[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20108-20132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 558 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3074.

                              {time}  1955


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, 
with Ms. Baldwin in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to present to the House the fiscal year 
2008 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations 
bill.
  I thank Members for their input and work on this bill. I especially 
recognize the important contributions of my ranking member Mr. 
Knollenberg in putting this bill together. As former chairman of this 
subcommittee, he had numerous valuable insights that make the bill and 
report stronger, and I have appreciated his advice and counsel during 
this process.
  I also thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee Mr. Obey 
and the ranking member of the full committee Mr. Lewis for their 
support.
  I must also recognize the hard work of the staff on both the majority 
and minority side. Kate Hallahan, Cheryle Tucker, David Napoliello, 
Laura Hogshead, Alex Gillen, Mark Fedor and Bob Letteney with the 
majority staff, and Dena Baron, David Gibbons and Jeff Goff with the 
minority have spent many late nights putting this bill together, and we 
would not be here today without their great dedication.
  This is a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill. Indeed, this bill 
should not be partisan because a broad consensus affirming the great 
needs for transportation infrastructure investments and for affordable 
housing exists countrywide.
  The bill provides $50.7 billion in discretionary funding for 
transportation and housing programs, and is within the subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation.
  Nonetheless, due to current budgetary constraints, the subcommittee 
was forced to either flat-fund or reduce numerous programs. 
Furthermore, there are no major expansions of existing programs and 
only a handful of new initiatives.
  Our first hearings this year sought a broad assessment of the future 
challenges this country faces in transportation and housing. Not 
surprisingly, our hearings showed that there's a great and growing need 
for transportation infrastructure and affordable housing, particularly 
in metro areas experiencing explosive growth, such as Atlanta, Dallas, 
Phoenix and Las Vegas; but also in older metropolitan areas such as 
Boston, New York, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, whose infrastructure is 
aging and in need of extensive repair; and even in rural communities 
and counties suffering from a loss of population and disinvestment in 
both housing and transportation.
  To meet these challenges we have restored the President's deepest 
cuts and have continued important investments in transportation and 
housing started by my predecessors. In short, we've tried to make our 
core programs whole and function better, rather than start a lot of new 
initiatives.
  With regard to transportation, our bill fully funds the highway and 
transit guarantees contained in the current transportation 
authorization bill known as SAFETEA-LU.
  The bill contains $40.2 billion for highways, which is $631 million 
over the President's request; and $9.7 billion

[[Page 20109]]

for transit investments, $334 million over the President's request.
  Adequate investments in our highways and transit systems are critical 
to the economic and social future of our country. Vehicle miles 
traveled on our Nation's roads have doubled since 1980.
  While we have fully funded the highway guarantees this year, I must 
warn my colleagues about the future solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. 
The Office of Management and Budget recently estimated that by the end 
of the fiscal year 2009, the Highway Trust Fund will have a $4 billion 
deficit. This deficit is far greater than any other previous projection 
and will inhibit our ability to fully fund the highway guarantees in 
the future without additional transportation revenues which must be 
provided through the authorization process.
  Our bill also continues to make critical investments in aviation. In 
1995, our aviation system handled 545 million passengers, but that 
system must handle 1 billion passengers by 2015. We must provide 
adequate infrastructure to deal with that growth.
  Our bill includes $3.6 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, 
restoring the President's $765 million cut, and adding $85 million 
above fiscal year 2007. The bill restores funding for the Essential Air 
Service Program so that no existing service will be lost.

                              {time}  2000

  We have also invested over the President's request for transportation 
safety. Specifically, an increase of $20 million for critical aviation 
safety inspectors and engineers; a $2 million increase for additional 
investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board; a $3 
million increase to preserve highway safety staff at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and a $6.2 million increase for 
staffing and research programs related to pipeline and hazardous 
materials safety.
  Investments in intercity passenger rail, especially in high-density 
travel corridors, must also be part of a valid transportation system. 
The bill provides $1.4 billion for Amtrak, plus $50 million for a new 
intercity passenger rail State matching grant program requested by the 
administration; thus, the bill leverages a total of $1.5 billion for 
intercity passenger rail. This funding will help create a faster, 
safer, and more reliable intercity passenger rail system.
  With regard to housing, four major categories of HUD programs provide 
assistance for very low-income families, the elderly, the disabled, and 
their communities. First, HUD provides our 3,200 public housing 
authorities funding for the operation and capital needs of the Nation's 
public housing stock. Public housing is home to 2.6 million people, 
more than half of whom are seniors and persons with disabilities.
  Second, HUD administers rental assistance programs, largely under the 
section 8 tenant- and project-based programs. Section 8 tenant-based 
rental assistance serves about 1.9 million low-income families, 
seniors, and people with disabilities, while the project-based section 
8 assists more than 1.4 million households, two-thirds of which include 
elderly or disabled persons. Both the tenant- and project-based 
programs serve very low-income individuals and families, overwhelmingly 
those whose incomes are below 50 percent of the median household income 
for their area.
  Third, HUD administers housing production programs, including the 
HOME program; the HOPE VI program, which revitalizes or replaces 
severely distressed public housing; and construction programs for the 
elderly and disabled.
  Finally, HUD administers a number of community and economic 
development programs, the largest being Homeless Assistance Grants and 
Community Development Block Grants.
  My colleagues are all very familiar with CDBG, the Community 
Development Block Grant program. But many of our constituents may be 
unaware of the importance of CDBG in their communities. CDBG funds are 
used by communities to rehabilitate and construct affordable housing; 
to construct public facilities improvements, such as streetscaping and 
community centers; and to promote local economic development and job 
creation. About 70 percent of CDBG dollars go directly to communities 
with populations of about 50,000 or more. The remaining funds go by 
formula to the States and are distributed to smaller towns and rural 
communities. Taken together, HUD programs address the large unmet need 
for affordable housing throughout the country.
  The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Howard University has 
documented that, from 1993 to 2003 alone, we lost 1.2 million 
affordable housing units. In fact, approximately three-fourths of 
American households which, by household income, are eligible for HUD 
assistance receive none.
  In the face of this, we have done our best to restore the President's 
cuts to housing. Some accounts we have only been able to freeze at last 
year's funding level. In other accounts we have targeted increases 
where the people served by the HUD program were particularly harmed. 
Funding is included to renew all current section 8 tenant-based 
vouchers so that no one who has a voucher will lose it. To that end the 
bill provides an increase of $330 million above the President's request 
for tenant-based rental assistance and nearly double that increase for 
project-based assistance.
  Within the section 8 funding provided in the bill, we have $30 
million for 4,000 incremental housing vouchers for nonelderly disabled 
individuals, some of whom will be homeless veterans.
  The President's fiscal 2008 budget request cut CDBG by over $700 
million from the 2007 enacted level, cut housing for the elderly by 
$160 million, cut housing for disabled by 50 percent below fiscal year 
2007, and for HOPE VI zeroed the program out for 2008 and rescinded 
2007 funding.
  Our bill rejects all of these cuts for our Nation's most vulnerable 
citizens. We have funded CDBG at $4.18 billion, which is $400 million 
over the enacted 2007 budget but still $400 million below the CDBG 
budget for fiscal year 2001, 6 years ago. We have restored funding to 
last year's level of $735 million for elderly housing, the 202 program, 
and $237 million for housing for the disabled, the 811 program, as well 
as provided $120 million for HOPE VI, a small increase from last year.
  With our funding decisions, we have also promoted sustainability by 
encouraging more environmentally friendly transportation and housing 
practices. We have restored the President's cuts to transit and to our 
intercity passenger rail system, which are more fuel efficient than 
other transportation modes. Thanks to Mr. Knollenberg's leadership, we 
have increased funding for the clean fuel bus program by $26 million.
  In the area of housing, we have included language in urging HUD to 
incorporate stronger energy efficiency standards into the HOPE VI 
program as well as other HUD programs.
  Madam Chairman, this bill is a compromise, and we have had to balance 
a number of competing needs. There are areas where I would have liked 
to provide more dollars. However, we have done our best with limited 
dollars to invest in our transportation networks and affordable 
housing. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The bill before us, H.R. 3074, the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, 
Housing, and Related Agencies funding bill is, as the chairman noted, a 
balanced bill and a bill that I can support.
  I am not going to repeat the funding proposals described by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, but I will say that the vast majority of 
the legislation and the principles behind the funding levels are very 
similar to prior year House-passed bills for housing and 
transportation.
  Crafting this bill is not for the faint of heart. There is no easy 
formula when you consider the authorizations and expectations of both 
the housing

[[Page 20110]]

and the transportation communities. Neither group is shy about 
vocalizing what it wants, and both communities have needs and issues 
that need attention. Some of these needs are intertwined, however, and 
we do have different approaches for the solution. The chairman proposes 
that these issues need to be handled at a Federal level and has even 
included funds for a commission between DOT and HUD to coordinate 
housing and transportation policies.
  I am of the school that the Federal Government needs to be aware of 
these issues and provide guidance on these issues, but we need to 
recognize that housing and transportation decisions are local decisions 
made by cities and metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs. I 
don't think any of our districts would appreciate the Federal 
Government's telling our cities where a bus should run or where housing 
should be located. The majority of these funds in this bill, from 
highways and transit to Section 8 and the Community Development Block 
Grant program, even flows to the States and localities without a lot of 
specific input from the Federal Government on how these funds are 
spent.
  I want to thank the chairman for his wise and steadfast decision to 
keep new authorizing matters off this bill. There are a number of ideas 
in both housing and transportation being considered in the various 
committees of jurisdiction in both houses of Congress, and I agree that 
we need those committees to do their work and present to the Congress 
what might be the best proposal. I will work with the chairman and 
oppose any authorizing amendments to this bill.
  In transportation, I thank the chairman for keeping the Amtrak pro-
reform language in the bill. I am optimistic that with continued 
oversight from the committee, the IG and the GAO, we can find a 
sensible operating scheme for Amtrak.
  In highways, I know SAFETEA-LU and the budget resolution support the 
inclusion of the highway RABA funds. I don't know of any State that 
could not use more highway funding; however, as we have discussed in 
numerous hearings, the highway trust fund is speeding towards 
bankruptcy, and the mid-season review shows that receipts are down even 
further than originally anticipated. For the first time ever, the 
number of vehicle miles traveled declined. Eventually the rubber will 
hit the road, and this committee does not have jurisdiction over the 
income and expenditures of the highway trust fund, nor does this 
committee have the general funds to make up for any shortfall in the 
trust fund.
  I do have some concerns about the size of the highway trust fund 
rescission. I will not deny that in the past we have used the 
rescission to ensure that programs in this bill are funded at an 
acceptable level; however, we did not propose a rescission of this 
magnitude so early in the game. I am hopeful that as we move through 
the conference, this number will go down.
  In housing, I support the chairman's decision to bring the programs 
up at least to last year's level where the budget request proposed to 
make cuts, especially in CDBG, assisted housing, and housing for the 
elderly and disabled.
  I am most appreciative of the chairman's decision to keep the Section 
8 program a budget-based program in fiscal year 2008. I firmly believe 
that we need to see some continuity in the programs after the change is 
mandated in the fiscal year 2007 CR before we can evaluate what 
direction the program should go in the future.
  In Section 8, the bill proposes adding 4,000 new vouchers, as I think 
the chairman referenced, of which 1,000 are directed by law to homeless 
veterans. The remainder of the new vouchers are for nonelderly disabled 
people, the so-called ``Frelinghuysen vouchers,'' as we used to call 
them thanks to Mr. Frelinghuysen's work on behalf of this community. We 
are supportive of the increase, but we cautiously remind the Congress 
that the cost increase each year to maintain the vouchers is 
substantial. The program baseline increases by $30 million each year 
into the future. This is not an increase to sneeze at.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend 
Mr. Olver, and his staff for their willingness to work with us to 
address my concerns and the concerns of many on my side of the aisle. 
He and his staff have been very fair and accommodating, holding true to 
a process that has been in place for years as he has crafted this bill. 
While we may agree to disagree on some specific policies, we agree on 
this introduced bill. I appreciate very much his decision to leave 
authorizing issues with the authorizers, and the directives and funding 
levels in this proposal are ones that I can support.
  I also thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their continued 
hard work during this past year. I know this has been a tough year on 
them, but I think their hard work is demonstrated in this decent and, I 
think, very thoughtful bill.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee's HUD Subcommittee, Mr. 
Pastor.
  Mr. PASTOR. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time. 
And since this is his first bill as chairman, I congratulate him on 
doing an excellent job, and I also thank the ranking member.
  Madam Chairman, this bill addresses two of the most basic and very 
important aspects of every American citizen's life: transportation and 
housing.
  Unfortunately, the President's budget proposed severe funding 
reductions for transportation which could not be realistically 
sustained without negative impacts on the Nation's economy.

                              {time}  2015

  The budget's proposal in housing would have cuts that harm those most 
in need, including the disabled and the elderly.
  I am proud to say that, based on extensive hearings, this bill 
rejects those short-sighted proposals in a fair and measured manner and 
balances national priorities with fiscal realities.
  One of the most difficult issues discussed this year involved the 
long-term health of the Highway Trust Fund. Because the resolution of 
the Highway Trust Fund requires the cooperation of the administration 
and the authorizers, the problem could not be solved solely by 
appropriators. But this bill grants all parties a reasonable starting 
point for the resolution of this problem.
  With regard to aviation, the committee found itself challenged with 
the Federal Aviation Administration's authorization about to expire at 
the same time with the severe air traffic congestion which requires an 
entirely new approach in technology. The committee has responded to 
this situation in a very deliberate manner geared to ensure an open 
path to future solutions as we look forward to the passage of the FAA 
reauthorization bill in the coming months.
  On the issue of housing assistance, the committee has rejected the 
President's proposal to substantially reduce much-needed housing 
options for the economically disadvantaged, disabled and senior 
citizens. While we, regretfully, do not have the resources to fully 
address all the needs of these people, today's bill aims to leverage 
funding in a way that stretches Federal dollars to the maximum extent 
possible.
  This is a fiscally sound bill. It employs none of the financial 
gimmicks to distort Federal investment. I am proud of this legislation, 
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a valuable member of our subcommittee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank our fine chairman from Massachusetts for 
recognizing this Buckeye. And I thank Chairman Olver for doing a 
phenomenal job on this bill. And also Ranking Member Knollenberg of 
Michigan, my sister State, thank you so very much for your fine work.
  To both these gentlemen, let me thank them for their outstanding 
leadership and for their commitment to investments in America. We see 
so much

[[Page 20111]]

money going abroad, indeed billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, 
and these gentlemen have done something for our country, for our 
fundamental infrastructure, for transportation, and for housing, the 
most important investment any American has, their most important form 
of savings.
  In the transportation area, I want to just focus in one area 
important to Ohio, and that is Amtrak. This bill is funded at a level 
of $1.4 billion. And the funding in this bill is providing critical 
capital and operating assistance to maintain our national passenger 
rail system in a manner that is environmentally friendly and necessary. 
No major industrial country in the world does not have a modern rail 
system. We need a ways to go in order to make ours better. This bill 
takes a step in that direction. Though President Bush and some of his 
allies in Congress were trying to kill passenger rail service in the 
country, they cannot succeed, because Amtrak is far too important for 
the Nation.
  In 2006, more than 24 million passengers traveled on Amtrak. More 
than 67,000 passengers ride on up to 300 Amtrak trains per day. And 
just in our section of Ohio, 57,000 riders make their way through 
Toledo, Ohio, as a part of that. I wish we could do more for our high-
speed rail corridors and for alternative fuels for the large trains. 
That is for the future, but at least we make investments in the 
fundamental system.
  Secondly, in the area of housing, I'm really proud of what the 
committee has done, particularly to meet our Nation's most essential 
housing community development programs. Mayors around this country will 
appreciate the increase of nearly $1 billion above the President's 
request for the Community Development Block Grant program, the most 
important program for over 1,180 communities to get some of their tax 
dollars back to do what they must to run their own communities, their 
own cities.
  In addition to that, housing for the elderly is maintained at $735 
million, $160 million above the President's request. For every single 
available unit of affordable housing, there are 10 seniors on the 
waiting list. So we don't meet the need, but we take a step in the 
right direction.
  Housing for the disabled is funded $236.6 million above the 
President's request. For U.S. housing markets which are in distress, in 
some areas literally dead in the water, HOPE VI is funded. The program 
is not killed to demolish deteriorating public housing, develop mixed-
income housing and otherwise help revitalize our distressed 
neighborhoods. And importantly, the bill provides for proper 
administration and maintenance of our public housing stock.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this very well-balanced bill for 
investment in the United States of America. Isn't it time?
  And again, thank you, Chairman Olver, for your fantastic work that 
touches every single corner of our Nation.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), also a member of this subcommittee.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. I thank my friend Chairman Olver. 
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the FY08 Transportation and 
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act.
  This is a bill, Madam Chairman, that the American people can be proud 
of. This bill's spending levels fall within the fiscally responsible 
budget resolution passed earlier this year by providing $50.7 billion 
for the Transportation Department and Housing and Urban Development.
  Our tax dollars are well used by investing in our road and airway 
infrastructures. I'm very supportive of the $1.5 billion this bill 
provides for Amtrak, and I'm hopeful this money can provide for the 
reinstatement of the Sunset Limited line that crossed into north 
Florida and traveled throughout the State.
  This bill also invests $4.2 billion in economic development which 
folks all across our Nation find essential for their communities' well-
being. The improvements made with these funds serve all of the American 
people, whether it be the overnight delivery of important documents to 
our workplaces, or the timely travel to and from schools, or the 
arrival of fresh produce at our grocery stores across the country.
  Efficient state-of-the-art transportation infrastructure ensures that 
our economy continues to be the strongest economy in the world, and 
that our citizens continue to have the highest quality of life 
throughout the world. The Federal Government is fulfilling the role 
envisioned by the Founding Fathers by providing these community 
benefits with our tax dollars.
  I want to thank Chairman Olver, Ranking Member Knollenberg and their 
staff for their hard work in producing this legislation.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in yielding 
time.
  I see what the subcommittee has done here is not an effort to somehow 
dictate to local governments what they have to do, but instead, 
structuring how to get more out of scarce Federal investments.
  As has been noted on the floor by people on both sides of the aisle, 
we are approaching a transportation infrastructure funding crisis in 
this country. There is not enough money remaining in the trust fund to 
deal with the existing level of programming, let alone what is going to 
be required as we move it in the next three authorizations. And 
countries around the world are spending trillions of dollars in China, 
in the European Union, in Japan, while we're falling behind.
  I appreciate the big-picture approach that the subcommittee has taken 
in terms of dealing with location efficiencies, with balanced 
transportation, with initiatives to green the infrastructure. I am 
hopeful that the instruction that the subcommittee has given to some of 
the Federal transportation agencies on how to have maximum impact by 
weighing factors of economic development and trip reduction to stretch 
more of those scarce dollars.
  I applaud funding the $1.4 billion for Amtrak, which hints at 
efficiencies that we can have in the long run. Because adequate funding 
of our rail passenger infrastructure is the cheapest, fastest way to 
increase airport capacity and reduce congestion, it's the cheapest, 
fastest way to get additional highway capacity while saving energy and 
reducing greenhouse gases.
  This is an unprecedented effort on behalf of the subcommittee to look 
at the big picture under its jurisdiction in the appropriations 
process. I think it's going to have a dramatic impact in the years to 
come. I appreciate what they're doing, and I look forward to working 
with them in the future.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls 8\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan controls 24\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Olver, 
Ranking Member Knollenberg and Chairman Obey for their hard work in 
crafting this bill.
  One thing I want to specifically focus on here is the provision of 
$35 million for the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program. This 
was authorized under the SAFETEA-LU transportation bill, but has not 
been funded up until now.
  Under this program grants would be provided to a wide range of rail 
projects throughout the Nation that would fill various critical needs, 
including safety improvements, congestion mitigation, quiet zone 
creation, and the facilitation of local economic development.
  For far too long our Nation's rail infrastructure has gone without 
adequate investment, and the needs continue to mount. By funding this 
program, we

[[Page 20112]]

are taking an important step toward modernizing our Nation's antiquated 
rail system and helping communities who are dependent on rail lines. 
Any community with a rail line in it knows the good and the not so good 
with having that line there. This bill will help them to do more with 
the good that these rail lines can provide for communities.
  I would also like to thank Ms. Matsui, my colleague from California, 
for her work in moving this provision forward.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3074, the 
Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies, THUD, Appropriations Act of 2008. First and foremost, 
I am pleased that the bill fully funds the Federal highway, transit, 
and highway safety programs at the levels guaranteed by the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users, SAFETEA-LU.
  At the same time, I regret that the bill rescinds $3 billion in 
highway funds that have been apportioned to the States, but are not 
available for obligation. However, I understand the significant funding 
constraints faced by the Committee on Appropriations in crafting the 
fiscal year 2008 THUD appropriations bill. If the Committee did not 
rescind this excess contract authority, it would have had to make real 
cuts in Amtrak funding, Federal Aviation Administration operations, and 
other critical programs. Given the Committee on Appropriations' limited 
choices, I have refrained from objecting to this rescission.
  I appreciate Chairman Obey's and Subcommittee Chairman Oliver's 
willingness to work with me on this issue. The Committee on 
Appropriations did agree to my request that this rescission be applied 
proportionally to all Federal-aid highway programs. I have been very 
concerned with the way States have been implementing previous 
rescissions, and language included in H.R. 3074 would ensure that the 
rescission contained in this legislation will not undermine the 
priorities established in SAFETEA-LU.
  I am particularly concerned with the treatment of the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, CMAQ, program under previous 
rescissions. The CMAQ program provides funding for projects and 
programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in areas that do 
not meet Clean Air Act air quality standards (i.e., nonattainment and 
maintenance areas). While representing about 4-5 percent of highway 
apportionments each year, CMAQ funds have accounted for about 20 
percent of total highway funds rescinded in recent years. In FY 2006 
alone, States rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds, an amount that is 
equal to 55 percent of the total amount apportioned to the States for 
the CMAQ program that year.
  Comparing the treatment of CMAQ to other highway programs further 
illustrates the disproportionate effects of these rescissions. In FY 
2006, looking at rescissions as a percentage of the amounts apportioned 
for each program, the rescission of 55 percent of CMAQ funds compares 
to a rescission of only 12 percent of Interstate Maintenance funds and 
seven percent of National Highway System funds.
  The Transportation Enhancements program has also received 
disproportionate contract authority cuts under the rescissions. The 
Transportation Enhancements program provides funds for bike paths, 
pedestrian walkways, historic preservation, and other activities that 
expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation 
experience.
  In FY 2006, States rescinded $602 million in Transportation 
Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in that year. Texas 
alone rescinded $223 million of Transportation Enhancements funding and 
the Texas Department of Transportation stated that it would not fund 
any transportation enhancement projects in that fiscal year. Texas' 
actions are directly contrary to our Federal efforts to develop a 
balanced, multimodal surface transportation system.
  The language of H.R. 3074 is consistent with the approach taken in 
H.R. 2701, the Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change 
Mitigation Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and will ensure that the priorities 
set by Congress in SAFETEA-LU are implemented as intended. I greatly 
appreciate the Committee on Appropriations' willingness to address my 
concerns on this issue.
  Throughout the bill, there are a number of other rescissions of 
highway, motor carrier safety, highway safety, and transit funds that 
raise concerns for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
In particular, section 124 rescinds $172 million of unobligated 
balances of contract authority for research programs conducted by the 
Federal Highway Administration. Earlier this year, the House passed 
H.R. 1195, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act, which provides 
additional resources to ensure that the highway research program 
receives the funding necessary to continue essential programs. 
Unfortunately, section 124 of the bill before us today rescinds some of 
these necessary research funds.
  The final concern I would like to address today is the earmarking of 
Airport Improvement Program funds. The report accompanying H.R. 3084 
includes a listing of 72 airport projects which the Federal Aviation 
Administration, FAA, is directed to fund. The law governing the Airport 
Improvement Program requires the FAA to establish a priority system to 
decide which projects will receive funding. The FAA's National Priority 
System, which has been in use for many years, gives highest priority to 
projects that will bring airports into compliance with safety 
standards. Second priority is given to projects that are necessary to 
meet security requirements. Third priority is given to reconstruction 
or rehabilitation projects that are needed to preserve existing airport 
infrastructure. Fourth priority is given to projects needed to achieve 
compliance with current FAA standards. Fifth priority is given to 
capacity enhancement projects.
  Aviation projects are not like projects in other modes of 
transportation. For example, an improvement to a highway project in one 
city does not necessarily benefit highway users in any other city, but 
in the national system of integrated airports, an improvement in one 
airport, particularly a major hub airport, could benefit aviation 
travelers throughout the system. For this reason, the FAA should have, 
and does have, discretion to fund improvements as it deems necessary to 
improve the aviation system as a whole. To limit the FAA's discretion 
in this regard would only worsen the congestion and delays we are 
already experiencing today.
  I want to make it clear that the language in a report cannot override 
a priority system established under the governing law. I would like to 
quote from the decision of the Comptroller General on a similar 
situation. The Comptroller General wrote: ``It is our view that when 
Congress merely appropriates lump sum amounts without statutorily 
restricting what can be done with those funds, a clear inference arises 
that it does not intend to impose legally binding restrictions, and 
indicia in committee reports and other legislative history as to how 
the funds should be or are expected to be spent do not establish any 
legal requirements on Federal agencies.''
  Throughout my career, I have steadfastly resisted designating airport 
improvement projects in authorizing legislation and in report language, 
and will continue to resist such designations. I urge the Committee on 
Appropriations to do so as well.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or 
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3074

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary, 
     $90,678,000, of which not to exceed $2,305,000 shall be 
     available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to 
     exceed $724,000 shall be available for the immediate Office 
     of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $15,753,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to 
     exceed $12,100,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed 
     $8,903,000 shall be available for the

[[Page 20113]]

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs; 
     not to exceed $2,382,000 shall be available for the Office of 
     the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs; not to 
     exceed $23,568,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Administration; not to exceed 
     $1,984,000 shall be available for the Office of Public 
     Affairs; not to exceed $1,498,000 shall be available for the 
     Office of the Executive Secretariat; not to exceed $1,314,000 
     shall be available for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged 
     Business Utilization; not to exceed $2,737,000 for the Office 
     of Intelligence and Security; not to exceed $12,273,000 shall 
     be available for the Office of the Chief Information Officer; 
     and not to exceed $5,137,000 shall be available for the 
     Office of Emergency Transportation: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds 
     appropriated for any office of the Office of the Secretary to 
     any other office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided 
     further, That no appropriation for any office shall be 
     increased or decreased by more than 5 percent by all such 
     transfers: Provided further, That notice of any change in 
     funding greater than 5 percent shall be submitted for 
     approval to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That not to exceed $60,000 
     shall be for allocation within the Department for official 
     reception and representation expenses as the Secretary may 
     determine: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, excluding fees authorized in Public Law 
     107-71, there may be credited to this appropriation up to 
     $2,500,000 in funds received in user fees: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for the position of Assistant Secretary for Public 
     Affairs.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       Page 2, lines 8 and 19, after the first dollar amount 
     insert ``(reduced by $6,200,000)''.
       Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased 
     by $6,200,000)''.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I have earlier indicated my 
appreciation of what the subcommittee has done, looking at the big 
picture and trying to squeeze additional efficiencies out of 
transportation and housing initiatives. And in that regard, I offer 
this amendment and hope to inquire of the Chair and ranking member to 
see if there is something we can do to move this forward.
  I'm prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I at least would like my 
3\1/2\ minutes here to put it before the committee and seek their 
assistance as it moves forward.

                              {time}  2030

  My amendment deals specifically with the Conserve by Bike program. 
This was unanimously adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 
subsequently signed into law. It was authorized at $6.2 million, a 
program that would establish 10 pilot projects across the country. 
These projects would utilize education and marketing tools to encourage 
people to replace some of their car trips with bicycle trips.
  The law also directs the Transportation Research Board of the 
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a national study to help us 
understand the benefits from converting cars to bike and how to educate 
people about these benefits.
  Nationally, less than 1 percent of trips are by bicycles currently. 
But in many bicycle-friendly communities, the percentage is much 
higher. In my home town of Portland, Oregon, like yours, Madam 
Chairman, that percentage is 2 or 3 percentage points. In our community 
of Portland, we have the highest percentage of bicycle commuting in the 
country, despite the fact that it rains all the time.
  Were we to increase bicycle trips by just 2 percent nationally, we 
would save more than 693 million gallons of gasoline per year, up to $5 
billion. Increasing bicycle usage has additional benefits of reducing 
our dependence on foreign oil and improving public health. When we are 
concerned about an obesity epidemic among our young people, having 
bicycles is an opportunity to reduce vehicle emissions; and combating 
adult and childhood obesity would seem to be a logical step.
  For all of these reasons, Congress had the foresight to include the 
Conserve by Bike program in the 2005 energy policy. Unfortunately, the 
program has not yet been implemented, because the Department of 
Transportation does not have the contract authority to fund the 
program. This appropriation is necessary to get the program off the 
ground.
  Given its modest price tag and innumerable benefits, I was 
disappointed to see that the program did not receive funds under the 
Secretary's account for Transportation Planning and Research, 
especially considering the committee's laudable commitment to other 
green and efficiency measures.
  Many cities and nations, particularly in Europe, have seen how 
converting car trips to bike trips can have measurable benefits for all 
its citizens. We have all perhaps been reading about Paris's recent 
inauguration of their bike-sharing program featuring over 10,000 bikes 
across the city to demonstrate that people will ride bikes when the 
infrastructure exists.
  Madam Chairman, I would strongly urge that the committee consider 
working with me to make sure that this important authorized program 
find funding in the conference report. As I say, I deeply appreciate 
the work that the committee has done. This is a relatively low-cost, 
high-impact area. Given the fact that we have come forward with over 
$5.5 billion in transportation infrastructure for bicycles, for trails, 
and for pedestrian activities, this would seem to be a relatively 
modest program to be able to jump-start the Conserve by Bike.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I would like to make a comment on the 
gentleman's amendment since the gentleman has indicated that he is 
willing to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate that. The gentleman and 
I have worked for several years now together on biking and rail-trail 
issues, so I can remember just a few years ago that we actually were 
closely involved in saving the transportation enhancement program on 
this very bill.
  We both recognize the environmental and public health benefits of 
bicycling. Even though I have stopped bicycling, I watch the Tour de 
France rather than bicycling myself these days. So I applaud the 
gentleman's concern and support for the Conserve by Bike program.
  As we move toward conference, I will do my very best to try to 
accommodate this, and just remind the gentleman that we have language 
in the bill to make certain that enhancements are not 
disproportionately cut in the case of rescissions, which is a balancing 
act in any case. The gentleman may wish to take part in that 
discussion, which may occur later this evening.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3074. As 
a new member of the subcommittee, it has been an honor to work with 
Chairman John Olver and Ranking Member Joe Knollenberg. I commend them 
for crafting a quality, bipartisan bill in the face of serious 
budgetary constraints. I also commend clerk Kate Hallahan and the 
committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their professionalism 
and hard work on this bill.
  Madam Chairman, the bill before us is carefully crafted to make 
important investments to meet our Nation's crucial housing and 
transportation needs. For the first time in over 5 years, this bill 
provides new section 8 vouchers to help address our Nation's housing 
shortage. It also fully funds authorized section 8 housing vouchers, 
essential to States like California, where there are over 300,000 
vouchers in use. This number is more than one-seventh the national 
total.
  While there still remains a great need for additional vouchers, I am 
pleased that this bill is an important step forward in helping to meet 
the housing needs of our most vulnerable populations.

[[Page 20114]]

  I am also pleased that this bill has restored funding for the Public 
Housing Capital fund. The administration's proposed cut would have had 
a severe impact on the ability of public housing authorities to 
renovate our Nation's dilapidated housing facilities, including those 
in my Thirty-fourth Congressional District. By restoring funding to 
last year's level, public housing authorities can continue critically 
needed renovations.
  Under the leadership of Chairman Olver, this bill also funds our 
Nation's transportation systems in a way that reaffirms the natural 
link between housing and transportation. The bill directs HUD and the 
Transportation Department to better coordinate public transportation 
with housing policies and programs. Improved coordination will help 
ensure that affordable housing is located closer to public 
transportation systems and job centers. The bill supports that 
directive through increased funding for transit.
  To enhance the public's use of mass transit and alleviate congestion 
on our Nation's highways and city cores, the bill provides additional 
Capital Investment Grants for commuters and light rail transit systems. 
Funding for these Capital Investment Grants is expected to generate as 
many as 17,400 new jobs and yield $1.8 billion in economic benefits to 
State and local communities.
  Our highways remain a critical element of our Nation's transportation 
system. This is especially true in my community of Los Angeles. To 
improve and maintain our Nation's aging highway infrastructure, the 
bill includes increased investments designed to ease automobile traffic 
and improve the flow-of-goods movement from our seaports to communities 
across the Nation. The investment in highway infrastructure will create 
over 59,000 additional jobs across all sectors of our economy.
  The passage of this bill is essential to maintaining our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure to keep America moving, our economy 
strong and our country's most vulnerable sheltered. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $9,140,900.


           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems development, development 
     activities, and making grants, to remain available until 
     expended, $8,515,000.


                          Working Capital Fund

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed $128,094,000, 
     shall be paid from appropriations made available to the 
     Department of Transportation: Provided, That such services 
     shall be provided on a competitive basis to entities within 
     the Department of Transportation: Provided further, That the 
     above limitation on operating expenses shall not apply to 
     non-DOT entities: Provided further, That no funds 
     appropriated in this Act to an agency of the Department shall 
     be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the 
     approval of the agency modal administrator: Provided further, 
     That no assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.


               Minority Business Resource Center Program

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $370,000, as authorized 
     by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $18,367,000. In addition, for administrative expenses 
     to carry out the guaranteed loan program, $523,000


                       Minority Business Outreach

       For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center 
     outreach activities, $2,970,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 
     332, these funds may be used for business opportunities 
     related to any mode of transportation.


                        Payments to Air Carriers

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       In addition to funds made available from any other source 
     to carry out the essential air service program under 49 
     U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, $60,000,000, to be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, in determining between or among 
     carriers competing to provide service to a community, the 
     Secretary may consider the relative subsidy requirements of 
     the carriers: Provided further, That, if the funds under this 
     heading are insufficient to meet the costs of the essential 
     air service program in the current fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall transfer such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 
     essential air service program from any available amounts 
     appropriated to or directly administered by the Office of the 
     Secretary for such fiscal year.

                     compensation for air carriers


                              (rescission)

       Of the remaining unobligated balances under section 
     101(a)(2) of Public Law 107-42, $22,000,000 are cancelled.


  Administrative Provisions--Office of the Secretary of Transportation

       Sec. 101. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     transfer the unexpended balances available for the bonding 
     assistance program from ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries 
     and expenses'' to ``Minority Business Outreach''.
       Sec. 102. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Transportation may be obligated for the 
     Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve 
     assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds 
     appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except 
     for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     unless such assessments or agreements have completed the 
     normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
       Sec. 103. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be obligated or expended to establish or implement a 
     program under which essential air service communities are 
     required to assume subsidy costs commonly referred to as the 
     EAS local participation program.

                    Federal Aviation Administration


                               Operations

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities, 
     the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and 
     maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made 
     available by Public Law 108-176, $8,716,606,000, of which 
     $6,317,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $6,958,413,000 shall be 
     available for air traffic organization activities; not to 
     exceed $1,076,103,000 shall be available for aviation safety 
     activities; not to exceed $12,549,000 shall be available for 
     commercial space transportation activities; not to exceed 
     $100,593,000 shall be available for financial services 
     activities; not to exceed $89,101,000 shall be available for 
     human resources program activities; not to exceed 
     $286,848,000 shall be available for region and center 
     operations and regional coordination activities; not to 
     exceed $162,349,000 shall be available for staff offices; and 
     not to exceed $38,650,000 shall be available for information 
     services: Provided, That not to exceed 2 percent of any 
     budget activity, except for aviation safety budget activity, 
     may be transferred to any budget activity under this heading: 
     Provided further, That no transfer may increase or decrease 
     any appropriation by more than 2 percent: Provided further, 
     That any transfer in excess of 2 percent shall be treated as 
     a reprogramming of funds under section 405 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the Federal Aviation Administration to finalize 
     or implement any regulation that would promulgate new 
     aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That 
     there may be credited to this appropriation funds received 
     from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, 
     other public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred in the provision of agency services, including 
     receipts for the maintenance and operation of air navigation 
     facilities, and for issuance, renewal or modification of 
     certificates, including airman, aircraft, and repair station 
     certificates, or for tests related thereto, or for processing 
     major repair or alteration forms: Provided further, That of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than 
     $8,500,000 shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing 
     program: Provided further, That funds may be used to enter 
     into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting 
     organization to assist in the development of aviation safety 
     standards: Provided further, That none of the funds

[[Page 20115]]

     in this Act shall be available for new applicants for the 
     second career training program: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be available for paying 
     premium pay under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation 
     Administration employee unless such employee actually 
     performed work during the time corresponding to such premium 
     pay: Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act for 
     aeronautical charting and cartography are available for 
     activities conducted by, or coordinated through, the Working 
     Capital Fund: Provided further, That none of the funds in 
     this Act may be obligated or expended for an employee of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to purchase a store gift card 
     or gift certificate through use of a Government-issued credit 
     card.


                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, technical support services, 
     improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of air 
     navigation and experimental facilities and equipment, as 
     authorized under part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United 
     States Code, including initial acquisition of necessary sites 
     by lease or grant; engineering and service testing, including 
     construction of test facilities and acquisition of necessary 
     sites by lease or grant; construction and furnishing of 
     quarters and related accommodations for officers and 
     employees of the Federal Aviation Administration stationed at 
     remote localities where such accommodations are not 
     available; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft 
     from funds available under this heading; to be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, $2,515,000,000, of which 
     $2,055,027,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2010, and of which $459,973,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2008: Provided, That there may be credited to 
     this appropriation funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private 
     sources, for expenses incurred in the establishment and 
     modernization of air navigation facilities: Provided further, 
     That upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal 
     year 2009 President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital 
     investment plan for the Federal Aviation Administration which 
     includes funding for each budget line item for fiscal years 
     2009 through 2013, with total funding for each year of the 
     plan constrained to the funding targets for those years as 
     estimated and approved by the Office of Management and 
     Budget.


                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     including construction of experimental facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant, 
     $140,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2010: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation as 
     offsetting collections, funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private 
     sources, which shall be available for expenses incurred for 
     research, engineering, and development.


                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and under other law authorizing such 
     obligations; for procurement, installation, and commissioning 
     of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at 
     airports of such title; for grants authorized under section 
     41743 of title 49, United States Code; and for inspection 
     activities and administration of airport safety programs, 
     including those related to airport operating certificates 
     under section 44706 of title 49, United States Code, 
     $4,399,000,000 to be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds under this heading shall be available 
     for the planning or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $3,600,000,000 in fiscal year 2008, 
     notwithstanding section 47117(g) of title 49, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That none of the funds under this 
     heading shall be available for the replacement of baggage 
     conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas, 
     or other airport improvements that are necessary to install 
     bulk explosive detection systems: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, of funds limited 
     under this heading, not more than $80,676,000 shall be 
     obligated for administration, not less than $10,000,000 shall 
     be available for the airport cooperative research program, 
     not less than $18,712,000 shall be for Airport Technology 
     Research and $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     shall be available and transferred to ``Office of the 
     Secretary, Salaries and Expenses'' to carry out the Small 
     Community Air Service Development Program.


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts authorized for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2007, and prior years under sections 48103 and 
     48112 of title 49, United States Code, $185,500,000 are 
     rescinded.


       Administrative Provisions--Federal Aviation Administration

       Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer without consideration to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant: 
     Provided, That the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     accept such equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and 
     maintained by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 375 technical staff-years under the 
     federally funded research and development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     2008.
       Sec. 112. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport 
     sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration 
     without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities 
     and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for 
     services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or 
     weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in 
     this section does not apply to negotiations between the 
     agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
     market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that 
     require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the 
     FAA for air traffic control facilities.
       Sec. 113. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may reimburse amounts made available to 
     satisfy 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) from fees credited under 49 
     U.S.C. 45303: Provided, That during fiscal year 2008, 49 
     U.S.C. 41742(b) shall not apply, and any amount remaining in 
     such account at the close of that fiscal year may be made 
     available to satisfy section 41742(a)(1) for the subsequent 
     fiscal year.
       Sec. 114. Amounts collected under section 40113(e) of title 
     49, United States Code, shall be credited to the 
     appropriation current at the time of collection, to be merged 
     with and available for the same purposes of such 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 115. (a) Section 44302(f)(1) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``2006,'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2008,''.
       (b) Section 44303(b) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``2006,'' and inserting ``2008,''.
       (c) Section 44310 of such title is amended by striking 
     ``March 30, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
       Sec. 116. None of the funds appropriated or limited by this 
     Act may be used to change weight restrictions or prior 
     permission rules at Teterboro airport in Teterboro, New 
     Jersey.

                     Federal Highway Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $384,556,000, together with advances and 
     reimbursements received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, shall be paid in accordance with law from 
     appropriations made available by this Act to the Federal 
     Highway Administration for necessary expenses for 
     administration and operation.


                          Federal-Aid Highways

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $40,216,051,359 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 2008: Provided, That within the $40,216,051,359 
     obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction programs, not more than $429,800,000 
     shall be available for the implementation or execution of 
     programs for transportation research (chapter 5 of title 23, 
     United States Code; sections 111, 5505, and 5506 of title 49, 
     United States Code; and title 5 of Public Law 109-59) for 
     fiscal year 2008: Provided further, That this limitation on 
     transportation research programs shall not apply to any 
     authority previously made available for obligation: Provided 
     further, That the funds authorized pursuant to section 110 of 
     title 23, United States Code, for the motor carrier safety 
     grant program, and the obligation limitation associated with 
     such funds provided under this heading, shall be transferred 
     to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Provided 
     further,

[[Page 20116]]

     That the Secretary may, as authorized by section 605(b) of 
     title 23, United States Code, collect and spend fees to cover 
     the costs of services of expert firms, including counsel, in 
     the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the 
     underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments and 
     all or a portion of the costs to the Federal Government of 
     servicing such credit instruments: Provided further, That 
     such fees are available until expended to pay for such costs: 
     Provided further, That such amounts are in addition to 
     administrative expenses that are also available for such 
     purpose, and are not subject to any obligation limitation or 
     the limitation on administrative expenses under section 608 
     of title 23, United States Code.


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
     Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, not 
     otherwise provided, including reimbursement for sums expended 
     pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $40,955,051,359 
     or so much thereof as may be available in and derived from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), 
     to remain available until expended.


                              (RESCISSION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

       Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned to each 
     State under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, 
     $3,000,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That such rescission 
     shall be distributed within each State, as defined in section 
     101 of such title, among all programs for which funds are 
     apportioned under such chapter for such fiscal year, to the 
     extent sufficient funds remain available for obligation, in 
     the ratio that the amount of funds apportioned for each 
     program under such chapter for such fiscal year, bears to the 
     amount of funds apportioned for all such programs under such 
     chapter for such fiscal year: Provided further, That funds 
     set aside under sections 133(d)(2) and 133(d)(3) of such 
     title shall be treated as being apportioned under chapter 1 
     of such title for the purposes of this provision.


               Administrative Provisions--Federal Highway

                              {time}  2045


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mica:
       Page 18, beginning on line 9, strike the colon and all that 
     follows through line 21 and insert a period.

  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman and Members of the House, I offer an 
amendment tonight to try to alleviate some of the pain that I believe 
will be inflicted on State departments of transportation across the 
United States, and that pain will be inflicted by a $3 billion 
rescission in highway contract authority that is included in this bill 
tonight.
  My preference would be to strike this rescission from the bill 
altogether. I did not have an opportunity to do that the way the rules 
were crafted. A $3 billion rescission of highway contract authority 
will have an adverse effect on State highway work across the country 
and plans all across the country for construction projects. However, I 
do think we do have the votes to eliminate the rescission provision 
from this bill in its entirety.
  If this bill were being considered pursuant to the rules of the 
House, we would not have to vote on striking this rescission. This 
rescission is authorizing in nature and actually under normal 
circumstances would have been subject to a point of order which I would 
have offered pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXI, authorizing on an 
appropriations measure. However, the rule that was adopted earlier this 
evening governing this debate waived this point of order; therefore, I 
am forced tonight to offer this amendment.
  This amendment is designed to make it easier for our State 
departments of transportation to handle rescissions of this size and 
magnitude. This amendment strikes language in the bill that requires 
the State departments of transportation to apply part of their 
rescission proportionately across all highway programs.
  I know you will hear some others say that this is going to not assist 
CMAQ and some of the air quality programs and all that. But when you 
have a rescission of this magnitude in this bill of $3 billion in size, 
this is going to dramatically affect some of the work projects in many 
of the districts of many of the Members who are listening tonight.
  By striking this provision in the bill, this amendment will restore 
the flexibility of the State departments of transportation they had in 
applying rescissions contained in previous appropriations measures.
  The current language in the bill will force all State departments of 
transportation to apply the rescission in the same way. Each State 
would have to rescind funding from its highway programs in the same 
ratio that it receives from the Federal Highway Administration.
  Unfortunately, this cookie-cutter approach does not work for every 
State. Some States have very little balances in certain highway 
programs from which they will be required to apply this mandated 
rescission. This will have, unfortunately, a really severe impact on a 
State's highway work plan, many of them, as I said, in progress. 
Projects in every one of our districts will be impacted.
  I have a letter here from the American Association of State and 
Highway Transportation Officials supporting my amendment. Attached to 
this letter is a table showing how this rescission will impact every 
State. I include these documents for the Record.

         American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
           Officials,
                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.
     Hon. John Mica,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Mica: I am writing on behalf of the American 
     Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
     (AASHTO), which represents the departments of transportation 
     in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
       As we indicated to the Committee last month, we are alarmed 
     that the Fiscal Year 2008 spending bill contains a provision 
     that would rescind $3 billion in apportioned contract 
     authority from the unobligated balances of total 
     apportionments. Since 2002, Congress has rescinded a total of 
     $9.822 billion in state apportioned highway contract 
     authority. This most recent proposal would bring the total to 
     almost $13 billion.
       These recurring rescissions of already apportioned contract 
     authority are likely to have a severe and immediate effect on 
     some States. How the States will be affected will vary to 
     some degree because the amount of unused contract authority 
     varies widely from State to State and among categories within 
     each State. However, after almost $13 billion in rescissions, 
     all States will be affected.
       A provision in the bill that would require the States to 
     distribute the rescission proportionately among all program 
     categories would further interfere with States' ability to 
     manage their highway programs, set priorities and craft long-
     term financial strategies. Therefore we urge you to adopt an 
     amendment which we believe will be offered by Rep. John Mica 
     to strike this provision.
       In the future we would like to work with Congress to 
     identify alternatives which would not be detrimental to 
     continuing the long-term financial stability of the federal-
     aid highway program.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     John Horsley,
                                               Executive Director.

                                                                                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
                                                                        [Estimated rescission of FY 2007 unobligated balances pursuant to H.R. 2701, section 252]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Surface transportation program
                                                             ------------------------------------------------------------------------------                   Congestion
            State               Interstate       National                                  Areas by population                                  Bridge        mitigation    Metropolitan  Recreational   Equity bonus       Share of
                                maintenance   highway system  Transportation ----------------------------------------------  Available for                    improvement     planning       trails                        rescission
                                                               enhancements        >200K          <200K           <5K          any area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA ....................    $11,765,147     $13,325,688     $1,646,465       $2,477,606    $1,254,493      $5,115,442      $5,311,325      $9,376,464      $1,123,330      $270,095      $147,743      $6,705,165        $58,518,963
ALASKA .....................      4,839,975       5,888,342        630,651                0             0               0       5,306,245       3,171,608       1,768,289       140,070       106,001       5,490,181         27,341,362
ARIZONA ....................     13,846,913      15,812,556      1,573,151        6,256,429     1,015,687       1,576,861       5,312,089       2,001,372       4,706,700       543,773       151,038       7,153,791         59,950,360
ARKANSAS ...................      7,851,869       8,963,213      1,062,060          859,864     1,135,148       3,776,535       3,464,935       5,829,472       1,028,379       140,070       112,522       3,434,529         37,658,596
CALIFORNIA .................     43,002,378      60,612,413      7,088,017       28,738,341     2,546,925       5,046,502      21,813,142      38,781,177      39,076,416     4,176,863       528,405      14,016,756        265,427,335

[[Page 20117]]

 
COLORADO ...................      8,630,375      11,853,852      1,096,822        3,812,237     1,133,170       1,224,216       3,704,097       2,797,057       3,056,116       447,046       128,383       2,369,324         40,252,695
CONNECTICUT ................      6,005,429       5,567,549        840,647        2,733,881       423,291         827,447       2,179,754      14,155,980       4,131,526       396,333        87,046       4,110,161         41,459,044
DELAWARE ...................        572,823       4,829,075        330,829        1,092,876       304,344         446,245       1,106,813       1,600,501         892,324       140,070        75,855         504,447         11,896,202
DIST. OF COL ...............        240,956       4,878,277        301,418        1,664,200             0               0         999,254       3,326,364         803,511       140,070        69,155               0         12,423,205
FLORIDA ....................     29,840,702      43,321,856      4,691,123       19,113,924     1,591,674       5,681,972      15,839,948      12,611,715       1,260,673     1,874,199       283,441      21,940,067        158,051,294
GEORGIA ....................     25,784,599      23,544,967      3,196,254        8,892,481     1,645,146       6,721,709      10,360,721       7,710,565       5,433,362       697,096       180,586      13,717,373        107,884,859
HAWAII .....................        906,134       4,833,948        351,993                0             0               0       2,972,372       2,075,371         900,961       140,070        78,648         589,951         12,849,448
IDAHO ......................      4,876,974       6,522,359        521,972          592,375       756,295       1,462,316       1,687,486       2,340,258       1,117,331       140,070       116,292       2,546,833         22,680,561
ILLINOIS ...................     24,040,962      20,621,254      2,618,032       10,642,902     1,734,744       2,348,784       8,841,196      14,500,387       8,613,891     1,354,849       185,051       7,241,932        102,743,984
INDIANA ....................     18,369,239      18,928,485      2,127,377        5,146,842     1,424,392       5,395,263       7,183,465       7,075,373       4,304,971       474,589       120,208       9,946,949         80,497,153
IOWA .......................      6,429,057       9,475,225        906,594          986,519     1,277,015       2,836,057       3,061,908       6,307,632         837,809       155,109       118,924         508,853         32,900,702
KANSAS .....................      6,002,504       8,196,712      1,009,464        1,896,313     1,200,065       2,080,643       3,108,463       5,348,008         822,062       168,055       112,791         308,180         30,253,260
KENTUCKY ...................     10,833,854      12,593,382      1,215,493        2,120,692     1,254,698       3,225,317       3,962,807       6,835,583       1,121,829       217,995       116,957       3,470,914         46,969,521
LOUISIANA ..................      8,243,528       7,614,874      1,100,166        2,207,351     1,016,744       2,369,619       3,358,480      17,245,502         894,422       352,799       145,608       2,017,876         46,566,969
MAINE ......................      2,484,659       2,949,509        326,517                0       529,665       1,204,052       1,040,997       3,231,812         804,554       140,070       104,475               0         12,816,310
MARYLAND ...................      9,457,381      10,616,959      1,170,312        4,535,997       602,983       1,405,302       3,928,949       8,692,461       5,184,640       598,306       105,068       3,446,876         49,745,234
MASSACHUSETTS ..............      8,080,825       8,177,563      1,133,561        4,724,088       631,870         279,149       3,383,435      16,981,797       5,767,012       784,059       116,713       1,258,248         51,318,320
MICHIGAN ...................     16,589,188      20,270,721      2,551,170        7,726,955     1,812,466       4,542,828       8,454,310      13,090,381       7,016,977       915,328       204,762       7,252,195         90,427,281
MINNESOTA ..................      9,798,443      11,931,707      1,527,276        4,171,220     1,496,055       2,923,652       4,711,001       4,142,497       2,658,804       377,307       159,857       3,508,643         47,406,462
MISSISSIPPI ................      6,944,918       9,167,487      1,012,057        1,105,330     1,108,799       3,358,148       3,345,486       6,205,762         936,422       140,070       128,551       2,061,052         35,514,082
MISSOURI ...................     14,385,613      16,240,862      1,789,707        4,916,131     1,626,068       3,516,718       5,512,445      14,727,219       1,919,154       430,025       140,269       5,561,382         70,765,593
MONTANA ....................      7,215,081       9,711,458        549,580                0     1,115,111       1,968,225       1,850,943       1,784,441       1,159,066       140,070       118,545       3,524,775         29,137,295
NEBRASKA ...................      4,249,488       7,330,986        633,623        1,625,494       950,235         948,543       2,116,027       2,697,071         852,591       140,070        99,215         561,701         22,205,044
NEVADA .....................      5,128,096       5,685,131        522,412        2,379,444       559,126               0       1,764,188       1,217,351       2,146,956       233,238        96,293       1,630,067         21,362,302
NEW HAMPSHIRE ..............      2,095,059       3,815,331        369,451          148,396       304,344       1,455,265       1,145,538       2,650,444         927,698       140,070        90,443         781,553         13,923,592
NEW JERSEY .................     11,249,797      16,955,778      1,725,170        8,698,642       560,094         445,344       5,825,766      21,639,208       9,555,408     1,078,844       115,304       7,438,901         85,288,256
NEW MEXICO .................      7,119,338       9,508,149        676,714        1,306,879     1,005,049       1,494,589       2,285,279       1,676,469         989,589       140,070       119,943       2,251,221         28,573,289
NEW YORK ...................     19,440,788      22,137,553      2,751,031       11,059,892     1,845,520       1,182,360       8,458,202      44,548,025      16,481,001     2,157,276       171,897       6,573,402        136,806,947
NORTH CAROLINA .............     16,625,710      19,668,122      2,250,514        4,134,958     1,901,896       6,622,284       7,599,512      12,674,525       4,641,438       523,279       161,011       9,313,725         86,116,974
NORTH DAKOTA ...............      2,979,202       8,252,505        415,180                0       721,623       1,539,299       1,357,457       1,087,852         887,749       140,070        85,392         734,172         18,200,501
OHIO .......................     22,889,407      22,595,065      2,753,977        8,912,079     1,933,436       4,645,608       9,299,891      16,777,142       8,925,176     1,017,276       165,577      10,424,730        110,339,364
OKLAHOMA ...................      8,636,614      11,438,681      1,380,999        3,048,771     1,198,153       3,311,761       4,537,917       7,644,351         991,081       206,430       125,184       3,671,878         46,191,820
OREGON .....................      5,968,159       8,590,614        856,550        2,366,532     1,042,247       1,271,549       2,810,139       8,665,328       1,428,693       274,953       117,251         934,939         34,326,954
PENNSYLVANIA ...............     20,162,242      21,300,856      2,662,892        7,985,354     2,302,975       3,284,153       8,148,592      45,640,965       9,785,802     1,142,457       170,832       8,328,833        130,915,953
RHODE ISLAND ...............      1,001,136       3,965,331        306,942        1,469,726       190,343               0         909,418       6,494,816         841,767       140,070        75,570               0         15,395,119
SOUTH CAROLINA .............     11,730,513      11,385,043      1,461,531        2,573,436       979,895       4,667,782       4,935,251       6,696,688       1,126,032       260,719       110,759       5,844,226         51,771,875
SOUTH DAKOTA ...............      3,763,591       7,335,794        497,853                0       786,971       1,930,238       1,488,681       1,528,588         957,691       140,070        87,853       1,351,540         19,868,870
TENNESSEE ..................     14,622,882      15,916,658      1,764,329        3,966,094     1,432,502       4,345,080       5,648,639       6,665,666       3,031,078       412,504       128,964       6,159,258         64,093,654
TEXAS ......................     53,363,790      67,225,761      7,240,656       23,761,651     3,845,557      13,121,484      24,449,666      19,079,799      13,416,341     2,058,662       330,397      30,916,854        258,810,618
UTAH .......................      7,591,648       5,142,238        585,706        2,338,048       672,680         233,774       1,947,918       1,236,926         944,318       243,224       123,984       1,335,408         22,395,872
VERMONT ....................      1,550,310       3,334,214        301,418                0       304,344       1,361,142       1,000,026       3,274,366         804,524       140,070        83,816               0         12,154,230
VIRGINIA ...................     17,800,251      17,391,796      2,150,287        6,839,247     1,370,369       3,885,746       6,633,146      10,528,408       5,015,455       655,798       126,970       8,428,116         80,825,589
WASHINGTON .................      9,356,868      10,727,524      1,201,406        3,819,675     1,058,758       1,879,479       4,057,525      14,579,704       3,082,792       598,821       160,953       1,341,135         51,864,640
WEST VIRGINIA ..............      5,033,122       5,142,248        567,261                0       777,821       2,413,020       1,749,590       5,965,550       1,017,622       140,070       101,286       2,118,597         25,026,187
WISCONSIN ..................     10,864,418      18,006,043      1,759,290        3,059,446     1,390,944       5,445,616       5,940,664       3,428,288       2,341,543       395,498       153,427       7,102,388         59,887,565
WYOMING ....................      5,005,208       8,643,797        341,927                0       732,299       1,159,261         937,243       1,128,600         921,002       140,070       108,552       1,080,736         20,198,695
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total ..................   $575,267,163    $707,945,511    $77,545,827     $225,908,318   $56,504,029    $135,976,379    $256,848,341    $479,472,889    $198,453,878   $28,014,065    $7,053,767    $251,009,833      $3,000,000,00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Madam Chairman, these State departments of transportation have asked 
us to give them the maximum flexibility in how they will be required to 
implement this very onerous rescission provision. They would like to 
eliminate the rescission altogether, as I would, but they are forced 
to, unfortunately, accept the rescission as offered, and we have no 
chance to alter that. All they are asking for here is flexibility.
  This amendment gives them that flexibility. Your State departments of 
transportation, fellow Members, support this amendment, and I will ask 
all of my colleagues to support it as well.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
This amendment strikes the language on page 18 of the bill that 
delineates how the rescission will be applied. I remind the gentleman 
from Florida, although I suspect he does already know this, that the 
rescission in the 2006 bill was $3.8 billion. The rescission in the 
2007 bill was $4.2 billion. The first of those was passed by the 
Republican majority, and the second was in its final form through the 
CR that came in the Democratic majority.
  Mr. MICA. Would the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. OLVER. Surely.
  Mr. MICA. It is my understanding that is the case, but they were 
allowed the flexibility to decide on how the funds would be expended.
  Mr. OLVER. That is correct. The gentleman is correct, the flexibility 
was there. But what we find out in that process is that the States very 
disproportionately focused that rescission upon enhancements and took 
enhancements in some places completely out of the budget, which, under 
the highway fund, we are supposed to be giving 10 percent of the 
highway formula moneys to enhancements.
  So this language was, in fact, exactly or very similar to language 
which was passed out of the T&I Committee of which the gentleman is the 
ranking member a couple of days after we had marked up in committee. So 
the T&I Committee already has agreed to the idea that enhancements 
should not be disproportionately targeted for rescissions when they 
occur when they are required by the legislation.
  In fact, we were asked by the T&I Committee to do something very 
similar to this, if not exactly this, which we have done, in making 
certain that there would not be disproportionate cuts to enhancements 
in the process of applying rescissions. And those data do not really 
affect what has happened to the 2007 or 2006 bills because we don't 
have the final numbers on those, but the data that I am describing is 
all

[[Page 20118]]

through the rescission process in every year that there has been 
rescissions, that those have in sum total gone heavily against the 
enhancement parts of the formula funds. So we have striven to correct 
that in the language that we have put in at this point, and I would ask 
the membership to oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Mica 
amendment.
  I understand that there is a lot of meat to what you just discussed, 
Mr. Chairman, but I think the real problem is, if you look at the 
AASHTO letter, the acronym for the State group, they recognize this as 
something that should be done.
  We need to maintain the rescission to meet the funding requirements 
of the bill. I do support giving States the greatest flexibility to 
meet that rescission.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida for his closing comments.
  Mr. MICA. I think the gentleman raised some good points on the other 
side. We had a vote on this, and it is a closely divided question. But 
I think all Members will hear from their State department of 
transportation. We have granted flexibility in the past. I am a great 
supporter of enhancements. I think we need things that some people may 
consider not asphalt and concrete, but things that enhance the beauty 
of our highways and transportation system in this country.
  But when you take a rescission of $3 billion, and States have 
obligations, and we have done this in the past to them, we have 
rescinded money in the past to them, I think we need to give them as 
much flexibility as possible to make the decisions, to make those cuts 
and to adjust their budgets.
  They get obligated for huge amounts of money and significant projects 
that are underway. And Members throughout this body will hear from 
their State department of transportation that they have projects 
underway that will have to be put on hold, that will be delayed, and 
that will cause a great disruption in their transportation planning and 
construction projects. So that's the reason that I think we should give 
them the same flexibility that they have had in the past. I am not 
asking for any more or any less.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica), the ranking member of the committee, is misguided and an 
inappropriate amendment.
  As the gentleman has already acknowledged, we discussed this in 
committee on our climate change legislation. We had a voice vote in 
which the gentleman's amendment failed.
  It would strike the provision that is in this appropriation bill to 
require States to implement their future rescissions on a proportional 
basis; rescissions, that is cuts of unobligated contract authority, to 
make those reductions proportional.
  States have applied previous rescissions in a disproportional way. 
They have disproportionately cut funding from the Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality Improvement Program that helps cities clean their air 
and move people more expeditiously.
  They have disproportionately cut funds from the bridge program, from 
transportation enhancement funds, all of which play critical roles in 
creating mode choices and options and alternatives for moving people in 
our major metropolitan areas and in rural areas.
  Flexibility, States have an enormous amount of flexibility under the 
current SAFETEA-LU law. They have the ability to transfer up to 50 
percent of their programmatic apportionments to other apportioned 
programs. The National Highway System, States can transfer 100 percent 
from NHS funds to surface transportation.
  This language will not in any way restrict States' flexibility in 
implementing the highway programs to meet their priorities. It will 
restrict the practice of targeting specific programs for 
disproportionate cuts to meet their rescission requirements.
  Now, the Equity Bonus Program, here is an example of the enormous 
flexibility States have under the current highway law. Funds under 
Equity Bonus are distributed to eligible States and apportioned to the 
interstate maintenance, the National Highway System, to the Bridge 
Program, to the Surface Transportation Program, Highway Safety Program 
and to CMAQ. States can use those funds to distribute the Equity Bonus 
account around to the eligibilities of these programs as they see fit 
to the needs of their specific State.
  In fiscal year 2007, States got $8.327 billion in Equity Bonus 
accounts. They have a lot of flexibility with that amount of money. 
States have significant unobligated balances of contract authority 
available in all categories of the Federal-aid highway program.

                              {time}  2100

  As of May 31 of this year, States had a total of $46.5 billion in 
unobligated funds. That's $3.16 billion in the CMAQ program, 2 years' 
worth of apportionments.
  They have got plenty of flexibility. They can use this money where 
they choose. Yet States have consistently chosen to target specific 
programs for disproportional cuts. Example, congestion mitigation and 
air quality improvement. That's only 4 or 5 percent of the total 
SAFETEA-LU program. But CMAQ funds account for 20 percent of the total 
rescissions in recent years.
  States rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds in 2006. That's $1 out of 
every $4 out of this one little program that metropolitan areas have to 
reduce congestion and pollution.
  In 2006, rescissions were distributed this way. They cut 55 percent 
out of CMAQ. They cut 12 percent out of interstate maintenance. They 
cut 7 percent out of the national highway system.
  In 2006, they cut $602 million out of the enhancements program. It 
was specifically set up to benefit communities that want to provide 
other transportation opportunities for their people. That's 15 percent 
of the rescissions just out of enhancements.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, in Texas, for example, of the $305 
million assigned to Texas under the 2006 rescission, a total of $241 
million of their cuts came from CMAQ and transportation enhancements. 
That's 79 percent of the amount that Texas alone cut out of these very 
small proportion programs.
  Now, we should not allow States to just target certain programs. We 
have created a structure within the Federal-Aid Highway Program of 
categories of funding. We all voted for it. It's now law, and if 
they're going to cut, their cuts ought to be proportional across the 
board.
  The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations supports our 
position, National Association of Counties, regional councils, Rails-
to-Trails Conservancy, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. The 
gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, it should not pass. States have 
enormous amounts of flexibility. We ought to defeat the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 20119]]




                             Administrative

                        (including rescissions)

       Sec. 120. (a) For fiscal year 2008, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall--
       (1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways amounts authorized for administrative 
     expenses and programs by section 104(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code; programs funded from the administrative takedown 
     authorized by section 104(a)(1) of title 23, United States 
     Code (as in effect on the date before the date of enactment 
     of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users); the highway use tax evasion 
     program; and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
       (2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation 
     for Federal-aid highways that is equal to the unobligated 
     balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety programs for previous fiscal 
     years the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
       (3) determine the ratio that--
       (A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways, 
     less the aggregate of amounts not distributed under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), bears to
       (B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     (other than sums authorized to be appropriated for provisions 
     of law described in paragraphs (1) through (9) of subsection 
     (b) and sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of 
     title 23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to 
     in subsection (b)(10) for such fiscal year), less the 
     aggregate of the amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of this subsection;
       (4)(A) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     highways, less the aggregate amounts not distributed under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), for sections 1301, 1302, and 1934 of 
     the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users; sections 117 (but 
     individually for each project numbered 1 through 3676 listed 
     in the table contained in section 1702 of the Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users) and section 144(g) of title 23, United 
     States Code; and section 14501 of title 40, United States 
     Code, so that the amount of obligation authority available 
     for each of such sections is equal to the amount determined 
     by multiplying the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by 
     the sums authorized to be appropriated for that section for 
     the fiscal year; and
       (B) distribute $2,000,000,000 for section 105 of title 23, 
     United States Code;
       (5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for 
     Federal-aid highways, less the aggregate amounts not 
     distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts 
     distributed under paragraph (4), for each of the programs 
     that are allocated by the Secretary under the Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users and title 23, United States Code (other than 
     to programs to which paragraphs (1) and (4) apply), by 
     multiplying the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such program 
     for such fiscal year; and
       (6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for 
     Federal-aid highways, less the aggregate amounts not 
     distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts 
     distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5), for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs (other than 
     the amounts apportioned for the equity bonus program, but 
     only to the extent that the amounts apportioned for the 
     equity bonus program for the fiscal year are greater than 
     $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian development highway 
     system program) that are apportioned by the Secretary under 
     the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and title 23, United States 
     Code, in the ratio that--
       (A) amounts authorized to be appropriated for such programs 
     that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear 
     to
       (B) the total of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     for such programs that are apportioned to all States for such 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation 
     limitation for Federal-aid highways shall not apply to 
     obligations: (1) under section 125 of title 23, United States 
     Code; (2) under section 147 of the Surface Transportation 
     Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under section 9 of the Federal-
     Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under subsections (b) and (j) of 
     section 131 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
     1982; (5) under subsections (b) and (c) of section 149 of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987; (6) under sections 1103 through 1108 of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (7) 
     under section 157 of title 23, United States Code, as in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; (8) under 
     section 105 of title 23, United States Code, as in effect for 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2004, but only in an amount equal 
     to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years; (9) for 
     Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation authority 
     was made available under the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century or subsequent public laws for multiple years 
     or to remain available until used, but only to the extent 
     that the obligation authority has not lapsed or been used; 
     (10) under section 105 of title 23, United States Code, but 
     only in an amount equal to $639,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2008; and (11) under section 1603 of the 
     Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
     Act: A Legacy for Users, to the extent that funds obligated 
     in accordance with that section were not subject to a 
     limitation on obligations at the time at which the funds were 
     initially made available for obligation.
       (c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall, after 
     August 1 of such fiscal year, revise a distribution of the 
     obligation limitation made available under subsection (a) if 
     the amount distributed cannot be obligated during that fiscal 
     year and redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able 
     to obligate amounts in addition to those previously 
     distributed during that fiscal year, giving priority to those 
     States having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned 
     under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, United States Code.
       (d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to 
     Transportation Research Programs.--The obligation limitation 
     shall apply to transportation research programs carried out 
     under chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, and title V 
     (research title) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
     Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 
     except that obligation authority made available for such 
     programs under such limitation shall remain available for a 
     period of 3 fiscal years and shall be in addition to the 
     amount of any limitation imposed on obligations for Federal-
     aid highway and highway safety construction programs for 
     future fiscal years.
       (e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the distribution of obligation limitation under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds 
     that--
       (A) are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year 
     for Federal-aid highways programs; and
       (B) the Secretary determines will not be allocated to the 
     States, and will not be available for obligation, in such 
     fiscal year due to the imposition of any obligation 
     limitation for such fiscal year.
       (2) Ratio.--Funds shall be distributed under paragraph (1) 
     in the same ratio as the distribution of obligation authority 
     under subsection (a)(6).
       (3) Availability.--Funds distributed under paragraph (1) 
     shall be available for any purposes described in section 
     133(b) of title 23, United States Code.
       (f) Special Limitation Characteristics.--Obligation 
     limitation distributed for a fiscal year under subsection 
     (a)(4) for the provision specified in subsection (a)(4) 
     shall--
       (1) remain available until used for obligation of funds for 
     that provision; and
       (2) be in addition to the amount of any limitation imposed 
     on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
     construction programs for future fiscal years.
       (g) High Priority Project Flexibility.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), obligation 
     authority distributed for such fiscal year under subsection 
     (a)(4) for each project numbered 1 through 3676 listed in the 
     table contained in section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users may be obligated for any other project in such section 
     in the same State.
       (2) Restoration.--Obligation authority used as described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be restored to the original purpose on 
     the date on which obligation authority is distributed under 
     this section for the next fiscal year following obligation 
     under paragraph (1).
       (h) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to limit the distribution of 
     obligation authority under subsection (a)(4)(A) for each of 
     the individual projects numbered greater than 3676 listed in 
     the table contained in section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49 
     U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways 
     account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such 
     expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction.
       Sec. 122. Of the unobligated balances made available under 
     sections 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106(a), 1106(b), 1107, and 1108 
     of Public Law 102-240, $1,292,287.73 are rescinded.
       Sec. 123. Of the unobligated balances made available under 
     section 1602 of Public Law 105-178, $6,138,880.54 are 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 124. Of the unobligated balances made available under 
     section 188(a)(1) of title 23, United States Code, as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of Public Law 
     109-59, and under section 608(a)(1) of such title, 
     $162,253,000 are rescinded.

[[Page 20120]]

       Sec. 125. Of the amounts made available under section 
     104(a) of title 23, United States Code, $43,358,601 are 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 126. Of the unobligated balances made available under 
     title 5 of Public Law 109-59, for the implementation or 
     execution of programs for transportation research, 
     $172,242,964 are rescinded.
       Sec. 127. Of the amounts made available for ``Highway 
     Related Safety Grants'' by section 402 of title 23, United 
     States Code, and administered by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, $11,314 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 128. Of the unobligated balances made available under 
     Public Law 101-516, Public Law 102-143, Public Law 103-331, 
     Public Law 106-346, Public Law 107-87, and Public Law 108-7, 
     $4,753,687.26 are rescinded.
       Sec. 129. Funds authorized under section 110 of title 23, 
     United States Code, for fiscal year 2008 shall be distributed 
     in accordance with the distribution set forth in section 
     110(b)(4) (A) and (B) of such title, except that before such 
     allocations are made, $219,250,000 shall be set aside for the 
     Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program 
     under section 1117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
     Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 
     (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. at 1177-1179) and administered 
     in accordance with section 1117(g)(2) of such Act.

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


              Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

                         (including rescission)

       For payment of obligations incurred for administration of 
     motor carrier safety operations and programs pursuant to 
     section 31104(i) of title 49, United States Code, and 
     sections 4127 and 4134 of Public Law 109-59, $228,000,000, to 
     be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
     Transit Account), together with advances and reimbursements 
     received by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 
     the sum of which shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation, execution or administration of programs, the 
     obligations for which are in excess of $228,000,000, for 
     ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs'', of which 
     $10,296,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010, is for the research and technology 
     program and $1,000,000 shall be available for commercial 
     motor vehicle operator's grants to carry out section 4134 of 
     Public Law 109-59: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, none of the funds under this heading 
     for outreach and education shall be available for transfer: 
     Provided further, That $3,469,553 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

                         (including rescission)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 
     sections 31102, 31104(a), 31106, 31107, 31109, 31309, 31313 
     of title 49, United States Code, and sections 4126 and 4128 
     of Public Law 109-59, $300,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That none of 
     the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $300,000,000, for ``Motor Carrier 
     Safety Grants''; of which $202,000,000 shall be available for 
     the motor carrier safety assistance program to carry out 
     sections 31102 and 31104(a) of title 49, United States Code; 
     $25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial driver's 
     license improvements program to carry out section 31313 of 
     title 49, United States Code; $32,000,000 shall be available 
     for the border enforcement grants program to carry out 
     section 31107 of title 49, United States Code; $5,000,000 
     shall be available for the performance and registration 
     information system management program to carry out sections 
     31106(b) and 31109 of title 49, United States Code; 
     $25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial vehicle 
     information systems and networks deployment program to carry 
     out section 4126 of Public Law 109-59; $3,000,000 shall be 
     available for the safety data improvement program to carry 
     out section 4128 of Public Law 109-59; and $8,000,000 shall 
     be available for the commercial driver's license information 
     system modernization program to carry out section 31309(e) of 
     title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available for the motor carrier safety assistance 
     program, $29,000,000 shall be available for audits of new 
     entrant motor carriers: Provided further, That $11,260,214 in 
     unobligated balances are rescinded.


                          Motor Carrier Safety

                          (highway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in prior 
     appropriations Acts, $32,187,720 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


                 national motor carrier safety program

                          (highway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this hearing in prior 
     appropriations Act, $5,212,858 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


 Administrative Provision--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

       Sec. 130. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall 
     be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section 
     350 of Public Law 107-87 and section 6901 of Public Law 110-
     28, including that the Secretary submit a report to the House 
     and Senate Appropriations Committees annually on the safety 
     and security of transportation into the United States by 
     Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


                        Operations and Research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     subtitle C of title X of Public Law 109-59, chapter 301 of 
     title 49, United States Code, and part C of subtitle VI of 
     title 49, United States Code, $125,000,000, of which 
     $26,156,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2010: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or implement any 
     rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 49 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations any requirement pertaining to a 
     grading standard that is different from the three grading 
     standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance) 
     already in effect.


                        Operations and Research

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, $107,750,000, to be derived from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     and to remain available until expended: Provided, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be available for the planning 
     or execution of programs the total obligations for which, in 
     fiscal year 2008, are in excess of $107,750,000 for programs 
     authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.


                        National Driver Register

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out chapter 
     303 of title 49, United States Code, $4,000,000, to be 
     derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
     Transit Account) and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the implementation or execution of programs the 
     total obligations for which, in fiscal year 2008, are in 
     excess of $4,000,000 for the National Driver Register 
     authorized under such chapter.


                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 406, 408, and 410 and 
     sections 2001(a)(11), 2009, 2010, and 2011 of Public Law 109-
     59, to remain available until expended, $599,250,000 to be 
     derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
     Transit Account): Provided, That none of the funds in this 
     Act shall be available for the planning or execution of 
     programs the total obligations for which, in fiscal year 
     2008, are in excess of $599,250,000 for programs authorized 
     under 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 406, 408, and 410 and sections 
     2001(a)(11), 2009, 2010, and 2011 of Public Law 109-59, of 
     which $225,000,000 shall be for ``Highway Safety Programs'' 
     under 23 U.S.C. 402; $25,000,000 shall be for ``Occupant 
     Protection Incentive Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 405; 
     $124,500,000 shall be for ``Safety Belt Performance Grants'' 
     under 23 U.S.C. 406; $34,500,000 shall be for ``State Traffic 
     Safety Information System Improvements'' under 23 U.S.C. 408; 
     $131,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving 
     Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program'' under 23 U.S.C. 
     410; $18,250,000 shall be for ``Administrative Expenses'' 
     under section 2001(a)(11) of Public Law 109-59; $29,000,000 
     shall be for ``High Visibility Enforcement Program'' under 
     section 2009 of Public Law 109-59; $6,000,000 shall be for 
     ``Motorcyclist Safety'' under section 2010 of Public Law 109-
     59; and $6,000,000 shall be for ``Child Safety and Child 
     Booster Seat Safety Incentive Grants'' under section 2011 of 
     Public Law 109-59: Provided further, That none of these funds 
     shall be used for construction, rehabilitation, or remodeling 
     costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, 
     local or private buildings or structures: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $500,000 of the funds made available for 
     section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures 
     Grants'' shall be available for technical assistance to the 
     States: Provided further, That not to exceed $750,000 of the 
     funds made available for the ``High Visibility Enforcement 
     Program'' shall be available for

[[Page 20121]]

     the evaluation required under section 2009(f) of Public Law 
     109-59.


      Administrative Provisions--National Highway Traffic Safety 
                             Administration

                        (including rescissions)

       Sec. 140. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     limitation on the use of funds made available under section 
     403 of title 23, United States Code, an additional $130,000 
     shall be made available to the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration, out of the amount limited for section 
     402 of title 23, United States Code, to pay for travel and 
     related expenses for State management reviews and to pay for 
     core competency development training and related expenses for 
     highway safety staff.
       Sec. 141. Of the amounts made available under the heading 
     ``Operations and Research (Liquidation of Contract 
     Authorization) (Limitation on Obligations) (Highway Trust 
     Fund)'' in prior appropriations Acts, $12,197,113.60 in 
     unobligated balances are rescinded.
       Sec. 142. Of the amounts made available under the heading 
     ``National Driver Register (Liquidation of Contract 
     Authorization) (Limitation on Obligations) (Highway Trust 
     Fund)'' in prior appropriations Acts, $119,914.61 in 
     unobligated balances are rescinded.
       Sec. 143. Of the amounts made available under the heading 
     ``Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Liquidation of Contract 
     Authorization) (Limitation on Obligations) (Highway Trust 
     Fund)'' in prior appropriations Acts, $10,528,958 in 
     unobligated balances are rescinded.

                    Federal Railroad Administration


                         Safety and Operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $148,472,000, of 
     which $12,268,890 shall remain available until expended.


                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $33,250,000, to remain available until expended.


            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as 
     amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments 
     shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium 
     during fiscal year 2008.


              rail line relocation and improvement program

       For necessary expenses of carrying out section 20154 of 
     title 49, United States Code, as authorized by section 9002 
     of Public Law 109-59, $35,000,000.


    OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly 
     grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for 
     operation of intercity passenger rail, $475,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall approve funding to cover operating 
     losses for the Corporation only after receiving and reviewing 
     a grant request for each specific train route: Provided 
     further, That each such grant request shall be accompanied by 
     a detailed financial analysis, revenue projection, and 
     capital expenditure projection justifying the Federal support 
     to the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided further, That the 
     Corporation is directed to achieve savings through operating 
     efficiencies including, but not limited to, modifications to 
     food and beverage service and first class service: Provided 
     further, That the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation shall report to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations beginning three months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter 
     with estimates of the savings accrued as a result of all 
     operational reforms instituted by the Corporation: Provided 
     further, That not later than 120 days after enactment of this 
     Act, the Corporation shall transmit to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations the status of its plan to 
     improve the financial performance of food and beverage 
     service and its plan to improve the financial performance of 
     first class service (including sleeping car service): 
     Provided further, That the Corporation shall report quarterly 
     to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on its 
     progress against the milestones and target dates contained in 
     the plan provided in fiscal year 2007 and quantify savings 
     realized to date on a monthly basis compared to those 
     projected in the plan, identify any changes in the plan or 
     delays in implementing these plans, and identify the causes 
     of delay and proposed corrective measures: Provided further, 
     That not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     Corporation shall transmit, in electronic format, to the 
     Secretary, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 
     the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 
     the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     a comprehensive business plan approved by the Board of 
     Directors for fiscal year 2008 under section 24104(a) of 
     title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That the 
     business plan shall include, as applicable, targets for 
     ridership, revenues, and capital and operating expenses: 
     Provided further, That the plan shall also include a separate 
     accounting of such targets for the Northeast Corridor; 
     commuter service; long-distance Amtrak service; State-
     supported service; each intercity train route, including 
     Autotrain; and commercial activities including contract 
     operations: Provided further, That the business plan shall 
     include a description of the work to be funded, along with 
     cost estimates and an estimated timetable for completion of 
     the projects covered by this business plan: Provided further, 
     That the Corporation shall continue to provide monthly 
     reports in electronic format regarding the pending business 
     plan, which shall describe the work completed to date, any 
     changes to the business plan, and the reasons for such 
     changes, and shall identify all sole source contract awards 
     which shall be accompanied by a justification as to why said 
     contract was awarded on a sole source basis: Provided 
     further, That the Corporation's business plan and all 
     subsequent supplemental plans shall be displayed on the 
     Corporation's website within a reasonable timeframe following 
     their submission to the appropriate entities: Provided 
     further, That the leases and contracts entered into by the 
     Corporation in any year that the Corporation receives a 
     Federal subsidy after the date of enactment of the Act, 
     regardless of the place the same may be executed, shall be 
     governed by the laws of the District of Columbia: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds under this heading may be 
     obligated or expended until the Corporation agrees to 
     continue abiding by the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 9, 
     and 11 of the summary of conditions for the direct loan 
     agreement of June 28, 2002, in the same manner as in effect 
     on the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds provided in this Act may be used after 
     March 1, 2006, to support any route on which Amtrak offers a 
     discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal, peak 
     fare: Provided further, That the preceding proviso does not 
     apply to routes where the operating loss as a result of the 
     discount is covered by a State and the State participates in 
     the setting of fares: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     made available under this heading not less than $18,500,000 
     shall be available for the Amtrak Office of Inspector 
     General.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Bachmann

  Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Bachmann:
       Page 38, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $106,000,000)''.
       Page 83, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $106,000,000)''.

  Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chairman, the proposed amendment that I'm 
bringing before the body today removes $106 million from Amtrak 
funding, restoring it back to the fiscal year 2007 level, and it adds 
that amount to the Homeless Assistance Grants.
  Madam Chairman, Amtrak has run a deficit for over $1 billion every 
year. It is now funded at $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2008 in the 
Democrats' THUD bill, an increase of $106 million over the fiscal year 
2007 levels. It's $600 million over the President's request.
  Much of this deficit stems from Amtrak's long-distance routes, which 
carry only 15 percent of Amtrak's passengers, but that creates 80 
percent of its cash operating losses.
  Although Congress has made several attempts at getting Amtrak to 
reform itself, these attempts have resulted in very little improvement, 
I'm afraid, and tax dollars are continuing to be wasted on a service 
that is used by only a very small fraction of our American population.
  It just seems to me that rather than pouring money into this 
colossally losing investment, we should stop pouring good money after 
bad, and Congress ought to be funding programs that are proven to help 
people that are in need and deliver results. We need to help poor 
people. We shouldn't help poor programs. I think we should be saying 
no, Madam Chairman, to poor programs because we should not be saying no 
to poor, homeless people just to continue to prop up a bloated 
government bureaucracy.
  One such program is the Homeless Assistance Grants program. It has 
been awarding competitive grants to cities, to counties, to nonprofits, 
to housing

[[Page 20122]]

authorities to provide transitional and permanent housing for the 
homeless.
  In Minnesota, we have some great programs. Grants have gone to 
Lutheran Social Services in Minnesota, the Amherst H. Wilder 
Foundation, the Tubman Family Alliance, great groups. These have proven 
themselves to be very successful in housing programs in Minnesota.
  The problem with Amtrak is not that rail is bad, but this program 
again has been running in the red. It's been bleeding, it's been 
hemorrhaging, and it needs transfusion, a big transfusion of over $1 
billion in tax money every year. It's running in the red. We do not 
want to be owners of a loser of a program. It requires Federal 
assistance to cover these losses and the losses from their capital 
investment. Clearly, for all the years it's been in existence, Amtrak 
would not survive without this Federal funding.
  In Minnesota, we have an old Lakota Indian proverb, and it says, if 
your horse is dead, get off. And the wisdom of our Native American is 
pretty clear, and I think that we should follow our Lakota elders when 
they have enough sense to dismount.
  This bill would fund Amtrak again at $1.4 billion for fiscal year 
2008. That's $106 million more than the 2007 level, $600 million over 
the President's request. $1 billion is worth a lot. If you fraction it 
out, it it's $1,000 a day every day, including Sundays, for 2,440 
years. Even for government, that's a lot of money, and still after 35 
years, Amtrak hasn't been able to get it right, Madam Chairman.
  The Federal Government has provided $30 billion to Amtrak. On 
average, that's a Federal subsidy of over $210 per passenger per 
thousand miles that are traveled. It seems that the Federal Government 
can't even get people to ride Amtrak, so we almost pay them to ride the 
line. In fact, in 2005, the Sunset Limited route connected L.A. with 
Orlando. That route required a subsidy of $433 per passenger each way. 
That's on top of the round-trip fare of about $950 that each passenger 
paid. That's more than enough to buy a plane ticket for each passenger 
and save them a trip lasting 68 hours, but that's only if the trains 
run on time, and only 41 percent of the time do the trains run on time.
  It gets worse, though, Madam Chairman. The passengers on sleeper cars 
are the most heavily subsidized. The average passenger in a sleeper car 
gets an additional $206 subsidy. That reaches an extra $358 per 
passenger depending on the route. So that means that the highest 
government subsidies go to passengers sitting in first class. We could 
be giving this money to homeless people, and that's our priority.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  First of all, I think that the subcommittee and the full committee, 
this legislation was passed out of full committee unanimously without 
dissent, by voice vote but without dissent, and we've tried to strike 
an appropriate balance in funding the transportation and housing 
problems in the bill.
  As in previous bills in previous years, I've opposed amendments that 
take funding from housing to increase the funding for transportation 
programs, and similarly, I've opposed amendments which take funding 
from transportation and transfer those funds to housing programs.

                              {time}  2115

  I think that's entirely appropriate. We have this bill where we 
cannot have one portion. Each has its important features, and we cannot 
have one portion of this bill taking sizeable funds from another 
portion, which has equally important priorities within the bill.
  I would point out to my colleagues that in the bill before us, the 
appropriation for the homeless is $1.56 billion. That's $119 million 
already above the 2007 enacted sum for the Homeless Grant Program. 
That's 8 percent already above the level of the 2007 enacted program 
from just last February.
  The amendment that the gentlewoman has proposed would move another 
$106 million into that, which would then put it far over the 
President's request, that program. I don't think that that's really 
necessary here.
  What we do have is a situation where year after year the Amtrak 
program has gone through reform, substantial reform, to try to reduce 
their cost and to provide greater service, as has been requested by 
this Congress over the last several years. To take that money away from 
them at a time when the other body, the Senate, has passed 
authorization legislation or has reported out of committee 
authorization legislation, and our own T&I Committee is working on 
authorizing legislation for Amtrak, which is considerably higher than 
even the level of the funding that we have in this bill.
  For both of those reasons, the balance of the legislation not moving 
money from housing into transportation or vice versa, which I will 
oppose at every point that it comes up, because I think we are trying 
to keep a reasonable balance of the priorities in each of those very 
important areas, and because the homeless program is already funded at 
almost $120 million above the 2007 funded amount, that this is not a 
necessary amendment, not an appropriate amendment. I hope that we will 
not pass this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, this same amendment was offered in the 
last Congress and got 60 votes. It's as misguided now as it was then.
  The Committee on Appropriations for the first time in a dozen years 
has provided a net increase in funding for Amtrak. We are not going to 
be here tonight or tomorrow when we vote on this and cut those funds 
and reduce Amtrak to the beggar position that it has been in for the 
last dozen years.
  For the last 12 years, supporters of Amtrak have been reduced to 
pleading to just restore the funding; not to increase, not to advance 
the cause of Amtrak, but simply restore to where it was with the 
inadequate amounts that this administration has proposed. Most of the 
time they proposed to cut Amtrak.
  In fact, when I hear Amtrak reform, I know what it means. It means 
cut the funds, tie their hands, submit Amtrak to a board that's going 
to run it into the ground, not run it into the 21st century.
  As the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, has said, the 
committee bill provides nearly $120 million increase in funding for the 
homeless. That's the first time in 4 years. A 23 percent increase, 
that's substantial. I'm for it. We don't need to take money out of 
Amtrak to increase funds for the homeless. Amtrak needs help.
  I hear this old saw time and again. Oh, Amtrak is bleeding money, and 
we are subsidizing it. What do you do for the airlines? What do you do 
for highways? We provide funds for the highway program. We provide 
funds for aviation.
  Amtrak is the residue of what was left when the railroads abandoned 
their passenger service in the 1960s and to the eve of 1970 when Amtrak 
was created. Time and again, they conspired with the Postal Service to 
take the railway post office off the passenger service so that then 
they would have a losing proposition, and they could apply for 
discontinuance to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and they did. 
They shut down passenger rail service to small towns, and they also 
lost less-than-carload service, and towns went out of business because 
they didn't have a small shipping service on freight rail with 
passengers to move their goods.
  So what did Amtrak get? When we created Amtrak in 1970, we got the 
dregs of what was left of intercity passenger rail service, and the 
Congress for several years was trying to build up Amtrak to provide 
funds for improved rail, and railbed and rolling stock. But

[[Page 20123]]

over the last 12 years, we haven't had the funds to do that with 
Amtrak.
  Every industrialized Nation in the world has high-speed intercity 
passenger service. In France you can travel on the TGV a distance from 
International Falls to Minneapolis-Saint Paul, 185 miles an hour, 220-
some miles, in 80 minutes, 80 minutes, in France. They can do that in 
Spain on the Talgo. They can do it in Germany on the ICE. They can do 
it in Japan on the Shinkansen. We don't have a high-speed, 185-mile-an-
hour passenger rail service anywhere in America. The best Amtrak can do 
is 150 miles in a few segments of its track.
  But if we make the investments, if we invest in improving the tracks, 
if we invest in the catanaries and improve the patographs on the 
existing locomotives in the Northeast corridor, we can have that high-
speed rail service. We should have it. We should have it on the 
Northern Tier. We should have it from Chicago down to New Orleans. With 
we ought to have it all through the Southwest and the Southeast.
  We need Amtrak rail passenger service in this country. We need a 
high-speed, modern, intercity rail passenger service in this country. 
We are a proud industrialized Nation. We have the highest mobility of 
people in the world.
  In the aftermath of September 11, what did people take? They couldn't 
fly, and the highways were crowded. They took Amtrak.
  We need to upgrade Amtrak. We need to invest in Amtrak. We need to 
invest in its future. This is where America has an opportunity to move 
from this highway-dependent economy of ours, reduce our dependence on 
imported oil, move people more efficiently and more effectively with 
high-speed intercity passenger rail, as every industrialized nation in 
the world does except the United States.
  This is a misguided amendment. I regret that my dear friend, the 
lovely gentlewoman from central Minnesota, has offered this amendment, 
one of her first offerings in the House, but I have to say, it is 
misguided, it is the wrong thing to do. We need to defeat this 
amendment as we did in the last Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 38, strike line 5 and all that follows through page 
     41, line 18.

  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would eliminate funding for 
the operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation, or Amtrak, and save the taxpayer $475 million.
  The FY 2007 funding level was $490 million. The President requested 
to eliminate funding for this grant program in the FY 2008 budget.
  According to the committee report, operating subsidy grants allow the 
Department of Transportation to make quarterly grants to Amtrak after 
receiving and reviewing a grant request for each train route. This 
would be accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue 
projection and capital expenditure projection. Receipt of these grants 
also requires Amtrak to achieve savings through operating efficiencies, 
yet Amtrak has been plagued by inefficiencies and debt since its 
inception.
  Amtrak's model for providing intercity rail service has been a 
failure since it began in 1971. Historically Amtrak has carried less 
than 1 percent of the traveling public. It is it has required annual 
Federal subsidies to cover operating losses and capital costs in every 
year since its existence, some $29 billion in taxpayer resources to 
date.
  It lacks adequate cost controls. It has deferred capitalized repair 
projects, and it confronts increasing debt-service costs.
  Now, we were told 30 years ago that Amtrak started from the ruins of 
what was then passenger rail service. Whatever its origins, the market 
has simply apparently vanished for passenger rail service of this kind. 
The Heritage Foundation reported that even if Amtrak increases its 
passenger load, for every passenger that is increased, the taxpayer 
pays more in subsidies. So, it's like the retail shop owner saying that 
I am losing money with every sale, but I am going to make up for it in 
volume. The taxpayers are making up for it in volume every time.
  There has been a slight increase in passenger service in terms of 
passengers served over the past couple of years, or at least there was 
from 2001 to 2004, and still it bleeds red ink all over.
  Now, contrast this with some cargo service provided by rail. It's 
largely free of subsidy. It's done by the private sector. There are 
huge profit margins there. In many routes they do very well. But 
Amtrak, passenger rail service, simply can't get there. There simply 
isn't a market for it.
  Now, those providing cargo service wouldn't want to provide passenger 
service, because there is no market. But we continue to let the 
taxpayer subsidize it. As the last speaker mentioned, some routes the 
subsidy is between $400 and $500 per ticket. The Federal taxpayer could 
buy each person on a long-distance Amtrak service on some of the routes 
a plane ticket for what it costs to subsidize their Amtrak travel. 
That's after they have paid a lot more than a plane ticket would cost 
in the first place.
  There simply isn't a market for it. How long will we go on not 
recognizing it, not recognizing that we need some competition from the 
private sector to allow it to take it over? If there isn't a market at 
some point, the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize it any 
longer.
  Let me just finish. We will hear that we need passenger rail service. 
We will need to catch up to countries like Germany and Japan who are 
doing it. Apparently they are doing a better job than we are.
  Who among us here thinks that with the current model of government 
subsidizing a private corporation like this is going to get us where 
Germany is or Japan is? As has already been noted, people who study 
this issue note that with every new passenger added, every net increase 
in passengers, it's actually more subsidies. So under the current 
model, unless they change or reform somehow, if they increase 
ridership, we actually have to pay more in subsidies.
  That simply doesn't work. It wouldn't work in the private sector. No 
private businessman would stand it. But the taxpayers are simply on the 
hook for about $1.2 billion a year. It continues year after year after 
year. I have been here 6 years. I have heard it every year. I suppose 
if we go the next 25 years, we will hear it again. It will just be an 
increase in subsidies, like we are doing this year.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2130

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts continue with his 
reservation?
  Mr. OLVER. I withdraw my reservation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The reservation is withdrawn.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, this is an effort to bring Amtrak to a 
stop, simply. Over the last couple of years, we have had the President 
recommend no funding for Amtrak. We have refused that and funded them 
so they could continue service at the level that they were. We have 
added reform programs to them to require substantial savings out of the 
first-class service

[[Page 20124]]

and the meals service and things of that sort, which have been quite 
substantial, and they have saved each year $80 million to $100 million 
a year on that program. So we are moving to make the system more 
efficient, though there is not any passenger rail system anywhere in 
this world that operates without some operating subsidy.
  Where we have public transportation systems, any subway system, the 
fares never get to as high as 50 percent of the cost of the service, 
and the remaining service is then part of a subsidy for the operation 
of that service. In fact, most of our transit programs function at 
considerably less than a 50-percent fare box amount. So Amtrak is not 
any different from any other rail program which provides great energy 
efficiency in the movement of large numbers of people, and it is very 
important in our very densely populated corridors.
  We as a Congress have then added the idea of having a national rail 
system that covers long-distance rail. And those even require a greater 
subsidy, but it has been our decision to do that over the years.
  We have to have a rail program in this country. We have somehow to 
get over making Amtrak ultimately, somehow, to morph Amtrak into a 
system that will provide high-speed passenger rail in corridors of 
relatively short distance. But in the meantime, we also have to keep 
Amtrak running, and this amendment would take the operating monies 
completely away from a system which cannot operate without that 
operating subsidy.
  The rest of the money, the gentleman believes most of the remainder 
was in there for capital improvements. Well, there isn't any point in 
having the capital improvements if you are not going to have an 
operating subsidy unless you can move the monies around, and then you 
have to cut seriously the total amount of service that is being 
provided by Amtrak with the amendment that the gentleman has offered. 
So it is really a killing amendment for Amtrak.
  Amtrak cannot function with the amendment that the gentleman from 
Arizona has offered in this instance. We have gone through this fight 
time and time again, and each time the end result is that Amtrak is 
supported because Amtrak service is provided in over 40 of the States. 
In some cases, it is the only rail passenger service that is available 
to people in some of those States on some of the very long-distance 
rail lines that people complain are the ones that carry the highest 
subsidy. And those are supported the strongest because they are the 
only rail service, passenger service that is available in a good number 
of those States.
  So I think that this amendment should be defeated, I think it will be 
defeated, and I hope it will be defeated.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. This is, as the chairman of the subcommittee has said, 
a shutdown amendment. It would totally eliminate operating grants for 
Amtrak and guarantee a shutdown. I suppose that is what the gentleman 
wants as he offers the amendment. He knows what he is doing. He is a 
very astute Member of this body. But I want to widen the perspective 
here.
  The effects would ripple through our economy, through our national 
transportation system, stranding millions of passengers and force them 
onto already congested roadways and airways.
  People in 106 cities served by Amtrak who are without air service 
would have to find new means of transportation; 19,000 Amtrak workers 
would lose their jobs. Their local economies, businesses would suffer. 
The railroad retirement and unemployment programs that cover employees 
of freight rail as well as passenger rail would eventually be depleted. 
We would be scrambling around here trying to restore the railroad 
retirement fund. It would disrupt commuter operations with whom Amtrak 
has contractual arrangements, stranding millions more passengers. GAO 
has reported to our committee that an abrupt cessation of Amtrak would 
result in major disruptions or shutdowns of commuter rail service 
throughout the country, stranding and straining regional transportation 
systems as hundreds of thousands of regular commuter rail passengers 
would have to look for alternative transportation.
  It would increase costs for our freight rails. If Amtrak were to shut 
down, the freight rail industry would lose some $5.3 billion over the 
next 6 years. That would also include the loss of $57 million Amtrak 
pays each year to the four class I railroads for access to their 
infrastructure and increase tier II taxes to keep the railroad 
retirement system solvent. It would shut down operations of freight 
railroads in the northeast corner. Norfolk Southern relies on Amtrak's 
dispatch and infrastructure systems throughout that corridor to provide 
rail service to major mid-Atlantic markets. Without Amtrak, cost of the 
freight rails to maintain operations on those lines would be very 
substantial.
  The real issue with Amtrak is it has been on a starvation diet 
practically since the time that we created Amtrak in 1970. But little 
by little, people are seeking alternative operations. They learned in 
the aftermath, as I said a moment ago, of September 11, that the only 
option to travel without air was inner-city passenger rail.
  Amtrak, in 2006, had 24.3 million passengers. President Alex Kummant 
of Amtrak told us very recently on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee that they expect 2007 to far surpass 2006 
ridership levels. So far this year, just in the first quarter of this 
year, Amtrak had 2.17 million passengers. That is nearly a 7 percent 
increase over the previous year.
  So keep funding Amtrak, give it an opportunity to breathe, give it 
this additional investment that it needs. Soon our committee will come 
to the floor with a substantial increase in funding for Amtrak to put 
it on course to be a real world-class competitor in inner-city 
passenger rail service.
  When I was a student just graduating from college in St. Paul, the 
College of St. Thomas, I won a scholarship to study at the College of 
Europe in Belgium. I traveled from my home in Chisolm by bus to the 
Twin Cities, and there I talk the Milwaukee 400: 400 miles to Chicago 
in 400 minutes. And in Europe, I took the train from Paris to Brussels 
and then on to Brugge in Belgium for this program. That was a 6-hour 
trip. Today, that 6-hour trip is 80 minutes traveling at 185 miles an 
hour on the TGV.
  Today you can't get to Chicago in 400 minutes from Minneapolis, not 
even by air. By the time you travel, drive to the airport, park your 
car, go through security, wait for the plane, get off the plane, try to 
get to your destination, you can't do it. We need a restructure, a 
rebuild, a reinvigorated Amtrak. Don't kill it with this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3074, the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development appropriations bill.
  The distinguished chairman, Mr. Obey, and Chair of the Subcommittee 
on Housing, Mr. Olver, had to make many difficult decisions in drafting 
this bill, and I am pleased that most of our vital housing programs see 
increases over the President's budget request for funding year 2008. As 
Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I 
believe this bill will preserve many of the housing programs we have 
fought for over the years.

[[Page 20125]]

  On July 12, the House passed H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform 
Act, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. A central purpose of H.R. 
1851 is to provide reliable, adequate funding for the Nation's largest 
subsidized housing program, buffeted in recent fiscal years.
  In light of this, I am troubled that the President once again grossly 
underfunded section 8 in his budget request, asking for a mere $8 
million above last year's funding level for the renewal of section 8 
housing vouchers, an amount that won't even cover the cost of 
inflation. I commend Chairman Olver for rejecting this abysmal funding 
level and putting the dollars needed back into the section 8 program.
  I also urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up the Section 8 
Voucher Reform Act and to pass the companion bill so that we can make 
needed reforms and bring stability and security to this critical 
program.
  I am honored to be an original cosponsor of the National Affordable 
Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007, H.R. 2895, which will provide for the 
preservation and construction of 1.5 million units of affordable 
housing over the next 10 years. Because preservation begins with 
funding the units we have now, I am pleased that the bill increases the 
funding for project-based rental assistance by $667 million over the 
President's request; however, I am dismayed at the news that the 
Department has not paid some project-based owners for the month of 
July. It isn't enough for us to appropriate the dollars; HUD has to get 
them out of the door. I urge the Department to make these payments on 
time so that we do not risk losing owners of precious affordable 
housing units.
  For too many years, the Nation's public housing program has been 
grossly underfunded. In 2007, PHAs will only receive between 82 cents 
and 85 cents for every dollar it costs to run public housing, impacting 
their ability to repair and maintain public housing units. By 
increasing funding for public housing programs to levels above the 
President's request, this bill maintains our investment in public 
housing. I am also pleased that the committee has rejected the 
administration's attempt not only to kill the HOPE VI program, but to 
take back prior-year funds appropriated by this House. The HOPE VI 
program needs to be updated, but it is a valuable program. That is why 
we'll soon introduce a bill to reauthorize and improve HOPE VI 
providing for, among other things, one-for-one replacement and the 
right of residents to return to a revitalized public housing unit.
  Again, I want to applaud the committee for ensuring that the CDBG 
program is not severely underfunded. The CDBG program is funded at 
$3.396 billion, representing a $225 million increase compared to 
funding year 2006 funding level and $959 million above the President's 
funding year 2008 request. CDBG is vital to communities all over the 
country, providing valuable resources for almost every program 
imaginable from seniors programs to gang violence eradication programs. 
Without this increased level of funding, one of the Federal 
Government's only poverty fighting tools would have been stretched to 
the limit, leaving many communities desperate.
  In addition, the bill provides funding for other key programs the 
administration sought to zero out, including the Brownfields, the 
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, and rural housing and economic 
development. The bill also maintains critical funding for the HOME 
program, Native American and Hawaiian housing grants, fair housing 
enforcement, and housing counseling.

                              {time}  2145

  Some of these important programs were scheduled to expire without 
reauthorization, but reauthorization without funding is the equivalent 
of killing a program.
  Finally, the House today passed a resolution that I was pleased to 
cosponsor with Congressman Shays commemorating the 20th anniversary of 
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. While this is not a 
birthday for any of us we would prefer to be celebrating, these 
programs remain effective and desperately needed. Therefore, I am 
pleased that the bill funds the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 
Grant at $1.561 billion, a full $234 million over funding year 2006.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


  CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 
                              CORPORATION

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly 
     grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for the 
     maintenance and repair of capital infrastructure owned by the 
     Corporation, including railroad equipment, rolling stock, 
     legal mandates and other services, $925,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended, of which not to exceed $285,000,000 
     shall be for debt service obligations: Provided, That the 
     Secretary may retain up to one-quarter of one percent of the 
     funds under this heading to fund the oversight by the Federal 
     Railroad Administration of the design and implementation of 
     capital projects funded by grants made under this heading: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall approve funding 
     for capital expenditures, including advance purchase orders 
     of materials, for the Corporation only after receiving and 
     reviewing a grant request for each specific capital grant 
     justifying the Federal support to the Secretary's 
     satisfaction: Provided further, That none of the funds under 
     this heading may be used to subsidize operating losses of the 
     Corporation: Provided further, That none of the funds under 
     this heading may be used for capital projects not approved by 
     the Secretary of Transportation or on the Corporation's 
     fiscal year 2008 business plan: Provided further, That 
     $35,000,000 of amounts made available under this heading 
     shall be available until expended for capital improvements if 
     the Corporation demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction 
     that the Corporation has achieved operational savings and met 
     ridership and revenue targets as defined in the Corporation's 
     business plan: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     under this section, not less than $5,000,000 shall be 
     expended for the development and implementation of a 
     managerial cost accounting system, which includes average and 
     marginal unit cost capability: Provided further, That within 
     90 days of enactment, the Department of Transportation 
     Inspector General shall review and comment to the Secretary 
     of Transportation and the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations upon the strengths and weaknesses of the 
     system being developed by the Corporation and how it best can 
     be implemented to improve decision making by the Board of 
     Directors and management of the Corporation: Provided 
     further, That not later than 180 days after the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Corporation 
     and the States on the Northeast Corridor, shall establish a 
     common definition of what is determined to be a ``state of 
     good repair'' on the Northeast Corridor and report its 
     findings, including definitional areas of disagreement, to 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 41, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $425,000,000)''.

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would reduce funding in the 
bill by $500 million for capital grants to Amtrak, reducing the funding 
level to the President's fiscal year 2008 request from $925 million to 
$500 million.
  Here the same arguments really apply that were made in the last 
amendment debate, so I won't go over them all again, but let me respond 
a little to what was said before.
  It was mentioned that these amendments are just designated to kill 
Amtrak. If these accounts were funded at the levels that we're talking 
about here, certainly there would be a restructuring somewhere. There 
has to be. It is likely that in some of the corridors, some of the 
corridors there is only a per-passenger subsidy of around $3 per 
ticket. In some corridors it's up to $466. I suppose that what would 
happen is that in those corridors, there are a lot of assets sitting 
with Amtrak now. If it wasn't shielded from private competition, others 
would come in and be able to run that service effectively and without 
subsidy in some of the corridors. Perhaps there'd be a smaller subsidy 
on some of the corridors.
  But I can tell you on the corridors where we're having a subsidy of 
$466, in addition to the per-passenger ticket price of, in some cases, 
$900, I don't think that that would run at all, nor should it in any 
reasonable place where you believe in free markets or even limited 
subsidies.

[[Page 20126]]

  There is no more call for passenger rail service to some places in 
this country than there is for stagecoach service. At some point you've 
got to say, how much can we subsidize? Four hundred sixty-six dollars 
per ticket probably is above that threshold somewhere.
  So, under any reasonable system, yes, this would cause significant 
restructuring with Amtrak for that system, and that's what we're 
calling for. That's what we should be calling for. We can't continue to 
go down this road, because, as mentioned, even if you increase the 
number of passengers per train, if you increase ridership, it simply 
means more subsidy.
  In any reasonable system that wouldn't be the case, but we have a 
system here that doesn't respond to market forces. Part of the problem 
with Amtrak, and we can't just blame the system there, but it's the 
requirements that we've placed on it. You have politicians in this 
small town here or this small town here designating routes that Amtrak 
has to follow, routes that can't even come close to being economical.
  As mentioned, not many passenger rail or public transit systems 
anywhere in the world go unsubsidized. It's one thing to subsidize 
public transit; it's another to be paying $466 per ticket when the 
passenger is already paying $900. That simply doesn't pass any test of 
reasonableness. And unless we come in and really strike funding here 
and force change, it's simply not going to happen.
  Who here in this body or who listening tonight thinks that Amtrak is 
suddenly going to become better and provide better service, more 
efficient service, given the numbers that we've given them here?
  Some will call it a starvation diet. They've been on a starvation 
diet, but we've increased funding significantly many times. It hasn't 
improved. It's because we're shielding them from market forces, in some 
cases, and subsidizing routes that have no business running in others.
  So I would offer this amendment to strike funding, or to actually 
bring it down to the President's level, what he has requested.
  I've heard the chairman of the Appropriations Committee say many 
times and point out that the administration is wasting money here and 
there and everywhere. They are. Here's one case where we should say, 
there's too much money being wasted by the agencies. Let's direct them, 
let's exercise the oversight that this body is supposed to exercise and 
actually say, let's pull some funding back, let's force Amtrak to go 
through the restructuring that they're going to have to go through at 
some point. We're simply delaying the inevitable and forcing the 
taxpayer to subsidize at higher levels than they should until that time 
is reached.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I again oppose this amendment. This is 
just a continuation of the effort to strangle Amtrak.
  In this instance I think that what I'd like to do is to just try to 
review with the, whoever is still listening at this hour of the night 
what the President's budgets have looked like over the last several 
years. I may be slightly wrong, because I maybe have 1 year misplaced 
as to what happened, but I have been the ranking member for 2 years, 
the last 2 years, in the 2006 and 2007 budgets. My recollection is that 
the 2006 budget that the President provided no money, and we had to 
fill the hole completely to keep whatever was functional functioning in 
the case of Amtrak.
  And then in the 2007 budget, that year we ended up providing between, 
by the time the conference process was complete, $1.3 billion for a 
mixture of operating subsidies and capital programs. In the 2007 
budget, the administration came up with a number which was much lower 
than what had been appropriated the previous year, and again we had to, 
it was around 8- or $900 million in total, and we, again we had to come 
up with a higher sum of money, back to the $1.3 billion, in order to 
complete, to keep the level of service where it was, which includes the 
whole of the Northeast corridor, which carries half of all the 
passengers and is trackage that is owned by Amtrak, and all the 
services that go out of Chicago and the other metropolitan areas, and 
the long-distance services on the west coast and across the country.
  So what we have this year is that the President came up with an 
amount of $500 million for capital, and $300 million for efficiency 
incentive grants, which is sort of an oxymoron because in the previous 
year, we had provided some sort of incentive grants which Amtrak, after 
they had provided the savings and made serious savings in the accounts, 
they then found that they got exactly nothing in the way of incentive 
grants that were released to them. So what's the point, really, of 
trying to save money?
  But we've included that language, included the mandate essentially, 
that they are to continue to look for savings in the system. In the 
meantime we provided, again, the $1.3-, now up to $1.4- because of 
inflation, a total of $1.4 billion of which now the amount was put up 
to $925 million for capital, which the gentleman wishes to reduce to 
$500 million for capital, which was never adequate in the first place.
  On the Northeast corridor, we have done so little upkeep, we are 
nowhere close to a state of good repair, which is dangerous. It is 
causing safety problems in the Northeast corridor, where more than half 
of our total passengers are being handled, so that the gentleman's 
amendment takes away capital monies now. This is the second hit at it, 
the capital monies that would be necessary to make progress on dealing 
with the backlog of capital deficiencies that have been built up over a 
period of years.
  There are tunnels and bridges and trackage and the cantanary lines, 
the electric lines and so forth that go with it, all of which are in 
need desperately of capital repair and a steady infusion of money to 
bring that up to date. These are expensive propositions when nothing 
has been done or so little has been done over a period of time.
  So first the gentleman has made an effort to reduce the operating 
subsidy, which no rail system anywhere in the world can function 
without it, and now he's reducing the capital grant program down to a 
level which leaves us with an ever-worsening state of safety and repair 
on the part of the system that is actually owned by the Federal 
Government.
  So this should not be done. This is a bad amendment. This is another 
killer amendment for Amtrak, and I hope that the amendment will be 
defeated.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The chairman has said it very well. The gentleman from 
Arizona first wants to cut the operating account, and then, after 
Amtrak is unable to operate, then cut their capital and debt service 
funds, and then, I guess, bury passenger rail service in America. He 
doesn't provide for a burial service, however, and we're not about to 
do that.
  This would cut the $425 million in capital and debt service grants 
that would go below the level recommended by Amtrak's Board of 
Directors, who haven't been known to be generously supportive of their 
own organization. It would undermine the solvency of Amtrak. The 
capital needs are critical to operating Amtrak, to bring it to a state 
of good repair and maintain it in a state of decent and good repair. 
The capital overhead program on rolling stock is critical to keep aging 
equipment in safe working order and minimize failures.
  You should go out sometime to the Amtrak repair facility in 
Indianapolis and see the highly skilled technicians who are working to 
repair and restore locomotives and passenger cars and the dining 
service cars. They are meticulous workers who are saving Amtrak 
hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars a year by restoring 
old equipment, putting it into a good state

[[Page 20127]]

of operation. This amendment would cut the guts out from that 
operation. That doesn't make any sense whatever.
  Amtrak has been investing in its deferred capital needs since 2003, 
incrementally, with not enough money, by far too little to reach the 
goals that they must attain, but they're doing it nonetheless. And the 
result is that with those very skilled workers, 70 percent of Amtrak's 
passenger car fleet and 85 percent of its locomotives will be in a 
state of good repair by the end of fiscal 2007.
  Now, if you cut this money out, they'll never be able to bridge the 
gap and go on to make the other improvements that are needed.
  I heard the gentleman say, well, we need to cut the funding and force 
change, and subject Amtrak to market forces. Well, in a hospital you 
don't cut off the blood supply to a patient and say, we're going to 
push the patient into a state of good health. That idea went out with 
applying leeches to the body and draining the body's fluids and 
essential operations. It doesn't make any sense.
  And the gentleman, as many others have misguidedly said, we need to 
subject Amtrak to market forces. That implies that there's some other 
competitive passenger rail service in this country. There isn't. The 
railroads abandoned it in the 1960s. They didn't want to operate 
passenger rail service. It was much easier to carry freight than to 
carry people in this country. And they ran the passenger rail service 
into the ground, and then they handed it over to the Federal Government 
and said, here you take it. You do it. You do something good for the 
country.

                              {time}  2200

  Well, Congress did. I was here on the staff at the time when Amtrak 
was created. There was great hope for it. There were going to be 
capital investments made. The rail was going to help out with all the 
support that was needed for the infrastructure of intercity passenger 
rail. None of that happened.
  Freight rails last year earned $4.5 billion net after-tax profit 
hauling freight. Amtrak is on a starvation diet made worse over the 
last 12 years by this previous leadership in Congress refusing to 
provide funding. But with a few enlightened Members on the other side 
supporting us over here, we were able to keep Amtrak alive, just keep 
it moving along, just hand-to-mouth existence.
  Well, no more. There's a new leadership in this Congress. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has seen the need, seen the opportunity to 
make investments. He has provided the funding in this bill. We need to 
move ahead. We should not cut the operating funds nor the capital 
grants. We ought to be doing far more than we are doing already in this 
bill. But this is at least a start and moves us in the right direction. 
We have to defeat this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 60, line 16, be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:


                 Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program

       To enable the Secretary to make grants to States in support 
     of intercity passenger rail, $50,000,000 as authorized by 
     section 26101 of title 49, United States Code, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That States may apply to 
     the Federal Railroad Administration for grants up to 50 
     percent of the cost of planning and capital investments 
     necessary to support improved intercity passenger rail 
     service that either requires no operating subsidy or for 
     which the State or States agree to provide any needed 
     operating subsidy: Provided further, That priority shall be 
     given to planning and infrastructure improvement projects 
     that improve the safety, reliability and schedule of 
     intercity passenger trains, reduce congestion on the host 
     freight railroads, involve a commitment by freight railroads 
     to an enforceable on-time performance of passenger trains of 
     80 percent or greater, involve a commitment by States of 
     financial resources to improve the safety of highway/rail 
     grade crossings over which the passenger service operates, 
     and that protect and enhance the environment, promote energy 
     conservation, and improve quality of life: Provided further, 
     That to be eligible for this assistance, States must include 
     intercity passenger rail service as an integral part of 
     Statewide transportation planning as required under 23 U.S.C. 
     135: Provided further, That the specific project must be on 
     the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan at the time of 
     the application to qualify.


       Administrative Provision--Federal Railroad Administration

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

                     Federal Transit Administration


                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $92,500,000: Provided, That of 
     the funds available under this heading, not to exceed 
     $1,504,000 shall be available for travel and not to exceed 
     $20,719,000 shall be available for the central account: 
     Provided further, That any funding transferred from the 
     central account shall be submitted for approval to the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds provided or limited in this Act may be 
     used to create a permanent office of transit security under 
     this heading: Provided further, That of the funds in this Act 
     available for the execution of contracts under section 
     5327(c) of title 49, United States Code, $2,000,000 shall be 
     reimbursed to the Department of Transportation's Office of 
     Inspector General for costs associated with audits and 
     investigations of transit-related issues, including reviews 
     of new fixed guideway systems: Provided further, That upon 
     submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2009 
     President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     transmit to Congress the annual report on new starts, 
     including proposed allocations of funds for fiscal year 2009.


                         FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

                  (Liquidation of Contract Authority)

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

                         (including rescission)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310, 5311, 
     5316, 5317, 5320, 5335, 5339, and 5340 and section 3038 of 
     Public Law 105-178, as amended, $6,855,000,000, to be derived 
     from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     available for the implementation or execution of programs 
     authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310, 
     5311, 5316, 5317, 5320, 5335, 5339, and 5340 and section 3038 
     of Public Law 105-178, as amended, shall not exceed total 
     obligations of $7,872,893,000 in fiscal year 2008: Provided 
     further, That $28,660,920 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


                RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5306, 5312-
     5315, 5322, and 5506, $65,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That $9,300,000 is available to carry out 
     the transit cooperative research program under section 5313 
     of title 49, United States Code, $4,300,000 is available for 
     the National Transit Institute under section 5315 of title 
     49, United States Code, $7,000,000 is available for 
     university transportation centers program under section 5506 
     of title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That 
     $44,900,000 is available to carry out national research 
     programs under sections 5312, 5313, 5314, and 5322 of title 
     49, United States Code.


                       Capital Investment Grants

                         (including rescission)

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 5309 of title 
     49, United States Code, $1,700,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended of which $200,000,000 is for section 5309(e): 
     Provided, That $17,760,000 in unobligated balances are 
     rescinded.


       Administrative Provisions--Federal Transit Administration

       Sec. 160. The limitations on obligations for the programs 
     of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation.
       Sec. 161. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     made available by this Act

[[Page 20128]]

     under ``Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment 
     grants'' and bus and bus facilities under ``Federal Transit 
     Administration, Formula and bus grants'' for projects 
     specified in this Act or identified in reports accompanying 
     this Act not obligated by September 30, 2010, and other 
     recoveries, shall be made available for other projects under 
     49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 162. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 2007, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
     available for expenditure, may be transferred to and 
     administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
     any such section.
       Sec. 163. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     unobligated funds made available for a new fixed guideway 
     systems projects under the heading ``Federal Transit 
     Administration, Capital Investment Grants'' in any 
     appropriations Act prior to this Act may be used during this 
     fiscal year to satisfy expenses incurred for such projects.
       Sec. 164. During fiscal year 2008, each Federal Transit 
     Administration grant for a project that involves the 
     acquisition or rehabilitation of a bus to be used in public 
     transportation shall be funded for 100 percent of the net 
     capital costs of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid 
     electric propulsion system and any equipment related to such 
     a system: Provided, That the Secretary shall have the 
     discretion to determine, through practicable administrative 
     procedures, the costs attributable to the system and related-
     equipment.
       Sec. 165. In addition to amounts otherwise made available 
     in this Act, to enable the Secretary of Transportation to 
     make grants to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 of Public Law 109-59, 
     $26,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       Sec. 166. The second sentence of section 321 of the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1986 (99 Stat. 1287) is repealed.

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

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


                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

       For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of 
     those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and 
     maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation, $17,392,000, to be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.

                        Maritime Administration


                       Maritime Security Program

       For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a United 
     States-flag merchant fleet to serve the national security 
     needs of the United States, $156,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                        Operations and Training

       For necessary expenses of operations and training 
     activities authorized by law, $118,646,000, of which 
     $24,720,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2008, 
     for salaries and benefits of employees of the United States 
     Merchant Marine Academy; of which $14,139,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for capital improvements at the 
     United States Merchant Marine Academy; and of which 
     $10,500,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     maintenance and repair of schoolships at State Maritime 
     Schools.


                             Ship Disposal

       For necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete 
     vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the Maritime 
     Administration, $17,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed 
     loan program, not to exceed $3,408,000, which shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Operations and Training'', Maritime Administration.


                           Ship Construction

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $3,526,000 are rescinded.


           Administrative Provisions--Maritime Administration

       Sec. 170. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish 
     utilities and services and make necessary repairs in 
     connection with any lease, contract, or occupancy involving 
     Government property under control of the Maritime 
     Administration, and payments received therefore shall be 
     credited to the appropriation charged with the cost thereof: 
     Provided, That rental payments under any such lease, 
     contract, or occupancy for items other than such utilities, 
     services, or repairs shall be covered into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       Sec. 171. No obligations shall be incurred during the 
     current fiscal year from the construction fund established by 
     section 53716 of title 46, United States Code, or otherwise, 
     in excess of the appropriations and limitations contained in 
     this Act or in any prior appropriations Act.

         Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration


                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Pipeline and 
     Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, $18,130,000, of 
     which $639,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund.


                       hazardous materials safety

       For expenses necessary to discharge the hazardous materials 
     safety functions of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
     Safety Administration, $28,899,000, of which $1,829,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That up 
     to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall 
     be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
     offsetting receipts: Provided further, That there may be 
     credited to this appropriation, to be available until 
     expended, funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training, for reports publication 
     and dissemination, and for travel expenses incurred in 
     performance of hazardous materials exemptions and approvals 
     functions.


                            Pipeline Safety

                         (pipeline safety fund)

                    (oil spill liability trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the 
     pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a 
     pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107, 
     and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the 
     Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $78,875,000, of which $18,810,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2010; of which 
     $60,065,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, 
     of which $32,683,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2010: Provided, That not less than $1,043,000 of the 
     funds provided under this heading shall be for the one-call 
     State grant program.


                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5128(b), 
     $188,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That 
     not more than $28,318,000 shall be made available for 
     obligation in fiscal year 2008 from amounts made available by 
     49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5128(b)-(c): Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i), 
     5128(b), or 5128(c) shall be made available for obligation by 
     individuals other than the Secretary of Transportation, or 
     his designee.

           Research and Innovative Technology Administration


                        Research and Development

       For necessary expenses of the Research and Innovative 
     Technology Administration, $12,000,000, of which $6,036,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided, 
     That there may be credited to this appropriation, to be 
     available until expended, funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
     private sources for expenses incurred for training.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 3), $66,400,000: Provided, That the 
     Inspector General shall have all necessary authority, in 
     carrying out the duties specified in the Inspector General 
     Act (5 U.S.C. App. 3), to investigate allegations of fraud, 
     including false statements to the government under 18 U.S.C. 
     1001, by any person or entity that is subject to regulation 
     by the Department: Provided further, That the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used to investigate, 
     pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code: 
     (1) unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of 
     competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket 
     agents; and (2) the compliance of domestic and foreign air 
     carriers with respect to item (1) of this proviso.

                      Surface Transportation Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $26,495,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $1,250,000 from fees established by the 
     Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board shall be 
     credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and 
     used for necessary and authorized expenses under this 
     heading: Provided further, That the sum

[[Page 20129]]

     herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced on 
     a dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting collections are 
     received during fiscal year 2008, to result in a final 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at no more than 
     $25,245,000.

            General Provisions--Department of Transportation


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 180. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 181. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals 
     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 182. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and 
     Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation: 
     Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this 
     provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside the 
     Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 183. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 184. (a) No recipient of funds made available in this 
     Act shall disseminate personal information (as defined in 18 
     U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtained by a State department of motor 
     vehicles in connection with a motor vehicle record as defined 
     in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provided in 18 U.S.C. 2721 
     for a use permitted under 18 U.S.C. 2721.
       (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall not 
     withhold funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a 
     State is in noncompliance with this provision.
       Sec. 185. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit 
     Administration's ``Research and University Research Centers'' 
     account, and to the Federal Railroad Administration's 
     ``Safety and Operations'' account, except for State rail 
     safety inspectors participating in training pursuant to 49 
     U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 186. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, rule 
     or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized 
     to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to 
     the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the 
     payment to the Department of an amount determined by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 187. None of the funds in this Act to the Department 
     of Transportation may be used to make a grant unless the 
     Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full business 
     days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, 
     or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more 
     is announced by the department or its modal administrations 
     from: (1) any discretionary grant program of the Federal 
     Highway Administration other than the emergency relief 
     program; (2) the airport improvement program of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration; or (3) any program of the Federal 
     Transit Administration other than the formula grants and 
     fixed guideway modernization programs: Provided, That no 
     notification shall involve funds that are not available for 
     obligation.
       Sec. 188. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
     and other funds received by the Department of Transportation 
     from travel management centers, charge card programs, the 
     subleasing of building space, and miscellaneous sources are 
     to be credited to appropriations of the Department of 
     Transportation and allocated to elements of the Department of 
     Transportation using fair and equitable criteria and such 
     funds shall be available until expended.
       Sec. 189. Amounts made available in this or any other Act 
     that the Secretary determines represent improper payments by 
     the Department of Transportation to a third party contractor 
     under a financial assistance award, which are recovered 
     pursuant to law, shall be available--
       (1) to reimburse the actual expenses incurred by the 
     Department of Transportation in recovering improper payments; 
     and
       (2) to pay contractors for services provided in recovering 
     improper payments or contractor support in the implementation 
     of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002: Provided, 
     That amounts in excess of that required for paragraphs (1) 
     and (2)--
       (A) shall be credited to and merged with the appropriation 
     from which the improper payments were made, and shall be 
     available for the purposes and period for which such 
     appropriations are available; or
       (B) if no such appropriation remains available, shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: 
     Provided, That prior to the transfer of any such recovery to 
     an appropriations account, the Secretary shall notify the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of the amount 
     and reasons for such transfer: Provided further, That for 
     purposes of this section, the term ``improper payments'', has 
     the same meaning as that provided in section 2(d)(2) of 
     Public Law 107-300.
       Sec. 190. Funds provided in Public Law 102-143 in the item 
     relating to ``Highway Bypass Demonstration Project'' shall be 
     available for the improvement of Route 101 in the vicinity of 
     Prunedale, Monterey County, California.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 191. Funds provided under section 378 of the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-346, 114 Stat. 1356, 
     1356A-41), for the reconstruction of School Road East in 
     Marlboro Township, New Jersey, shall be available for the 
     Spring Valley Road Project in Marlboro Township, New Jersey.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       At the end of title I, insert the following:
       Sec. 192. Out of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act to the Surface Transportation Board 
     of the Department of Transportation, when considering cases, 
     matters, or declaratory orders before the Board involving a 
     railroad, or an entity claiming or seeking authority to 
     operate as a railroad, and the transportation of solid waste 
     (as defined in section 1004 of 42 U.S.C. 6903), the Board 
     shall consider any activity involving the receipt, delivery, 
     sorting, handling or transfer in-transit outside of a sealed 
     container, storage other than inside a sealed container, or 
     other processing of solid waste to be an activity over which 
     the Board does not have jurisdiction.

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, in 1995 the Congress passed 
and President Clinton signed the Interstate Commerce Commission 
Termination Act, Public Law 104-88. As a direct consequence, the 
Surface Transportation Board created by the law is now in the business 
of facilitating solid waste transfer stations that are not subject to 
local or State environmental laws or regulations.
  This Federal preemption of local environmental laws is fraught with 
danger to the public and must be reversed, which would be accomplished 
if my amendment or a similar amendment that has been proffered by 
Senator Lautenberg and already adopted in committee were to become law.
  During the past several years, small rail companies, many apparently 
formed for the expressed purpose of securing Federal exemption from 
local and State regulations, have filed numerous verified notices of 
exemption with the STB for the purpose of establishing solid waste 
transfer stations along rail lines and spurs. In one case in North 
Bergen, New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection fined the New York Susquehanna & Western Railway Corporation 
$2.5 million for violation only to have this year a Federal judge 
nullify that important State enforcement. Thus far the STB has not 
acted on New Jersey's complaints of health, environmental, and fire 
risk and concerns the State raised concerning high levels of lead, 
arsenic, mercury, and copper.
  Now at the property in my district in Freehold, New Jersey, a small 
class 3 rail company, Ashland Railroad, has filed a verified notice of 
exemption with the STB to operate a 1.5 mile track for the 
establishment of another solid waste transfer station. The proposed 
site would be situated right next to a wetlands area that poses 
significant hazards to the health, safety, and well-being of my 
constituents. This is especially important in light of the fact that 
the wetlands feed directly into the Manasquan Reservoir, the

[[Page 20130]]

source of the potable water for hundreds of thousands of people in the 
Monmouth County area. The proposed site is also adjacent to residential 
housing, again raising serious concern, especially because there are 
many prevailing winds and other issues concerning the health and safety 
of those folks.
  A waste transfer station, Madam Chairman, should not be established 
without significant local input. Preemption voids numerous meaningful 
State health and safety environmental laws, including those enacted in 
my State. I believe that people deserve the protection of these laws 
and the protection that these policies do provide.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I support the gentleman's effort here. 
The Surface Transportation Board has attempted to insert itself into a 
matter that the gentleman has very well and thoroughly described, but 
it is sadly mistaken in its effort to preempt State rights in this 
arena. So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for that support.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. OLVER. It has been my understanding that you were going to 
withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I understand. I thought you might be 
persuaded by Mr. Oberstar's very eloquent intervention, but I 
understand this is legislating on appropriations.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I think we got a little bit confused by 
the chairman of the authorizing committee's involvement here. But in 
any case, I very much sympathize with the gentleman from New Jersey's 
point of view. There is language in our report that deals specifically 
with businesses using railroad properties as waste transfer handling 
points and urges the Surface Transportation Board to ensure that these 
types of operations are subject to local, State, and Federal 
regulations as other solid waste facilities are.
  So, again, I sympathize with the gentleman from New Jersey and 
Members from other affected States. My subcommittee will work with the 
STB to close this legal loophole and prevent instances of illegal 
handling of solid waste on railroad facilities. But it is an 
authorizing issue, and we have not allowed authorizing issues in the 
legislation this year. My ranking member has been particularly 
insistent and I have been insistent about that as we have moved thus 
far. And so I would have insisted on my point of order, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's withdrawing the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This title may be cited as the ``Department of 
     Transportation Appropriations Act, 2008''.

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                       Public and Indian Housing


                     Tenant-Based Rental Assistance

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities and assistance for the provision of tenant-
     based rental assistance authorized under the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) (``the Act''), 
     not otherwise provided for, $16,330,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $12,137,000,000 shall be 
     available on October 1, 2007, and $4,193,000,000 shall be 
     available on October 1, 2008: Provided, That the amounts made 
     available under this heading are provided as follows:
       (1) $14,744,506,000 for renewals of expiring section 8 
     tenant-based annual contributions contracts (including 
     renewals of enhanced vouchers under any provision of law 
     authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the Act): 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     from amounts provided under this paragraph, the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development for the calendar year 2008 
     funding cycle shall provide renewal funding for each public 
     housing agency based on the amount public housing agencies 
     received in calendar year 2007, by applying the 2008 Annual 
     Adjustment Factor as established by the Secretary, and by 
     making any necessary adjustments for the costs associated 
     with deposits to Family Self-Sufficiency Program escrow 
     accounts or the first-time renewal of tenant protection or 
     HOPE VI vouchers or vouchers that were not in use during the 
     12-month period in order to be available to meet a commitment 
     pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the Act: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary shall, to the extent necessary to stay 
     within the amount provided under this paragraph, pro rate 
     each public housing agency's allocation otherwise established 
     pursuant to this paragraph: Provided further, That except as 
     provided in the following proviso, the entire amount provided 
     under this paragraph shall be obligated to the public housing 
     agencies based on the allocation and pro rata method 
     described above and the Secretary shall notify public housing 
     agencies of their annual budgets not later than 45 days after 
     enactment of this Act: Provided further, That public housing 
     agencies participating in the Moving to Work demonstration 
     shall be funded pursuant to their Moving to Work agreements 
     and shall be subject to the same pro rata adjustments under 
     the previous proviso: Provided further, That up to 
     $75,000,000 shall be available for additional rental subsidy 
     due to unforeseen exigencies as determined by the Secretary 
     and for the one-time funding of housing assistance payments 
     resulting from the portability provisions of the housing 
     choice voucher program: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds provided in this paragraph may be used to support a 
     total number of unit months under lease which exceeds a 
     public housing agency's authorized level of units under 
     contract.
       (2) $150,000,000 for section 8 rental assistance for 
     relocation and replacement of housing units that are 
     demolished or disposed of pursuant to the Omnibus 
     Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-134), conversion of section 23 projects to 
     assistance under section 8, the family unification program 
     under section 8(x) of the Act, relocation of witnesses in 
     connection with efforts to combat crime in public and 
     assisted housing pursuant to a request from a law enforcement 
     or prosecution agency, enhanced vouchers under any provision 
     of law authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the 
     Act, HOPE VI vouchers, mandatory and voluntary conversions, 
     and tenant protection assistance including replacement and 
     relocation assistance: Provided, That additional section 8 
     tenant protection rental assistance costs may be funded in 
     2008 by utilizing unobligated balances, including recaptures 
     and carryover, remaining from funds appropriated to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development under this 
     heading, the heading ``Annual Contributions for Assisted 
     Housing'', the heading ``Housing Certificate Fund'', and the 
     heading ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'', for fiscal year 
     2007 and prior years; Provided further, That not more than 
     $12,000,000 may be used for section 8 assistance to cover the 
     cost of judgments and settlement agreements.
       (3) $48,000,000 for family self-sufficiency coordinators 
     under section 23 of the Act.
       (4) $30,000,000 for incremental vouchers under section 8 of 
     the Act for nonelderly disabled families affected by the 
     designation of a public housing development under section 7 
     of the Act, the establishment of preferences in accordance 
     with section 651 of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13611), or the restriction of occupancy to 
     elderly families in accordance with section 658 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 13618), and to the extent the Secretary determines 
     that such amount is not needed to fund applications for such 
     affected families, for other nonelderly disabled families, of 
     which remaining amount such amount as is necessary shall be 
     made available to provide 1,000 vouchers for rental 
     assistance for homeless veterans in accordance with section 
     8(o)(19)(B)(ii) of the Act: Provided, That incremental 
     vouchers made available under this paragraph for nonelderly 
     disabled families or for homeless veterans shall, to the 
     extent practicable, continue to be provided to such families 
     or veterans, respectively, upon turnover.
       (5) $6,494,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital 
     Fund.
       (6) $1,351,000,000 for administrative and other expenses of 
     public housing agencies in administering the section 8 
     tenant-based rental assistance program, of which up to 
     $5,000,000 shall be available as an incentive bonus as 
     determined by the Secretary for administrative expenses for 
     public housing agencies that voluntarily consolidate, and of 
     which up to $35,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary 
     to allocate to public housing agencies that need additional 
     funds to administer their section 8 programs with up to 
     $30,000,000 for fees associated with section 8 tenant 
     protection rental assistance: Provided, That not less than 
     $1,351,000,000 of the

[[Page 20131]]

     amount provided in this paragraph shall be allocated for the 
     calendar year 2008 funding cycle to public housing agencies 
     on a basis as provided in section 8(q) of the Act as in 
     effect immediately before the enactment of the Quality 
     Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-
     276): Provided further, That if the amounts made available 
     under this paragraph are insufficient to pay the amounts 
     required by this paragraph, the Secretary may decrease the 
     amounts allocated to agencies by a uniform prorated 
     percentage applicable to all agencies receiving funding under 
     this paragraph or may, to the extent necessary to provide 
     full payment of amounts required under this paragraph, 
     utilize unobligated balances, including recaptures and 
     carryovers, remaining from funds appropriated to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development under this 
     heading, the heading ``Annual Contributions for Assisted 
     Housing'', the heading ``Housing Certificate Fund'', and the 
     heading ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'', for fiscal year 
     2007 and prior years: Provided further, That all amounts 
     provided under this paragraph shall be only for activities 
     related to the provision of tenant-based rental assistance 
     authorized under section 8 of the Act, including related 
     development activities.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chabot:
       Page 61, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $330,000,000)''.
       Page 61, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $330,000,000)''.
       Page 61, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $330,000,000)''.

  Mr. CHABOT (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, the section 8 program is a program I 
believe is in serious need of fundamental reforms, not more money.
  Two weeks ago, the House debated H.R. 1851, the so-called Section 8 
Voucher Reform Act. But rather than making the program more effective 
for the individuals who use it and more accountable to the taxpayers 
who fund it, the bill will create 100,000 more vouchers at a cost of 
$2.4 billion over the next 5 years.
  I offered several amendments to strengthen the bill and bring about 
some much-needed responsibility to the program, to add, for example, 
work requirements and time limits and to stop the creation of new 
vouchers. Unfortunately, those amendments were voted down. And now 2 
weeks later, we find ourselves considering a bill that would reward 
this flawed program by increasing its funding by hundreds of millions 
of dollars.
  When we committed ourselves sometime ago to welfare reform, it was 
with the understanding that the program should no longer be a tax-
funded handout but should instead offer people a way out of poverty, 
helping them obtain job and education skills they needed to become 
self-sufficient. Ending welfare cycle of dependencies have cut the 
welfare rolls in half, promoted individual responsibility, and saved 
billions of tax dollars in the process. Sadly, current housing programs 
closely resemble the failed welfare policies of the past.
  Like the old welfare programs, the section 8 housing program 
discourages work and allows people to stay on the program indefinitely. 
It is also too often mismanaged by local governments or housing 
authorities.
  I represent most of the city of Cincinnati, its western suburbs and 
few townships in Butler County, Ohio. Too many neighborhoods in my 
district have had to witness the crime, despair, and hopelessness that 
are inherent in a government program that asks virtually nothing of the 
recipients and that encourages dependency rather than responsibility 
and waste rather than work.
  Whether it is the funding provided by the Federal Government or 
mismanagement of the program by local governments and agencies, section 
8 has failed those who use it and those who pay for it: the American 
taxpayers.
  It is also important to point out that the dependency that section 8 
has created is so great that there are long waiting lists to get 
vouchers. Why? Because too many of those who gain access to the program 
don't leave. They don't really have an incentive to. The average stay 
is about 7 years.
  Madam Chairman, this is a very modest, straightforward amendment. My 
amendment would simply reduce section 8 vouchers, the funding, by $330 
million to bring it in line with the administration's budget request. 
This bill would spend $16.3 billion on vouchers, asking virtually 
nothing of its recipients.
  On behalf of the American taxpayers, I don't think it is asking too 
much of this Congress to settle for a smaller increase to a program 
that spends far too much with too little accountability.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment to cut the $330 million from the Tenant-based 
Rental Assistance account will not hold the program steady at the 
fiscal 2007 level. It will actually cut somewhere between 40,000 and 
80,000 families that are currently in the program. That means that 
somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 families, that is a large margin 
but that is families, that is real people, that currently have a 
section 8 voucher will find themselves without a home in fiscal year 
2008.
  Now, we know that rents increase each year. This is a market-based 
program, and market-based programs do escalate, are subject to 
inflation.

                              {time}  2215

  And that's what this $330 million amount was. It was a deficiency in 
the President's budget, where the President's budget was presented to 
the Congress before the actions in this continuing resolution in 
February of this year were acted upon, were taken by the Congress, and 
the President signed, ultimately, that legislation in the continuing 
resolution.
  So, his original amount of money was for an entirely different set of 
circumstances because there was a restructuring of the section 8, the 
tenant-based section 8 program in the continuing resolution. And 
keeping the people with the number of vouchers, the vouchers that have 
been out there, we had to come up with the additional money in this 
bill which only allows the same number of people to have vouchers.
  There is one $30 million amount in here for the first incremental 
vouchers added to the system in about 6 years; $30 million to be used 
for new vouchers for nonelderly disabled people and homeless veterans. 
As my ranking member pointed out, while we were affording 4,000 new 
vouchers, 3,000 of them go to nonelder disabled people, and 1,000 of 
them go to nonelder disabled people who also happen to be homeless 
veterans. That's how the 4,000 is structured. It's a very good, one of 
only a handful of initiatives in this bill for new vouchers for that 
particular program.
  I can't really fathom why anybody would want to deny thousands of 
people with disabilities and homeless veterans a chance to live in a 
safe, affordable home.
  I strongly oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, the thing that I have a problem with 
is we seem to be, and I know the gentleman is well-intentioned in terms 
of what he's doing, but we're losing more and more vouchers, and this 
is one way we're going to lose a substantial amount. If you reduce it 
by 330 million in tenant-based vouchers, you would have an adversive 
impact, a significant impact on the number of families that would 
receive assistance in 2008. So I must rise in opposition to this 
amendment.

[[Page 20132]]

  The program today is administered based on the number of vouchers 
that are under lease. Currently, 13 percent of the 2 million vouchers 
authorized turn over each year. This means that about 240,000 vouchers 
are relinquished each year and provided to new families or individuals.
  The amendment, if adopted, would mean that about 47,000 vouchers 
could not be renewed upon turnover nationwide. And after years of 
trying to increase the use of vouchers so more families could receive 
assistance, this amendment would greatly undermine that effort.
  While it is true that in 2007 the appropriations bill provided 
significantly more funding than was called for or was needed, reducing 
next year's funding level will offset the overage provided in 2007. 
Instead, 2007 funds should be recaptured and used by the Congress. So 
therefore, I must stand in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would also like to point out to the gentleman from Ohio that we 
have available about, under authorization, 2.1 million vouchers of 
which this bill only funds 1.9 million of them at the level that we 
have provided the money with the 4,000 additional vouchers.
  I would like to remind that the authorizing committee just brought 
out legislation and has added 20,000 in authorization for each of the 
next 5 years. Whether we will have the funding next year to actually 
provide that money, I do not know, but they're asking for us not only 
to move upward toward filling the vouchers that presently are 
authorized, but also adding some additional ones.
  And the reason for that is that we have 8 million families roughly, 8 
million households in this country which are living at incomes below 30 
percent of the median income in their areas, and we are only providing 
somewhere in the range of 2 million, a little bit less even in this 
funding, of money for rental assistance for those people. So we're not 
coming anywhere close to dealing with the poorest people who are 
eligible under the law as it is written for that rental assistance 
because their income lies below 30 percent of median income in the area 
involved.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Hirono) having assumed the chair, Ms. Baldwin, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3074) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________