[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13916-13938]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        SAVING ENERGY THROUGH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 6052.

                              {time}  1408


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 6052) to promote increased public transportation use, to promote 
increased use of alternative fuels in providing public transportation, 
and for other purposes, with Ms. DeGette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6052, the 
Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008.
  The purpose of the bill, very simply stated, is to promote energy 
savings for all Americans by increasing use of public transportation 
throughout this country, a fact that has been a need, let us say, that 
has been driven home dramatically by $4 a gallon oil and gasoline 
prices since Memorial Day, and I thank the Speaker and majority leader 
for making time for us to bring this bill to the House Floor.
  Basic law of economics is that the price of gas is a two-part 
equation: Supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor in the cost of 
oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate ways we can 
attack the high cost of gasoline prices. And our fellow citizens 
understand this. They are making choices. They have been making choices 
for several years.
  Over the last 3 years, in particular, there has been growth of 1 
million new riders a day on public transportation systems across 
America, for 375 million new transit trips nationwide last year, a 
total of 10.3 billion transit trips throughout the country.
  There was a time when New York City accounted for 60 percent of all 
transit trips in the United States, but no longer. In the last 3 years, 
New York's share of transit ridership nationwide has slipped to 38 
percent, not because New Yorkers are riding transit less; they are 
riding more. But more Americans have found their way to public 
transportation, and increasingly in droves since the skyrocketing price 
of gasoline.
  Transit systems throughout the United States have found every new 
transit project, every new light rail project has more than tripled its 
original projections of ridership nationwide.
  Innovative cities like Denver under then-Mayor Wellington Webb, said: 
Ride our transit system free in the center city. Keep your pollution 
out of the center city. Ride the transit system free. And it has been 
an enormous boost and benefit to the city of Denver.
  I can and I will cite some very specific ridership improvements in my 
own State. In Minneapolis, the Hiawatha light rail, 20 years in the 
waiting, finally was constructed; ridership opened, and 9 months later, 
10 months ahead of schedule, they achieved their 10 millionth rider. 
Dramatic improvements.
  Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Francisco all have similar increases 
in transit ridership. The Charlotte Area Transit System recently opened 
a new light rail line. They have increased ridership 34 percent from 
February of last year to February of this year.
  CalTran, the commuter rail line that serves the San Francisco 
Peninsula and Santa Clara Valley, set a record for average weekday 
ridership in February of this year with a 9.3 percent increase over 
last year.
  The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, my good friend, 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) knows well, 
posted a rise of more than 20 percent ridership from Miami, Fort 
Lauderdale, West Palm Beach in March and April of this year as compared 
to last year.
  Americans are making the choice. They have decided. We need to help 
them with that choice. And the bill before us will make a huge step in 
that direction.
  This legislation provides substantial support for States and public 
transportation agencies increasing incentives for computers to make 
their choice to ride transit: 1.7 billion, 2 years for transit agencies 
that are reducing transit fares or expanding the services to meet the 
needs of growing transit commuters. We increase the Federal share for 
clean fuel and alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, and locomotive 
related equipment or facilities, helping transit agencies become more 
fuel efficient.

                              {time}  1415

  In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share for these 
activities will go from 90 percent to 100 percent of the net capital 
cost of the project.
  We also provide authority to extend the Federal transit pass benefit 
program which has operated over the past few years on a pilot basis in 
the National Capital Region and in a few selected areas throughout the 
country. After evaluating the transit pass program, the U.S. Department 
of Transportation recommended that it be expanded nationwide. We do 
that in this legislation. There was an executive order signed by 
President Clinton in 2000 that launched this initiative. It was 
supported in the SAFETEA legislation. The 3-year pilot program under 
our legislation would be substantially expanded nationwide.
  The Department of Transportation says that expanding this program 
will implement their own department recommendation by giving more 
Federal employees incentives to choose transit options. And we also 
create a pilot program to allow the funding expended by private 
providers of public transportation for van pools to acquire the vans to 
be used as their non-Federal share for matching Federal transit funds 
in five community pilot projects. Under current law, only public funds 
can be used as the local match. This pilot program will induce private 
funds to participate in the van pooling initiative.
  I would observe we had a very successful van pooling program in the 
Minneapolis-St. Paul area in the mid-1980s when companies like 3M, 
Control Data, and Minneapolis Honeywell bought the vans for their 
employees and provided a fuel subsidy and encouraged their employees to 
join together. The vans were full. The program was successful. It cut 
down on congestion in the greater metropolitan Twin City area, and 
reduced cost for all of the riders. We should do that nationally, and 
we provide further authority to make that change and to take that 
initiative.
  There are other provisions in this bill that are important, and I 
will submit those for the Record, but I want to close this part of my 
remarks with an observation by Paul Weyrich in a very thoughtful 
publication, Free Congress Foundation. ``Does Transit Work: A 
Conservative Reappraisal.'' It begins, ``The first recorded example of 
mass transportation was the movement of Adam and Eve from the Garden of 
Eden. At that time, 100 percent of the population was moved at once in 
a single trip; a record never equaled since.'' Then he says, 
``According to most studies of mass transit, it has gone straight 
downhill from there.''
  Well, we are on the way up and we are going to lift mass transit and 
speed its acceptance and its use by the public with the legislation 
that we bring before you today.
  Toward that purpose, I express my great appreciation to the gentleman 
from Florida, the ranking member, Mr. Mica, for the partnership he has 
engaged in with us and for the thoughtful, constructive suggestions he 
has

[[Page 13917]]

made every step of the way. I appreciate very much the gentleman's 
participation.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6052, the 
``Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008''. This bill 
promotes energy savings for all Americans by increasing public 
transportation use in the United States.
  As gas prices have skyrocketed past $4 per gallon since Memorial Day, 
everyone is talking about how we need more oil. I thank the Speaker and 
the Majority Leader for scheduling today's bill, H.R. 6052, so that we 
can also talk about using less.
  Let us all remember the basic law of economics that the price of gas 
is a two-part equation: supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor 
in the cost of oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate 
ways that we can tackle the high cost of gas.
  Americans understand this. They are making choices today that are 
decreasing our global demand for oil. We're seeing record ridership on 
public transportation all across the country, as well as decreases in 
the number of miles traveled in cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks. Without 
doubt, many Americans are making these choices based on the economic 
hardship caused by the high price of gas. However, in my discussions 
with constituents in my district and people across the country, 
Americans are also considering transit alternatives because they're 
sick and tired of knowing that our great nation imports 60 percent of 
its oil, much of it from the Persian Gulf.
  As a result, across America, public transportation has experienced a 
renaissance in big cities, suburban communities, and small towns. In 
2007, Americans took more than 10.3 billion trips on public 
transportation, the highest level in 50 years. In the first quarter of 
2008, commuters took more than 2.6 billion transit trips nationwide, an 
increase of 3.3 percent over the first quarter of 2007.
  Now that the price of gas has surpassed $4 a gallon, even more 
commuters are choosing to ride the train or the bus to work rather than 
drive alone in their cars. Public transit systems in metropolitan areas 
are reporting increases in ridership of five, ten, and even 15 percent 
over last year's figures. Light rails saw the largest jump in ridership 
with a 10 percent increase to 110 million trips in the first quarter. 
Some of the biggest increases in ridership are occurring in many areas 
in the South and West where new bus and light rail lines have been 
built in the last few years.
  In Denver, for example, ridership was up eight percent in the first 
three months of 2008 compared with last year, and Minneapolis, Seattle, 
Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Francisco all reported similar increases. 
The Charlotte Area Transit System, which recently opened a new light 
rail line, has increased ridership more than 34 percent from February 
2007 to February 2008. Caltrain, the commuter rail line that serves the 
San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Clara Valley, set a record for 
average weekday ridership in February with a 9.3 percent increase over 
2007. The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, which 
operates a commuter rail system from Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West 
Palm Beach, posted a rise of more than 20 percent in ridership in March 
and April as compared to the same time last year.
  Madam Chairman, Americans are proving that riding transit is an easy, 
immediate, and important part of the solution to decreasing our demand 
for foreign oil. However, meeting this impressive new demand for public 
transportation services is no small task for our transit agencies. With 
these record-breaking numbers of commuters riding transit, many of our 
nation's transit systems are busting at the seams. In addition, the 
cost of fuel and power for public transportation providers has sharply 
increased, compounding costs of serving all of these new transit 
riders.
  Currently, public transportation reduces gas consumption by 1.4 
billion gallons a year (3.9 million gallons per day), which equates to 
more than 33 million barrels of oil. It's equal to 108 million fewer 
cars filling up year.
  Although those fuel savings are incredible, we can do better, and we 
must.
  H.R. 6052 provides much needed support to states and public 
transportation agencies and also increases incentives for commuters to 
choose transit options, thereby reducing their transportation-related 
energy consumption and our nation's reliance on foreign oil.
  To increase public transportation use across the United States, H.R. 
6052 authorizes $1.7 billion in funding over two years for transit 
agencies nationwide that are temporarily reducing transit fares or 
expanding transit services to meet the needs of the growing number of 
transit commuters. It is important to note that the funds authorized by 
this bill will be distributed to States and local communities in the 
same manner as they currently receive Federal transit urban and rural 
formula funds. However, in an effort to provide transit choices to 
smaller urban and rural areas, which may not currently have any transit 
service, this bill specifically increases the relative share of the 
transit funds that will be going to the rural areas.
  H.R. 6052 also increases the Federal share for clean fuel and 
alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, or locomotive-related equipment or 
facilities, thereby assisting transit agencies in becoming more fuel 
efficient. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share 
for these activities is 100 percent of the net capital cost of the 
project.
  H.R. 6052 also extends the Federal transit pass benefits program to 
require that all Federal agencies offer transit passes to Federal 
employees throughout the United States. Current law requires that all 
Federal agencies within the National Capital Region implement a transit 
pass fringe benefits program and offer employees transit passes.
  Data from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority 
covering the first three years of the National Capital Region transit 
pass program show that more than 15,500 automobiles were eliminated 
from roads in the Washington, DC area as a result of Federal employees 
shifting their travel mode away from single occupancy vehicle (``SOV'') 
use to public transportation use for commuting to work. DOT estimated 
the energy savings from this mode shift included the reduction of more 
than eight million gallons of gasoline for each of the three years that 
they studied. DOT also studied the results of a nationwide pilot 
program and found that, within the three agencies, 11 percent of the 
participants shifted their travel mode away from SOV use to public 
transportation use for commuting to work, again producing marked energy 
savings.
  The Department of Transportation has determined that both the 
National Capital Region transit benefits program and the nationwide 
pilot program produce marked energy and emissions savings, congestion 
reductions, and cleaner air, and recommends that the transit pass 
benefits program be extended to Federal employees nationwide. This 
provision will implement the Department's recommendation by providing 
more Federal employees the incentives to choose transit options, 
thereby reducing their transportation-related energy consumption and 
reliance on foreign oil.
  H.R. 6052 also creates a pilot program to allow the amount expended 
by private providers of public transportation by vanpool for the 
acquisition of vans to be used as the non-Federal share for matching 
Federal transit funds in five communities. Under current law, only 
local public funds may be used as local match; this pilot program would 
allow private funds to be used in limited circumstances. The Department 
of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool pilot 
projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs, benefits, and 
efficiencies of the vanpool projects.
  Finally, H.R. 6052 increases the Federal share for additional parking 
facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway stations. This provision 
increases the total number of transit commuters who will have access to 
those facilities.
  Public transportation use in all of its forms--bus, rail, vanpool, 
ferry, streetcar, and subways to name a few--saves fuel and reduces our 
dependence on foreign oil. As such, increasing public transportation 
use by providing incentives for commuters to choose transit options is 
a priority of this Congress.
  Given the price of gas, Americans are more focused on the costs of 
commuting than at any time in recent history. And they want choices. We 
need to provide them. With passage of this bill, we have an opportunity 
to provide transit choices that will change the way that Americans 
travel.
  The impact of such changes on our nation's dependence on foreign oil 
would be extraordinary. According to a recent study, if Americans used 
public transit at the same rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of 
their daily travel needs--the United States could reduce its dependence 
on imported oil by more than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 
million barrels of crude oil that we import from Saudi Arabia each 
year.
  That's the difference this bill can help make.
  I strongly support H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy Through Public 
Transportation Act of 2008'', and urge my colleagues to do the same.


[[Page 13918]]


         Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
           Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.
     Hon. James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportaiton and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Oberstar: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 6052, 
     the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, 
     which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform on May 14, 2008.
       In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 6052, 
     the Oversight Committee will not separately consider this 
     legislation. The Oversight Committee does so, however, with 
     the understanding that this does not prejudice the 
     Committee's jurisdictional interests and prerogatives 
     regarding this bill or similar legislation.
       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Oversight Committee should H.R. 
     6052 or a similar Senate bill be considered in conference 
     with the Senate. I also request that you include our exchange 
     of letters on this matter in the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure Report on H.R. 6052 or in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation 
     on the House floor.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Henry A. Waxman,
                                                         Chairman.
         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.
     Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Waxman: I write to you regarding H.R. 6052, 
     the ``Saving Energy through Public Transportation Act of 
     2008''.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further 
     consideration of H.R. 6052, notwithstanding the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice 
     any further jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this 
     legislation or similar language. Furthermore, I agree to 
     support your request for appointment of conferees from the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform if a conference 
     is held on this matter.
       This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee 
     report and inserted in the Congressional Record as part of 
     the consideration of H.R. 6052 on the House floor. Thank you 
     for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding 
     this matter and others between our respective committees.
       I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                           James L. Oberstar, M.C.
                                                         Chairman.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I want to thank our chair of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, my Democrat counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, for 
his work on this piece of legislation that does deal with some of the 
issues that we are facing right now and follows some of the discussions 
that we have had on the floor relating to energy and energy 
conservation.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a very small 
piece of the puzzle, but it is nonetheless an important piece and we 
have tried to exercise our jurisdictional responsibility in coming 
forth with this, again, small piece of the puzzle.
  This bill does provide for expansion of some of the transit grants 
around the country, and I think that there are some beneficial 
provisions for those in rural areas, suburban areas, and for much of 
the public that relies on public transportation.
  This bill further does allow sort of an unprecedented ability to use 
some of the money traditionally used for projects to assist some of the 
local transit authorities that are suffering now with high fuel costs. 
Just like the average family is suffering with high fuel costs, transit 
agencies have also experienced the same problem. They are cutting back 
on services, sometimes when people really need to have an option and 
don't have that option, by cutting out routes, and that has been 
announced even in my area. So I think we are doing a responsible thing.
  This is a 2-year authorization. It is an expansion of the 
authorization of $1.7 billion that does give some of the folks on my 
side some hiccups, but it is authorization, it is not appropriation and 
each Member is going to have to judge their support or opposition based 
on the final product. But I have joined Chairman Oberstar in support of 
this authorizing bill. I think again it fills our small piece of the 
puzzle.
  I did want to take just a minute or two, I didn't get a chance to 
speak on the rule or on the energy legislation that was before the 
House earlier, and there was quite a bit of banter. And some people 
were bashing the President and this administration for not having a 
plan. In fact, someone said he didn't recall a plan, which is kind of 
funny.
  I am very fortunate to have outstanding staff, but this summer I also 
have some outstanding interns. They come from all over the country to 
Congress, and I have gotten some from my district and elsewhere. So you 
have a little more staff to do research rather than just keep on the 
track that we are on here every day. I said wasn't there a Bush plan? 
And all be darned, there was a Bush energy plan. So I had a little 
research done on that.
  Lo and behold, very shortly into his term, it was May 17, 2001, the 
President of the United States, George Bush, just a few months into 
office, he set two major priorities, one being education. You remember 
on 9/11 he was in a Florida classroom talking about his plan to improve 
education. But even before that, in May as one of his first priorities, 
he announced his plan. He announced his plan actually in the home State 
of the chairman, in St. Paul, Minnesota. On that day when he announced 
it he said, ``If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant 
on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the 
hands of foreign nations, some of whom do not share our interests.''
  On that same day when he announced his plan, he said regarding part 
of his plan, ``We will underwrite research and development into energy-
saving technology. It'll require manufacturers to build more energy-
efficient appliances. We will review and remove obstacles that prevent 
business from investing in energy-efficient technologies.''
  Furthermore, President Bush said, ``The second part of our energy 
plan will be to expand and diversify our Nation's energy supplies. 
America today imports,'' and now this is May of 2001, ``America today 
imports 52 percent of all of our oil. If we don't take action, those 
imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we 
will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home.''
  The President called for burning coal more cleanly, expanding nuclear 
power, and drilling for new oil in new places, that included the Arctic 
area in Alaska. The President said that is banned now, but the 
President said it can be done safely.
  Listen to this one. This is the President in St. Paul. ``ANWR can 
produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What 
difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be 
exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We're not just 
short of oil; we're short of the refineries that turn oil into fuel. So 
while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent of capacity, 
our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.''
  That was part of the President's plan, and how prophetic could you 
be. This was before 9/11. This was in May of 2001, announcing his plan.
  I can't take up all of the time, but I have Mr. Gephardt's response: 
Congress will take action to stop them. Mr. Kerry vowed to filibuster, 
and the Sierra Club is already running ads against it. Those were some 
of the responses.
  It is interesting how quickly we forget that there have been plans, 
and those plans could have made a big difference.
  Here today we are trying in a bipartisan fashion to make a small 
difference to give some of our Federal employees outside the Capital 
Beltway the opportunity to have the same transit advantages and 
payments that we give within the Beltway to Federal employees outside, 
expand some of the grants for transit, and also help some of those 
transit operations that are

[[Page 13919]]

suffering like the American family is with cutbacks because of high 
fuel costs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just 
remind my good friend that the bill before us is not ANWR or the other 
subjects. It is about moving people more efficiently with lower costs 
and lower energy consumption. I think we do ourselves service by 
sticking to the subject matter at hand.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who as 
chair of the Surface Subcommittee has held 22 hearings on the future of 
transportation in America and has done a superb service for the Nation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman of the full committee for his 
outstanding work over the many years for transit. How prophetic many of 
his positions have been. I remember during the last reauthorization 
fighting to just get a tiny bit more for transit. We didn't get what we 
wanted and said we would need, but we did get a little more, despite a 
particular opposition from a number of Republican Senators.
  We are loving our transit systems to death today. Americans of 
necessity, or with changes in life-style, are flocking onto mass 
transit at record rates, rates not seen in half a century in the United 
States of America. That's the good news.
  The bad news is so many Americans are flooding onto our transit 
systems, the most in 50 years, that our transit systems are having to 
curtail service and cut routes. There is something very wrong with this 
picture.
  At the very time that the American people are demanding an 
alternative because they can't afford the $4.50 a gallon for their car 
or they are tired of the congestion and commute, which have not yet 
been effectively dealt with because of our lack of investment in other 
infrastructure, they are turning to transit as an alternative.
  But transit is confronted with, if it is a bus, a doubling of the 
cost of diesel. And other modes that are electrically driven have seen 
their energy costs go up. But beyond that, the rate of utilization, the 
people crushing on, are wearing the equipment out even faster and we 
haven't been keeping up with the replacement cycle because of the 
under-investment in the system.
  I was talking to someone who came in from Rockville today. They said 
you wouldn't believe how packed it was. I said I think we are going to 
have to adopt the Japanese system where we hire little guys with white 
gloves to start pushing people onto our Metro cars, or our MAX cars in 
Oregon, because there are so many people who want to get on, we have to 
utilize what isn't enough capacity.
  So this bill is the first, little, baby, incremental step to giving 
some assistance to those transit agencies who want to give assistance 
to an American public that is hurting because of failed energy 
policies.
  I am not going to re-debate the energy policies with the gentleman 
from Florida, but that was an incredibly creative recapitulation of the 
failed energy policies of the Bush-Cheney administration over the last 
6 years.

                              {time}  1430

  So we need now to deal with some of the results of those failures.
  And we've debated other bills to help provide relief to the American 
consumers there. But here we have to provide relief and help to our 
transit agencies who are going to extend a hand to our American 
commuters and families. Unfortunately, this is, as yet, only a promise. 
It's an authorization. And the budget is a little tight around here 
unless you're one to fund a war with emergency funding. The President 
won't declare a transit emergency, I don't think. Maybe we can get him 
to do that. But we need to get some funding and flesh out the bones of 
this bill.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have been sitting down here and listening for about a couple of 
hours to the debate on the whole question of energy, and I would like 
to, from my perspective, tell you what I have gleaned from this debate.
  First of all, Americans are suffering. That is a fact. The price of 
gasoline is too high. Another fact is that everything that is 
associated or has anything to do with transportation is being affected, 
and the prices are going up for groceries, for everything. And the 
American people are suffering.
  I'm very concerned about the future of our economy if we don't get 
more oil and gas to market.
  Now, a while ago, the chairman of the previous committee said that 
we're importing 61 percent of our oil, up from about 48 percent some 
time ago. This was the chairman on the Democrat side. I would agree 
with that. We are importing 61 percent, up about 13 percent from what 
we did a couple of years ago. The reason is we're not drilling enough 
here in America. We're not producing enough in America, and we're 
buying it from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela and other parts of the 
world.
  We need to move towards energy independence, and if we don't, I 
predict we're going to have severe, severe economic problems over the 
next few years. We could have a major economic recession or depression 
if we don't get control of our energy prices because it's going to 
spread into every other area of our lives. And the American people, I 
think, sense that. And that's why I said to my colleagues, Go home and 
talk to your friends and neighbors at the gas station and ask them, Do 
you want to get the gas prices down, or do you want to make sure that 
we don't drill in America, that we're more concerned about 
environmental concerns than we are of taking care of our economy?
  Obviously we want a better economy or better environmental situation. 
We want to go to alternative fuels. We want to do all of those things. 
Clean air, clean water. But at the same time, we don't want the entire 
economy of the United States to go down the tubes. And unless we get 
that energy independence by drilling here at home, that's a very real 
risk. We could have a real severe economic downturn.
  Fact: Prices are too high. Fact: It's hurting our entire economy. 
Fact: We have enough oil and gas in oil shale to make us energy 
independent if we get it out of the ground and out of the ocean into 
the market. Fact: 68 percent of oil well explorers are small companies. 
That's been brought out here today. And 87 percent of gas producers are 
small businesses. We talk about these permits. Why would they not want 
us to drill? It's their livelihood.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Why would these oil producers and gas 
producers not want to drill?
  So I think it's a bogus argument to say, Hey, they're holding these 
permits and not drilling. They want to make money, and if they don't 
drill, they're not going to make money.
  In fact, 97 percent of the Continental Shelf and 94 percent of 
onshore areas are exempt from drilling, and the oil's there, the gas is 
there, and the coal shale is there; and we're not doing a darn thing 
about it, and we are arguing about it. There has to be a bipartisan 
move to solve this problem. It ain't gonna solve itself, and the 
American people continue to suffer.
  So I would like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, let's sit down and work this out because if we don't, everybody 
is going to suffer, and this blame game ain't solving anything.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Chair of the Subcommittee on FEMA and Economic Development and other 
related subjects, the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I owe the chairman and the ranking member many thanks for 
today's bill. I appreciate that you have worked together on it, and I 
appreciate that you have brought forward the only available remedy for 
driving down $4-a-gallon gas.
  Sometimes, Madam Speaker, the remedy is so obvious that we can't see

[[Page 13920]]

it. But who has made us see it are the American people because they 
have found that remedy, and they are leading the way. That's why this 
bill is on the floor today, notwithstanding the leadership of a 
chairman, who for a long time has wanted to pass this bill.
  I have great respect for our ranking member. But the fact is that 
wherever you stand on offshore or in Alaska, this is the only way to 
have an effect tomorrow. And that is what the American people are 
saying: Don't tell me about digging. Don't tell me about drilling. Tell 
me that I can get to work tomorrow. There is only one ``tomorrow'' 
remedy, and that is this public transportation remedy.
  Moreover, we know what to do. What makes me want to cry is the 
Federal Government has done it to a fare-thee-well with incentives 
right here in the national Capital area where more than half of the 
Federal presence is located for decades because we've been giving 
financial incentives to Federal employees to hop on the metro and to 
hop on buses to get to work instead of taking to the roads. And boy, 
they've done it.
  That's why I thank this House for last year authorizing a bill that 
will help us take care of the capital costs because Federal employees 
have hopped the metro and bus so that they've broken down our own 
metro.
  But Madam Chair, small communities and a lot of others don't have 
their metro, their subway. Guess what they are doing? They are hopping 
on buses. They are crowding on buses. They understand there is only one 
way to defeat gas prices tomorrow, and that is public transportation.
  I am very pleased that this bill leads by example because what we 
have done for a long time in the national Capital region in offering 
incentives to Federal employees will now be available to Federal 
employees countrywide. Everywhere in the United States Federal 
employees will get this incentive. When you consider that we're talking 
about more than a million employees, we're going to have an effect 
there.
  If you need any further proof, look at what the American people have 
done in leading us to this point. This is 2008. In less than a year, 
they have already dropped 100 million miles that they were driving 
before that. Where have those miles gone? The same people have taken 
more than 85 million more trips on public transportation. There's the 
proof. The proof is that people have voted in the best way to do it, 
crowd the trains, make it happen. Now we're going to make it possible 
so that they don't have to crowd, so that we're partnering with local 
jurisdictions, in fact, to help them to do it.
  We say to the American people today, we hear you, we're following you 
with this bill.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, as the gas prices continue to rise, the 
most effective and immediate way to offer relief is to provide 
incentives for mass transit use. According to a study published by the 
American Public Transportation Association, public transportation use 
saves an annual 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline, almost 4 million 
gallons per day. Factoring in the national average of gas at $4 a 
gallon, it saves consumers nearly $16 million a day in gas costs.
  Now, I support our public transportation system, and I'm pleased to 
support an extensive grant program to help expand transit use across 
the country. But I am disappointed in this bill because it only 
requires that Federal employees be offered transit benefits. While I 
support expanding the current transit benefit program, all Americans 
should have this benefit.
  Now, more than a month ago, Congressmen Lipinski and Biggert and I 
introduced bipartisan legislation, the Creating Opportunities to 
Motivate Mass-transit Utilization to Encourage Ridership Act, the 
Commuter Act of 2008. Our legislation offers employers a 50 percent tax 
credit for all transit benefits provided to employees. And under its 
provisions, employees would receive up to $1,380 in free mass-transit 
funds this year, with the employer receiving a $690 tax credit.
  According to Forbes, the average gasoline costs in the ten worst 
commuter cities is $6.35 per day. Should businesses take advantage of 
this incentive, they would save their employees $1,600 per year. As 
family budgets tighten, an extra $1,600, or if there's two commuters, 
$3,200 would really ease burdens of health care and education. Such a 
benefit should also include Americans who are not lucky enough to have 
a Federal job.
  I support H.R. 6052, but I'm surprised that this bill stands for the 
principle that if the taxpayer already pays your salary, we will help 
you more. But what if you're not lucky enough to have a government-paid 
position? Under this bill, you're out of luck. But under our bipartisan 
Commuter Act, you would have this benefit, too.
  To help commuters, we should pass the bipartisan Commute Act to help 
all communities to really lower the gas bill of the United States and 
not just offer assistance to people already paid by the Feds.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman made a thoughtful observation, and I'm sure the 
gentleman is aware that there already is a tax exemption in Federal 
code for private sector employers and employees. But that doesn't apply 
to the Federal government or to other governmental agencies because 
they don't have a tax. So the transit benefit for Federal employees is 
a matter that we could do within the context of the current bill.
  In the longer term, next year, when we consider the longer-term 
authorization, the gentleman's suggestion would be an appropriate 
matter for consideration. We will have better figures which we're 
requesting now from public agencies for those matters.
  Mr. KIRK. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KIRK. The gentleman is a very good chairman of the Transportation 
Committee. I know he wants to go in the right direction. I just wish we 
had gotten exactly where he wants to go a little faster today, and I 
thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I wish we could have, too, but we didn't have good 
numbers to see what those costs might be.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey), a representative of the beautiful Sonoma Valley.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to thank Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica for this piece 
of legislation because, Madam Chairman, it's going to take a big change 
in how we do business if our country is going to meet our energy 
demands for the future.
  While the Republicans in Congress and President Bush chant ``drill, 
drill, drill'' to appease, it appears, their big oil buddies, the truth 
is we can't drill our way out of this problem. What we need is a 
commonsense solution, solutions like the bill before us today. H.R. 
6052 won't solve all of our problems, but it does start the process of 
getting people to change their habits and get out of their cars by 
providing them options of transportation that allow them to get to 
where they're going without driving solo in their cars.
  It's steps like this that can make a big difference because public 
transportation is going to play a huge role in solving our energy 
problems. It will also make a difference in what is going on in our 
environment. It will help communities not have to build more and more 
roads, and it will get people where they're going in a very efficient 
way.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to support 
the expansion of public transportation.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the T&I Committee, the gentleman from beautiful southwest Louisiana 
(Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my friend, the ranking member, and I thank the 
committee.
  I think this is a good bill. I rise in support of it, but I want to 
emphasize

[[Page 13921]]

that this is really just a short-term relief in what we need to do. We 
have to do a whole lot more, and we could do a whole lot more.
  This will provide short-term relief in public transit for those who 
use it, but short of a comprehensive policy that involves short-term 
solutions, mid-term and long-term, this isn't going to get us anywhere 
near to what we need to do to solve our energy problems.
  I want to focus on one issue. I mean, clearly, we have to increase 
supply, and it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. We've 
shown that in my State of Louisiana.
  We should lift this moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf, and 
that's one way that we can really move things forward quickly.
  I would emphasize that, in the cumulative debate that's gone on 
today, there's been some misinformation because Louisiana delegations, 
in a bipartisan way over the years, over the last decade-and-a-half, 
have fought to open the Outer Continental Shelf and provide Outer 
Continental Shelf revenue-sharing so that the States could also get 
some of this revenue to rebuild their infrastructure. This is a 
sensible way. We have fought for this, and we've been blocked by the 
other side consistently in this.
  I also want to point out with regard to the use-it-or-lose-it issue, 
it's very expensive, and companies cannot even get the permitting to 
assess with seismic what we know to be these reserves or what we think 
are reserves. We don't have definite information. A lot of that 
information is 10, 20, 30 years old, if we even have information.
  I would say that it costs somewhere between $1 and $5 million just to 
get the permit to do seismic. Then you have to get the lease. That's 
another anywhere from $11 to over $200 million to secure these leases. 
Then you go into seismic, and that can be very expensive. And those 
cumulative costs continue to add. By the time you actually get to a 
point where you can drill a well where you have known reserves, you're 
talking years down the line, and typically, it is not unusual for the 
costs to be up in billions, $1.5 billion.
  That's why it's important to lift this moratorium. Let's move 
forward. Let's have a comprehensive energy policy that's not only 
focused on supply and increasing exploration and production in an 
environmentally sensitive way, but also focuses on renewables and 
alternatives, nuclear and the others.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time remains on both sides, Madam Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 11\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon, a long-time proponent of and advocate for and practitioner of 
public transportation, a man who saves 8 barrels of oil a year by 
consuming 86,000 calories on his bike.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
his leadership.
  It's interesting for us to hear from some of our friends on the other 
side of the aisle, my good friend from Florida, recounting sort of the 
history of the Bush administration leadership on energy. I have a 
slightly different recollection of that.
  One of the first things this administration did when they came to 
power was to create 7 years ago a secret task force. They never really 
fully released what was going on or why, but we know that it was 
dominated by representatives of the industry. And the Secretary of 
Energy in March of 2005 indicated that 95 percent of the objectives of 
the task force were completed. And then 35 months ago, on the floor of 
the House, we passed their big picture energy bill when they controlled 
everything, House, Senate, White House, and it was going to envision 
great changes for all American families.
  Well, all American families have had some significant changes since 
the Republican energy bill was passed. Most significant is that 
gasoline prices have gone from $2.49 a gallon to over $4 a gallon. The 
changes about altered conservation, for instance, have come over the 
objections of our friends in the Republican party. Remember, for years, 
they made it illegal even to study increasing CAFE standards, and lo 
and behold, now George Bush is claiming credit for what we forced him 
to do for the first time in 30 years, increasing those fuel standards. 
But even if we give him credit for going to 35 miles to the gallon 
standard, it took George Bush longer to get to that 35 miles to a 
gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to the moon.
  This legislation is part of a comprehensive approach. You've seen it 
come to pass from our first days in Democratic control in this 
Congress, where we provided more incentives for new sources of energy, 
where we've worked to shift incentives from massive oil companies who 
didn't need our tax dollars. Remember, George Bush said they didn't 
need subsidies at $50 a barrel. Well, Big Oil didn't need it at $100 
per barrel or $140, but that shift to alternative energy support was 
resisted by the administration and by my Republican colleagues.
  We have systematically moved forward in areas to give more choices to 
Americans. I heard my friend from Louisiana talk about how it costs 
money to explore the 68 million acres already available to them. Gee, 
ExxonMobil spent $36 billion last year, not in alternative energy, that 
was $10 million, but to buy back their own stock.
  Let's get a grip. It's time for us to move forward with choices that 
will make a difference. This legislation will make a difference for 
every community, rural and urban, around the country. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time at this 
time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We have several speakers, Madam Chairman, who have not 
arrived yet, and does the gentleman from Florida have other speakers?
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I'm in the same situation that the 
gentleman from Minnesota is.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman will yield back the balance of his 
time, we will yield the balance of our time.
  Mr. MICA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, again, I have to compliment Mr. Oberstar, and folks have to 
look at what we're doing here this afternoon. This is the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We can't solve all the 
energy issues. We have a very small piece, and we're trying to take 
care of that small piece here today.
  We don't get into some of the other issues that have been raised, but 
I must say that I'm going to be going back to Florida tomorrow, and 
I'll be talking to folks. And you know, it doesn't take you long to 
talk to folks at home and have them get your attention. And they are 
getting our attention by saying, what are you doing about $4 a gallon 
gasoline, what are you doing about energy costs that are soaring, what 
are you doing about the price of food and other things that are being 
affected by energy costs.
  The people who are on a limited income, God bless them. I don't know 
how they're making it, or a fixed income, with the prices that they see 
both at the pump, at the store, in their lives. They want answers.
  I'm sorry that some of the other committees are not acting and the 
Congress is not acting like the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, because when I go home I have to tell them that how things 
are left in their Congress was that we took care of a small piece. We 
provided transit grants for those Federal employees working outside of 
the Beltway. We provided additional grants through eight transit 
companies who are hurting because of increased fuel costs and trying to 
expand transit service that people are becoming reliant on now because 
of the high cost of fuel. But I can't tell them that I've done anything 
about supply, that, again, the supply has been cut off.
  I even agree with the child that's crying in the gallery. People are 
not happy about this. They want a response from this Congress, and this 
Congress has the ability to act to increase the supplies so we're not 
reliant on reliable friends like Venezuela, the sheiks and

[[Page 13922]]

leaders in the Middle East, and that dependable source of energy, 
Nigeria.
  Folks, that isn't going to cut it for an answer when we get home, and 
this isn't complicated. It's a question of Economics 101. This is a 
question of supply and demand. Right now, in the short-term, we need to 
increase supply. If we had worked together over the past 7 years from 
that introduction by President Bush some 7 years ago, one of his first 
plans--and I cited his rollout statements, and let me just read also 
what he said on May 17.
  President Bush said: ``Too often, Americans are asked to take sides 
between energy production and environmental protection--as if people 
who revere the Alaska wilderness do not also care about America's 
energy future; as if the people who produce America's energy do not 
care about the planet their children will inherit. The truth is energy 
production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. 
They're dual aspects of a single purpose--to live well and wisely upon 
the earth. Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new 
tone in discussing energy in the environment, one that is less 
suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We've yelled at each other 
enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and act.''
  Again, these are the words of our President before 9/11 on the energy 
issue.
  You know, again, if you want to look at the Record, and I will be 
glad to submit for the Record how many Republicans and how many 
Democrats opposed each of the proposals, all that's history, folks. 
What the American people want is now us to act as the President said 7 
years ago.
  So, today, Mr. Oberstar and I don't bring an answer to the whole 
energy problem. We bring our little piece. We ask the rest of the 
Congress, I ask the rest of the Congress, to come forth and to act, and 
that needs to be done because when we get home, those people are going 
to ask you, what did you do about the high cost of energy, the high 
cost of food, the businesses that are closing, the lives that are being 
impacted by high energy costs, and we need to be able to give them an 
answer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We do have a speaker on the transit subject, and I'm 
very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. I'd like to thank the chairman for yielding and thank 
him for his leadership on this subject.
  In urban States such as mine in Rhode Island, we have more and more 
of our consumers getting caught in traffic jams. The air quality is 
increasingly poor, and still, people are having trouble affording to 
fill their gas tanks with gas. And this is a tsunami of problems, both 
with their paying for their gas, trying to get to work, and the traffic 
jams, and breathing in the poor air quality.

                              {time}  1500

  It seems to me adding this $1.5 billion for mass transit solves all 
three of these problems: One, it gets cars off the road; two, it allows 
us to get our air cleaned up; and three, it helps these consumers be 
able to save money that they would otherwise put into their gas tank. 
And in doing so, it reduces our demand on foreign oil.
  So, really, to reference what some of my colleagues have said, this 
is part of the approach to this problem, and I think it's well worth 
our taking into account. That is why I support this legislation.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, with great appreciation, and thank him for 
making it possible for us to bring this bill to the floor today.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.
  Jim Oberstar is one of the most knowledgeable people in America on 
energy issues and on transportation issues. And the two, of course, are 
closely related. I want to thank him for his leadership and for his 
service. We are fortunate, as an American people, to have him chairing 
this critically important committee.
  There is no stronger proponent of rail service and mass transit than 
Jim Oberstar. That service has never been more important than it is 
today. His vision and his service have put this country in a place 
where we now have the opportunity to make additional investment which 
is critically needed so that the demand for mass transit resulting from 
the cost of gasoline and energy products can be met by our mass transit 
system. And I thank him for his leadership.
  This bill, as well as the other two bills considered on this floor 
today on drilling and market speculation, is a clear recognition by 
this House majority that America's energy policy cannot be one 
dimensional.
  We've heard a lot of finger pointing on the floor today, and finger 
pointing is relatively easy. The fact of the matter is we all need to 
come together. I don't just mean Republicans and Democrats and the 
Congress of the United States, but all 300 million of us in this 
country need to come together and understand that we have 3 percent of 
the world's oil supply and 25 percent of the demand. It does not take a 
great mathematician to understand, therefore, that simply drilling for 
new product will not solve our problem. That is not to say by any 
stretch of the imagination that that should not be done.
  These bills, taken together, and when combined with other actions 
taken by the majority on energy, are a clear reflection of the 
alternative to the Republicans' sole focus on drilling, to the 
exclusion of alternative and renewable sources of energy.
  Let no one be mistaken: Democrats do not oppose further drilling, 
discovery and production of product, period. All we are saying, as I 
will explain in more detail shortly, is that the oil and gas companies 
should utilize the 68 million acres--that's 68 million acres--currently 
available to drill on which contain, according to experts, over 100 
billion barrels of oil. And we use about 7.5 billion a year in this 
country, so that is approximately 14 years of oil. That's what the 
experts tell us, not Democrats and Republicans, the experts tell us are 
available on these untapped resources currently available, currently 
leased. I would tell my friends that, not only that, but they contain 
hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas.
  Now, as to Chairman Oberstar's bill: It promises Americans relief 
from our $4 per gallon gas prices. Tomorrow? No. Next week? No. Next 
month? No. Very frankly, we have been too long delaying our investment 
in alternative energy sources and alternative transportation modes. But 
it does promise that in the future we will have the capability both to 
provide mass transit for our people, and to provide for the alternative 
to lower demand which, therefore, should lower prices as well.
  It authorizes $1.7 billion over the next 2 years to provide grants to 
mass transit authorities to reduce public transit fares and will help 
transit agencies deal with escalating costs. That is a rational 
response to increased demand.
  In just the first 3 months of this year, Americans took almost 85 
million more trips on public transit than in the same period the year 
before. Surely all of us in this body, faced with 85 million additional 
trips, will want to respond in a way that provides capacity to 
accommodate that growth.
  Public transit reduces America's oil consumption as well as carbon 
dioxide emissions. Thankfully, the administration has, very late, come 
to the conclusion that, yes, global warming is a problem. 
Unfortunately, for 7-plus years of this administration they denied it 
was a problem, but coming to the right conclusion late is always 
timely.
  In addition, the legislation on market speculation that was 
introduced by Chairman Peterson and Congressman Van Hollen is an effort 
which I hope every Member of this body will support to address this 
issue, record high gas prices, from another angle.
  Oil producers are telling us they believe that a large portion of the 
price is related to speculation. Can I guarantee they're right? No, I 
cannot. Am I an expert on this issue? I am not. But I do

[[Page 13923]]

know that they have said that is the case. If it is the case, it's 
incumbent upon us to find out, because if it is, and we can reduce 
prices for the consumer at the pump, they expect us to do so and we 
want to do so.
  The Bush administration, of course, insists that the spike in gas 
prices is not attributable to market speculation. That may be why the 
commission that is supposed to oversee this has not acted as vigorously 
as they otherwise might. George Soros, a very successful investor, has 
said this: ``The crude oil market has been significantly affected by 
speculation.''
  The legislation that we will vote on shortly simply directs the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use its full authority and 
emergency tools to curtail excessive speculation and other practices 
distorting the energy market. Why would any Member of this body vote 
against asking this commission to look at that issue to determine 
whether or not there is validity? If there is not, presumably the 
commission will so find.
  Finally, about Chairman Rahall's bill, let me simply say this: What 
could make more common sense than saying to the oil and gas companies 
that they should drill or pursue drilling on the 68 million acres of 
Federal land currently under lease or simply lose those leases? After 
all, they are leased for the purposes of us producing more product. If 
they lie fallow and are not being worked, not being investigated, not 
being explored, not being tapped, then the American consumer finds a 
dwindling or short supply. And what happens in that context? Prices go 
up. And yes, oil companies make record profits, but consumers lose. 
This bill simply says to the oil companies, be diligent in the 
development of what you have or lose the lease to someone who will 
pursue the discovery and production of oil.
  Democrats believe that we need to find product. I mentioned the 68 
million acres that you've heard a lot about, that's a lot of acres. But 
there is an additional 23 million acres in Alaska, 22 million of which 
is under congressional set-aside for oil production and discovery. Nine 
hundred thousand acres have already been leased for that purpose. And 
experts tell us there is more oil there than there is in the Alaskan 
Wildlife Refuge, but our Republican friends continue to focus on the 
Alaskan Refuge.
  Let no one be mistaken: The oil companies have many acres to look at 
onshore and offshore. According to the Minerals Management Service and 
the Bureau of Land Management, these 68 million acres on land and 
waters, 74 percent of which we have already leased, are not producing 
oil and gas.
  Our Republican friends have also charged that we're keeping the best 
lands out of the hands of oil and gas companies. That is not the case. 
They can say it again and again and again and again, but it's not the 
case. In fact, 81 percent--I hope all of my colleagues hear this, and I 
hope the American public will read the Record--81 percent of estimated 
oil and gas resources on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf 
are presently available for development. And here, perhaps, is the most 
important fact: These resources are equal, as I said, to 107 billion 
barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is 10 
times the amount of economically recoverable oil that could be produced 
from opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and more than 14 years of 
current U.S. oil consumption.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, let me say that there is no silver bullet, 
we all understand that; to pretend otherwise would be dishonest. We 
need to be honest with the American public. Unfortunately, for over a 
quarter of a century we have had mostly administrations or Republican 
control of the House and the Senate which essentially said that 
drilling more oil and not looking for alternatives was the policy they 
wanted to pursue.
  When we got here, we passed an energy bill that focuses on 
alternatives. If we only have 3 percent, we have 25 percent of the 
demand, you can bet your sweet life that those who have the oil all 
over this world are going to say to us, you pay us what we tell you to 
pay us. And not until we pursue policies--which this administration has 
failed to do, which this Republican leadership failed to do--not until 
that time will we be able to say to our friends and, indeed, some not 
so friendly, we're not going to pay your price because we have 
alternatives. We have mass transit provided by Jim Oberstar. We have 
alternative energies provided by the bill that we passed. We are 
expecting electricity--which the Republicans oppose--to be produced by 
alternatives. We have renewable fuel standards passed in this House, 
sent to the Senate.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we have taken significant steps 
last year, we're taking significant steps today, and we will continue 
to take significant steps so that America will be energy independent. 
That's in the best interest of our national security, our economic 
security and, indeed, it is critically important for our global health.
  The bills we are considering on this House floor today are key 
components of a comprehensive energy strategy that seeks to provide 
Americans with relief at the gas pump while we wean our Nation from its 
dangerous addiction to foreign oil. The President said we're addicted 
to foreign oil. And yet there was a meeting on energy in 2001, just 
after the President became the Chief Executive, and they convened oil 
company executives to tell us, what should our policies be? One of my 
colleagues said, well, whatever they said--because the meetings were 
secret--their policies failed. Perhaps. Perhaps they failed. One cannot 
inevitably draw that conclusion, however, because those same companies, 
7 years later, are making the greatest profits they have made in the 
history of their companies. Perhaps their policies failed, or perhaps 
their policies led to success.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we need to pursue mass transit and invest in 
expanding it so we can meet the demand of our consumers and of our 
citizens and of our energy independence.
  I thank the gentleman for his leadership. And I urge my colleagues to 
vote for all three of these critically important bills. Are they the 
sole solution? They are not. Are they the only solution? They are not. 
Are they the solutions that we will take and then stop? They are not. 
But they are a step, each and every one of them, in the right 
direction. Let's take those steps today.
  I urge my colleagues to support these three bills.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 6\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  I just want to say that we have a very severe problem in this country 
on our energy supplies. In the short term, there are a series of ways 
that we might save ourselves some money on the gas prices, and those 
ways include driving less, driving slower, carpooling, and using public 
transportation where it is available.

                              {time}  1515

  And I have to commend the chairman for bringing so quickly to the 
floor this important legislation, which provides a substantial increase 
in moneys, authorization, at least, for public transportation, which is 
already in place in our smaller metropolitan areas and even in our 
rural areas, so that we can enhance the public transportation available 
for people--what is already available--and take care of people who are 
making that move toward using a bit more public transportation.
  In the longer term, which is speaking about the 10-year kind of time 
frame, whereas the short term is in the first year or so, in the longer 
term, living closer to where we work so you don't have to commute so 
far, doing the research and development on renewable energy sources, 
drilling wherever it's open for leases, and I say that's in the

[[Page 13924]]

longer term because everybody agrees that it will take, even in the 
best of circumstances, 5 years to bring new leased areas to production 
and more likely 10 years to bring those new leased areas to production, 
that and changing over our whole vehicle fleet, our whole vehicle 
fleet, which will take a considerable period of time, to using much 
more fuel-efficient vehicles, those are the longer-term ways that we 
can get out of this problem.
  And by far the fastest way to immediately have an effect is the 
elimination of speculation. There has been much testimony before our 
committees that speculation is a very significant portion of what is 
going on right now. The speculative activity in the oil market has 
quadrupled in just the last few months, 3 or 4 months, and that would 
be the fastest and most effective way.
  My friend the ranking member from Florida has pointed out that we 
need to increase supply. Well, yes, it would be possible to increase 
supply. But remember, as the majority leader said here a few minutes 
ago, we in America have 5 percent, somewhat less than 5 percent, of the 
planet's population. We are now consuming 25 percent of the oil 
produced on this planet today, and we in America have only 3 percent of 
the reserves. You can't drill your way out of this problem because we 
do not have the reserves.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 2 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Minnesota and as well his ranking member, who I hope is 
recognizing the importance of the work that we are doing here today, 
and, of course, the Members that have spoken.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to support the Saving Energy Through 
Public Transportation Act of 2008 and also to speak to the manager's 
amendment that incorporates my language that speaks specifically to 
encouraging, I hope insisting, that stakeholders, whether they be 
cities and counties or various transit agencies, engage the public in 
the question of promoting public transportation.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has shared a recent 
study that states that if Americans use public transit at the same rate 
as Europeans for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs, the 
United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than 
40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil that 
we import from Saudi Arabia.
  Right as we speak, Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the 
Nation, is beginning to grow its mass transit system. It started by the 
advocation of many of us, including our former mayor Lee P. Brown, 
which required, because of the restraints here in Washington and the 
difficulties of our being able to get consensus, it was started by our 
own tax dollars. The 7\1/2\ mile transit system that was started at 
least 3 or 4 years ago has now become one of the fastest new starts in 
America and is located in my congressional district shared with my 
fellow colleague in the Ninth Congressional District. What it says is 
that new starts should be increased in months to come. And as we look 
to expanding opportunities for transit systems and reducing our use of 
oil, it is important as well that we look to collaborative efforts on 
efficient transportation systems.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, let me ask my colleagues to 
support this legislation, and I hope to get time on the manager's 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, thank you, and thank you Chairman Oberstar for your 
efforts on energy conservation with H.R. 6052--``Saving Energy through 
Public Transportation Act of 2008.'' The Transportation and 
Infrastructure has once again produced legislation that will help 
Americans save money and develop new modes of transportation.
  The primary objective of this legislation is to reduce the United 
States dependence on foreign oil by encouraging more people to use 
public transportation. The Transportation and Infrastructure has shared 
a recent study that states if Americans used public transit at the same 
rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs--
the United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more 
than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil 
that we import from Saudi Arabia each year.
  Rising gas prices have only added to this country's economic 
downturn. When we add this cost into our troubled housing markets, 
soaring food prices, and a war without a clear end--the importance of 
this legislation becomes even more apparent.
  I urge transportation systems such as Houston METRO to work in 
greater coordination with their local community to ensure that routing 
lines make not only economic sense, but practical sense as well.
  Community involvement is essential, which is why I offered an 
amendment that would state that ``public transportation stakeholders 
should engage local communities in the education and promotion of the 
importance of using public transportation in cities and counties; and 
in the planning, development, and design of transportation routing 
lines.''
  I am pleased that my amendment was incorporated into the manager's 
amendment. However, I am disappointed that all the language was not 
incorporated--leaving out the key portion of community involvement in 
planning, development, and design of transportation routing lines.
  I still support this measure and I sincerely hope that our local 
public transportation agencies take the communities' use into account 
as well as their thoughts on what routes would add value and which 
routes may actually do more harm than good. It is our residents who 
utilize the mass transit systems not the planning boards.
  In my district of Houston, Texas, many residents utilize the public 
transit system to alleviate congestion as well as to control cost. I 
believe it is imperative that we have full community involvement in the 
discussions surrounding outreach, planning, design of mass transit.
  Our parents who are trying to hold one child, guide another, balance 
their bags and get to work; it is our elderly who need extra time to 
get onto trains and buses; and our youth who are trying to get back and 
forth to school and activities--these are the people who can and will 
utilize public transportation. The incentives are there for commuters 
but they should be examined with community involvement so the right 
message is sent.
  This act will add value to our public transportation by:
  Authorizing $1.7 Billion of Capital and Operating Funds for Transit 
Agencies to Reduce Fares and Expand Transit Services. This section 
authorizes $850 million (General Fund) for each of fiscal years 2008 
and 2009 to allow public transit agencies to reduce transit fares and 
expand transit services. These funds will allow transit agencies to 
provide incentives for commuters to choose transit options, thereby 
reducing our nation's transportation-related energy consumption and 
reliance on foreign oil, as well as decreasing its greenhouse gas 
emissions. These funds will be distributed under current law urban and 
rural transit formulas. The Federal share for these grants is 100 
percent and funds will only be available for a two-year period.
  Increasing the Federal Share for Clean Fuel and Alternative Fuel 
Transit Bus, Ferry, or Locomotive-related Equipment and Facilities from 
90 percent to 100 percent. The bill increases the Federal share for the 
alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment from 90 percent to 100 
percent of the net project cost for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
  Extending Transit Benefits to All Federal Employees. The bill 
establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and 
requires all Federal agencies in the United States to offer transit 
passes to Federal employees.
  Requiring the Department of Transportation (DOT) to Establish 
Specific Guidance for Implementing the Nationwide Transit Pass Benefits 
Program. The guidance will ensure that Federal agencies have the 
necessary administrative procedures to ensure that Federal employees 
properly use the program. It also requires the Department of 
Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
Department of Energy to implement a nationwide three-year pilot transit 
pass benefit program for all qualified Federal employees of those 
agencies.
  Establishing a Vanpool Pilot Program. The bill establishes a two-year 
pilot program to allow the amount expended by private providers of 
public transportation by vanpool for the acquisition of vans to be used 
as the non-Federal share for matching Federal transit

[[Page 13925]]

funds in five communities. The provision requires the private providers 
of vanpool services to use revenues they receive in providing public 
transportation, in excess of its operating costs, for the purpose of 
acquiring vans, excluding any amounts the providers may have received 
in Federal, State, or local government assistance for such acquisition. 
The Department of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool 
pilot projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs, 
benefits, and efficiencies of the vanpool demonstration projects.
  Increasing the Federal Share for Additional Parking Facilities at 
End-of-Line Fixed Guideway Stations. The bill increases the Federal 
share for additional parking facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway 
stations to increase the total number of transit commuters who have 
access to those stations.
  Therefore Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6052, 
which seeks to address energy conservations through public 
transportation.

                  Amendment to H.R. 6052, as Reported

                  Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

       Page 3, after line 25, insert the following:
       (10) Public transportation stakeholders should engage and 
     involve local communities in the education and promotion of 
     the importance of utilizing public transportation in cities 
     and counties and in the planning, development, and design of 
     transportation routing lines.

  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, this is an important debate. It's a little piece of the big 
national debate that's going on now. Mr. Oberstar and I lead the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We came forward with this 
measure. This measure is within our jurisdiction, as I said earlier, 
and it is just a small piece of the puzzle.
  Many Members come to me on my side of the aisle and ask me how I am 
going to vote, and I am going to support this legislation. It does 
increase the authorization. That's a fairly substantial piece of change 
by any estimate, $1.7 billion over 2 years, and it does make some 
significant changes in policy, in opening up authorization to spend 
money to help transit companies and agencies that are suffering like 
the American public is suffering with high fuel costs, and I think 
that's a good thing. It expands some services for mass transit, which 
is also a good thing. And it also expands from just within the beltway 
to other Federal employees the benefits of using public transportation, 
and that's a good thing too.
  This is general debate, and we have gotten into general debate, and I 
have heard the distinguished majority leader speak and he quoted George 
Soros. I don't use him as a quote too much or rely on him for my 
opinion seeking, but I did just happen to have some sources that quote 
the American public and their opinion.
  The Los Angeles Times Bloomberg Poll said when all registered voters 
are asked whether they support increased exploration for oil and 
natural gas, 68 percent respond in the affirmative, and that was just 
within the last 2 days. Rasmussen reports, according to them, 67 
percent of the American people support oil drilling off the Nation's 
coasts and 64 percent think it will lower gas prices. Now, they seem to 
get it. The other committees with jurisdiction and the rest of Congress 
don't seem to get it.
  Now, don't tell me you can't do it. I mean this is an incredible 
institution and can do anything. We represent the greatest ingenuity, 
the greatest people that ever walked the face of the Earth. God blessed 
this Nation so much, and we are the custodians of coming here and doing 
things.
  Now, Mr. Oberstar and I on a Monday introduced a piece of 
legislation. We worked together on it, and within the same week on a 
Thursday night, we had the President of the United States at 7 o'clock 
at night sign the legislation as is. So we can do these things that the 
American people want.
  Now, 1 week from tomorrow, people are going to try to celebrate 
Independence Day in this great country, this great country for which so 
many people made so many sacrifices, and I have to go back home and 
tell them I increased transit grants for Federal employees outside the 
beltway and I also helped transit agencies who are suffering like they 
are to pay their fuel bill, but I don't have an answer for them. That's 
not what they want to hear, folks. This is the Congress of the United 
States, and we can and we must do better.
  I have been here going on my 16th year, not as long as Mr. Oberstar. 
He knows transportation inside and out and he's an expert renowned on a 
whole host of issues, but the good thing about being here just half as 
long as he is that you hear some of these things.
  First, we're going to solve this problem; we'll tax it. So what do 
they do? They say, windfall taxes for the oil companies that are taking 
advantage. Windfall taxes, that's it. So first we'll tax it.
  Well, that didn't work. People come up to me, did you ever hear of a 
time when you tax something and the price goes down for consumers? Duh. 
Well, that didn't work.
  So now there's speculation; so we'll get 'em. We'll regulate. We're 
going to regulate those speculators. That'll take care of it.
  Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MICA. Oh, good. So I can tell this story, Madam Chairman.
  This reminds me of sitting on a committee coming here, and this took 
over some time. We always hear about high drug prices, and I sat on the 
committee, and everyone was railing about the price of vaccination 
drugs. So we dragged in the drug companies to sit them down, and I 
remember this guy who represented a drug company, and this was an 
investigative hearing. And he showed a little vial, and he said, this 
vial of vaccine, this medicine, only costs about $2 to produce. So we 
hammered him. It only cost $2 to produce, but he said that the 
liability on it was reaching $30, so $30 and increasing.
  So then we dragged in the insurance company. ``You're charging them 
$30 for this vaccine?'' We hammered them. So they left.
  And then the next thing we knew was we weren't producing any vaccine 
in the United States because no one would insure it. So the next 
hearing we held--remember this, now, folks--the next hearing we held 
was on its now being produced in Great Britain and we had some bad 
batches. Well, we hadn't sent enough FDA inspectors over to inspects 
the batches there.
  Folks, these aren't the answers: additional taxation, additional 
regulation, chasing business off our shores. And the same thing isn't 
going to happen with energy. The American people get it. I just read 
the poll. It doesn't take a lot, folks. They know if you increase the 
supply, the price will go down. And we have the capability of doing 
that. We built the Alaska pipeline in 3 years.
  Next Friday is Independence Day. It's going to be a sad Independence 
Day because instead of America's being independent, we will be 
dependent on energy. That's affecting all of us, and it's not right.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I listened with great interest to the gentleman's ruminations on a 
wide range of subjects. I won't comment on those that reach beyond the 
subject matter at hand, our transit bill. I do reaffirm my appreciation 
for his partnership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  This is an important piece of legislation. In the larger scheme of 
the billions of dollars, $125 billion a year, that we need to be 
investing in all levels of government in our surface transportation 
system, this $1.7 billion is a relatively small step, but it moves us 
in the direction of a mode shift in transportation to 10 percent of all 
trips by transit. If we made just that little step in America, we would 
save the equivalent of all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. That is 
what we can do. It's within our grasp now. We don't need a research 
program. We don't need a man-on-the-moon program. We just need the 
funding to invest in what is already at hand: solid, responsible, 
reliable, effective transportation systems for the public to use 
instead of getting in their private vehicle.

[[Page 13926]]



                              {time}  1530

  Had the administration in 2003 concurred in a $375 billion 
transportation program for the next 6 years, as its own Department of 
Transportation recommended, and as Mr. Young, then-chairman of the 
committee, and I introduced, we would have been far better positioned 
today than we are now.
  Instead, that administration proposed only a $5.5 billion funding 
flat out over the 6 years for transit. We wound up with $10 billion in 
the SAFETEA legislation over the 5 years of the legislation. But we 
have to do far better than that, and this bill moves us in the right 
direction.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6052, the 
Savings Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, H.R. 6052.
  As gas prices continue to skyrocket to over $4 a gallon, commuters 
are increasingly abandoning their automobiles in favor of public 
transportation. New Jersey's public transit agency, NJ Transit, is 
breaking ridership records for the sixth consecutive year, with over 
900,000 trips per weekday on its trains, buses, and light-rail 
vehicles. In the first 3 months of this year, public transit trips 
nationwide increased by 85 million over last year's numbers. Amtrak set 
record highs for its service with over 25 million users last year. This 
increase in use not only takes cars off our overburdened roadways, it 
conserves energy, decreases our greenhouse gas emissions, and helps our 
economy.
  However, mass transit agencies are also suffering from soaring gas 
prices, increased demand for their services, and decreased operating 
budgets. Transit agencies are paying 44 percent more for diesel fuel 
than they were at the beginning of this year, and almost half of bus 
operators and more than two-thirds of rail operators have increased 
their fares.
  The Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008 would 
help State and local mass transit authorities meet the increase in 
demand and allow them to provide a cost-effective alternative to 
driving. This legislation would authorize $1.7 billion in grants for 
mass transit agencies to upgrade and expand their transit services 
without having to further increase their fares.
  By taking public transportation the average American household could 
save $6,251 and help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4,800 pounds 
per year. However, commuters need affordable, reliable access to public 
transportation if they are to utilize these benefits. This bill would 
help make public transit more available to commuters, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Saving 
Energy through Public Transportation Act.
  My constituents are struggling to pay rising gas prices caused in 
part by wild speculation in oil markets. By providing greater access to 
public transportation we can reduce the demand for oil and help lower 
the price of gasoline. With increased use of public transit, we can 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen the economy by removing 
congestion from our already crowded roads.
  I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for including the ``Capital 
Cost of Contracting'' pilot program in this bill. Congressman Mike 
Rogers and I have long supported this program.
  The provision makes it easier for employers and communities to offer 
vanpool services by leveraging their investment with Federal transit 
funds. By doing this, we can lower the cost of joining a vanpool and 
increase services nationwide. It is estimated that full adoption of 
this program could triple vanpooling across the Nation. This would 
conserve over 500 million gallons of fuel per year and greatly reduce 
harmful emissions. I appreciate the inclusion of this provision in the 
bill and applaud Chairman Oberstar for his determined efforts to 
provide public transit to more Americans.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public 
Transportation Act.
  At the onset I want to commend the bipartisan leadership of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their efforts in 
getting this measure to the floor. The legislation before us is a good 
bill; one that will provide a much needed hand up to our Nation's 
transit agencies as they work to meet record demands for public 
transportation services.
  Dallas Area Rapid Transit Agency, or DART, headquartered in my 
congressional district and one of the best transit agencies in the 
country, fully supports this bill. Similar to other agencies around the 
country, DART ridership is setting records, as more north Texans 
recognize the immense value transit offers.
  In May, DART had its busiest month ever, providing 10.3 million 
trips. North Texans are flocking to transport by rail in record numbers 
as ridership by light and commuter rail is up 5.4 percent and 7.1 
percent respectively over 2007 numbers. During the first 7 months of 
2008, DART has witnessed a dramatic 33.8 percent increase in its 
vanpool ridership.
  The agency has acted aggressively to accommodate the increased 
demand. The agency is utilizing a new super light rail vehicle to 
increase passenger capacity.
  The agency now has a record 145 vans in operation for vanpool 
commuters and has reached its budget maximum. My transit agency could 
benefit immediately from the tools provided under H.R. 6052.
  H.R. 6052 will help transit agencies expand services and reach more 
people as it authorizes $1.7 billion dollars for capital and operating 
funds for transit agencies; increases the Federal cost share for 
alternative fuel transit buses; extends transit benefits to all Federal 
employees; establishes a vanpool pilot program; and increases the 
Federal cost share for commuter parking facilities so more people may 
have access to commuter stations.
  Madam Chairman, without question, there is a need for an overall 
expansion of transit programs across this country. However, in order 
for this to happen, there must be a realignment of infrastructure 
investment priorities and increased support at the local, State, and 
Federal levels. H.R. 6052 is a step in the right direction as it 
highlights importance of transit expansion across the Nation.
  Public transit takes drivers off the road; uses one-half the fuel of 
private automobiles; and saves working families billions annually in 
transportation costs. Studies show transportation costs are the second 
largest household expense behind housing costs.
  Nationally, for every dollar a working family saves on housing, it 
spends 77 cents more on transportation costs.
  While public transit remains an option for some--for poor and working 
families, public transit exists as a means for economic survival.
  So with that said Madam Chairman, I would merely like to reiterate my 
strong support for H.R. 6052 and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in 
giving transit agencies across the country, and the millions of people 
they service, a hand up today. This sound, bipartisan piece of 
legislation is deserving of passage.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, the run-up in gas prices is 
squeezing families and sending them in search of cheaper alternatives 
to driving.
  As a result, our public transit authorities are also feeling the 
pinch as rising fuel costs and record ridership strain their systems.
  Almost half of bus operators and two-thirds of rail operators have 
been forced to raise their fares.
  Today, we are considering H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy through Public 
Transportation Act, which provides grants to mass transit systems to 
reduce fares and expand services for commuters.
  Using public transportation saves the average household more than 
$6,000 a year and reduces dangerous carbon dioxide emissions that 
contribute to global warming.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to get on the bus and support 
this bill.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Chairman, l would like to recognize Chairman 
Oberstar and Chairman DeFazio for their exceptional leadership on this 
critical transportation issue.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6052, the Saving 
Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, and urge swift 
passage of the measure.
  This bipartisan bill goes a long way in improving public 
transportation.
  By creating incentives for transit agencies to reduce fares and 
expand services, H.R. 6052 makes public transportation a more 
attractive option for commuters.
  But this bill also provides relief to many of our transit agencies 
who are struggling with operational costs.
  I've heard from agencies in my district, like Roaring Fork 
Transportation Authority, who have seen an increase in ridership, yet 
face the problem of record fuel prices.
  They are begging for more resources just to stay afloat.
  So I support the additional $200 million that this bill authorizes 
for formula grants to rural areas.
  Additionally, I applaud Chairman Oberstar for including a fuel 
provision in the Manager's Amendment, which will help our transit 
agencies deal with their fuel costs.
  With their increased ridership, they need help now more than ever.
  I believe H.R. 6052 will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 
encouraging more people to use public transportation.
  Public transit is a critical piece of cutting greenhouse gases.

[[Page 13927]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6052

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Saving Energy Through Public 
     Transportation Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 2007, people in the United States took more than 
     10.3 billion trips using public transportation, the highest 
     level in 50 years.
       (2) Public transportation use in the United States is up 32 
     percent since 1995, a figure that is more than double the 
     growth rate of the Nation's population and is substantially 
     greater than the growth rate for vehicle miles traveled on 
     the Nation's highways for that same period.
       (3) Public transportation use saves fuel, reduces 
     emissions, and saves money for the people of the United 
     States.
       (4) The direct petroleum savings attributable to public 
     transportation use is 1.4 billion gallons per year, and when 
     the secondary effects of transit availability on travel are 
     also taken into account, public transportation use saves the 
     United States the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of 
     gasoline per year (more than 11 million gallons of gasoline 
     per day).
       (5) Public transportation use in the United States is 
     estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 37 million 
     metric tons annually.
       (6) An individual who commutes to work using a single 
     occupancy vehicle can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 
     pounds per day (more than 4,800 pounds per year) by switching 
     to public transportation.
       (7) Public transportation use provides an affordable 
     alternative to driving, as households that use public 
     transportation save an average of $6,251 every year.
       (8) Although under existing laws Federal employees in the 
     National Capital Region receive transit benefits, transit 
     benefits should be available to all Federal employees in the 
     United States so that the Federal Government sets a leading 
     example of greater public transportation use.
       (9) Increasing public transportation use is a national 
     priority.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.

       (a) Authorizations of Appropriations.--
       (1) Urbanized area formula grants.--In addition to amounts 
     allocated under section 5338(b)(2)(B) of title 49, United 
     States Code, to carry out section 5307 of such title, there 
     is authorized to be appropriated $750,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry out such section 5307. 
     Such funds shall be apportioned in accordance with section 
     5336 (other than subsections (i)(1) and (j)) of such title 
     but may not be combined or commingled with any other funds 
     apportioned under such section 5336.
       (2) Formula grants for other than urbanized areas.--In 
     addition to amounts allocated under section 5338(b)(2)(G) of 
     title 49, United States Code, to carry out section 5311 of 
     such title, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry 
     out such section 5311. Such funds shall be apportioned in 
     accordance with such section 5311 but may not be combined or 
     commingled with any other funds apportioned under such 
     section 5311.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Notwithstanding sections 5307 and 5311 
     of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary of 
     Transportation may make grants under such sections from 
     amounts appropriated under subsection (a) only for one or 
     more of the following:
       (1) If the recipient of the grant is reducing, or certifies 
     to the Secretary that, during the term of the grant, the 
     recipient will reduce one or more fares the recipient charges 
     for public transportation, those operating costs of equipment 
     and facilities being used to provide the public 
     transportation that the recipient is no longer able to pay 
     from the revenues derived from such fare or fares as a result 
     of such reduction.
       (2) If the recipient of the grant is expanding, or 
     certifies to the Secretary that, during the term of the 
     grant, the recipient will expand public transportation 
     service, those operating and capital costs of equipment and 
     facilities being used to provide the public transportation 
     service that the recipient incurs as a result of the 
     expansion of such service.
       (c) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Federal share of the costs for which a grant is made 
     under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (d) Period of Availability.--Funds appropriated under this 
     section shall remain available for a period of 2 fiscal 
     years.

     SEC. 4. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR CLEAN AIR ACT COMPLIANCE.

       Notwithstanding section 5323(i)(1) of title 49, United 
     States Code, a grant for a project to be assisted under 
     chapter 53 of such title during fiscal years 2008 and 2009 
     that involves acquiring clean fuel or alternative fuel 
     vehicle-related equipment or facilities for the purposes of 
     complying with or maintaining compliance with the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) shall be for 100 percent of the 
     net project cost of the equipment or facility attributable to 
     compliance with that Act unless the grant recipient requests 
     a lower grant percentage.

     SEC. 5. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFITS.

       (a) Requirement That Agencies Offer Transit Pass 
     Transportation Fringe Benefits to Their Employees 
     Nationwide.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3049(a)(1) of the Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users (5 U.S.C. 7905 note; 119 Stat. 1711) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Effective'' and all that follows through 
     ``each covered agency'' and inserting ``Each agency''; and
       (B) by inserting ``at a location in an urbanized area of 
     the United States that is served by fixed route public 
     transportation'' before ``shall be offered''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 3049(a) of such Act (5 
     U.S.C. 7905 note; 119 Stat. 1711) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively; and
       (B) in paragraph (4) by striking ``a covered agency'' and 
     inserting ``an agency''.
       (b) Guidance.--Section 3049(a) of such Act (5 U.S.C. 7905 
     note; 119 Stat. 1711) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Guidance.--
       ``(A) Issuance.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall issue guidance on nationwide implementation of the 
     transit pass transportation fringe benefits program under 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Uniform application.--
       ``(i) In general.--The guidance to be issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall contain a uniform application for use 
     by all Federal employees applying for benefits from an agency 
     under the program.
       ``(ii) Required information.--As part of such an 
     application, an employee shall provide, at a minimum, the 
     employee's home and work addresses, a breakdown of the 
     employee's commuting costs, and a certification of the 
     employee's eligibility for benefits under the program.
       ``(iii) Warning against false statements.--Such an 
     application shall contain a warning against making false 
     statements in the application.
       ``(C) Independent verification requirements.--The guidance 
     to be issued under subparagraph (A) shall contain independent 
     verification requirements to ensure that, with respect to an 
     employee of an agency--
       ``(i) the eligibility of the employee for benefits under 
     the program is verified by an official of the agency;
       ``(ii) employee commuting costs are verified by an official 
     of the agency; and
       ``(iii) records of the agency are checked to ensure that 
     the employee is not receiving parking benefits from the 
     agency.
       ``(D) Program implementation requirements.--The guidance to 
     be issued under subparagraph (A) shall contain program 
     implementation requirements applicable to each agency to 
     ensure that--
       ``(i) benefits provided by the agency under the program are 
     adjusted in cases of employee travel, leave, or change of 
     address;
       ``(ii) removal from the program is included in the 
     procedures of the agency relating to an employee separating 
     from employment with the agency; and
       ``(iii) benefits provided by the agency under the program 
     are made available using an electronic format (rather than 
     using paper fare media) where such a format is available for 
     use.
       ``(E) Enforcement and penalties.--The guidance to be issued 
     under subparagraph (A) shall contain a uniform administrative 
     policy on enforcement and penalties. Such policy shall be 
     implemented by each agency to ensure compliance with program 
     requirements, to prevent fraud and abuse, and, as 
     appropriate, to penalize employees who have abused or misused 
     the benefits provided under the program.
       ``(F) Periodic reviews.--The guidance to be issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall require each agency, not later than 
     September 1 of the first fiscal year beginning after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, and every 3 years thereafter, 
     to develop and submit to the Secretary a review of the 
     agency's implementation of the program. Each such review 
     shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(i) An assessment of the agency's implementation of the 
     guidance, including a summary of the audits and 
     investigations, if any, of the program conducted by the 
     Inspector General of the agency.
       ``(ii) Information on the total number of employees of the 
     agency that are participating in the program.
       ``(iii) Information on the total number of single occupancy 
     vehicles removed from the roadway network as a result of 
     participation by employees of the agency in the program.
       ``(iv) Information on energy savings and emissions 
     reductions, including reductions

[[Page 13928]]

     in greenhouse gas emissions, resulting from reductions in 
     single occupancy vehicle use by employees of the agency that 
     are participating in the program.
       ``(v) Information on reduced congestion and improved air 
     quality resulting from reductions in single occupancy vehicle 
     use by employees of the agency that are participating in the 
     program.
       ``(vi) Recommendations to increase program participation 
     and thereby reduce single occupancy vehicle use by Federal 
     employees nationwide.
       ``(6) Reporting requirements.--Not later than September 30 
     of the first fiscal year beginning after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, and every 3 years thereafter, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure and the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate a report on nationwide implementation of the transit 
     pass transportation fringe benefits program under this 
     subsection, including a summary of the information submitted 
     by agencies pursuant to paragraph (5)(F).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise specifically 
     provided, the amendments made by this section shall become 
     effective on the first day of the first fiscal year beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. CAPITAL COST OF CONTRACTING VANPOOL PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish and implement a pilot program to carry out vanpool 
     demonstration projects in not more than 3 urbanized areas and 
     not more than 2 other than urbanized areas.
       (b) Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 5323(i) of title 
     49, United States Code, for each project selected for 
     participation in the pilot program, the Secretary shall allow 
     the non-Federal share provided by a recipient of assistance 
     for a capital project under chapter 53 of such title to 
     include the amounts described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Conditions on acquisition of vans.--The amounts 
     referred to in paragraph (1) are any amounts expended by a 
     private provider of public transportation by vanpool for the 
     acquisition of vans to be used by such private provider in 
     the recipient's service area, excluding any amounts the 
     provider may have received in Federal, State, or local 
     government assistance for such acquisition, if the private 
     provider enters into a legally binding agreement with the 
     recipient that requires the private provider to use all 
     revenues it receives in providing public transportation in 
     such service area, in excess of its operating costs, for the 
     purpose of acquiring vans to be used by the private provider 
     in such service area.
       (c) Program Term.--The Secretary may approve an application 
     for a vanpool demonstration project for fiscal years 2008 
     through 2009.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing 
     an assessment of the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of the 
     vanpool demonstration projects.

     SEC. 7. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR END-OF-LINE FIXED 
                   GUIDEWAY STATIONS.

       Notwithstanding section 5309(h) of title 49, United States 
     Code, a grant for a capital project to be assisted under 
     section 5309 of such title during fiscal years 2008 and 2009 
     that involves the acquisition of real property for, or the 
     design, engineering, or construction of, additional parking 
     facilities at an end-of-line fixed guideway station shall be 
     for 100 percent of the net capital cost of the project unless 
     the grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 110-734. Each amendment may be offered only in 
the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       Page 3, after line 23, insert the following:
       (9) Public transportation stakeholders should engage and 
     involve local communities in the education and promotion of 
     the importance of utilizing public transportation.
       Page 3, line 24, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
       Page 4, line 10, after ``apportioned'' insert ``, not later 
     than 7 days after the date on which the funds are 
     appropriated,''.
       Page 4, line 21, after ``apportioned'' insert ``, not later 
     than 7 days after the date on which the funds are 
     appropriated,''.
       Page 5, line 5, after ``Secretary'' insert ``within the 
     time the Secretary prescribes''.
       Page 5, line 7, after ``transportation,'' insert ``or in 
     the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity 
     bus service,''.
       Page 5, line 9, after ``transportation'' insert ``, or in 
     the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity 
     bus service,''.
       Page 5, line 14, after ``Secretary'' insert ``within the 
     time the Secretary prescribes''.
       Page 5, line 16, after ``service,'' insert ``or in the case 
     of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus 
     service,''.
       Page 5, line 18, after ``service'' insert ``, or in the 
     case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus 
     service,''.
       Page 5, after line 19, insert the following:
       (3) To avoid increases in fares for public transportation, 
     or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, 
     intercity bus service, or decreases in current public 
     transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of 
     such section 5311, intercity bus service, that would 
     otherwise result from an increase in costs to the public 
     transportation or intercity bus agency for transportation-
     related fuel or meeting additional transportation-related 
     equipment or facility maintenance needs, if the recipient of 
     the grant certifies to the Secretary within the time the 
     Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the 
     recipient will not increase the fares that the recipient 
     charges for public transportation, or in the case of 
     subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, 
     or, will not decrease the public transportation service, or 
     in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity 
     bus service, that the recipient provides.
       (4) If the recipient of the grant is acquiring, or 
     certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary 
     prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient 
     will acquire, clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related 
     equipment or facilities for the purpose of improving fuel 
     efficiency, the costs of acquiring the equipment or 
     facilities.
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 8. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     carry out a national consumer awareness program to educate 
     the public on the environmental, energy, and economic 
     benefits of public transportation alternatives to the use of 
     single occupancy vehicles.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009. Such sums shall remain available until 
     expended.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment clarifies that transit agencies may use these new 
grants to offset the increased cost of fuel to transit agencies. Every 
penny additional to the cost of diesel and gasoline fuel, public 
transportation faces a cost of $7.6 million.
  The amendment clarifies that intercity bus service is an eligible 
activity under the bill. The intercity bus provision was included in 
the version of the bill that passed the House last year, but through a 
drafting error, was left out when we reintroduced it. We correct that 
mistake.
  Many transit agencies, rural and small urban centers alike, contract 
with intercity bus providers for more mobility. So it's important that 
these services are eligible for the new grants created by this bill.
  We clarify that transit agencies may use the new transit grants to 
offset the increased cost of maintenance as they struggle to cope with 
recordbreaking ridership increases. I have been to transit agency 
maintenance centers and found very skilled workmen welding new pieces 
of steel in the support structures of buses that have rusted out over 
years of use.
  Transit buses are now, on average, 12 to 14 years. They should be 
replacing them every 7 to 8 years. We are seeing a million miles of 
ridership on a bus a year. They need to upgrade and improve and 
continue their maintenance.

[[Page 13929]]

  Many transit agencies are reporting surges in ridership and, at the 
same time, difficulty maintaining existing services because of higher 
fuel prices. So we are providing funding to all those transit agencies 
to respond to their current needs.
  I want to thank several of our colleagues for agreeing to have their 
amendments incorporated into the manager's amendment to expedite 
consideration of the bill: The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) whose 
amendment helps transit fleets become more fuel efficient by providing 
more funding for clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related 
equipment or facilities; the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
whose amendment creates a national consumer awareness program to 
educate the public on environmental, energy, and economic benefits of 
public transportation; and the Jackson-Lee amendment that clarifies 
that public transportation stakeholders should engage and involve local 
communities in the education and promotion of public transportation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. I claim the time in opposition, but I do rise in support of 
the manager's amendment. I particularly find most attractive in this 
measure the provision that would allow grant funding to subsidize 
increased full costs for some of our transit systems in the country.
  My support is not based on some lobbyist from a transit agency in New 
York or Washington or Orlando. My support is based on probably a little 
lady whose face I have never seen, but she wrote me and said, Mr. Mica, 
she said, They are going to cut one of the routes and I have no other 
way to get to work, and I am a constituent in your district. They are 
going to cut off those routes because of the higher fuel cost.
  So the reason I support this is because someone in my district is 
being dramatically affected. It may not be a big deal here in Congress, 
but I can assure you in that lady's life, if she can't get to work and 
make a living, it's a big deal to her. So that is why I support this 
manager's amendment and this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I have no further speakers on this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mc Govern

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from 
Virginia for purposes of offering the amendment?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern:
       Page 7, after line 12, insert the following:
       (b) Benefits Described.--Section 3049(a)(2) of such Act (5 
     U.S.C. 7905 note; 119 Stat. 1711) is amended by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: ``, except 
     that the maximum level of such benefits shall be the maximum 
     amount which may be excluded from gross income for qualified 
     parking as in effect for a month under section 132(f)(2)(B) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       Page 7, line 13, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 12, line 6, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Minnesota and the gentleman from Florida for their hard work on 
this important legislation. I am offering an amendment, along with my 
colleague from Virginia (Mr. Davis). He has been a very important 
collaborator in this effort.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Davis-McGovern 
amendment. Like the underlying legislation, the purpose of this 
amendment is to reduce energy consumption by promoting public 
transportation. This amendment seeks to equalize the current 
transportation fringe benefit offered to Federal employees who commute 
to work via public transportation with the current benefit for those 
who drive to work by themselves.
  Currently, $220 per month in pretax benefits can be offered to 
Federal employees who drive to work and pay for parking, while these 
who opt to take a train, bus, or other form of public transit are only 
eligible for $115 a month. This disparity has had the reverse effect of 
what the transportation fringe benefit was geared to do, and that is to 
take commuters out of their personal automobiles by incentivizing them 
to use public transportation.
  Madam Chairman, this bipartisan amendment will do much more than get 
people to use public transportation. With fewer people driving to work, 
less gasoline is consumed, less wear and tear is done to our roads and 
bridges, and less emissions are released into the air. As Congress 
seeks ways to combat climate change and become energy independent, one 
of the best ways to make an immediate impact is by offering cleaner, 
greener commuting options for our workforce.
  According to the current estimates, Americans save $340 million a 
year in fuel costs as a result of the transit benefit. Increasing the 
transit benefit will result in a corresponding increase in that 
savings. As we look for ways to provide relief from skyrocketing fuel 
prices, the transit benefit is a proven part of the solution.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Davis-McGovern amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern). As has been explained, this does provide the Federal 
employee transportation benefit program, which has been so successful, 
is expanded in its usage, and for that, I think that our side agrees, 
and this is a bipartisan amendment and has our full support.
  On behalf of Mr. Davis, I urge adoption of that.
  I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I would like to reserve the remaining 
time to the coauthor of this amendment, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I rise today in strong support of the Davis-
McGovern amendment to the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation 
Act of 2008. This amendment will increase the cap on the monthly amount 
available to Federal employees nationwide who ride mass transit. For 
calendar year 2008, this would increase the reimbursement for Federal 
employees who ride mass transit from $115 per month to $220 per month.
  At a time when transportation costs are escalating, with no end in 
sight, this amendment will have a positive impact on the lives and 
well-being of the Federal workforce. In addition, it will help promote 
the use of mass transit by Federal employees nationwide.
  For the National Capital Region, this benefit should have a 
significant impact on the commuting habit of Federal employees. An 
estimated 165,000 Federal employees currently participate in the 
Federal transit benefit program. We are hopeful that this amendment 
will encourage additional employees to leave their cars at home and 
commute using mass transit, resulting in less traffic on our region's 
already congested roadways.
  As an added incentive, employees using Metro would also have the 
option

[[Page 13930]]

of using this added benefit to pay for parking at mass transit stations 
because employees who ride Metro use the same SmarTrip card to pay for 
both rail service and mass transit parking.
  As a Member of Congress representing the National Capital Region, I 
have spent a lot of my career trying to find ways to promote the use of 
mass transit in our workforce. I believe this amendment will be an 
important step forward in both areas.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It's a 
``two-fer,'' supporting the Federal workforce and promoting energy 
conservation through the increased use of public transportation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman from Florida yield a minute of his 
time?
  Mr. MICA. May I inquire as to how much time we have.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\ remaining. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do so simply to express my support for the amendment, on which Mr. 
Mica and I have agreed, but also to point out that in the body of the 
bill there are protections and safeguards for the proper use of the 
transit pass authority provided in the additional funding increase in 
the monthly limit for the transit benefit. There have been reports of 
abuse of transit passes in the past year. An investigation by the 
Office of Inspector General revealed that there are some abuses.
  We have provided protection against such abuses in the base of the 
bill underlying this legislation. I wanted to point that out for those 
who may have been concerned to assure that the committee has taken 
appropriate steps to assure that transit passes are used by the person 
for whom intended and for the purpose for which intended.
  Mr. MICA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. McGovern and my friend 
from Virginia. This is really important for us, to be able to start 
equalizing the playing field. I think there is nothing at this point in 
the game that is more critical than giving people transportation 
choices. I appreciate the long-term interest and advocacy that you have 
had in terms of doing this. I think it is an important step to make 
sure that commuters across the country are treated in a fair and 
equitable fashion.
  I am hopeful that the body will embrace this, that we will be able to 
deal with it in an aggressive sense, both in terms of the Ways and 
Means Committee, that we can work with our colleagues to find ways in 
the Tax Code to make the adjustments that are necessary to cushion the 
commuter cost of transit users, as well as people who use their 
vehicles; that we deal with some people who have extraordinary costs 
because of the long distances commute, and I think there are ways that 
we can adjust this.
  I would beg their indulgence for one modest potential adjustment, and 
that is while this moves forward to make a difference for people who 
are commuting, I would hope there would be some way we could work 
together to also include equity for people who burn calories instead of 
fossil fuel, because as yet, the Tax Code and the policies do not 
provide equity for Mr. Oberstar's friendly, favorite people, the 
cyclists, although we have passed that three times through the House 
this year previously. Being able to put cycling communities along with 
transit and auto communities will make a big difference in the long 
run.
  I appreciate this leadership and look forward to working with them to 
make progress in the future.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 8. EXCEPTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCUREMENT 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
     2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No Federal agency'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     Federal agency''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not prohibit a 
     Federal agency from entering into a contract to purchase a 
     generally available fuel that is not an alternative or 
     synthetic fuel or predominantly produced from a 
     nonconventional petroleum source, if--
       ``(1) the contract does not specifically require the 
     contractor to provide an alternative or synthetic fuel or 
     fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source;
       ``(2) the purpose of the contract is not to obtain an 
     alternative or synthetic fuel or fuel from a nonconventional 
     petroleum source; and
       ``(3) the contract does not provide incentives for a 
     refinery upgrade or expansion to allow a refinery to use or 
     increase its use of fuel from a nonconventional petroleum 
     source.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mahoney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for bringing this bill, the Saving 
Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, to the floor today.
  Madam Chairman, 232 years ago, this country fought to gain its 
political independence. Today, as we approach Independence Day, it is 
time that we must fight for energy independence.
  Madam Chairman, as we all know, Americans are suffering because of 
high gas prices. But some of the recent proposals we have seen in the 
past week are political opportunism at its worst. Take the proposal to 
end the moratorium on offshore drilling. Not only could drilling 
imperil Florida's $65 billion tourist industry, but there is 
insufficient oil to meaningfully address demand.
  In 2007, the Energy Department found that drilling off the coast 
would not add to domestic production before 2030, and that the impact 
on gas prices would be insignificant. Further, the U.S. proven reserves 
are approximately 2 percent of the world's supply, yet we continue to 
be the number one consumer of oil in the world, consuming about 25 
percent of the world's production. So anyone who stands here and says 
we are going to drill our way out of this problem is not being honest 
with the American public. It is time to get real, and it is time to 
take action now.
  While there are no easy answers, there are significant steps that we 
can take to stabilize gas prices.
  First, I am a proud cosponsor of the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas 
Lease Act of 2008, and I urge my colleagues to support this critical 
legislation. At a time when gas prices are skyrocketing, oil and gas 
companies should not be allowed to stockpile leases and they should be 
required to drill on the leases they own. They should use it or lose 
it.
  Second, Congress needs to investigate the impact of speculation in 
the commodities market and the impact that has on the price of oil. It 
is time to know whether energy speculators are gaming the system to 
make money at the expense of hard-working Americans.
  Third, we must continue to bring alternative energy to the country 
and to Florida. Recently, the farm and energy bills have set the stage 
for Florida to become the biofuels capital of America.

[[Page 13931]]

We must continue to invest in cellulosic ethanol so we can become 
energy independent.
  Fourth, we must recognize that the reckless fiscal policies of this 
administration have racked up a $6 trillion debt and this debt is 
ravaging the value of the dollar. In the past 6 years, this has 
contributed to a 40 percent devaluation of the dollar, and the fact 
that oil is a dollar-indexed commodity, the American people now know 
that when the value of the dollar goes down, the price at the pump goes 
up. The American people can no longer afford these reckless policies 
and this reckless deficit spending, and this Congress must make it 
stop.
  Lastly, we need to reduce the barriers to importing Canadian oil, 
which is why I am offering my amendment today which would clarify 
language in section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 so that it does not apply to Canadian oil.
  I appreciate the hard work that my colleagues Congressman Boren and 
Congressman Lampson have already done on this issue. For those of you 
who don't know, section 526 prevents the U.S. Government from 
purchasing an unconventional fuel whose carbon footprint is higher than 
a conventional fuel. Canada has vast supplies of natural gas and has 
the world's second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, and 
Canada is the largest supplier of crude oil and refined products to the 
United States, supplying approximately 13 percent of total U.S. 
imports.
  My amendment will clarify that section 526 does not preclude Federal 
agencies from purchasing generally available fuels, and that includes 
fuel from Canada's oil sands, refined using existing commercial 
processes. Through my amendment, we can address both a national energy 
supply issue and a national security issue. After all, who would you 
rather import oil from; our good friends up north in Canada, or from 
the Middle East?
  The time has come for real solutions, not rhetoric. Today's actions 
take important steps to help us stop skyrocketing gas prices and put us 
on the road to energy independence. I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Let me say that the only problem that I have with this 
amendment as offered from my colleague from Florida is the amendment 
does not go far enough in correcting or addressing all of the problems 
caused by section 526 of the energy bill that prohibits the Federal 
Government from using coal derived, oil shale and other non-petroleum-
based alternative fuels regardless of existing procurement rules or 
what is actually cost efficient or practical.
  I am not going to vote against his amendment, but I do have some 
concerns I wanted to express against the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the proponent of the amendment has expired. 
The gentleman has the only time remaining. The gentleman will need to 
close and yield back the balance of his time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, the reference was made by my other 
friend from Florida that there was a related provision that passed last 
week on a 429-1 vote. I confess to being the one person who voted 
against that. I had some concerns about how that was framed.
  I went back and did some research and concluded that my ``no'' vote 
was ill-advised, although it wasn't determinative, and I wanted to 
indicate that I personally support what is being proposed here. I think 
it is a reasonable compromise to deal with issues that need to be 
taken, and I appreciate my friend's courtesy in allowing me to do my 
mea culpa while you wait for your other speaker.
  Mr. MICA. I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point 
out, again, I am not going to object. I have concerns. I would like to 
have gone further.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Florida for giving me a 
moment to speak on this bill.
  We have had examples here all day today of the fact we are not going 
to be able to pass any meaningful energy legislation in this week 
before we go home for the 4th of July holiday. It is not just 
Republicans who are saying this. I want to point out the fact that in 
today's Politico, the story is headlined: ``Pelosi's Pump Pain. 
Aggressive Pre-Recess Plan Goes By the Wayside.''
  I would like to introduce this, without objection, into the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. FOXX. ``Speaker Nancy Pelosi hoped to send House Democrats home 
for the Fourth of July recess with a series of votes that would show 
they're serious about easing the pain at the pump.''
  That obviously is not going to be done. We are passing bills here 
today that deserve the ``Emperor's New Clothes Award.'' Somebody has to 
stand up and say the emperor has no new clothes, because the bills that 
we are being asked to vote on are shams. We are not doing anything to 
help average, hardworking Americans who are paying over $4 a gallon for 
gasoline as a result of the Democrats' control in the last 18 months of 
this Congress.
  This is a sham. This is for show. They are going to go home and say 
they did something, but they did nothing to help the average working 
American, and it is time that people said so. We don't need to be 
allowing this sham to continue without being able to talk about it.
  It says here ``nothing has gone according to plan. The price-gouging 
bill failed to garner the two-thirds support necessary to pass.'' Even 
Democrats are speaking against the bill. They are talking about how it 
is going to hurt gas-producing States and the gas-producing people are 
opposed to it, the Democrats are.
  So nothing that is going on here is really going to help those of you 
who are paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline in this country. All we 
are doing is letting the Democrats put on a show that says that they 
are reducing the price of gasoline, when they are not.

     Pelosi's Pump Pain--Aggressive pre-recess plan goes by wayside

                         (By Patrick O'Connor)

       Speaker Nancy Pelosi hoped to send House Democrats home for 
     the Fourth of July recess with a series of votes that would 
     show they're serious about easing the pain at the pump.
       Their wish list included legislation giving the federal 
     government more authority to crack down on price-gouging by 
     oil companies and smaller vendors, a bill requiring energy 
     producers to relinquish any land not currently being tapped 
     for oil or gas production, and a measure creating new 
     restrictions for commodity traders whose speculation has 
     driven up the price of oil.
       But nothing has gone according to plan.
       The price-gouging bill failed to garner the two-thirds 
     support necessary to pass. An accounting issue forced leaders 
     to put off for a day the so-called ``use it or lose it'' 
     measure. And the legislation to curb speculation is now 
     caught up in a member fight over the proper path forward--a 
     fight that exposes the misgivings some Democrats have about 
     this activist agenda.
       So instead of a barrage of legislation aimed at knocking 
     back the Republicans' gas price assault, Democrats will 
     settle for a measure giving local transit agencies $850 
     million in each of the next two years to reduce prices and 
     add routes, as well as a symbolic vote calling on President 
     Bush to crack down on ``excessive'' commodity speculation.
       The Democrats' stumbles come as congressional Republicans 
     continue to push aggressively for more domestic oil and gas 
     production on the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska's 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as for an ambitious 
     plan to turn coal shale beneath the High Plains into natural 
     gas.
       Republicans claim an amendment--offered by Pennsylvania 
     Rep. John E. Peterson--to open offshore drilling sites 50 
     miles off the coast has enough support to survive a committee 
     vote on the Appropriations panel.
       The committee postponed consideration of the measure on 
     which Peterson planned to

[[Page 13932]]

     offer his amendment, but Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) told 
     members Tuesday he plans to bring it up when lawmakers return 
     from the weeklong Fourth of July recess.
       As the Democrats struggle to hold together support for the 
     existing offshore drilling ban, they find themselves coming 
     apart on another energy issue: what to do about oil 
     speculators.
       Some Democrats, such as Agriculture Committee Chairman 
     Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Rep. Bob Etheridge of North 
     Carolina, would like party leaders to advance a modest 
     measure that gives federal regulators more resources to crack 
     down on ``excessive'' speculation in the United States and 
     abroad.
       ``I'm not, at this point, sold that speculation is the 
     reason these prices are going up,'' Peterson said.
       Others, such as Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Maryland 
     Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Party's campaign chief, 
     have urged the speaker to go further by making substantive 
     changes to the current laws, members and aides said.
       Add to that a jurisdictional squabble between Peterson's 
     Agriculture Committee and members of the House Energy and 
     Commerce Committee--including Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart 
     Stupak--who have been working on this issue for years, and 
     Pelosi faces a major internal challenge in bringing this 
     legislation to the floor.
       The speaker met with these and other members for more than 
     an hour Wednesday morning. They were joined by Michae1 
     Greenberger, a law school professor at the University of 
     Maryland and a former director of trading and markets at the 
     Commodity futures Trading Commission, who has testified 
     before Congress that speculators are driving up the price of 
     oil.
       But the participants who emerged from that meeting 
     suggested the various committees of jurisdiction will begin 
     looking at this legislation before leaders craft a 
     compromise.
       ``I think the consensus is that this needs to be done very 
     carefully,'' said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-
     Md.).
       ``We're going to focus on the actual legislation and try to 
     come to a consensus,'' Peterson said.
       Pelosi told reporters Wednesday that she expects 
     legislation on the floor sometime next month, before 
     lawmakers leave for the summer and for their respective 
     nominating conventions.
       Some Democrats wanted to vote on a modest bill this week to 
     give themselves cover before the recess, aides said.
       A number of conservative Blue Dog Democrats were also 
     grumbling that party leaders were planning to put them in a 
     bad spot politically with these aggressive oversight 
     measures, aides said. Pelosi met with a number of these 
     members Wednesday, but the speculation issue was only one of 
     the topics discussed.
       In the meantime, both parties continued their finger-
     pointing over the gas prices and the policies that might have 
     an effect on them.
       On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior questioned 
     Democratic claims that energy producers could pump oil or gas 
     on 68 million acres of land that has already been leased. 
     This talking point became a common refrain last week; 
     Democrats argued that the lease-holding oil companies could 
     produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and more than 44 million 
     barrels of natural gas each day under the current contracts.
       ``The views contained in the report [issued by Democrats on 
     the House Natural Resources Committee] are based on a 
     misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process,'' 
     wrote C. Stephen Allred, the assistant secretary of the 
     Interior for Land and Minerals Management, who favors 
     increased oil and gas exploration. ``The existence of a lease 
     does not guarantee the discovery of, or any particular 
     quantity of, oil and gas.''
       In his letter--which can1e at the request of Republican 
     Rep. Don Young of Alaska--Allred further argued that a 
     lengthy permitting process creates a lag for energy producers 
     to extract fossil fuels from this land.
       In a statement issued in response to the letter, House 
     Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.) 
     called it ``a diversion from the simple fact that there are 
     68 million acres of leased land not producing any oil and 
     gas.''
       Rahall said that the administration's argument about the 
     slow permitting process undercuts its arguments for lifting 
     the offshore drilling ban; a long permitting process, he 
     said, would slow any benefit to be gained from offshore 
     drilling, too.
       ``Roughly 80 percent of the oil and gas under federal 
     waters are in areas already open for leasing. They should 
     focus on that before trying to grab any more of our public 
     lands,'' Rahall said.
       The fight over gas prices also has a personal component.
       Pelosi has staked her speakership, in part, on aggressive 
     environmentalism to limit human contributions to global 
     warming. This puts her at odds with those in her caucus who 
     are more sympathetic to the oil and gas industry. That 
     dynamic forces her to tread lightly inside the party, but it 
     does not prevent her from issuing lofty challenges in the 
     name of the environment.
       ``We are in the battle of this generation,'' Pelosi told 
     reporters Wednesday. ``We're ready to make the fight. We are 
     united behind it.''

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Reichert

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Reichert:
       Page 14, at the end of line 8, insert the following: ``or 
     at a park-and-ride lot that serves a fixed route commuter bus 
     route that is more than 20 miles in length''.

                              {time}  1600

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Reichert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, as we all know, skyrocketing gas prices 
and the pain they cause is one of the most daunting issues facing this 
Congress and our Nation.
  Today in the State of Washington, the price per gallon of regular gas 
was $4.34, while a month ago it was $4.02 and a year ago it was $3.11 
in the State of Washington. It is hard to believe we are now in the 
position to yearn for the days of $3 gasoline.
  My constituents are looking for some form of relief, an option to 
paying outrageous prices to fill up their cars only to sit in gridlock 
traffic. Mass transit offers relief; however, mass transit does not 
succeed if the public is not convinced that it is a convenient 
alternative to driving their cars.
  The Transportation Research Board studied the accessibility of 
transit services to suburban commuters, and has identified strategies 
that improve customer acceptance and the use of transit services. The 
study found that acceptance and use of transit services are clearly 
influenced by the availability, convenience, and the cost of commuter 
parking at rail stations and at park-and-ride lots for commuter buses.
  Increasing commuter bus park-and-ride availability directly increases 
transit ridership in these routes. According to Sound Transit, a local 
transit agency in my district, once parking lots are 80 percent full at 
commuter bus stations, the public perceives them to be completely full 
and they continue to drive by, bypassing an opportunity to ease the 
pain of high gas prices in an environmentally friendly way.
  Expansion of these facilities incentivizes transit systems and the 
communities they serve by increasing their suburban park-and-ride lot 
capacity and increases the use of transit.
  Like every community, people in the Puget Sound region of Washington 
State are parking their cars and taking transit more often. In my 
district alone, the number of people who rode Sound Transit's buses and 
trains in 2007 increased by nearly six times the nationwide increase.
  A few bus ride examples. In the first quarter of 2008, the express 
bus service connecting two suburbs of Seattle, Lynnwood, Washington and 
Bellevue, Washington, grew by more than 31 percent over the first 
quarter of 2007. Ridership on Sound Transit service between Everett, 
Washington and Bellevue, Washington is up 24 percent. And between 
Federal Way, another suburb of Seattle, and the Microsoft campus in 
Redmond, it is up 12 percent. Those are some great examples of mass 
transit working in my district.

[[Page 13933]]

  I urge you to support my amendment. My amendment will simply allow 
bus park-and-ride lots the same Federal funding as commuter rail park-
and-ride lots receive in this bill.
  Join me in giving Americans a choice on how they go to work, go to 
the grocery store, or move about town other than painfully paying at 
the pump to fill up their cars. This amendment will ease congestion, 
help the environment, and save commuters from high gas prices.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to 
the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. First, a point of order, Madam Chairman.
  I observed the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) ask 
unanimous consent to include an article in the Record. That request 
must be made in the House under the rules of procedure, not in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentlelady's request will 
be covered by general leave.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I have no objection to it, but I just want the 
procedure to be proper.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
was very thoughtfully expressed and explained, and I commend the 
gentleman on his statement, very thoughtfully done, to increase the 
Federal share for parking facilities that serve commuter bus routes.
  The Transportation Research Board has addressed this issue and 
evaluated the accessibility of transit services to suburban commuters, 
and they have found that acceptance and use of transit services are 
clearly influenced by the availability, convenience, and cost of 
commuter parking at transit stations and park-and-ride lots, quoting 
from the report.
  States that have successful long-distance suburban-to-central 
business district commuter bus operations found that increasing the use 
of commuter bus services and park-and-ride facilities is directly 
influenced by the availability of those park-and-ride services.
  Increasing the Federal share to 100 percent would create additional 
incentives for transit systems to build more of these facilities to 
serve the communities, and I really appreciate the initiative of the 
gentleman.
  In his reference to Microsoft, I know that Microsoft in past years 
has purchased in the range of 13,000 fares a year for its employees to 
ride the Sounder and other transit options in Seattle. It is very 
commendable of a company to engage in that kind of service to its 
workers, to encourage them to get to work in a better frame of mind, to 
help the environment, and to serve the public need.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend 
from Florida, the ranking member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman so much, that we have a distinguished 
member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee offering this 
well thought out amendment. It is going to clearly provide 
availability, convenience, and assist the cost of making eligible again 
these bus end-of-the-line parking facilities. Well thought out. There 
was a gap here, and I am glad the gentleman from Washington filled that 
so adequately, and we support the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and look 
forward to moving forward on this amendment. I think it balances a 
potential inequity.
  But I would hope that as we move forward to reauthorization, that the 
folks on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that we might be able 
to look at more Federal flexibility for the land that is used with 
these park-and-ride items, because in many cases they are frozen in 
time. We have inflexible Federal rules about what can be used for that 
land, and they have a habit of not being at the end of the line. So if 
we can in the future be able to use them as an anchor for community 
development and redevelopment where people can live and work at that 
point, rather than having to drive vast distances to get there in the 
first place, these facilities can leverage significant redevelopment 
opportunity, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and be able to reduce the 
operating cost for the lines.
  So I have no objection to this proposal as it goes forward, but I 
would hope that we would be creative as we move to reauthorization that 
we don't freeze in arbitrarily what local communities can do with 
transit agencies and the Federal Government to be able to leverage them 
to get more out of it in the long run so we don't have to unnecessarily 
force people to drive to use it in the first place.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman is an alumnus of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, a refugee who has been taken in by 
the Ways and Means Committee; and he will be most welcomed at further 
hearings of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee to elaborate on 
this very thoughtful proposal that he has set forth. We welcome that 
contribution as we shape the next transportation legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
the leadership of the committee. One cannot get back to the committee 
often enough. And I would look forward to working with you and with the 
gentleman from Washington to make sure that we get the most out of 
these resources.
  Mr. REICHERT. In conclusion, I would just like to thank the chairman 
and ranking member for their support, and the gentleman's kind 
suggestions and thoughtful suggestions. I would urge passage of this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hodes

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hodes:
       Page 5, after line 19, insert the following:
       (3) If the recipient of the grant is establishing or 
     expanding, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the 
     Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the 
     recipient will establish or expand commuter matching services 
     to provide commuters with information and assistance about 
     alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use, those 
     administrative costs in establishing or expanding such 
     services.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support today of my carpool promotion 
amendment.
  First, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Transportation 
Committee and the ranking member for introducing this important bill to 
encourage the use of public transportation in this country.
  Public transportation obviously needs to be part of a forward 
thinking 21st century energy strategy. However, in my home State of New 
Hampshire, many of my constituents live in rural areas where they don't 
have access to public transit, and many in my district have to commute 
by car 20 or 30 miles or more just to get to work.
  Today, in intraday trading, oil hit a record of $140 a barrel, and 
gas prices

[[Page 13934]]

are over $4 a gallon for regular gas in New Hampshire. The people I 
represent are struggling. Many drive more than an hour to work. And we 
have seen carpooling begin to increase in New Hampshire.
  With an extremely limited public transportation network, except for 
city bus service in the cities of Manchester and Concord, often the 
only option for alternative transportation is carpooling, and the 
opportunities are often limited for that.
  Since the average local commuter is spending more than $2,000 a year 
in gas just to drive to work, if a driver shares his car with just one 
other occupant and those carpoolers share the cost of gas, obviously 
they cut their costs for gas in half.
  Now, New Hampshire Department of Transportation has introduced a 
great program called Ride Share. They work with the New Hampshire 
Regional Planning Commissions and employers to encourage ride sharing, 
and they have implemented a Statewide ride sharing program. The program 
is dedicated to finding an alternative way for commuters to travel to 
and from work.
  These days, our highways and byways are increasingly gridlocked; and 
many of those cars stuck in gridlock, and all you have to do is go 
outside this building to see the kind of gridlock that Washington is 
famous for, and many of the cars that are sitting there are single 
occupant vehicles. Driving alone is not only expensive, but it also 
contributes to increased traffic congestion and air pollution.
  To help commuters cut costs and to reduce traffic congestion and air 
pollution, New Hampshire Ride Share uses geographical computer matching 
to provide commuters with information and assistance about ride sharing 
and alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, which can include 
carpools, van pools, buses and trains. Right now, two other States, 
Missouri and Michigan, have introduced similar programs.
  The amendment that I have propose will help provide additional 
funding for programs like Ride Share across the country. We have seen 
in one month a tripling of interest in participation in ride sharing in 
some parts of New Hampshire, and we need to see more.
  With the record high gas prices, rising food prices, the mortgage 
crisis, and the credit crunch, families across our Nation are feeling 
the economic squeeze. Commuters across our Nation are suffering under 
the strain of record gas prices, and they have to sacrifice more of 
their paycheck just to earn one.
  This amendment provides a real-time way to help commuters save money, 
reduce air pollution, and increase efficiency. It is a win-win all 
around. I urge my colleagues to adopt this important amendment to help 
commuters across our Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, we are pleased to support the gentleman 
from New Hampshire's amendment. And it will also, I think, encourage 
commuters to find other ways other than single occupancy vehicles to 
get to and from work. He has the support of the American Association of 
Commuter Transportation.
  Again, it is a small piece in the larger puzzle. We only have 
jurisdiction, as I said earlier, over transportation issues; we can't 
resolve all the other problems we have with energy. But I commend the 
gentleman, and our side supports the amendment and urges its adoption.

                              {time}  1615

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HODES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida, and I 
yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Transportation 
Committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in support of the amendment which I am certain 
arises out of the experience of the New Hampshire Department of 
Transportation which has a program helping commuters find alternatives 
to riding alone. The State of North Carolina has created RIDE NC to do 
the same thing.
  I just want to observe that this bill pending before the House now is 
the 110th bill reported from the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to the House, 110th bill in the 110th Congress. We have 
completed action on 63 bills and resolutions including 29 bills enacted 
into law; in addition to that, eight concurrent resolutions and 26 
House resolutions. That's a remarkable record of bipartisan 
participation for which I express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Florida. On all of these, we've had bipartisan support.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I don't want to take the time, but we are concluding debate on this 
amendment, the Hodes amendment. I urge its adoption. I urge those who 
feel it is appropriate to support the measure, as I said it does have 
an increased authorization, not appropriation, of $1.7 billion. It does 
expand some of the transit grants to transit agencies that are hurting 
across the country. It does expand the transit benefits that are now 
restricted to those within the Beltway to Federal employees outside.
  It does not solve the problem. It is a small piece of the solution, 
and I have been pleased to work with Mr. Oberstar in a bipartisan 
fashion to do our small part.
  I must conclude, however, by saying that the House and the Congress 
can do a better job. My side of the aisle does not control the Congress 
this time. We have heard that there is a larger energy plan. We need to 
bring that energy plan forward.
  I didn't have the time that the majority leader had in his remarks, 
and this isn't a blame game situation nor should it be. People are 
suffering in this country with $4-plus a gallon gas. I just saw this 
$5.25, which must be from California. That's not why our constituents 
sent us here. They sent us here to solve problems. In the same 
bipartisan spirit that Mr. Oberstar and I are bringing forward this 
little piece, we need a much larger piece.
  A week from tomorrow is Independence Day, and that is a day we should 
be celebrating, not lamenting that we are not independent of foreign 
oil. We can work our way out of this. We can't tax our way out, we 
can't regulate our way out, but we have the means of moving forward and 
increasing the supply and lowering the price for the American people. 
We haven't done this, this Congress hasn't done this, and I am sorry 
that I have that to report at the end of my remarks, both in favor of 
the Hodes amendment and in favor of this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mahoney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421, 
noes 0, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               AYES--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)

[[Page 13935]]


     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Calvert
     Cannon
     DeLauro
     Doolittle
     Ellison
     Faleomavaega
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Jones (OH)
     Keller
     Lewis (KY)
     Norton
     Rush
     Schakowsky
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Weller
     Wexler

                              {time}  1645

  Messrs. NUNES, ISSA and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. NORTON, Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 465, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 465, I was stuck in 
traffic trying to get to the vote and I ran out of time. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ross) having assumed the chair, Ms. DeGette, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6052) to 
promote increased public transportation use, to promote increased use 
of alternative fuels in providing public transportation, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 1304, she reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


           Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Walden of Oregon

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. In its present form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Walden of Oregon moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6052 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House promptly, 
     in the form to which perfected at the time of this motion, 
     with the following amendments:
       Page 5, after line 19, insert the following:
       (c) Use of Funds for Meeting Fuel-Related Needs of School 
     Bus Transportation.--
       (1) In general.--If school bus transportation services 
     within the urbanized area or State to which funds are 
     apportioned under subsection (a) have been adversely impacted 
     by increased fuel costs, and if any school districts within 
     the urbanized area or State are considering or have 
     implemented service cuts in school bus transportation as a 
     result of increased fuel costs, the recipient of the 
     apportioned funds shall immediately make such funds available 
     to the Governor of the State in lieu of using the funds for 
     the purposes described in subsection (b).
       (2) Allocation of funds to school districts.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Governor of a 
     State who receives funds under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) allocate the funds to school districts within the State 
     that have been adversely impacted by increased fuel costs and 
     are considering or have implemented service cuts in school 
     bus transportation; and
       (B) provide that such funds be used for operating and 
     capital costs in providing school bus transportation service 
     in order to reduce or eliminate cuts in such service as a 
     result of increased fuel costs.
       (3) Priority.--The Governor of a State shall give priority 
     in the allocation of funds under paragraph (2) to school 
     districts in rural and suburban areas where school buses 
     travel greater distances in transporting students.
       Page 5, line 20, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 5, line 23, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue reading.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 13936]]


  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say I have a 
long history of supporting mass transit in the urban areas of my State, 
including light rail development and bus transportation systems. I've 
received State-wide recognition for this work.
  Unfortunately, there are no light rail routes, and few successful bus 
routes, in rural Oregon and in most of my district. In fact, the most 
important public mass transit in most of rural Oregon and, indeed, 
across most of rural America is a bright yellow school bus, like this 
one, that safely transports American children to and from school each 
day.
  No one in America is immune from the impact of record-high gas 
prices, but for those of us from rural areas, the impact has been 
particularly severe not only on farms, families and small businesses, 
but also on our local governments that are struggling to pay sky-high 
fuel prices to maintain basic services.
  Before you know it, our public school doors will open, and millions 
of our children will return to school, many of them on that familiar 
yellow school bus.
  Yet all across this country, school superintendents are struggling 
mightily to figure out exactly how they'll afford to operate those 
school buses and to get our children to school.
  Newspapers are filling with accounts of school districts and how 
they're going to respond to the cost of fuel. Some districts, including 
one just a few miles from here in Maryland, are considering reducing 
bus services and forcing children to walk up to 2 miles to school. Some 
schools are even discussing going to 4-day school weeks in order to 
reduce fuel consumption.
  As profound as this problem is in urban and suburban area, it is even 
worse for those of us from rural communities where school buses must 
travel long distances to pick up and drop off children.
  This is what the Yakima Herald-Republic in Washington State had to 
say just 5 days ago: ``Some of the surrounding districts in rural areas 
feel the pinch from increased costs a bit more because their buses have 
to travel farther to transport students. The Mt. Adams School District, 
which has about 1,000 students, is the third-largest district in the 
State with an area of 1,325 square miles. The district's 10 buses still 
travel more than 200,000 miles in a year.''
  All the way across the country in Franklin County, Virginia, the 
Roanoke Times reports that ``a school official advised the board of 
supervisors Tuesday that the division could face an extra $690,000 in 
added fuel costs.''
  Yet, today we have before us a bill that does absolutely nothing, 
nothing to lower the price of gasoline or diesel and nothing to help 
our schools, our school districts, and to help them pay for the bus 
transportation costs they're incurring.
  Instead, it proposes to increase subsidies for public transit systems 
that reduce their fares and expand taxpayer-funded travel perks for 
Federal employees.
  What's even worse is that existing Federal law would actually 
prohibit the funds authorized under this bill from being used to 
provide assistance to struggling school districts. Let me repeat that. 
This law, and the law on the books, don't allow the use of these funds 
for our school systems.
  As the school year approaches, it's time to get our priorities right 
and to take care of our kids first.
  My motion to recommit would fix this problem by sending this bill 
back to committee with instructions that they revise it, to 
specifically provide that in an area where school bus services are 
being cut back because of high fuel prices, that the funds under this 
bill shall be used first and foremost to help restore those school bus 
services, and that preference shall be given to rural and suburban 
areas where school buses have to travel greater distances to transport 
our children.
  If the Democratic leadership's going to refuse to even allow a vote 
on proposals to increase domestic energy supplies so that we can lower 
gas prices for all Americans, then the least we can do is try to soften 
the blow for our Nation's schools, our school bus system and our 
children.
  As currently drafted, this bill does not do that. We have a chance to 
fix it. We have a chance to help our school districts, particularly 
those in rural areas.
  Now, the majority will undoubtedly try to rally their Members against 
this motion, but I ask, given that Congress is recessing tomorrow, 
what's wrong with sending this bill back to committee where the staff 
can review the amendment over the break and the full committee can 
carefully consider the importance of helping local schools cope with 
their busing needs and report this bill back in 10 days?
  Or you can reject this on some sort of procedural grounds, and leave 
local schools in the lurch, and literally put our school children on 
the shoulder of the roadways, dodging traffic on their way to and from 
school this fall.
  When schools start closing a day a week early, when parents can't 
figure out how to get their children to and from school, Americans will 
look back on this moment and see who stood with our rural and suburban 
schools and with our children and who stood against them.
  This is a reasonable motion to recommit. The committee clearly has 
the time to take this up. It is of no disservice to the committee or 
this process to say our first priority in this House, if we're not 
going to allow greater access to American fuel, is to at least take 
care of America's school children and their busing needs.
  Every paper in your district is probably writing about this issue or 
will be as skyrocketing fuel costs cost them the ability to run their 
bus routes. You can smirk and you can laugh, but this reality is coming 
to us here and now.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to 
the motion?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in the 
introductory paragraph of the motion, to strike the word ``promptly'' 
and substitute therefor the word ``forthwith.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oregon yield for 
that request?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reserving the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oregon yield for the 
making of that request?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. To my friend and the Chair of the 
Transportation Committee, I would be happy to agree to the unanimous 
consent request provided that you and your side would also agree to 
allow us to add a proposal to reduce gas prices for struggling American 
families. Specifically, would the gentleman agree to add to the bill 
either the No More Excuses Energy Act, H.R. 3089, or at a minimum, the 
proposal to allow the deep ocean oil exploration, H.R. 6108, the Deep 
Ocean Energy Resources Act?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I made a unanimous consent request dealing with the 
motion of the gentleman, not the extraneous items the gentleman has now 
proposed.
  If the gentleman is serious about his motion to recommit, we're 
serious about accepting it where it's forthwith and bringing that 
language immediately back to the House.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. While I appreciate the gentleman's position, 
clearly there is an opportunity for the committee to consider this and 
other issues related to transportation, so I would object.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Did the gentleman object? I could not hear.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Then the gentleman is not serious about this motion, 
and this is a sham motion.

[[Page 13937]]

  Under the language ``promptly,'' we would not be able to consider 
this legislation again until well after the 4th of July recess of the 
Congress, which the gentleman fully understands.
  The substance of the motion is well-intentioned. However, under title 
23 and title 49 of the U.S. Transportation Code, school buses are 
specifically not eligible for public funds out of the Highway Trust 
Fund, nor would they be under the provisions of the bill that is before 
us.
  Since the gentleman from Oregon objects to accepting his language and 
making that change in Federal law to make school buses eligible, then I 
would suggest that he come back to the committee at an appropriate 
time, we're going to continue hearings--we've had 22 hearings already 
in the Surface Transportation Subcommittee last year and this year on 
the future of transportation--and make the case for such a provision to 
be included in the authorization that we will have next year. We would 
certainly be delighted to hear the gentleman's case for this provision 
and to perfect it. But as it stands, this ``promptly'' simply kills the 
transit expansion funding that we provide in the underlying bill.
  Therefore, because the gentleman objected to my unanimous consent 
request, I say the motion is not offered in good faith, not offered 
with good intentions. It is a sham motion, and we should defeat it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, were the gentleman's words in 
order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot render an advisory opinion.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Is it in order to call a Member's motives in 
question, Mr. Chairman?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not issue advisory opinions.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and motions to 
suspend the rules with respect to H.R. 6377, H.R. 6251, and House 
Resolution 1098.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 221, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 466]

                               AYES--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Calvert
     Cannon
     Doolittle
     Forbes
     Gilchrest
     Gutierrez
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1721

  Messrs. KIRK and LINDER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.

[[Page 13938]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 322, 
noes 98, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 467]

                               AYES--322

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--98

     Akin
     Alexander
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Aderholt
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Doolittle
     Everett
     Forbes
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1728

  Messrs. CONYERS and BILBRAY and Mrs. BACHMANN changed their vote from 
`` no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 467, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________