforms. 
This $900 million allocation is a shutdown number for Amtrak, and it 
would come at the worst possible time to shut down Amtrak.
  This is because it is part of those reforms. Amtrak was required to 
institute new acting procedures. It was required to institute new 
service contracts and plans. It was required to put in place a new 
business plan. The Department of Transportation Inspector General just 
issued a report from September 2005 to March 2006.
  Amtrak has saved in excess of $19 million with the institution of 
these new reform plans that we demanded of them. To now shut them down 
would go back on our word. Let me also say that Amtrak promotes fuel 
conservation. At this time, when we are all sensitive about that, it is 
something that we ought to consider.
  A recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows Amtrak 
consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger than automobiles and 18 
percent less than planes. Amtrak is an essential service. Support this 
amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Inspector General at the DOT has said to maintain the currently 
configured system in a steady state of repair, Amtrak would need $1.4 
billion. They can't function at a lesser number. But despite chronic 
underfunding, Amtrak has made significant performance improvements, 
reducing costs, increasing revenues, implementing reasonable 
operational reforms, building key infrastructure over its 730 route 
miles. Even with a starvation budget, this service has performed 
remarkably.
  Support the amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to 
restore funding for Amtrak. I appreciate Mr. LaTourette's work on this 
effort and I thank the chairman for his willingness to work with 
Members on this extremely important issue.
  While I strongly agree that reforming our rail system is essential, 
and I am supportive of efforts to ensure the Inspector General plays a 
key role in the rail system's oversight, the level of funding included 
in this bill is simply unrealistic.
  Unlike aviation and highways, there is no dedicated fund for 
investing in passenger rail development. Although these other modes 
rely on user fees for a great deal of their funding, they still receive 
a large amount from the general fund. In addition, these other modes 
all operate on predominantly federally owned or federally assisted 
infrastructure, and rely largely on Government-supported security, 
research, and traffic controllers.
  Rather than constantly looking for ways to shortchange passenger 
rail, we should be working on a comprehensive strategy to make Amtrak 
the best high-speed rail system in the world.
  When you consider the fact that 20 percent of all Americans live in 
the North-East and approximately 1,700 commuter trains travel the 
Northeast Corridor everyday, we need to seriously consider the amount 
of congestion and overcrowding that would occur if these trains stopped 
running.
  Passenger rail can be extremely effective in relieving congestion, 
cutting pollution, and lowering our demand for oil while creating jobs 
and increasing security. We have barely scratched the surface of 
passenger rail's potential, and a commitment from Congress to improving 
the viability of this system could lead to greatly expanded 
possibilities.
  In addition, it is my firm belief that improving passenger rail 
service in this country depends on strong and experienced leadership at 
Amtrak. Unfortunately, over the past year, the Amtrak Board has made 
several important decisions, despite the fact that close to half of its 
seats remain empty.
  Frankly, I believe the failure to appoint a fully functioning Amtrak 
Board is disgraceful, and it stands as an enormous disadvantage for 
this rail system. Members of Congress can stress the need for 
accountability and reform until we turn blue in the face--but in the 
end, what Amtrak really needs is leaders with vision, who attend and 
participate in board meetings and who are genuinely committed to 
improving passenger rail.
  Everything starts with the leadership provided by this board, and as 
we work to ensure adequate funding for passenger rail, it is crucial 
that Congress continue to advocate for a fully functioning Amtrak Board 
of Directors.
  The facts are clear; Amtrak needs Federal support to survive, just 
like highways, ports, and airlines. America is a world leader in all 
other modes of transportation. When it comes to rail, we are quickly 
falling behind.
  Mr. Chairman, many Americans, including thousands in my state, depend 
on Amtrak for both business and pleasure. Instead of shortchanging the 
organization, we should work together to improve passenger rail.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered 
by Representative LaTourette to fully fund Amtrak.
  In fiscal year 2006, the Bush administration attempted to only 
provide $360 million to maintain commuter and freight service operated 
by Amtrak. With a great deal of support from many parts of America, 
Amtrak funding was restored to $1.3 billion.
  Once again we are considering a bill that underfunds Amtrak needs to 
maintain its current operations. Amtrak is funded at a mere 900 million 
to continue its operations and make capital improvements. This is 33 
percent less than current funding levels for Amtrak. This is $698 
million less than Amtrak requested to continue operations and invest in 
capital. The Oberstar/LaTourette amendment increases funding for Amtrak 
to $1.114 billion.
  The Northeast Corridor relies heavily on Amtrak's infrastructure and 
skilled workers. New Jersey Transit estimates that over 77 percent of 
its daily passengers would be affected if--New Jersey Transit could no 
longer operate its trains over tracks owned by Amtrak.
  Many of my colleagues contend that the Northeast Corridor is the only 
area that depends on Amtrak. This is simply not true. According to a 
report recently published by the Government Accountability Office, 
across the country 18 different commuter agencies depend on the 
infrastructure and services that Amtrak provides, including commuter 
rail agencies in Dallas and Seattle. There are currently seven new 
agencies being planned across the country as well. If we do not 
continue to fund Amtrak at the levels they need to function, a shutdown 
is imminent. This would be detrimental to commuter rail agencies that 
depend on Amtrak-owned tracks and infrastructure and skilled Amtrak 
employees.
  The GAO confirms the effect a shutdown of Amtrak would cause: ``Given 
the dependence of more commuter rail agencies on Amtrak for services 
and infrastructure, an abrupt Amtrak cessation would likely result in 
major disruption or shutdowns of commuter rail service throughout the 
country.''
  We have a responsibility to promote mass transit and provide adequate 
funding for States and local transit authorities to move passengers 
effectively. Rail transportation is essential for easing traffic 
congestion in our most densely populated areas, reducing wear and tear 
on roads, protecting our environment, and preserving open space across 
the country.
  On May 1, Amtrak celebrated 35 years of service to our Nation. We 
celebrated Amtrak for its ability to integrate small communities with 
large cities by providing economic expansion, increased mobility, and 
environmentally sound transit.
  That is why I support the amendment offered by Representative 
LaTourette that would increase Amtrak funding. Now is not the time for 
us to cut funding for mass transportation. I urge my colleagues to 
support Amtrak and vote for the Oberstar/LaTourette amendment.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as cochair of the 
Passenger Rail Caucus, I urge you to support th LaTourette-Oberstar 
amendment to the FY07 Transportation, Treasury and HUD Appropriations 
bill. The amendment will increase funding for Amtrak to a total of 
$1.114 billion, an increase of $214 million.
  The FY 2007 TTHUD appropriations bill provides only $900 million for 
Amtrak, $412 million less than the FY 2006 enacted level and $698 
million less than Amtrak requested in order to continue operation and 
invest in capital. I am concerned that the current funding level in the 
bill would leave the rail system incapable of providing sufficient 
service to Amtrak's 25 million customers--many of whom

[[Page 11013]]

are my constituents of the 8th Congressional District of Pennsylvania 
on the Northeast Corridor.
  The Department of Transportation's Inspector General has stated that 
the status quo funding option for Amtrak is unsustainable. The 
Inspector General also stated that postponement of maintenance--
especially on heavily traveled Northeast Corridor increases the risk of 
accident.
  Today, as Americans are facing skyrocketing energy prices and 
increasingly overcrowded roads, it is crucial that we invest in our 
national passenger rail system.
  I urge you to join us in preserving transportation options for our 
constituents and support the LaTourette-Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the LaTourette 
amendment. I would like to enter into the Record the following article 
from the Wall Street Journal that depicts the changes that Amtrak has 
implemented on Montana's own Empire Builder Line, the most popular long 
distance train in the United States.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 17, 2006]

                          Amtrak on an Upgrade

                         (By Daniel Machalaba)

       Shelby, Montana.--Karyn Hamilton, like many Amtrak riders, 
     had a dim view of the nation's passenger railroad as low-
     class, uncomfortable and not much better than a bus. But the 
     marketing director of a financial-management firm in 
     Portland, Ore., changed her mind during a trip last August on 
     the Empire Builder, an Amtrak long-distance train undergoing 
     a dramatic makeover that includes new carpeting and colors, 
     pleasant staff, and upgraded food service. As the silver, 
     diesel-powered train rolled across the prairie, Ms. Hamilton 
     and other first-class passengers were treated toa wine-and-
     cheese tasting party. They dined on meals made with recipes 
     drawn from the bygone heyday of train travel. At bedtime, she 
     found a fresh-baked chocolate-chip cookie in her spiffed-up 
     sleeping cabin. ``It's getting more like a cruise ship,'' Ms. 
     Hamilton says. After years of financial and political crisis, 
     Amtrak is making a calculated gamble: To boost revenue on its 
     longer-haul trains, the railroad is altering its longstanding 
     one-size-fits-all approach to passengers. Instead, it is 
     courting affluent leisure travellers willing to pay extra for 
     first-class, sleeping-car service. (The differential is 
     substantial. Fares vary by season and day of the week, but if 
     someone were planning to travel, for example, on April 16, a 
     one-way coach fare from Chicago to Seattle would cost $134 
     for the two-night trip. First-class passengers would pay the 
     basic coach fare plus another $270 for a roomette or $466 for 
     a bedroom).
       The changes began with a major makeover of the Empire 
     Builder last summer. Now, Amtrak plans to extend the changes 
     to some other long-haul trains, while also attacking union 
     work rules and bloated food-service expenses. Amtrak's board 
     also is considering cuts to its headquarters overhead by 
     streamlining repair shops, maintenance operations, 
     reservation call centers and train stations.
       The shakeup is an acknowledgment by Amtrak officials that 
     they are running out of chances to stave off pressure from 
     the Bush administration to break up or even liquidate the 
     federally subsidized--and unprofitable--railroad. ``We're 
     living on borrowed time,'' says David Laney, Amtrak's 
     chairman. ``We have to demonstrate what we can do on our own 
     before it is taken out of our hands.''
       Last year, the Bush administration proposed eliminating 
     subsidies to Amtrak, which has been kept afloat with $30 
     billion in federal aid since 1971, according to the 
     Department of Transportation. While Congress approved $1.3 
     billion in funding for the current fiscal year, the Bush 
     administration latest budget request includes $900 million--a 
     31 percent cut--for fiscal 2007. And the DOT would hold back 
     nearly half of the money until Amtrak demonstrated continued 
     progress on reform. Yesterday, Amtrak said it would ask 
     Congress for $1.598 billion for fiscal 2007, almost all the 
     increase for capital spending.
       As part of the do-or-die overhaul, Mr. Laney fired Amtrak 
     President David Gunn last November. Mr. Gunn had been widely 
     praised for stabilizing Amtrak's finances, jump starting 
     repairs to the Northeast Corridor and restoring credibility 
     with Congress. But Mr. Laney, a Dallas lawyer and Republican 
     loyalist appointed to the Amtrak board in 2002, concluded 
     that Mr. Gunn was standing in the way of more-drastic 
     reforms. Mr. Gunn says he was fired because he opposed the 
     Bush Administration's Amtrak strategy.
       Mr. Laney says the next crucial step for Amtrak is to fix 
     some notorious customer-service problems, ranging from dirty 
     cars to unhelpful and rude onboard employees. About 30 
     percent of all Amtrak trains are late. Rep. John Mica, a 
     Republican from Florida and longtime Amtrak critic, complains 
     Amtrak can ``rival some of the Third World and former Soviet 
     Union rail experiences.'' Mr. Laney acknowledges that 
     passenger service by Amtrak is ``in some cases superb and in 
     some cases miserable.''
       The restructuring likely puts Amtrak on a collision course 
     with its 17,000 unionized workers, two-thirds of whom haven't 
     had a new contract for about five years. Amtrak officials 
     estimate union restrictions cost the railroad about $100 
     million a year. Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO 
     union's Transportation Trades Department, said in a statement 
     that the Bush administration's reform effort is an attempt to 
     ``scapegoat workers for the failures of the federal 
     government and the current Amtrak board.''
       Some of Amtrak's worst problems are beyond its control. 
     Formed to relieve freight railroads of money-losing passenger 
     trains, Amtrak shares nearly 22,000 miles of track with the 
     freight trains, and congestion is worsening. Still, Amtrak 
     believes better service will lure riders and shrink losses on 
     long-distance lines. On long-distance routes that are 
     primarily used by passengers for basic transportation, 
     starting with the Texas Eagle and the City of New Orleans, 
     the railroad is rolling out a new type of dining service that 
     makes greater use of precooked meals and introduces 
     disposable plastic plates. Those changes are designed to cut 
     the number of dining-car employees to three per train from 
     five or six.
       Meanwhile, Amtrak is replacing mandatory meal-serving 
     periods with more flexible hours. Over the next few years, it 
     plans to rebuild dining cars to replace traditional table 
     seating and allow passengers to sit at the bar or watch 
     passing scenery from crescent-shaped booths that face the 
     windows. Meal service will then be available as much as 18 
     hours a day, up from about eight hours now, allowing Amtrak 
     to serve more people and boost revenue. Amtrak hopes to cut 
     $32 million from its annual food-service loss of $123 
     million.
       The Empire Builder is the rolling laboratory for some of 
     the changes. The train which made its first trip in 1929, is 
     one of Amtrak's most popular, carrying nearly 500,000 riders 
     a year. During the daily 2,200 mile trek between Chicago, 
     Seattle and Portland, Ore., the Empire Builder chugs past 
     spectacular scenery. Its on-time record is about 68%, and it 
     posted an average loss or $78.57 per passenger in the fiscal 
     year ended Sept. 30.
       While the Empire Building is so far sticking with the 
     traditional dining-car format, staffing level and made-to-
     order food, its added amenities and upgraded service are 
     noticeable. Amtrak put a small fleet of rebuilt passenger 
     cars with hip blue-and-white interiors on the line--a big 
     improvement over the drab orange and brown that dominated 
     older cars. Employees now must introduce themselves to 
     passengers. Conductors must stay up all night in the dining 
     car in case they are needed.
       So far, the Empire Builder makeover appears to be enticing 
     more passengers, particularly during the off-season when 
     ridership typically declines. But David Hughes, Amtrak's 
     acting president, says it is impossible to ever make long-
     distance trains like the Empire Builder profitable. Those 
     trains are expected to generate $382 million in fiscal 2006, 
     or about one-fourth of overall Amtrak revenue, but post 
     losses of more than $493 million, or about $125 for every 
     passenger.

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this 
bill. I am proud to serve as the Vice-Chairman of this Subcommittee. I 
want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Rehberg, because Amtrak is an 
essential service in my Congressional District and home state of New 
York.
  We have had this debate every year, and we go through this process in 
each of those years. Last year in particular, we fought possibly the 
toughest battle in years for passenger rail. We were threatened with 
vetoes, unless some Amtrak reforms were enacted. So what did we do? We 
enacted reform. One year later, we have seen evidence these reforms are 
working.
  Yet, here we are today with a proposal to fund Amtrak at $900 
million. This allocation is a shutdown number for Amtrak, and it would 
come at the worst possible time to shut down Amtrak.
  This is because we have seen evidence these reforms are working. We 
required Amtrak put in place a new business plan. We required Amtrak to 
institute new service contracts and plans. For instance, they had to 
adopt more efficient accounting procedures. We also demanded they 
restructure their dining services, which was a big money loser.
  The Department of Transportation Inspector General just issued a 
report on Amtrak business practices. According to this April 6th 
report, Amtrak has saved $19 million from October 2005 through February 
2006, thanks to these reforms. This is better than expected.
  Amtrak is saving money because of the institution of these new reform 
plans that we demanded of them. To now shut them down would go back on 
our word. They lived up to their end of the deal, now we must live up 
to ours.
  Finally, in these times of record high gasoline prices, allow me to 
mention that Amtrak promotes fuel conservation. At this time, when we 
are all sensitive about that, it is something that we ought to 
seriously consider.

[[Page 11014]]

  A recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows Amtrak 
consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger than automobiles and 18 
percent less than planes. A vote to fund Amtrak is a vote to promote 
energy independence.
  I am not naive enough to think that this will solve all of our energy 
problems. Our energy policy should be a multi-faceted approach 
involving increasing our supply of traditional energy, investing in 
forms of alternative energy and promoting conservation. Increasing our 
domestic supply and investing in alternative fuels takes time--years in 
many cases.
  Here is an amendment that is part of this larger solution. 
Furthermore, this is an amendment that will make an immediate 
difference. This will not save gasoline 1 year, 5 years, 10 years from 
now. This will save gasoline tomorrow.
  I urge support of the LaTourette Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 2, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $70,000)''.
       Page 37, line 4, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $70,000)''.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today out of deep concern for the 
safety of children who ride school buses over railroad tracks in Ohio 
and across the country. My amendment will ensure that there is a person 
working full time in the Federal Railroad Administration who can help 
us resolve the inadequate reporting.
  That reporting is necessary to ensure that railroad crossings 
frequently used by school buses are in compliance with Federal safety 
requirements. Title 23, section 646.214 of the Code of Federal 
regulations requires that crossings be equipped with ``automatic gates 
with flashing light signals'' when a ``substantial number of school 
buses cross.''
  Setting aside the issue that any school bus with children in it is 
substantial, when it comes to children's safety, it is impossible for 
school districts, public utility commissions, and the Department of 
Transportation to know whether any school buses are crossing gated or 
ungated tracks if this information is not reported.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I certainly would.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to accept the amendment. Your 
amendment, I think, is a good one.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the chairman for his assistance, and I 
know that the parents of school children all over this country will be 
grateful to you for your concern. Thank you very much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1730


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Bean

  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Bean:
       Page 2, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following ``(reduced by $2,700,000)''.
       Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,700,000)''.
       Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $6,700,000)''.
       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $6,700,000)''.

  Ms. BEAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would 
increase funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's Operations and Research account by $6.7 million. The 
amendment offsets this increase by decreasing $2.7 million in funding 
from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and $4 
million from transportation planning and research account.
  The intent of my amendment is to direct the Office of Fuel Economy to 
use these funds to assess how to best incentivize the auto industry to 
increase corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standards by the year 
2015. It is my hope that this will accelerate adoption of increased 
fuel efficiency standards by having the office considering options like 
tax credits to retooling their manufacturing processes for production 
of more fuel efficient vehicles. This would provide manufacturers with 
an economically viable way to increase fuel economy for passenger cars 
and light trucks.
  Particularly in suburban districts like mine, families are plagued by 
heavy traffic and congestion and are burdened by the price of gasoline. 
The high gas prices we are facing today can only be addressed by a 
serious, long-term effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  By voting for my amendment, we can give the Office of Fuel Economy 
the resources necessary to start providing solutions on the demand side 
of the energy equation.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. We all want 
better fuel economy. However, I must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment 
for a number of reasons.
  There are times when throwing additional money at a problem is not 
going to solve it, and this is one of those times. All that is needed 
here is time.
  Giving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration more money 
will not speed up the process whereby fuel economy standards would be 
raised. Even if Congress passed a bill tomorrow ordering NHTSA to raise 
fuel economy standards, it would take a minimum of 9 months for a rule 
to be proposed and finalized. This is because NHTSA would need the 
detailed product plans from every major auto manufacturer on every 
model they make before they could draft such a rule, and assembling 
these documents takes time.
  Moreover, under law, there would have to be a reasonable comment 
period of 90 days so the public could weigh in on any proposed rule.
  Finally, any proposed rule would have to be cleared by the Office of 
the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and 
Budget, and that is just the beginning.
  Auto makers also need time, which they are provided under the law, to 
retool their product lines to comply with the new regulations. For 
instance, the auto makers are already developing their product lines 
for the 2010 model year.
  As I said at the beginning, this just takes time, roughly 27 months 
worth of time. NHTSA has already been tasked with studying the 
feasibility and effects of reducing the use of fuel for automobiles. 
This report, required by section 773 of the energy bill, is due to 
Congress later this year.
  I would also like to point out to Members that this committee has 
already significantly increased funding for NHTSA's CAFE office over 
the past several years. The office, which was funded at $60,000 in 
fiscal year 2001, was funded at almost $1.3 million last year. Giving 
NHTSA's CAFE office an extra $6.7 million would likely result in the 
money simply being unspent.
  I am unsure what benefit will be gained by the public if the CAFE 
office were to be given $6.5 million that they realistically cannot 
spend. Certainly, it would not result in fuel economy standards being 
raised faster, which I assume is the gentlewoman's ultimate intent.
  So I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this amendment. It seems to me 
that if we are to move toward energy independence, and particularly, if 
we are

[[Page 11015]]

ever going to get away from our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, with 
all the uncertainty and all of the problems that go along with that, 
which we have seen much of, then our largest and fastest gains that can 
possibly be made are in increasing the efficiency of the use of our 
motor vehicles.
  At least a third of all of the oil that we use in this country goes 
into our transportation sector and to the use of our motor vehicles, 
and we desperately need to increase the efficiency of those. That is 
the fastest thing that we can put into place, much faster than the work 
on a hydrogen economy or an ethanol economy or fuel cells or any one of 
those. The efficiency of the present fleet and vehicles to be sold in 
the near future becomes important.
  So I think it is very important that when the Energy and Commerce 
Committee bill, H.R. 5359, which provides the authority for the 
Secretary of Transportation to set economy standards for passenger 
cars, when that which is pending on the House calendar, it has been 
reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee and it is pending on 
the House calendar, that when that is passed that there be the 
resources available at NHTSA to be able to evaluate the technologies 
and capability of the automobile industry to improve fuel economy as 
fast as it can reasonably be done.
  When NHTSA was first created 30 years ago, and I guess it was when 
they were first given the job at looking at CAFE standards, they were 
given $10 million at the first instance 30 years ago to set fuel 
economy standards, and now $10 million today would probably be 
something like $40 million.
  All the gentlewoman from Illinois is asking for here is an increase 
from $1.3 million to which the NHTSA account for fuel economy has been 
reduced to bring that up to $8 million, and the offsets in this 
instance are $2.7 million, which still leaves the account for the 
Office of the Secretary at 7 percent, almost $6 million above what it 
was in fiscal year 2006, even after that $2.7 million is taken out. The 
other part of the offset is $4 million taken from the transportation 
planning research and development which with $9 million left in the 
account still has more than the President requested in his budget 
submission by almost $100,000.
  So I think this is a worthwhile place to put some money and make 
certain that NHTSA can deal with that as quickly as possible.
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, the American people are looking to Congress 
for leadership in addressing rising energy costs. In the last few 
weeks, different proposals for increasing our energy supply have come 
before us. However, few proposals have been offered to address the 
demand side of the energy equation.
  For too long, Congress has allowed a stalemate on innovation and fuel 
efficiency. This amendment does not mandate increases but, instead, 
funds research into options.
  My amendment gives this Congress an opportunity to strike a balance 
between keeping auto makers competitive, by addressing the economic 
impact on them, with the pressing needs of American drivers, because 
both manufacturers and consumers are looking for an economically viable 
solution toward the advancement in the fuel efficiency of the cars and 
trucks we drive.
  Let us help the Office of Fuel Economy facilitate public/private 
partnership solutions to meet the energy demand challenges our Nation 
is facing.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Israel

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Israel:
       Page 2, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,724,000)''.
       Page 49, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $9,448,000)''.
       Page 63, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,724,000)''.

  Mr. ISRAEL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment restores funding for certain 
advanced energy research programs to last year's levels. That research 
is absolutely critical to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
  The funding in this bill for research and university resource centers 
is $9,448,000 below last year's levels, and those are the very centers 
that are researching and developing hydrogen and hybrid and other 
advanced transportation technologies.
  Now, we all understand how vital that research and development is. 
The President of the United States on this floor during the State of 
the Union proclaimed that we must reduce our addiction to foreign oil. 
Anyone in their cars at a gas station today, as we are on the floor, 
paying over $3 a gallon for gas understands how important it is that we 
reduce that addiction to foreign oil.
  I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Our military 
understands how critical that is. Last year, the Department of Defense 
spent $10 billion on basic energy costs. Of that, $4.7 billion was 
spent to buy one thing, fuel for Air Force planes.
  I was in Iraq last month and was on a wonderful Stryker combat 
vehicle. It gets about 10 miles to the gallon.
  It is dangerous, Mr. Chairman, when we have to borrow money from 
China to fund defense budgets to buy oil from unstable Persian Gulf 
countries to fuel our military to protect us from China and unstable 
Persian Gulf countries.
  We have all talked about having men on the Moon, research and 
development programs to end that dangerous dependence on foreign oil. 
We have talked about having new Apollo programs to research and develop 
new vehicles, not lunar landing modules that will put people on the 
Moon, but hydrogen and hybrid vehicles that will make it easier and 
safer and less expensive for people to drive on our roads here on 
Earth. And yet, this bill cuts $9.5 million from the very research 
centers that are engaged in deploying those vehicles.
  This is not a giant leap for mankind. This is not even one small step 
for mankind. It is a step backwards, and so my amendment does not go 
above last year's level. It does not take a giant leap that I think we 
need. All it does is it keeps us steady so we do not continue to lose 
ground to the very adversaries we have around the world who are willing 
to use oil as a weapon against us and use oil to blackmail us and 
compromise our capabilities.
  This amendment simply offsets salaries in the Treasury and 
Transportation accounts and restores $9,448,000 for basic research at 
the research and university research centers to continue our vital 
work, and I hope that the House will agree to it and support it.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The account he seeks to increase is transit research, not fuel 
research, and I appreciate his sentiment, but we already gave more than 
the guarantees, and the guarantees are killing other programs, both 
transportation and everything else. Repeatedly I see already that the 
Treasury continues to get hit over and over.
  We provide a greater level of funding in 2007 to address two 
problems. We needed to fix a problem with SAFETEA-LU since the 
authorizing committee identified more projects and activities than were 
provided for under the guarantees. We covered that problem and found 
the money for the fix in

[[Page 11016]]

order to keep the program going. We added these funds to cover some 
initiatives important to other Members.
  The gentleman proposes to add money for alternative fuels research. 
However, most of that research is funded out of DOE and NHTSA. This 
account is for research into transit, as I repeated, and I urge a 
``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  This amendment that is offered by my good friend from New York, this 
amendment does exactly what I had spoken about in my opening remarks in 
relation to this bill and which the chairman of the subcommittee has 
pointed out as well, that this amendment starts by adding money, 
assuring money to already what is one of the guaranteed items under the 
TEA-LU guarantees, which those guarantees had to be provided in order 
to bring the bill to the floor at all.
  This is not a rearrangement of moneys as the previous case was where 
I had supported the Amtrak amendment because, in that instance, the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was moving money around 
totally within its jurisdiction, and I thought that was something that 
was worth supporting.

                              {time}  1745

  In this instance, what we are doing is taking money from one of the 
places in the bill which has no guarantees for minima along the way, 
namely the Treasury, a totally different unit of the bill, a totally 
different title of the bill, and simply grabs those and moves them over 
to an area which is already under the guarantees of the TEA-LU bill.
  Under those circumstances, I must, regretfully for the gentleman from 
New York, oppose the amendment; and I hope that it will not be adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $8,821,000.


           transportation planning, research, and development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems development, development 
     activities, and making grants, to remain available until 
     expended, $13,000,000.


                          working capital fund

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed $120,000,000, 
     shall be paid from appropriations made available to the 
     Department of Transportation: Provided, That such services 
     shall be provided on a competitive basis to entities within 
     the Department of Transportation: Provided further, That the 
     above limitation on operating expenses shall not apply to 
     non-DOT entities: Provided further, That no funds 
     appropriated in this Act to an agency of the Department shall 
     be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the 
     approval of the agency modal administrator: Provided further, 
     That no assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.


               minority business resource center program

       For the cost of guaranteed loans for short-term working 
     capital, $495,000, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $18,367,000. In 
     addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, $396,000.


                       minority business outreach

       For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center 
     outreach activities, $2,970,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2008: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 
     332, these funds may be used for business opportunities 
     related to any mode of transportation.


                        payments to air carriers

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       In addition to funds made available from any other source 
     to carry out the essential air service program under 49 
     U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, $67,000,000, to be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, in determining between or among 
     carriers competing to provide service to a community, the 
     Secretary may consider the relative subsidy requirements of 
     the carriers: Provided further, That, if the funds under this 
     heading are insufficient to meet the costs of the essential 
     air service program in the current fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall transfer such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 
     essential air service program from any available amounts 
     appropriated to or directly administered by the Office of the 
     Secretary for such fiscal year: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available under this heading, $1,000,000 shall be 
     used to carry out the three marketing incentive programs 
     authorized by section 41748 of title 49, United States Code.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
paragraph beginning at the words ``to be derived from the Airport and 
Airway Trust Fund,'' beginning on page 5, line 23, and ending on line 
24.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The provision would provide that funding for payments to air carriers 
be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Authorization in law 
may exist for this funding from general revenues, but no specific 
authorization in law exists for this funding to be derived from the 
trust fund.
  The Chair finds that in this latter respect the provision is not 
supported by an authorization in law. This is consistent with the 
ruling of the Chair of June 29, 2005. The point of order is sustained 
and the provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the funds made available under section 101(a)(2) of 
     Public Law 107-42, $50,000,000 are rescinded.


  administrative provisions--office of the secretary of transportation

       Sec. 101. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may reimburse amounts made available to 
     satisfy 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) from fees credited under 49 
     U.S.C. 45303: Provided, That during fiscal year 2007, 49 
     U.S.C. 41742(b) shall not apply, and any amount remaining in 
     such account at the close of that fiscal year may be made 
     available to satisfy section 41742(a)(1) for the subsequent 
     fiscal year.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 101.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 6, line 
22, beginning with ``provided, that'' through line 26.
  This proviso violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law, 
which constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of 
House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this proviso changes the application of existing 
law. The proviso therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and the proviso 
is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 102. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     transfer the unexpended balances available for the bonding 
     assistance program from ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries 
     and expenses'' to ``Minority Business Outreach''.

[[Page 11017]]

       Sec. 103. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Transportation may be obligated for the 
     Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve 
     assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds 
     appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except 
     for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     unless such assessments or agreements have completed the 
     normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be obligated or expended to establish or implement a 
     program under which essential air service communities are 
     required to assume subsidy costs commonly referred to as the 
     EAS local participation program.

                    Federal Aviation Administration


                               operations

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities, 
     the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and 
     maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made 
     available by Public Law 108-176, $8,360,000,000, of which 
     $4,843,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $6,698,728,000 shall be 
     available for air traffic organization activities; not to 
     exceed $997,718,000 shall be available for aviation 
     regulation and certification activities; not to exceed 
     $11,985,000 shall be available for commercial space 
     transportation activities; not to exceed $92,227,000 shall be 
     available for financial services activities; not to exceed 
     $87,850,000 shall be available for human resources program 
     activities; not to exceed $272,821,000 shall be available for 
     region and center operations and regional coordination 
     activities; not to exceed $175,392,000 shall be available for 
     staff offices; and not to exceed $36,799,000 shall be 
     available for information services: Provided, That not to 
     exceed 2 percent of any budget activity, except for aviation 
     regulation and certification budget activity, may be 
     transferred to any budget activity under this heading: 
     Provided further, That no transfer may increase or decrease 
     any appropriation by more than 2 percent: Provided further, 
     That any transfer in excess of 2 percent shall be treated as 
     a reprogramming of funds under section 810 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the Federal Aviation Administration to finalize 
     or implement any regulation that would promulgate new 
     aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That 
     there may be credited to this appropriation funds received 
     from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, 
     other public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred in the provision of agency services, including 
     receipts for the maintenance and operation of air navigation 
     facilities, and for issuance, renewal or modification of 
     certificates, including airman, aircraft, and repair station 
     certificates, or for tests related thereto, or for processing 
     major repair or alteration forms: Provided further, That of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than 
     $8,000,000 shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing 
     program: Provided further, That funds may be used to enter 
     into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting 
     organization to assist in the development of aviation safety 
     standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this 
     Act shall be available for new applicants for the second 
     career training program: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay 
     under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration 
     employee unless such employee actually performed work during 
     the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station 
     in the contiguous United States: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and 
     cartography are available for activities conducted by, or 
     coordinated through, the Working Capital Fund: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated 
     or expended for an employee of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to purchase a store gift card or gift 
     certificate through use of a Government-issued credit card.


                        facilities and equipment

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, technical support services, 
     improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of air 
     navigation and experimental facilities and equipment, as 
     authorized under part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United 
     States Code, including initial acquisition of necessary sites 
     by lease or grant; engineering and service testing, including 
     construction of test facilities and acquisition of necessary 
     sites by lease or grant; construction and furnishing of 
     quarters and related accommodations for officers and 
     employees of the Federal Aviation Administration stationed at 
     remote localities where such accommodations are not 
     available; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft 
     from funds available under this heading; to be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, $3,110,000,000, of which 
     $2,662,100,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2009, and of which $447,900,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2007: Provided, That there may be credited to 
     this appropriation funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private 
     sources, for expenses incurred in the establishment and 
     modernization of air navigation facilities: Provided further, 
     That upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal 
     year 2008 President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital 
     investment plan for the Federal Aviation Administration which 
     includes funding for each budget line item for fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012, with total funding for each year of the 
     plan constrained to the funding targets for those years as 
     estimated and approved by the Office of Management and 
     Budget.


                 research, engineering, and development

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     including construction of experimental facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant, 
     $134,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred for research, engineering, and development.


                       grants-in-aid for airports

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and under other law authorizing such 
     obligations; for procurement, installation, and commissioning 
     of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at 
     airports of such title; for grants authorized under section 
     41743 of title 49, United States Code; and for inspection 
     activities and administration of airport safety programs, 
     including those related to airport operating certificates 
     under section 44706 of title 49, United States Code, 
     $4,171,000,000 to be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds under this heading shall be available 
     for the planning or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $3,700,000,000 in fiscal year 2007, 
     notwithstanding section 47117(g) of title 49, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That none of the funds under this 
     heading shall be available for the replacement of baggage 
     conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas, 
     or other airport improvements that are necessary to install 
     bulk explosive detection systems: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, of funds limited 
     under this heading, up to $74,971,000 shall be obligated for 
     administration, up to $10,000,000 shall be available for the 
     airport cooperative research program, up to $12,000,000 shall 
     be available to carry out the Small Community Air Service 
     Development Program, and up to $17,870,000 shall be for 
     airport technology research, to remain available until 
     expended.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 13, 
line 1, beginning with ``; for grants'' through page 13, line 6, ending 
with the word ``Code.''
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and therefore constitutes, again, legislating on an appropriations bill 
in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the gentleman's 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The provision proposes to earmark certain funds in the bill. Under 
clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be specifically 
authorized by law. The burden of establishing the authorization in law 
rests in this instance with the committee or other proponent of the 
provision.

[[Page 11018]]

  Finding that this burden has not been carried, the point of order is 
sustained and the provision is stricken from the bill.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against another 
provision of the paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. I raise a point of order against page 13, line 17, 
beginning with the words ``Provided further'' through line 25.
  This provision also violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes 
existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations 
bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this proviso explicitly supercedes existing law. 
The proviso, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the proviso is stricken from the 
bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent to have it considered out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment may be considered at 
this time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 11, line 8, after each of the dollar amounts, insert 
     the following: ``(reduced by $261,000,000)''.
       Page 85, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $261,000,000)''.

  Ms. WATERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that before this bill is enacted 
into law we must reverse an unwise pattern of disinvestment in the 
Nation's public housing. Therefore, I am introducing an amendment to 
restore the $261 million reduction in the Public Housing Capital Fund.
  America's public housing inventory is a $100 billion public asset 
providing affordable housing to 1.1 million families. Just over half of 
these families are headed by the elderly or persons with disabilities, 
and children make up approximately 40 percent of all those we help. 
Public housing helps families and the elderly in large and small 
communities across the country in every congressional district.
  In addition to safe, decent, affordable housing, public housing 
agencies connect people to the services they need, services that help 
adults become economically self-sufficient, provide children safe 
places to grow and learn, and allow the elderly and persons with 
disabilities to live independently.
  Public housing funding has been declining since 2001. Despite the 
estimated $100 billion value of public housing assets to our 
communities, this bill does not provide funding necessary to maintain 
them for the long run. Total Federal funding for public housing has 
dropped precipitously over this decade. The bill before us provides 
$1.4 billion less than provided for funding year 2001, that is, the 
President's budget for funding year 2007 requests nearly $1.5 billion 
less for public housing than Congress provided for funding year 2001.
  This drop in resources has constrained local agencies' ability to 
address safety and security needs, provide valuable services to those 
seeking economic self-sufficiency and independent living, and 
undermines agencies' ability to meet the recent surge in utility costs. 
This decline in funding is most egregious in the area of capital repair 
funding.
  Public housing faces an estimated $18 billion backlog of capital 
repairs. According to a HUD-funded study, an additional $2 billion in 
capital repair needs accrues each year as buildings age. The 
President's budget and this bill cuts funding for the public housing 
capital funds for major repairs by $261 million, that is 11 percent 
compared with last year's funding. In fact, the capital fund has been 
cut each year since 2001, declining a total of 27 percent over 6 years 
if this budget is enacted.
  The capital funds provided in this bill are barely sufficient to 
cover annually accruing needs, let alone address the backlog of need. 
The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials 
estimates that $3.5 billion is necessary to begin to address the 
backlog of need in funding year 2007.
  At the same time we are cutting basic capital repair funds, this bill 
also zeros out funding for the HOPE VI program for comprehensive 
revitalization of the most distressed public housing communities as 
requested by the administration. My colleague, John Olver, categorized 
this approach of cutting annual capital repair funding as, and I quote, 
``penny-wise and pound foolish,'' and that is exactly what this is.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to embrace the intent of my 
capital fund amendment in order to secure the ongoing viability of this 
valuable affordable housing asset. Unless greater measures are taken by 
HUD to preserve this affordable asset called public housing, this 
unique asset and the larger continuum of a sound Federal affordable 
housing policy will be degraded and eventually lost. And that is a plan 
that our communities, our seniors, and our families with children 
cannot afford.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that these are our most 
vulnerable citizens, and they need a safety net. While we want them to 
improve their lives, we want them to become independent. We are trying 
to have programs that will transition them to work and out of public 
housing. It is not going to happen unless we have reasonable and 
sensible investment to make these safe, sound, and secure places for 
our citizens to live.
  Again, we need this in all of our congressional districts. As a 
matter of fact, the poor have nowhere else to turn. They are depending 
on us. I would ask us not to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, but 
rather to make what I think is one of the most prudent investments we 
can make.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California has 
expired.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30 
additional seconds to close this out.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has asked unanimous consent to proceed 
for 30 additional seconds.
  Is there objection to the gentlewoman's unanimous consent request? If 
not, the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I moved to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman for an additional 
30 seconds.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that has been 
allotted and I move to withdraw the amendment. I have not been able to 
find the funds to replace that which has been cut. I appreciate the 
time to at least explain it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  If I had been allowed to move to strike the last word, I would have 
been happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman after I made a 
comment which relates to the amendment she offered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman asked unanimous consent to proceed for 
an additional 30 seconds, and the Chair responded to her unanimous 
consent request and granted her the 30 seconds that she requested.

[[Page 11019]]


  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this is one of 
those cutting-the-baby-in-two kinds of situations that has been forced 
upon the TTHUD committee by the allocation and the relationship, the 
juxtaposition of guarantees under the transportation accounts and no 
such guarantees under some of the others.
  The $261 million that the gentlewoman asked to be provided by an 
offset which would have placed the bill under point of order and is 
under point of order if she had not withdrawn the amendment. That $261 
million would have protected a very important infrastructure investment 
that we have.
  We have $100 billion worth of housing under the public housing 
capital fund, and it is that capital fund which does the renovations, 
the rehabilitations, the replacements of those facilities, and it is a 
very important piece which I have spoken about at each stage of this 
process, every one of the stages, even before, Mr. Chairman, your 
committee just last night about the need for additional funding in the 
public housing capital fund.
  I am very much hopeful that we will be able to find before this 
process runs its course to the final conference report, that we will be 
able to find some additional money for the public housing capital fund 
so we can, in fact, do something about the huge backlog which has been 
listed by the gentlewoman as close to $20 billion of backlog in needs 
for capital repair and improvements in our $100 billion of housing 
stock.
  So that is one of the dilemmas that the subcommittee, the chairman 
and the staff and the committee as a whole has been laboring under, and 
I hope to find a way to provide some relief for the problem.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       grants-in-aid for airports

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the amounts authorized for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2007 and prior years under sections 48103 and 
     48112 of title 49, United States Code, $25,000,000 are 
     rescinded.


       Administrative Provisions--Federal Aviation Administration

       Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer without consideration to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant: 
     Provided, That the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     accept such equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and 
     maintained by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 380 technical staff-years under the 
     federally funded research and development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     2006.
       Sec. 112. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport 
     sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration 
     without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities 
     and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for 
     services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or 
     weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in 
     this section does not apply to negotiations between the 
     agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
     market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that 
     require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the 
     FAA for air traffic control facilities.
       Sec. 113. Amounts collected under section 40113(e) of title 
     49, United States Code, shall be credited to the 
     appropriation current at the time of collection, to be merged 
     with and available for the same purposes of such 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 114. None of the funds appropriated or limited by this 
     Act may be used to change weight restrictions or prior 
     permission rules at Teterboro Airport in Teterboro, New 
     Jersey.
       Sec. 115. (a) Section 44302(f)(1) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``2006,'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2007,''.
       (b) Section 44303(b) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``2006,'' and inserting ``2007,''.
       Sec. 116. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used for engineering work related to an additional 
     runway at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.

                     Federal Highway Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the 
     Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $372,504,000 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration 
     together with advances and reimbursements received by the 
     Federal Highway Administration.


                          federal-aid highways

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $39,086,464,683 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 2007: Provided, That within this obligation limitation 
     on Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction 
     programs, not more than $429,800,000 shall be available for 
     the implementation or execution of programs for 
     transportation research (chapter 5 of title 23, United States 
     Code; sections 111, 5505, and 5506 of title 49, United States 
     Code; and title 5 of Public Law 109-59) for fiscal year 2007: 
     Provided further, That this limitation on transportation 
     research programs shall not apply to any authority previously 
     made available for obligation: Provided further, That the 
     funds authorized pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 110 for the motor 
     carrier safety grant program, and the obligation limitation 
     associated with such funds provided under this heading, shall 
     be transferred to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration: Provided further, That the Secretary may, as 
     authorized by section 605(b) of title 23, United States Code, 
     collect and spend fees to cover the costs of services of 
     expert firms, including counsel, in the field of municipal 
     and project finance to assist in the underwriting and 
     servicing of Federal credit instruments and all or a portion 
     of the costs to the Federal government of servicing such 
     credit instruments: Provided further, That such fees are 
     available until expended to pay for such costs: Provided 
     further, That such amounts are in addition to administrative 
     expenses that are also available for such purpose, and are 
     not subject to any obligation limitation or the limitation on 
     administrative expenses under section 608 of title 23, United 
     States Code.


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
     Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, not 
     otherwise provided, including reimbursement for sums expended 
     pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $39,086,464,683 
     or so much thereof as may be available in and derived from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), 
     to remain available until expended.


                          (highway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned to each 
     State under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, 
     $2,000,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That such rescission 
     shall not apply to the funds distributed in accordance with 
     23 U.S.C. 130(f), 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(1) as in effect prior to 
     the date of enactment of Public Law 109-59, the first 
     sentence of 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(A), 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(5), or 
     23 U.S.C. 163 as in effect prior to the enactment of Public 
     Law 109-59.


       Administrative Provisions--Federal Highway Administration

                        (including rescissions)

       Sec. 120. (a) For fiscal year 2007, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall--
       (1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways amounts authorized for administrative 
     expenses and programs by section 104(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code; the highway use tax evasion program; and the 
     Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
       (2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation 
     for Federal-aid highways that is equal to the unobligated 
     balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety programs for previous fiscal 
     years the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
       (3) determine the ratio that--
       (A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways, 
     less the aggregate of amounts not distributed under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), bears to
       (B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     (other than sums authorized to be appropriated for provisions 
     of law described in paragraphs (1) through (9) of subsection 
     (b) and sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of 
     title 23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to 
     in subsection (b)(10) for such fiscal year), less the 
     aggregate of the amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of this subsection;
       (4)(A) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     highways, less the aggregate

[[Page 11020]]

     amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2), for 
     sections 1301, 1302, and 1934 of the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users; sections 117 (but individually for each project 
     numbered 1 through 3676 listed in the table contained in 
     section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
     Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users) and 144(g) of 
     title 23, United States Code; and section 14501 of title 40, 
     United States Code, so that the amount of obligation 
     authority available for each of such sections is equal to the 
     amount determined by multiplying the ratio determined under 
     paragraph (3) by the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     that section for the fiscal year; and
       (B) distribute $2,000,000,000 for section 105 of title 23, 
     United States Code;
       (5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for 
     Federal-aid highways, less the aggregate amounts not 
     distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts 
     distributed under paragraph (4), for each of the programs 
     that are allocated by the Secretary under the Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users and title 23, United States Code (other than 
     to programs to which paragraphs (1) and (4) apply), by 
     multiplying the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such program 
     for such fiscal year; and
       (6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for 
     Federal-aid highways, less the aggregate amounts not 
     distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts 
     distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5), for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs (other than 
     the amounts apportioned for the equity bonus program, but 
     only to the extent that the amounts apportioned for the 
     equity bonus program for the fiscal year are greater than 
     $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian development highway 
     system program) that are apportioned by the Secretary under 
     the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and title 23, United States 
     Code, in the ratio that--
       (A) amounts authorized to be appropriated for such programs 
     that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear 
     to
       (B) the total of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     for such programs that are apportioned to all States for such 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation 
     limitation for Federal-aid highways shall not apply to 
     obligations: (1) under section 125 of title 23, United States 
     Code; (2) under section 147 of the Surface Transportation 
     Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under section 9 of the Federal-
     Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under subsections (b) and (j) of 
     section 131 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
     1982; (5) under subsections (b) and (c) of section 149 of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987; (6) under sections 1103 through 1108 of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (7) 
     under section 157 of title 23, United States Code, as in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; (8) under 
     section 105 of title 23, United States Code, as in effect for 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2004, but only in an amount equal 
     to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years; (9) for 
     Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation authority 
     was made available under the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century or subsequent public laws for multiple years 
     or to remain available until used, but only to the extent 
     that the obligation authority has not lapsed or been used; 
     (10) under section 105 of title 23, United States Code, but 
     only in an amount equal to $639,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2005, 2006 and 2007; and (11) under section 1603 of the 
     Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
     Act: A Legacy for Users, to the extent that funds obligated 
     in accordance with that section were not subject to a 
     limitation on obligations at the time at which the funds were 
     initially made available for obligation.
       (c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall, after 
     August 1 of such fiscal year, revise a distribution of the 
     obligation limitation made available under subsection (a) if 
     the amount distributed cannot be obligated during that fiscal 
     year and redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able 
     to obligate amounts in addition to those previously 
     distributed during that fiscal year, giving priority to those 
     States having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned 
     under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, United States Code.
       (d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to 
     Transportation Research Programs.--The obligation limitation 
     shall apply to transportation research programs carried out 
     under chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, and title V 
     (research title) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
     Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 
     except that obligation authority made available for such 
     programs under such limitation shall remain available for a 
     period of 3 fiscal years and shall be in addition to the 
     amount of any limitation imposed on obligations for Federal-
     aid highway and highway safety construction programs for 
     future fiscal years.
       (e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the distribution of obligation limitation under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds 
     that--
       (A) are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year 
     for Federal-aid highways programs; and
       (B) the Secretary determines will not be allocated to the 
     States, and will not be available for obligation, in such 
     fiscal year due to the imposition of any obligation 
     limitation for such fiscal year.
       (2) Ratio.--Funds shall be distributed under paragraph (1) 
     in the same ratio as the distribution of obligation authority 
     under subsection (a)(6).
       (3) Availability.--Funds distributed under paragraph (1) 
     shall be available for any purposes described in section 
     133(b) of title 23, United States Code.
       (f) Special Limitation Characteristics.--Obligation 
     limitation distributed for a fiscal year under subsection 
     (a)(4) for the provision specified in subsection (a)(4) 
     shall--
       (1) remain available until used for obligation of funds for 
     that provision; and
       (2) be in addition to the amount of any limitation imposed 
     on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
     construction programs for future fiscal years.
       (g) High Priority Project Flexibility.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), obligation 
     authority distributed for such fiscal year under subsection 
     (a)(4) for each project numbered 1 through 3676 listed in the 
     table contained in section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users may be obligated for any other project in such section 
     in the same State.
       (2) Restoration.--Obligation authority used as described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be restored to the original purpose on 
     the date on which obligation authority is distributed under 
     this section for the next fiscal year following obligation 
     under paragraph (1).
       (h) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to limit the distribution of 
     obligation authority under subsection (a)(4)(A) for each of 
     the individual projects numbered greater than 3676 listed in 
     the table contained in section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 120.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, this provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an 
appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
gentleman's point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section imparts direction to the executive. 
The section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49 
     U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways 
     account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such 
     expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction.
       Sec. 122. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     authorized under section 110 of title 23, United States Code, 
     for fiscal year 2007 shall be apportioned to the States in 
     accordance with section 1105(f) of the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144, 1166), except that 
     before allocations in accordance with section 1105(f)(3) of 
     such Act are made, $300,000,000 shall be set aside for the 
     Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program 
     under section 1117 of such Act (119 Stat. at 1177-1179) and 
     administered in accordance with section 1117(g)(2) of such 
     Act.
       Sec. 123. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     provided in Public Law 102-143 in the item relating to 
     ``Highway Bypass Demonstration Project'' shall be available 
     for the improvement of Route 101 in the vicinity of 
     Prunedale, Monterey County, California.
       Sec. 124. Of the unobligated balances made available under 
     Public Law 101-516, Public Law 102-143, Public Law 102-240, 
     Public Law 103-331, Public Law 105-178, Public Law 106-346, 
     Public Law 107-87, and Public Law 108-7, $12,177,193.53 are 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 125. Of the unobligated balances made available under 
     section 188(a)(1) of title 23, United States Code, as in 
     effect prior to the

[[Page 11021]]

     date of enactment of Public Law 109-59, and under section 
     608(a)(1) of such title, $100,000,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 126. Of the amounts made available under section 
     104(a) of title 23, United States Code, $14,460,721 is 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 127. Of the unobligated balances made available for 
     fiscal year 2005, under title 5 of Public Law 109-59, for the 
     implementation or execution of programs for transportation 
     research, $37,815,112 is rescinded.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 127.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, this provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an 
appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
gentleman's point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Under clause 2(b) of rule XXI, the Committee on Appropriations may 
recommend rescissions only of appropriations that were contained in 
prior appropriations Acts, but not rescissions of contract authority 
that is contained in other laws.
  Therefore, the point of order is sustained. The section is stricken 
from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 128. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     provided under section 378 of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (Public Law 106-346, 114 Stat. 1356, 1356A-41), for the 
     reconstruction of School Road East in Marlboro Township, New 
     Jersey, shall be available for the Spring Valley Road Project 
     in Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
       Sec. 129. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available or limited by this Act shall be 
     used for (1) the development, planning, design, or 
     construction of a bridge joining the Island of Gravina to the 
     Community of Ketchikan, Alaska; (2) the development, 
     planning, design, or construction of the Knik Arm Bridge, 
     Alaska; or (3) any administrative expense of the Federal 
     Highway Administration to provide payment or reimbursement 
     for any expense incurred by the State of Alaska in carrying 
     out an activity described in paragraph (1) or (2).

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


                      motor carrier safety grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 
     sections 31102, 31104(a), 31106, 31107, 31109, 31309, 31313 
     of title 49, United States Code, and sections 4126 and 4128 
     of Public Law 109-59, $294,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That none of 
     the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $294,000,000, for ``Motor Carrier 
     Safety Grants''; of which $197,000,000 shall be available for 
     the motor carrier safety assistance program to carry out 
     sections 31102 and 31104(a) of title 49, United States Code; 
     $25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial driver's 
     license improvements program to carry out section 31313 of 
     title 49, United States Code; $32,000,000 shall be available 
     for the border enforcement grants program to carry out 
     section 31107 of title 49, United States Code; $5,000,000 
     shall be available for the performance and registration 
     information system management program to carry out sections 
     31106(b) and 31109 of title 49, United States Code; 
     $25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial vehicle 
     information systems and networks deployment program to carry 
     out section 4126 of Public Law 109-59; $3,000,000 shall be 
     available for the safety data improvement program to carry 
     out section 4128 of Public Law 109-59; and $7,000,000 shall 
     be available for the commercial driver's license information 
     system modernization program to carry out section 31309(e) of 
     title 49, United States Code.


              motor carrier safety operations and programs

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in the implementation, 
     execution, and administration of the motor carrier safety 
     operations and programs pursuant to section 31104(i) of title 
     49, United States Code, and sections 4127 and 4134 of Public 
     Law 109-59, $223,000,000, to be derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), together 
     with advances and reimbursements received by the Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the sum of which shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds derived from the Highway Trust Fund in this Act shall 
     be available for the implementation, execution or 
     administration of programs, the obligations for which are in 
     excess of $223,000,000, for ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations 
     and Programs'', of which $10,296,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2009, is for the research and 
     technology program and $1,000,000 shall be available for 
     commercial motor vehicle operator's grants to carry out 
     section 4134 of Public Law 109-59: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds under this heading for outreach and 
     education shall be available for transfer.


                          motor carrier safety

                          (highway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in prior 
     appropriations Acts, $27,122,669 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


                 national motor carrier safety program

                          (highway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in prior 
     appropriations Acts, $3,419,816 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


 administrative provisions--federal motor carrier safety administration

       Sec. 130. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall 
     be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section 
     350 of Public Law 107-87, including that the Secretary submit 
     a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
     annually on the safety and security of transportation into 
     the United States by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


                        operations and research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     subtitle C of title X of Public Law 105-59, chapter 301 of 
     title 49, United States Code, and part C of subtitle VI of 
     title 49, United States Code, $122,000,000, of which 
     $48,405,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or implement any 
     rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 49 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations any requirement pertaining to a 
     grading standard that is different from the three grading 
     standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance) 
     already in effect.


                        operations and research

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, $107,750,000, to be derived from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     and to remain available until expended: Provided, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be available for the planning 
     or execution of programs the total obligations for which, in 
     fiscal year 2007, are in excess of $107,750,000 for programs 
     authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.


                              (rescission)

       Of amounts made available under this heading in prior 
     appropriations Acts, $6,772,751 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


                        national driver register

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out chapter 
     303 of title 49, United States Code, $4,000,000, to be 
     derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
     Transit Account) and remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the implementation or execution of programs the 
     obligations for which are in excess of $4,000,000 for the 
     National Driver Register authorized under chapter 303 of 
     title 49, United States Code.


                              (rescission)

       Of amounts made available under this heading in prior 
     appropriations Acts, $8,553 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


                     highway traffic safety grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 406, 408, and 410 and 
     sections 2001(a)(11), 2009, 2010, and 2011 of Public Law 109-
     59, to remain available until expended, $587,750,000 to be 
     derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
     Transit Account): Provided, That none of the funds in this 
     Act shall be available for the planning or execution of 
     programs the total obligations for which, in fiscal year 
     2007, are in excess of $587,750,000 for programs authorized 
     under 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 406, 408, and 410 and sections 
     2001(a)(11), 2009, 2010, and 2011 of Public Law 109-59, of 
     which $220,000,000 shall be for

[[Page 11022]]

     ``Highway Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402; $25,000,000 
     shall be for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under 
     23 U.S.C. 405; $124,500,000 shall be for ``Safety Belt 
     Performance Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 406; $34,500,000 shall 
     be for ``State Traffic Safety Information System 
     Improvements'' under 23 U.S.C. 408; $125,000,000 shall be for 
     ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant 
     Program'' under 23 U.S.C. 410; $17,750,000 shall be for 
     ``Administrative Expenses'' under section 2001(a)(11) of 
     Public Law 109-59; $29,000,000 shall be for ``High Visibility 
     Enforcement Program'' under section 2009 of Public Law 109-
     59; $6,000,000 shall be for ``Motorcyclist Safety'' under 
     section 2010 of Public Law 109-59; and $6,000,000 shall be 
     for ``Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive 
     Grants'' under section 2011 of Public Law 109-59: Provided 
     further, That none of these funds shall be used for 
     construction, rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, or for 
     office furnishings and fixtures for State, local or private 
     buildings or structures: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $500,000 of the funds made available for section 410 
     ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants'' shall be 
     available for technical assistance to the States: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $750,000 of the funds made 
     available for the ``High Visibility Enforcement Program'' 
     shall be available for the evaluation required under section 
     2009(f) of Public Law 109-59.


                              (rescission)

       Of amounts made available under this heading in prior 
     appropriations Acts, $5,646,863 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


      administrative provisions--national highway traffic safety 
                             administration

       Sec. 140. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     limitation on the use of funds made available under section 
     403 of title 23, United States Code, an additional $130,000 
     shall be made available to the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration, out of the amount limited for section 
     402 of title 23, United States Code, to pay for travel and 
     related expenses for State management reviews and to pay for 
     core competency development training and related expenses for 
     highway safety staff.

                    Federal Railroad Administration


                         safety and operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $150,083,000, of 
     which $13,870,890 shall remain available until expended.


                   railroad research and development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $34,650,000, to remain available until expended.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as 
     amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments 
     shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium 
     during fiscal year 2007.

  Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger 
                              Corporation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly 
     grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for the 
     maintenance and repair of capital infrastructure owned by the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation, including railroad 
     equipment, rolling stock, legal mandates and other services, 
     $500,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $280,000,000 shall be for debt service 
     obligations: Provided, That the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall approve funding for capital expenditures, including 
     advance purchase orders, for the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation only after receiving and reviewing a grant 
     request for each specific capital grant justifying the 
     Federal support to the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds under this heading may be 
     used to subsidize operating losses of the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds under this heading may be used for capital projects not 
     approved by the Secretary of Transportation and on the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation's fiscal year 2007 
     business plan.

    Efficiency Incentive Grants to the National Railroad Passenger 
                              Corporation


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount to be made available to the 
     Secretary for efficiency incentive grants to the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation, $400,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary may 
     make grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
     for an additional sum for operating subsidies at any time 
     during the fiscal year for the purpose of maintaining the 
     operation of existing or new Amtrak routes: Provided further, 
     That nothing in the previous proviso should be interpreted 
     either to encourage or discourage the Corporation with 
     respect to adjusting existing routes or frequencies: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Transportation shall reserve 
     $60,000,000 of the funds provided under this heading and is 
     authorized to transfer such sums to the Surface 
     Transportation Board, upon request from said Board, to carry 
     out directed service orders issued pursuant to section 11123 
     of title 49, United States Code, to respond to the cessation 
     of commuter rail operations by the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Transportation shall make the reserved funds available to 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation through an 
     appropriate grant instrument not earlier than September 1, 
     2007 to the extent that no directed service orders have been 
     issued by the Surface Transportation Board as of the date of 
     transfer or there is a balance of reserved funds not needed 
     by the Board to pay for any directed service order issued 
     through September 30, 2007: Provided further, That upon the 
     receipt and approval of Amtrak's fiscal year 2007 business 
     plan and if the Secretary deems it in the best interests of 
     the transportation system, in his sole discretion, the 
     Secretary may make grants to the Corporation at such times 
     and in such amounts for intercity passenger rail, including 
     coverage of operating losses of the Corporation: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall approve funding to cover 
     operating losses for the Corporation only after receiving and 
     reviewing a grant request for each specific train route: 
     Provided further, That each such grant request shall be 
     accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue 
     projection, and capital expenditure projection justifying the 
     Federal support to the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided 
     further, That the Corporation is directed to achieve savings 
     through the operating efficiencies including, but not limited 
     to, modifications to food and beverage service and first 
     class service and efficiencies in overhead: Provided further, 
     That the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation shall report to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations beginning three months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter 
     with estimates of the savings accrued as a result of all 
     operational reforms instituted by the Corporation: Provided 
     further, That if the Inspector General cannot certify that 
     the Corporation has achieved operational savings by July 1, 
     2007, none of the funds in this Act may be used after July 1, 
     2007, to subsidize the net losses of food and beverage 
     service and sleeper car service on any Amtrak route: Provided 
     further, That not later than 120 days after enactment of this 
     Act, Amtrak shall transmit to the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations a detailed plan to improve the financial 
     performance of food and beverage service and a detailed plan 
     to improve the financial performance of first class service 
     (including sleeping car service) so that these services are 
     revenue neutral or better on a fully allocated cost basis no 
     later than October 1, 2008: Provided further, That these 
     plans shall include milestones and target dates for 
     implementation and projected cost savings in fiscal years 
     2007 and 2008 and that Amtrak shall report quarterly to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on its progress 
     in implementing these plans, quantify savings realized to 
     date on a monthly basis compared to those projected in the 
     plans, identify any changes in the plans or delays in 
     implementing these plans, and identify the causes of delay 
     and proposed corrective measures: Provided further, That not 
     later than 120 days after enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall 
     transmit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
     a report on its overhead expenses as of October 1, 2006, 
     identifying those that are directly associated with a 
     specific route or group of routes or lines of business and 
     those system overhead expenses not directly charged to 
     specific trains, routes or other lines of business, and a 
     plan to reduce system overhead expenses by 10 percent 
     annually through strategic investments, transfer of 
     responsibilities to entities that request Amtrak provide 
     specific services, and other measures: Provided further, That 
     as part of its report and plan to reduce overhead expenses, 
     Amtrak shall include a report on the expenses associated with 
     intercity passenger rail reservations and ticket-
     ing, including a comparison of such expenses to those 
     associated with domestic airlines and intercity bus service, 
     and a plan, including milestones and target dates, for 
     reducing the expenses associated with its reservations and 
     ticketing including technology enhancements, the use of 
     electronic ticketing, and such other measures that will 
     result in expense savings, enhanced revenue, and assure 
     accurate manifests of passengers on specific trains at all 
     times: Provided further, That not later than October 1, 2008, 
     Amtrak shall reduce its system overhead expenses by 10 
     percent from the level identified as existing on October 1, 
     2006, and in each subsequent fiscal year, reduce system 
     overhead expenses by 10 percent of the level existing on 
     October 1 of the immediate preceding year: Provided further, 
     That if the Inspector General deems it

[[Page 11023]]

     necessary for the continued development and implementation, 
     not less than $5,000,000 of the funds provided under this 
     section shall be expended for the managerial cost accounting 
     system, which includes average and marginal unit cost 
     capability: Provided further, That within 30 days of the 
     development of the managerial cost accounting system, the 
     Department of Transportation's Inspector General shall review 
     and comment to the Secretary and the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations upon the strengths and 
     weaknesses of the system and how it best can be implemented 
     to improve decision making by the Board of Directors and 
     management of the Corporation: Provided further, That no 
     later than 120 days after enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall 
     transmit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
     a detailed plan, including milestones, target dates and cost 
     estimates, to improve its management cost accounting system 
     and integrate such system with the Corporation's other 
     processes including budgeting, financial forecasting and 
     modeling, and accounting, to permit more informed decisions 
     by management and the Board of Directors as to the financial 
     ramifications of proposed changes to routes and services: 
     Provided further, That, as part of the plan to improve its 
     management cost accounting system, Amtrak shall include a 
     plan to improve or replace the Corporation's Route 
     Profitability System (RPS) to provide more current, accurate, 
     and clear information on revenues and expenses on all of the 
     Corporation's routes and services, including the allocation 
     of expenses not directly charged to specific trains, routes, 
     or other business lines: Provided further, That not later 
     than 60 days after the enactment of this Act, the Corporation 
     shall transmit, in electronic format, to the Secretary, the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a 
     comprehensive business plan approved by the Board of 
     Directors for fiscal year 2007 under 49 U.S.C. 24104(a): 
     Provided further, That the business plan shall include, as 
     applicable, targets for ridership, revenues, and capital and 
     operating expenses: Provided further, That the plan shall 
     also include a separate accounting of such targets for the 
     Northeast Corridor; commuter service; long-distance Amtrak 
     service; State-supported service; each intercity train route, 
     including Autotrain; and commercial activities including 
     contract operations: Provided further, That the business plan 
     shall include a description of the work to be funded, along 
     with cost estimates and an estimated timetable for completion 
     of the projects covered by the business plan: Provided 
     further, That the Corporation shall continue to provide 
     monthly reports in electronic format regarding the pending 
     business plan, which shall describe the work completed to 
     date, any changes to the business plan, and the reasons for 
     such changes, and shall identify all sole source contract 
     awards which shall be accompanied by a justification as to 
     why said contract was awarded on a sole source basis: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be 
     used for operating expenses, including advance purchase 
     orders, not approved by the Secretary and in the 
     Corporation's fiscal year 2007 business plan: Provided 
     further, That the Corporation shall display the business plan 
     and all subsequent supplemental plans on the Corporation's 
     website within a reasonable timeframe following their 
     submission to the appropriate entities: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds under this heading may be obligated or 
     expended until the Corporation agrees to continue to abide by 
     the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 11 of the 
     summary of conditions for the direct loan agreement of June 
     28, 2002, in the same manner as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     may, at his discretion, condition the award of efficiency 
     incentive grant funds on reform requirements for the 
     Corporation and his assessment of progress towards such 
     reform requirements: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided in this Act may be used after March 1, 2006, to 
     support any route on which Amtrak offers a discounted fare of 
     more than 50 percent off the normal, peak fare.

       Administrative Provisions--Federal Railroad Administration

       Sec. 150. The Secretary may purchase promotional items of 
     nominal value for use in public outreach activities to 
     accomplish the purposes of 49 U.S.C. 20134: Provided, That 
     the Secretary shall prescribe guidelines for the 
     administration of such purchases and use.

                     Federal Transit Administration

                        Administrative Expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $85,000,000: Provided, That of 
     the funds available under this heading, not to exceed 
     $1,063,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Administrator; not to exceed $7,654,000 shall be available 
     for the Office of Administration; not to exceed $4,273,000 
     shall be available for the Office of the Chief Counsel; not 
     to exceed $1,394,000 shall be available for the Office of 
     Communication and Congressional Affairs; not to exceed 
     $8,403,000 shall be available for the Office of Program 
     Management; not to exceed $9,259,000 shall be available for 
     the Office of Budget and Policy; not to exceed $4,876,000 
     shall be available for the Office of Demonstration and 
     Innovation; not to exceed $3,272,000 shall be available for 
     the Office of Civil Rights; not to exceed $4,718,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of Planning; not to exceed 
     $22,420,000 shall be available for regional offices; and not 
     to exceed $17,668,000 shall be available for the central 
     account: Provided further, That the Administrator is 
     authorized to transfer funds appropriated for an office of 
     the Federal Transit Administration: Provided further, That no 
     appropriation for an office shall be increased or decreased 
     by more than a total of 5 percent during the fiscal year by 
     all such transfers: Provided further, That any change in 
     funding greater than 5 percent shall be submitted for 
     approval to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That any funding 
     transferred from the central account shall be submitted for 
     approval to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided or limited in this Act may be used to create a 
     permanent office of transit security under this heading: 
     Provided further, That of the funds in this Act available for 
     the execution of contracts under section 5327(c) of title 49, 
     United States Code, $2,000,000 shall be reimbursed to the 
     Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General 
     for costs associated with audits and investigations of 
     transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed 
     guideway systems: Provided further, That upon submission to 
     the Congress of the fiscal year 2008 President's budget, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to Congress the 
     annual report on new starts, including proposed allocations 
     of funds for fiscal year 2008.

                         Formula and Bus Grants


                  (liquidation of contract authority)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                         (including rescission)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310, 5311, 
     5316, 5317, 5320, 5335, 5339, and 5340 and section 3038 of 
     Public Law 105-178, as amended, $3,925,000,000, to be derived 
     from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     available for the implementation or execution of programs 
     authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310, 
     5311, 5316, 5317, 5320, 5335, 5339, and 5340 and section 3038 
     of Public Law 105-178, as amended, shall not exceed total 
     obligations of $7,262,775,000 in fiscal year 2007: Provided 
     further, That $28,660,920 in unobligated balances are 
     cancelled.

                Research and University Research Centers

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5306, 5312-
     5315, 5322, and 5506, $65,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That $9,300,000 is available to carry out 
     the transit cooperative research program under section 5313 
     of title 49, United States Code, $4,300,000 is available for 
     the National Transit Institute under section 5315 of title 
     49, United States Code, $7,000,000 is available for 
     university transportation centers program under section 5506 
     of title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That 
     $49,400,000 is available to carry out national research 
     programs under sections 5312, 5313, 5314, and 5322 of title 
     49, United States Code.

                       Capital Investment Grants


                         (including rescission)

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 5309 of title 
     49, United States Code, $1,566,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That $17,760,000 in unobligated 
     balances are cancelled.

       Administrative Provisions--Federal Transit Administration


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 160. The limitations on obligations for the programs 
     of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation.
       Sec. 161. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     made available by this Act under ``Federal Transit 
     Administration, Capital investment grants'' and bus and bus 
     facilities under ``Federal Transit Administration, Formula 
     and Bus Grants'' for projects specified in this Act or 
     identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by 
     September 30, 2009, and other recoveries, shall be made 
     available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 162. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 2006, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
     available for expenditure may be transferred to and 
     administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
     any such section.
       Sec. 163. During fiscal years 2007 and 2008, each Federal 
     Transit Administration grant for a project that involves the 
     acquisition of rehabilitation of a bus to be used in public 
     transportation shall be for 100 percent of the

[[Page 11024]]

     net capital costs of a factory-installed or retrofitted 
     hybrid electric propulsion system and any equipment related 
     to such a system: Provided, That the Secretary shall have the 
     discretion to determine, through practicable administrative 
     procedures, the costs attributable to the system and related-
     equipment.
       Sec. 164. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     unobligated funds made available for a new fixed guideway 
     systems projects under the heading ``Federal Transit 
     Administration, Capital Investment Grants'' in any 
     appropriations Act prior to this Act may be used during this 
     fiscal year to satisfy expenses incurred for such projects 
     for activities eligible in the year the funds were 
     appropriated.
       Sec. 165. Hereinafter, the non-Federal share of the net 
     project cost of the San Gabriel Valley Metro Gold Line 
     connecting Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena shall be 
     counted toward satisfying the Federal matching requirements 
     under 49 U.S.C. 5309 on any phase of the San Gabriel Valley 
     Gold Line Foothill Extension continuing from Pasadena to 
     Montclair.

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

       The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation, 
     and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the 
     current fiscal year.

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

       For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of 
     those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and 
     maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation, $17,425,000, to be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.

                        Maritime Administration

                       Maritime Security Program

       For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag 
     merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
     United States, $154,440,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                        Operations and Training

       For necessary expenses of operations and training 
     activities authorized by law, $116,442,000, of which 
     $24,009,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2007, 
     for salaries and benefits of employees of the United States 
     Merchant Marine Academy; of which $14,850,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for capital improvements at the 
     United States Merchant Marine Academy; and of which 
     $7,920,000 shall remain available until expended for the 
     State Maritime Schools Schoolship Maintenance and Repair.

                             Ship Disposal

       For necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete 
     vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the Maritime 
     Administration, $25,740,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

          Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account


              (including transfer of funds and rescission)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed 
     loan program, not to exceed $3,317,000, which shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     Operations and Training: Provided, That of the unobligated 
     balances available under this heading, $2,000,000 are 
     cancelled.

           National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program


                              (rescission)

       All unobligated balances under this heading are rescinded.

           Administrative Provisions--Maritime Administration

       Sec. 170. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish 
     utilities and services and make necessary repairs in 
     connection with any lease, contract, or occupancy involving 
     Government property under control of the Maritime 
     Administration, and payments received therefore shall be 
     credited to the appropriation charged with the cost thereof: 
     Provided, That rental payments under any such lease, 
     contract, or occupancy for items other than such utilities, 
     services, or repairs shall be covered into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       Sec. 171. No obligations shall be incurred during the 
     current fiscal year from the construction fund established by 
     the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     or otherwise, in excess of the appropriations and limitations 
     contained in this Act or in any prior appropriations Act.

         Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration


                        administrative expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Pipeline and 
     Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, $17,721,000, of 
     which $639,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund.


                       hazardous materials safety

       For expenses necessary to discharge the hazardous materials 
     safety functions of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
     Safety Administration, $27,225,000, of which $2,111,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That up 
     to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall 
     be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
     offsetting receipts: Provided further, That there may be 
     credited to this appropriation, to be available until 
     expended, funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training, for reports publication 
     and dissemination, and for travel expenses incurred in 
     performance of hazardous materials exemptions and approvals 
     functions.


                            pipeline safety

                         (pipeline safety fund)

                    (oil spill liability trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the 
     pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a 
     pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107, 
     and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the 
     Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $75,735,000, of which $18,810,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2009; of which 
     $56,925,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, 
     of which $24,000,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2009: Provided, That not less than $1,000,000 of the 
     funds provided under this heading shall be for the one-call 
     State grant program.


                     emergency preparedness grants

                     (emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5128(b), 
     $198,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That 
     not more than $28,328,000 shall be made available for 
     obligation in fiscal year 2007 from amounts made available by 
     49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5128(b)-(c): Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i), 
     5128(b), or 5128(c) shall be made available for obligation by 
     individuals other than the Secretary of Transportation, or 
     his designee.

           Research and Innovative Technology Administration


                        research and development

       For necessary expenses of the Research and Innovative 
     Technology Administration, $6,367,000, of which $1,120,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, 
     That there may be credited to this appropriation, to be 
     available until expended, funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
     private sources for expenses incurred for training.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, $64,143,000: Provided, That the Inspector 
     General shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out 
     the duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended 
     (5 U.S.C. App. 3), to investigate allegations of fraud, 
     including false statements to the government (18 U.S.C. 
     1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation 
     by the Department: Provided further, That the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used to investigate, 
     pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code: 
     (1) unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of 
     competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket 
     agents; and (2) the compliance of domestic and foreign air 
     carriers with respect to item (1) of this proviso.

                      Surface Transportation Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $25,618,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $1,250,000 from fees established by the 
     Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board shall be 
     credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and 
     used for necessary and authorized expenses under this 
     heading: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar 
     basis as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2007, to result in a final appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at no more than $24,368,000.

            General Provisions--Department of Transportation


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 180. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 181. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals

[[Page 11025]]

     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 182. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and 
     Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation: 
     Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this 
     provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside the 
     Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 183. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 184. (a) No recipient of funds made available in this 
     Act shall disseminate personal information (as defined in 18 
     U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtained by a State department of motor 
     vehicles in connection with a motor vehicle record as defined 
     in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provided in 18 U.S.C. 2721 
     for a use permitted under 18 U.S.C. 2721.
       (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall not 
     withhold funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a 
     State is in noncompliance with this provision.
       Sec. 185. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit 
     Administration's ``Research and University Research Centers'' 
     account, and to the Federal Railroad Administration's 
     ``Safety and Operations'' account, except for State rail 
     safety inspectors participating in training pursuant to 49 
     U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 186. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, rule 
     or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized 
     to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to 
     the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the 
     payment to the Department of an amount determined by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 187. None of the funds in this Act to the Department 
     of Transportation may be used to make a grant unless the 
     Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full business 
     days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, 
     or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more 
     is announced by the department or its modal administrations 
     from: (1) any discretionary grant program of the Federal 
     Highway Administration other than the emergency relief 
     program; (2) the airport improvement program of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration; or (3) any program of the Federal 
     Transit Administration other than the formula grants and 
     fixed guideway modernization programs: Provided, That no 
     notification shall involve funds that are not available for 
     obligation.
       Sec. 188. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
     and other funds received by the Department of Transportation 
     from travel management centers, charge card programs, the 
     subleasing of building space, and miscellaneous sources are 
     to be credited to appropriations of the Department of 
     Transportation and allocated to elements of the Department of 
     Transportation using fair and equitable criteria and such 
     funds shall be available until expended.
       Sec. 189. Amounts made available in this or any other Act 
     that the Secretary determines represent improper payments by 
     the Department of Transportation to a third party contractor 
     under a financial assistance award, which are recovered 
     pursuant to law, shall be available--
       (1) to reimburse the actual expenses incurred by the 
     Department of Transportation in recovering improper payments; 
     and
       (2) to pay contractors for services provided in recovering 
     improper payments or contractor support in the implementation 
     of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002: Provided, 
     That amounts in excess of that required for paragraphs (1) 
     and (2)--
       (A) shall be credited to and merged with the appropriation 
     from which the improper payments were made, and shall be 
     available for the purposes and period for which such 
     appropriations are available; or
       (B) if no such appropriation remains available, shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: 
     Provided, That the Secretary shall report annually to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the amount and 
     reasons for these transfers: Provided further, That for 
     purposes of this section, the term ``improper payments'', has 
     the same meaning as that provided in section 2(d)(2) of 
     Public Law 107-300.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of 
     Transportation Appropriations Act, 2007''.

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Departmental Offices 
     including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Building 
     and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, 
     repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial 
     insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned 
     overseas, when necessary for the performance of official 
     business, $223,786,000, of which not to exceed $8,760,000 is 
     for executive direction program activities; not to exceed 
     $8,741,000 is for general counsel program activities; not to 
     exceed $41,947,000 is for economic policies and programs 
     activities; not to exceed $27,086,000 is for financial 
     policies and programs activities; not to exceed $45,401,000 
     is for terrorism and financial intelligence activities; not 
     to exceed $18,534,000 is for Treasury-wide management 
     policies and programs activities; and not to exceed 
     $73,317,000 is for administration programs activities: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to 
     transfer funds appropriated for any program activity of the 
     Departmental Offices to any other program activity of the 
     Departmental Offices upon notification to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That 
     no appropriation for any program activity shall be increased 
     or decreased by more than three percent by all such 
     transfers: Provided further, That any change in funding 
     greater than three percent shall be submitted for approval to 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That of the amount appropriated under this heading, 
     not to exceed $3,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2008, for information technology modernization 
     requirements; not to exceed $100,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and not to exceed $258,000 for 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be 
     allocated and expended under the direction of the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and to be accounted for solely on his 
     certificate: Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading, $5,114,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2008, is for the Treasury-wide 
     Financial Statement Audit and Internal Control Program, of 
     which such amounts as may be necessary may be transferred to 
     accounts of the Department's offices and bureaus to conduct 
     audits: Provided further, That this transfer authority shall 
     be in addition to any other provided in this Act.

        Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For development and acquisition of automatic data 
     processing equipment, software, and services for the 
     Department of the Treasury, $34,032,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That these funds shall be 
     transferred to accounts and in amounts as necessary to 
     satisfy the requirements of the Department's offices, 
     bureaus, and other organizations: Provided further, That this 
     transfer authority shall be in addition to any other transfer 
     authority provided in this Act: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be used to 
     support or supplement ``Internal Revenue Service, Operations 
     Support'' or ``Internal Revenue Service, Business Systems 
     Modernization''.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for official travel 
     expenses, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not 
     to exceed $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Inspector General of the Treasury, 
     $17,352,000, of which not to exceed $2,500 shall be available 
     for official reception and representation expenses.

           Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Treasury Inspector General 
     for Tax Administration in carrying out the Inspector General 
     Act of 1978, including purchase (not to exceed 150 for 
     replacement only for police-type use) and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be determined by the 
     Inspector General for Tax Administration; not to exceed 
     $6,000,000 for official travel expenses; and not to exceed 
     $500,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, 
     to be allocated and expended under the direction of the 
     Inspector General for Tax Administration, $136,469,000; and 
     of which not to exceed $1,500 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

            Air Transportation Stabilization Program Account

       In fiscal year 2007, the Air Transportation Stabilization 
     Board may charge fees to a borrower for the costs to the Air 
     Transportation Stabilization Board associated with bankruptcy 
     proceedings of the borrower. Such fees shall be collected and 
     deposited in the Air Transportation Stabilization Program 
     Account, to be available for such costs.

                  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel 
     and training expenses of non-Federal and foreign government 
     personnel to attend meetings and training concerned with 
     domestic and foreign financial intelligence activities, law 
     enforcement, and financial regulation; not to exceed $14,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; and for 
     assistance to

[[Page 11026]]

      Federal law enforcement agencies, with or without 
     reimbursement, $84,066,000, of which not to exceed 
     $14,012,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2009; 
     and of which $8,651,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2008: Provided, That funds appropriated in this 
     account may be used to procure personal services contracts.

                      Financial Management Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service, 
     $233,654,000, of which not to exceed $9,220,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2009, for information systems 
     modernization initiatives; and of which not to exceed $2,500 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses.

                Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of carrying out section 1111 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002, including hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, $92,604,000; of which not to exceed $6,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; not to 
     exceed $50,000 for cooperative research and development 
     programs for laboratory services; and provision of laboratory 
     assistance to State and local agencies with or without 
     reimbursement.

                           United States Mint


               united states mint public enterprise fund

       Pursuant to section 5136 of title 31, United States Code, 
     the United States Mint is provided funding through the United 
     States Mint Public Enterprise Fund for costs associated with 
     the production of circulating coins, numismatic coins, and 
     protective services, including both operating expenses and 
     capital investments. The aggregate amount of new liabilities 
     and obligations incurred during fiscal year 2007 under such 
     section 5136 for circulating coinage and protective service 
     capital investments of the United States Mint shall not 
     exceed $30,200,000.

                       Bureau of the Public Debt


                     administering the public debt

       For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt 
     issues of the United States, $180,789,000, of which not to 
     exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and of which not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2009, 
     for systems modernization: Provided, That the sum 
     appropriated herein from the general fund for fiscal year 
     2007 shall be reduced by not more than $3,000,000 as 
     definitive security issue fees and Treasury Direct Investor 
     Account Maintenance fees are collected, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2007 appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at $177,789,000. In addition, $70,000 to be derived 
     from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to reimburse the 
     Bureau for administrative and personnel expenses for 
     financial management of the Fund, as authorized by section 
     1012 of Public Law 101-380.

   Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account

       To carry out the Community Development Banking and 
     Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-325), 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates 
     for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to 
     the rate for ES-3, $40,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2008, of which up to $12,800,000 may be used 
     for administrative expenses, including administration of the 
     New Markets Tax Credit, up to $6,000,000 may be used for the 
     cost of direct loans, and up to $250,000 may be used for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program: 
     Provided, That the cost of direct loans, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, 
     That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations 
     for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $11,000,000.

                        Internal Revenue Service

                           Taxpayer Services

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service to 
     provide taxpayer services, including pre-filing assistance 
     and education, filing and account services, taxpayer advocacy 
     services, and other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner, 
     $2,059,151,000, of which up to $4,100,000 shall be for the 
     Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program, and of which 
     $8,000,000 shall be available for low-income taxpayer clinic 
     grants.

                              Enforcement


                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service to 
     determine and collect owed taxes, to provide legal and 
     litigation support, to conduct criminal investigations, to 
     enforce criminal statutes related to violations of internal 
     revenue laws and other financial crimes, to purchase (for 
     police-type use, not to exceed 850) and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)), and to provide other 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may 
     be determined by the Commissioner, $4,757,126,000, of which 
     not less than $55,584,000 shall be for the Interagency Crime 
     and Drug Enforcement program: Provided, That up to 
     $10,000,000 may be transferred as necessary from this account 
     to the Internal Revenue Service Operations Support 
     appropriation solely for the purposes of the Interagency 
     Crime and Drug Enforcement program: Provided further, That 
     this transfer authority shall be in addition to any other 
     transfer authority provided in this Act.

                           Operations Support

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service to 
     operate and support taxpayer services and tax law enforcement 
     programs, including rent payments; facilities services; 
     printing; postage; physical security; headquarters and other 
     IRS-wide administration activities; research and statistics 
     of income; telecommunications; information technology 
     development, enhancement, operations, maintenance, and 
     security; the hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 US.C. 
     1343(b)); and other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner; 
     $3,438,404,000, of which $1,447,451,000 shall be for 
     information systems and telecommunications support; of which 
     not to exceed $1,000,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, for research; of which not to exceed 
     $1,500,000 shall be for the Internal Revenue Service 
     Oversight Board; and of which not to exceed $25,000 shall be 
     for official reception and representation: Provided, That of 
     the amount made available for information systems and 
     telecommunication support, $75,000,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2008, for information technology support.

                     Business Systems Modernization

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     the business systems modernization program, $212,310,000, of 
     which not less than $167,310,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, for the capital asset acquisition of 
     information technology systems, including management and 
     related contractual costs of said acquisitions, including 
     contractual costs associated with operations authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That none of the funds for capital 
     asset acquisition of information technology systems may be 
     obligated until the Internal Revenue Service submits to the 
     Committees on Appropriations, and such Committees approve, a 
     plan for expenditure that: (1) meets the capital planning and 
     investment control review requirements established by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, including Circular A-11; (2) 
     complies with the Internal Revenue Service's enterprise 
     architecture, including the modernization blueprint; (3) 
     conforms with the Internal Revenue Service's enterprise life 
     cycle methodology; (4) is approved by the Internal Revenue 
     Service, the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of 
     Management and Budget; (5) has been reviewed by the 
     Government Accountability Office; and (6) complies with the 
     acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and systems 
     acquisition management practices of the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1815


         AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GARY G. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California:
       Page 73, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a modest 
amendment to ensure HUD can continue to work the redevelopment of 
brownfield sites to local communities.
  I would like to commend Chairman Knollenberg. I am on the Financial 
Services Committee and Transportation Committee, and he has worked very 
hard and responsibly to fund the Nation's housing and transportation 
needs during this very, very tight budget year. I am pleased that the 
bill boosts highway spending, supports aviation, addresses America's 
critical housing needs, supports national antidrug efforts.
  This amendment today basically keeps the BEDI program going, which 
redevelops brownfields through the HUD administration. The estimate is 
450,000 vacant sites lay idle throughout this country. They are 
underused industrial sites as a result of environmental contamination 
caused by chemical compounds and other hazardous substances.
  The basic year's budget transfers all the funding to EPA. EPA has a 
completely different objective than HUD does through the BEDI Program. 
BEDI grants are basically used for economic development. We passed out 
a bill I offered last year, H.R. 280, that is in the

[[Page 11027]]

Senate today to restructure the BEDI Program, making a simpler program 
more usable to local communities. Currently, to get a BEDI grant you 
have to apply for a section 108 loan, then in repayment you have to 
guarantee your CDBG funds and pledge those to repay that loan. Some 
communities don't receive CDBG funds directly, so they could not apply 
for section 108. And the other communities who can, don't want to 
readily pledge those CDBG funds because many community organizations 
and efforts are undertaken with the utilization of these funds. These 
brownfield sites threaten our groundwater. They cost local communities 
jobs and revenues. It is estimated if we could clean these 450,000 
brownfield sites up, it would generate an additional 550,000 jobs 
throughout this country and $2.4 billion in new tax revenues for its 
cities and towns.
  The communities I represent and communities throughout this country 
want this program. The problem they have had is it has been a complex 
program in the past. I thank Chairman Knollenberg. Last year you 
accepted an amendment of mine which kept this program going. And the 
understanding I had was we need to do legislation to modify the program 
in order to make it more accessible to communities. We have done that. 
It passed out of this floor on unanimous consent. It is in the Senate 
currently. And we hope to have that addressed in the Senate and made 
into law so we can keep this viable program going.
  Eddie Bernice Johnson has been a true partner working with me on 
this, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by 
commending the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Knollenberg, and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their 
good work on this bill in the midst of an extremely tight budget 
environment. Both gentlemen have had to make some very unpopular 
decisions.
  However, as I stated last year, eliminating the funding for 
brownfield redevelopment programs should be reconsidered. As a result, 
I rise today in strong support of the Miller-Johnson amendment to H.R. 
5576.
  Similar to last year, the gentleman from California and I offered 
this amendment today because we both feel that it is time for this body 
to get really serious about eliminating the Nation's estimated 500,000 
brownfields.
  The amendment increases the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Brownfields Redevelopment Program account by $15 million.
  In its present form, H.R. 5576 provides no funding for a program that 
has helped to transform communities, large and small, throughout the 
country.
  The amendment calls for a corresponding offset through a reduction of 
$15 million within the Business Systems Modernization Account in the 
Treasury title. Currently, the Business Systems Modernization Account 
is $45 million above the administration's request, and $15.3 million 
above last year's request.
  While I respect the committee's view that HUD funding is no longer 
essential or appropriate due to the EPA's expanded authority and 
increased appropriations, this is certainly a view that I do not share.
  First of all, I believe it is important to note that there are clear 
distinctions between EPA's Brownfields Program relative to HUD's.
  Although both are equally important, EPA's program focuses primarily 
on cleanup, whereas the focus of HUD's program is on redevelopment of 
brownfield sites once cleanup is complete.
  It is true that the authority of the EPA has been expanded. However, 
the consistent and chronic underfunding of the Brownfields Program by 
the President and the Congress leave much to be desired in terms of 
corresponding appropriations.
  In fact, appropriations for brown-
fields assessment and cleanup peaked.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California was allowed 
to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Appropriations for brownfields 
assessment cleanup peaked at $97.7 million in fiscal year 2002 and is 
only $89 million in this year's interior and environment appropriations 
bill.
  Last week before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
where I serve as ranking member, an EPA assistant administrator 
testified that for fiscal year 2006 EPA received nearly 700 proposals 
for Brownfield Grants. Unfortunately, EPA funded less than 45 percent 
of these.
  Mr. Chairman, our communities are very deserving of these strong HUD-
administered brownfields programs. If you watch the game tonight, look 
at the American Center. Oh, you won't see that one. It will be in Miami 
tonight. But that was a brownfield in Dallas.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I have always felt very strongly about Mr. Miller and his ideas. I do 
have a problem with this particular amendment. I oppose any amendment 
to continue the Brownfields Program, which is recommended for 
elimination as part of a broad sweep of lower priority programs. We 
must reduce or eliminate these duplicative programs in order to free up 
the funds for the highest priorities in HUD, which is, among other 
things, assistance to extremely low-income families and restoring funds 
for community development.
  Last year Congress recognized the lack of use of this program and 
rescinded $10 million in unused prior-year appropriations. The money 
wasn't being spent.
  The activities of the Brownfields Program remain, as they have been, 
eligible uses for CDBG funds. States and communities can use these 
funds for this purpose if they choose to do so.
  In addition, there are nearly two dozen Federal programs that can 
help communities in one way or another to assess, clean up and reuse 
brownfield sites.
  EPA's Brownfield Program has awarded 883 assessment grants totaling 
$225.4 million, 202 revolving loan fund grants totaling $186.7 million, 
238 cleanup grants totaling $42.7 million.
  By comparison, HUD's program has been extremely slow and funds are 
often used as a loan loss reserve, rather than as grants for 
reconstructing sites.
  HUD grants are a tiny fraction of project development costs. They 
represent just 2.3 percent of the total development costs on average. 
For each HUD dollar, there was $28 in private and $12 in State and 
local funds committed with an average of five State, local, and private 
sources of funding or financing for each project. HUD funding is not 
critical to any decision to proceed with a project or makes any 
difference to the completion of a project.
  This amendment, and we are being hit already early in title II, this 
amendment cuts the IRS's Business Systems Modernization Program by $15 
million. While it appears this account is $45 million above the 
President's request, it is actually just a restructuring of the IRS 
accounts. In fact, BSM is currently funded below last year's level. 
Cutting this $15 million will force IRS to lay off many of the 317 
personnel. Let me repeat that: 317 personnel who are currently working 
on the BSM project, delaying all work on the modernization of IRS 
legacy systems.
  So it is for those reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a final plea for this program. 
Even if there might be a few people less in these Departments, it does 
not compare with what a small investment does to get rid of brownfields 
anywhere they are, because once this property is put back on the tax 
rolls, it generates more than ever than what is put into it.

                              {time}  1830

  And I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Knollenberg because he

[[Page 11028]]

has been helpful. But I would make a plea that this is a lot larger 
than what was requested, and that is the reason why we chose to take it 
from there.
  We all have to tighten our belts. We all have to give up a little 
more than what we had. But I can assure you that allowing property to 
not be on a tax roll will go a lot longer way when you put the money 
there, just a small amount of money, than doing without two or three 
staff people.
  I just imagine that any Department in this Nation can function with 
just a few less staff than what they have now and do the same job. If 
we cannot, then we are not doing as well as the private industry 
because they have cut half of their staff and are still doing the same 
job. That is called higher productivity, and maybe that is what we need 
in some of these Departments is higher productivity, while half of the 
people at home and the other half are doing the full job. But this will 
offer jobs. It puts property back onto the tax rolls by allowing it to 
be redeveloped, and I do not know a single city or rural area that 
could not use a little brownfield encouragement through their funds.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this is the second 
year in a row that we have had this discussion, and it is predicated on 
the idea that somewhere there is a sense that the EPA has a program for 
brownfields that does the same thing that this HUD program for 
brownfields does.
  Now, to the very best of my knowledge, and very recently rechecked, 
the EPA does assessments of hazardous materials on old industrial sites 
but does nothing to redevelop those sites so that this program is, to 
the best of my knowledge, the only place that we have done 
redevelopment of otherwise old hazardous material sites, industrial 
sites that can be put back into use.
  Now, last year, even though it had been zeroed out, we ended up with 
a final budget of $9.9 million by amendment adopted on the floor. The 
offset here is an unpalatable offset. But, again, my belief is that the 
Brownfields Program is at least as important as the IRS Business 
Systems Program. If this amendment is defeated, I will assure the 
gentlewoman from Texas that I will do my best to see that something 
better comes out of the final process and the conference process on 
this legislation.
  In the meantime, I will join her in support of the legislation.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Miller Brownfields 
amendment. The Amendment provides $15 million in funding for the 
Brownfields program.
  Again, let me thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Joe Knollenberg 
and the Ranking Member, John W. Olver, for their work on this bill. HUD 
programs, however, have witnessed major cuts over the past several 
years. What I find interesting about this bill is that it does not 
provide any funding for the Brownfields Economic Development 
Initiatives (BEDI) program, but instead includes Brownfields 
redevelopment as an eligible activity under the Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) program. Of course, this does not take into account 
the existence of numerous Brownfields sites across the country. These 
sites are often located in strategically important areas of a city or 
county, where economic development projects have been planned. Without 
funding for the Brownfields program many of these projects will not be 
undertaken.
  The estimate of the number of vacant and underused sites around the 
U.S. is more than 500,000. If we could put these sites into productive 
economic development uses we stand to increase jobs by 500,000 million, 
while generating $2.4 billion in new tax revenues. The Brownfields 
program that I would like to see funded is truly an economic 
development tool that has been very effective in assisting communities 
to reclaim important parcels of underused land. To the extent that we 
eliminate funding for the BEDI program we will seriously undermine 
economic development efforts across-the-board. In the City of Los 
Angeles and in Los Angeles County, the BEDI program supports a wide 
variety of projects, including developments with a strong business 
attraction, expansion and/or retentions component, as well employment 
creation.
  One example is the use of a $1.75 million BEDI grant that was used to 
convert a contaminated 130 acre oil production and storage site 
facility into a warehouse and distribution center, which produced 679 
jobs--the City of Sante Fe Springs Golden Springs Development Park.
  As many of you know, the House last year unanimously approved an 
amendment to provide $24 million for Brownfields, and the conference 
report provided $10 million. In addition, the House recently passed 
H.R. 280, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act to provide 
greater access to the BEDI program.
  Whether you agree with the $15 million funding level is not 
important. What is really critical is that the program be in place to 
continue to assist communities to clean-up the mess made by industry, 
as well as the inadequate federal response. Many communities are at a 
critical stage in revitalizing themselves. A major tool at their 
disposal has been the BEDI program. As such, I urge your support for 
the Miller amendment.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-
Johnson amendment to restore funding for the HUD Brownfields program.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from California for his 
amendment. As a former mayor, I believe that this amendment will have a 
very positive impact on our Nation's cities.
  Since the inception of its Brownfield programs, the federal 
government has allocated over $800 million in brownfield assessment and 
cleanup funds.
  In addition, this investment has leveraged over $8 billion in cleanup 
and redevelopment dollars, a better than 10-to-1 return on investment. 
It has resulted in the assessment of more than 8,000 properties and 
helped create over 37,000 jobs.
  This is because EPA and HUD grants work in conjunction with funding 
from state, local and private sources to address cleanup of brownfield 
sites.
  Brownfields sites include inactive factories, gas stations, salvage 
yards, and abandoned warehouses.
  These sites drive down property values, provide little or no tax 
revenue, and contribute to community blight.
  HUD's brownfields program serves as a catalyst to spur private sector 
investment, job creation and economic development in communities.
  HUD's program supports sustainable economic development that 
leverages investments from other public and private sources.
  In comments from last year's floor debate, an opponent of the HUD 
Brownfields program stated that ``HUD funds on average are just about 
2.3 percent of the total development cost of each project. Moreover, 
for each HUD dollar, there are $28 in private and $12 in State and 
local funds committed to the project.''
  These statistics were cited as a reason to eliminate the HUD 
Brownfields program, but instead they demonstrate its unique value.
  An initial influx of capital is often the greatest barrier to 
remediation of brownfields sites, and HUD's program provides that 
essential start up money.
  The HUD program has been remarkably effective at leveraging private 
and local financial resources to achieve new successes on old 
properties.
  This is an exciting time in the brownfields marketplace. Federal 
brownfields programs have provided the foundation on which state 
initiatives have flourished.
  New Jersey has taken the lead creating a Federal Brownfields Inter-
Agency Working Group comprised of 14 federal and state agencies.
  This unprecedented coordination of agencies, community partners and 
private investors has enabled New Jersey to solve environmental 
problems while providing businesses a place to locate, create jobs, 
build housing and entertainment venues--all without having to go into 
farmlands and areas with open space.
  This new business activity, housing or other types of redevelopment 
can restore the proud heritage of successful enterprise to our historic 
cities and other locales.
  Throughout New Jersey and the country, there are thousands of 
abandoned structures that were once thriving businesses, often part of 
large industrial centers.
  Economic development matched with environmental cleanup has resulted 
in the rebirth of many industrial and commercial properties and 
surrounding neighborhoods.
  Anyone who cares about our nation's cities celebrates these 
successes, and welcomes the flexibility of the program. HUD's 
particular expertise in incorporating brownfields remediation into a 
larger strategy for economic development and community revitalization 
is essential to the success we have had and will continue to have in 
the future.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very worthwhile amendment to 
restore funding for the HUD Brownfields program.

[[Page 11029]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. 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 California will be 
postponed.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simmons) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, 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. 5576) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, 
and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, 
and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 
and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________