Amendment Text: H.Amdt.362 — 108th Congress (2003-2004)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (09/04/2003)

This Amendment appears on page H7888 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H7851-H7899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 351 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. 2989.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1202


                     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. 2989) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation 
and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with Mr. Goodlatte 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the Departments of 
Transportation, Treasury, and independent agencies appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2004. Because of the reorganization of the Committee on 
Appropriations, this is an entirely new arrangement for the form in 
which these agencies are presented to the House. In this bill, many of 
the historical programs that were part of the Transportation Department 
and the Treasury Department were merged with the new Department of 
Homeland Security, and then the remaining programs have now been 
combined in this legislative package with the appropriations for 
agencies such as the General Services Administration, the Office of 
Personnel Management, the White House, the Executive Office of the 
President, the Office of Management and Budget and other critical 
agencies which are, at times, dissimilar in their functions, however.
  As a result, in putting together this bill we have made budget trade-
offs that previously were not made by this particular subcommittee. We 
have merged Members of Congress and committee staff from two former 
subcommittees, and accomplishing the production of a $90 billion bill 
only a few months into that task has been a Herculean task. 
Fortunately, we have been blessed with good people, good Members, such 
as the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), 
Mr. Etheridge and other staff that I will recognize later for their 
role in this bill.
  But I believe we have produced a good product for the House. We have 
had a lot of learning, many hearings, and the members of the 
subcommittee have shown enormous dedication to produce this bill. I 
believe this is a very good and solid bill. In most respects, it 
matches the budget request and the priorities of the President, and 
makes some significant improvements along the way.
  In particular, I am pleased that by exercising great discipline in a 
number of areas, we are able to do more than the President anticipated 
for investing in the Nation's highways. The budget, unfortunately, due 
to downward movement in the Highway Trust Fund revenue, proposed an 8 
percent reduction in funding for Federal aid to highways. Thanks to the 
discipline we have exercised in other areas, this bill instead provides 
a 7 percent increase. So it is $4.5 billion more than the President's 
request expected we would be able to

[[Page H7852]]

do, and some $2.2 billion more than Federal aid to highways during the 
current fiscal year.
  That money is excellent and significant news for America's economy, 
because each $1 billion of highway investment creates some 40,000 jobs. 
So compared to the current year's funding, this bill will add another 
88,000 jobs across the country in highway construction alone. Compared 
to what we expected we would be able to produce this year, this bill 
will add some 200,000 jobs across the country.
  That is good news also for the millions of motorists that are stuck 
in traffic congestion. According to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, America has unprecedented and worsening levels of 
highway congestion. In urban areas, the largest urban areas that have 3 
million people or more, 40 percent of the travel every day is under 
congested conditions. It costs the economy billions of dollars with 
lost productivity because of workers that are stuck in traffic. The 
backlog of highway and bridge deficiencies continues to rise. There is 
now over $325 billion, according to the Federal Highway Administration, 
and some $400 billion, according to other Department of Transportation 
sources, in unaddressed highway construction needs in the United States 
of America.
  We have to get America to work and move goods to market, and this 
bill seeks to do that. No other form of transportation offers the 
flexibility and the ability to move large numbers that our road network 
offers. Well over 90 percent of the vehicle miles traveled in the 
United States today take place on the highway. That is the way we move, 
that is the way that goods get to market, it is the way emergency 
vehicles and public safety vehicles are able to move.
  We have to address the critical problem of highway infrastructure to 
get America moving again. This bill seeks to do that in a very 
significant way, but without any increases in taxes or in revenue.
  While the needs go up, Mr. Chairman, our ability to respond to them 
has been threatened by the tightness of the budget. There has been a 
dramatic decline in highway gasoline tax revenues. Gas tax receipts put 
into the highway account of the trust funds went down almost $6 billion 
between 1999 and 2002. We do not expect them to return to the 1999 
level until the year 2008. That is why the tough decisions that we have 
made and the priorities we have set in this bill are so important to 
work on that backlog in a time of limited resources.
  At the same time, there are increasing pressures on the general fund 
due to Homeland Security and national defense priorities. We are trying 
to be fiscally responsible and use this money more wisely and set tough 
priorities among many competing demands. We will hear many Members talk 
about things that they wish we had the money to do. It would be nice, 
but we do not have the luxury of doing things that we could in times of 
rising revenues.
  While increasing funds for highway investment, we had to hold down 
other increases. For the Department of the Treasury, the FAA, the 
Federal Aviation Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, 
we, by necessity, have provided cost-of-living increases and other 
mandatory expenses that are about 4 to 5 percent increases for those 
agencies, but the Executive Office of the President and others have 
only a 1 percent increase. We are exercising the fiscal restraint which 
is necessary.
  I do want to express special appreciation, of course, to everyone 
that has made it possible in making these tough decisions. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) I have singled out previously. 
He has been tough, but fair, in presenting his priorities. His input 
and advice have been invaluable, and our work is the better for his 
contribution.
  I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), for his fair and generous allotment to our 
subcommittee.
  Let me make sure that I also address a couple of areas that I know 
will be part of the debate on this bill. Let us look at Amtrak.
  The bill includes $900 million for Amtrak. Some will say that is not 
enough. Well, that is because Amtrak says they wanted twice as much. 
But, keep in mind, Amtrak is not a Federal agency. They are in a 
special status, a special private situation. They can ask for whatever 
they want, but their requests have not gone through the same budget and 
vetting process as has been the case with the other agencies that have 
requested money.
  Amtrak's request did not go through the Office of Management and 
Budget. It was not balanced against other transportation priorities. It 
was a request of what they said they want. Their desires are 
transmitted directly to the Congress. But the administration does not 
support the large request that came from Amtrak, and neither do I.
  As the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta, stated in a letter 
that he wrote to me recently, and I quote the Secretary, ``The problems 
at Amtrak simply will not go away with a more liberal application of 
dollars.''
  We are at a defining moment in the Amtrak history, where we can go 
down the road of binding them to reform and making tough decisions on 
where it makes sense for Amtrak to operate and where it does not, or we 
can just throw money at the problem, money that we do not have and that 
will move millions more people if that money is applied elsewhere.
  We should understand that of all the rail passengers in the country, 
only 5 percent or less are moved by Amtrak. Most of them are moved by 
commuter rail systems, not by Amtrak. Amtrak is not synonymous with the 
railroads of America. Amtrak is not synonymous with rail passenger 
service.
  Reform legislation is pending before the Congress with Amtrak, but it 
has not been acted on by the authorizing committees. Until that 
happens, I believe it would be folly to provide huge increases for this 
railroad that has not kept up its commitments, that has not been honest 
with the American people.
  We should not be swayed by their claims that they would go out of 
business unless they receive another $1.8 billion. They have tried to 
make that case by adopting poison-pill policies saying, oh, we have all 
these hundreds of millions of dollars in severance pay that we have 
agreed to to make it a poison pill, to keep people from making the 
serious decisions that need to be made for Amtrak.
  Even they admit that most of their request is not needed for next 
year's operating bills. They want taxpayer money for their long-term 
capital investments because they have handled their system so poorly 
they find it difficult to attract private dollars. We should not accept 
their ``sky is falling, Chicken Little'' arguments. This bill is more 
than fair to Amtrak and would be sufficient, more than sufficient, to 
meet the really important parts of their operating needs.
  Let me also address what will be another part of the debate on this 
bill, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Highway Transportation Enhancements 
Program. Several Members expressed concern about the program and, 
because of that, the approach that was taken by the full Committee on 
Appropriations is to say that transportation enhancements are a program 
that States are permitted to spend money on with their allocation of 
Federal highway dollars, but we will no longer force them to spend 
money on bike paths or pedestrian paths if they have higher priorities 
for their bridges that are unsafe, as thousands of bridges are, or 
their roads that are unsafe, as thousands of miles of roads are, or 
their congestion problems.

                              {time}  1215

  This is a decision affecting some $600 million a year, Mr. Chairman. 
I trust the States to make their decision. Is it of greater importance 
to the people in their State and in their community to move a small 
number of people, to make a pedestrian path available or to move a 
large number of people and enhance their workforce and economic 
development and productivity by relieving congestion where they find 
it? I trust States to make that decision.
  The bill permits them to offer an amendment I know will be offered to 
try to say no, they must spend 10 percent of their surface 
transportation dollars which comes from highway users, which comes from 
gasoline taxes; but they must spend it on things that do not help move 
the traffic and

[[Page H7853]]

do not help do the work and the business of America. The Transportation 
Enhancement Program funds transportation museums, for example, at the 
expense of the thousands of unsafe bridges that each of us have a 
portion of in our district.
  So I look forward to what I hope will be a fair and honest and 
elucidating debate on that particular topic. And it will be of 
interest, Mr. Chairman, to know how many Members who tell me sometimes, 
oh, I need money for a highway project in my district, but if they vote 
today to say no it is more important to me to take money out of my 
highways and put into things that do not relieve the congestion and 
meet the transportation needs of the countries, then I will understand 
what their true priorities are. We need to make those important 
decisions.
  There is one final area of the bill that I want to make clear because 
I have talked mostly about transportation. The Department of Treasury 
is in this bill. It provides critical contributions to the war on 
terrorism. It is more than just the agency that houses the Internal 
Revenue Service. For example, the bill provides several million dollars 
above the President's request for stronger involvement on the Treasury 
Department and international affairs, including technical advisors for 
rebuilding the currency bank and financial systems in Iraq. The 
Treasury Department has a crucial role, which we fund under this bill, 
to stop the money trafficking that is funding terrorist activity around 
the globe. It includes $2.3 million more for the new office of 
terrorist financing and financial crimes, another $5.3 million for the 
IRS for counterterrorism activities, and 21, almost 22, million dollars 
for the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is responsible for 
freezing the assets of terrorist organizations, and some $57 million 
for the financial crimes enforcement network.
  All of these are important elements of the war on terrorism. We fund 
each of them at or above the administration's request in our bill.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill is fair and it is 
balanced. It provides for the major needs for the Departments of 
Transportation and Treasury and the other independent agencies, such as 
the GSA, all within the tight constraints of our budget. We have 
developed the bill in consultation with the minority and with each of 
the staffs involved. I support the bill wholeheartedly, and I ask for 
the support of each Member.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).


                Preferential Motion Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Does the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) yield for that purpose?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the motion to rise 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 100, 
noes 298, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 466]

                               AYES--100

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Wynn

                               NOES--298

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Brown, Corrine
     Cannon
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dooley (CA)
     Engel
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Graves
     Hyde
     Janklow
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     McHugh
     Mica
     Ortiz
     Payne
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1240

  Messrs. FLAKE, GALLEGLY, THOMPSON of California and GINGREY changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman 
Istook) for working so hard to get this bill to the floor. I think it 
has been a more difficult task than many of us believe, but I also want 
to take a moment to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for 
their hard work on this bill.

[[Page H7854]]

  On the majority side, I want to recognize our clerk, Rich Efford, and 
Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, Kurt Dodd, Walter Hearne and Bill 
Nicholson.
  On the minority side, I particularly want to thank Mike Malone and 
Beverly Pheto from the committee staff and Bob Letteney and Rob 
Gatehouse from my personal staff.
  I want to pay a special recognition and thanks to my legislative 
director, Bob Letteney, who has been a member of my staff since 1997. 
He has handled transportation appropriations issues on my personal 
staff for the last several years, but Bob is one of a handful of 
Federal employees selected this year as a Mike Mansfield fellow, and 
that unique program named for the former Senate majority leader and 
Ambassador to Japan places Federal workers in targeted Japanese 
Government agencies where an exchange of knowledge would be beneficial 
to both countries. It is an honor to be chosen for a Mansfield 
fellowship, and the program directors could not have selected a better 
candidate than Bob Letteney. So I thank Bob for his years of hard work 
in my office, and I wish him the best of luck in Japan and beyond.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said, this has been a long road to get this bill 
to the floor, and I appreciate the chairman working with us to make 
substantial changes to the original subcommittee mark. Among other 
things, during full committee, money was added back for rural 
communities that rely on essential air service programs.
  In full committee we also increased funding for new starts transit 
projects and added some money, though not nearly enough, to the Amtrak 
program.
  The bill also obligates over $33 billion, of course this is a major 
nut of funding in this appropriations bill, for the Nation's highway 
program, and that is the largest, obviously, piece in this whole 
legislation. Each billion will create some 45,000 new jobs. Yet we 
still have a long way to go to get what I would consider a balanced 
Transportation Treasury bill.
  The bill cripples the enhancement program by eliminating the minimum 
authorized guarantee for enhancements that has been in effect for the 
12 years of the ISTEA and TEA-21 authorizations that were established 
by overwhelming votes of this Congress.

                              {time}  1245

  Enhancements include bike trails, pedestrian walkways, and money for 
historic preservation. They are vital components of the transportation 
system and enhance the fabric of our local communities. The chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit and Pipelines of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri), along with me and a large bipartisan group of Members, will 
have an amendment to preserve that enhancement program.
  The bill only provides $900 million for Amtrak, pushing them to the 
brink of a shutdown, despite the fact that 220 Members of this body 
sent a letter to the Committee on Appropriations supporting Amtrak's 
request for $1.8 billion. I also will offer an amendment to restore 
funding for Amtrak.
  Transit programs are still woefully underfunded. The New Starts 
transit account is still $300 million below the President's request for 
the New Starts program.
  Job access and reverse commute grants are cut by $64 million from 
last year's enacted bill. These funds help low-income families in rural 
and urban areas get rides to work, school and health care appointments.
  For the FAA, funds are not provided as requested by the President to 
begin hiring additional air traffic controllers in advance of an 
imminent wave of retirements.
  And on the Treasury side of the bill, $100 million is included to 
implement an earned income tax credit precertification program that 
would subject four million working poor to additional burdens each year 
and drive many of them away from the program which former President 
Ronald Reagan called our most effective program to reduce poverty.
  This bill also contains no funding for Federal courthouse 
construction at a time when we already face a significant backlog of 
construction and renovation needs, and this will certainly make the 
situation worse.
  On the floor today and in conference, I hope we will be able to 
rectify some of these problems and have strong bipartisan support for 
the end product of those deliberations.
  I want to pay special recognition and thanks to my Legislative 
Director, Bob Letteney, who has been a member of my Washington staff 
since 1997.
  Bob started with me as a Staff Assistant and worked his way all the 
way up to Legislative Director. He has handled transportation 
appropriations issues on my personal staff for the last several years.
  Bob is one of a handful of federal employees selected this year as a 
Mike Mansfield fellow.
  This unique program, named for the former Senate Majority Leader and 
Ambassador to Japan, places federal workers in targeted Japanese 
government agencies where an exchange of knowledge would be beneficial 
to both countries. The federal workers selected as fellows study 
Japanese language and cultural intensively for the first year of a two-
year program, and after that are placed in a Tokyo agency appropriate 
for their background and professional interests.
  It's an honor to be chosen for a Mansfield fellowship, and the 
program directors couldn't have selected a better candidate than Bob 
Letteney. I understand Bob wants to be placed in a rail transportation 
agency, and this is clearly a critical area for the U.S. over the next 
decade.
  So it will be with mixed emotions that I say ``goodbye'' to Bob on 
his last day in my office next week. A Pittsfield, Massachusetts native 
and a proud graduate of Pittsfield High School and then the University 
of Massachusetts at Amherst, Bob has been real home-grown success story 
and an invaluable staffer in my organization. The opportunity presented 
by the Mansfield fellowship, however, is a great one, and I know Bob 
will represent our Nation in outstanding fashion.
  Bob, thank you for your years of hard work in my office, and I wish 
you the best of luck in Japan and beyond.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with 
Chairman Istook regarding the Transportation/Treasury appropriation 
bill about the importance of funding the Richmond Federal courthouse. 
This courthouse project is very important to my constituents and will 
be critical to the economic revitalization of downtown Richmond.
  The Richmond courthouse project has received a very high ranking from 
the Administrative Office of the Courts and is number two on its list 
of courthouse construction projects.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
opportunity to share my thoughts on the matter with the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor). I am very much aware of the need to fund the 
Richmond Federal courthouse. I am concerned, of course, about the 
funding needs for all of the Nation's courthouses.
  As the gentleman is aware, due to budget limitations, we have not 
provided funding for any new courthouse construction in this bill, but 
I would like to be helpful to him and to his constituents, and I am 
looking for the necessary funds to finance courthouse construction 
projects, including the Richmond Federal courthouse. I understand the 
importance of it to the Federal Judiciary and that it is a critical 
element of the revitalization of downtown Richmond.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
want to thank him for his continued commitment to addressing the 
funding of the Federal courthouse in Richmond. The Federal courthouse 
will revitalize downtown Richmond and provide a critical link between 
the convention center area and Capital Square.
  I have heard from many leaders in the City of Richmond about the 
necessity for funding this project, and I agree construction of the 
Federal courthouse is long overdue.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman for his leadership and look 
forward to working with him on this program.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7855]]

  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding to me, and I want to say that I agree with the gentleman's 
comments with respect to the Richmond courthouse.
  I might add, however, and I think the chairman hopefully shares this 
view, that the Los Angeles courthouse and others are on the priority 
list. As the gentleman knows, this committee has followed not a 
political agenda with respect to the funding of courthouses, but the 
court's determination of the most-needed facilities, of which Richmond, 
as the gentleman pointed out, comes very high.
  I would hope the gentleman would join in urging the administration 
and urging the Congress to again start funding courthouses. If we do 
not, we are going to see the administration of justice put at risk in 
many of the highest demand areas in the country. So I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments about Richmond, but it applies as well to many 
other jurisdictions.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) yield 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin for that purpose?
  Mr. OLVER. I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that the Committee do now rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89, 
noes 302, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 467]

                                AYES--89

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Davis (TN)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rothman
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson

                               NOES--302

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Andrews
     Boucher
     Brown, Corrine
     Camp
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Conyers
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Engel
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Graves
     Gutierrez
     Honda
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Janklow
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Matsui
     McHugh
     Meeks (NY)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Payne
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1312

  Messrs. GALLEGLY, SWEENEY, KINGSTON and Mrs. EMERSON changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for an opportunity to 
speak on behalf of a project very important to motorists, to commerce, 
and to the well-being of millions of residents and visitors to 
southwest Florida.
  As a great number of my colleagues and their families know, there has 
been a steady and dramatic increase in the population in the southwest 
Florida area.

                              {time}  1315

  This growth is indeed welcome. It is reflective of a robust economy 
and a wonderful quality of life, but it has contributed to the serious 
congestion of our only interstate, I-75.
  We have requested funds that would widen the forgotten section of I-
75, as we refer to it. It is a section that serves our State university 
and our international airport, to say nothing of the daily traffic of 
commuters and visitors.
  The current level of project funding contained in this act is very 
helpful and we are grateful, but it does not allow for the full 
solution to our congestion problem.
  It is for this reason that I respectfully ask the chairman that this 
issue be revisited during the conference committee for this 
legislation.

[[Page H7856]]

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and 
his support for his State and its needs, but financial resources, as 
the gentleman knows, are indeed tight.
  The committee, hopefully, may consider additional appropriations for 
this project in the conference committee should additional funds be 
made available to us at this time because I know of the great growth in 
his State and the significance of this project. I appreciate the 
gentleman bringing this to my attention and will continue to work with 
him on it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would like to thank him for that, for the opportunity to speak today 
and for the extraordinary good work he is doing to get this bill 
moving.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time, and I commend him for producing what I think is a fair 
and balanced bill.
  I know every area of the Nation is experiencing significant problems 
with its transportation needs and that we would all like to see more 
funds for transportation purposes. Wrestling with the realities that we 
have with this recession and the war on terror, I think the chairman 
needs to be very seriously commended.
  I want to particularly single out and thank him for including some 
funding for the Pineda Extension. This project is very, very important 
for the proper evacuation in the event of hurricanes for many of our 
coastal communities in the congressional district that I represent.
  As we all can remember, Hurricane Floyd when it threatened the coast 
of Florida, the east coast of Florida, precipitated one of the largest, 
if not the largest, human evacuations in history where literally 
millions of people had to migrate off the coast of Florida and move 
inland. And one of the things that was recognized in that challenge was 
that the State did not have enough east-west access corridors.
  This important addition to the bill will help us in the State of 
Florida address that need in a very, very critical area. I again want 
to thank the chairman.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time remains on 
either side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 9 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who is a member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
his chairmanship in having gone through our budget for the first time, 
as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver), for his first time.
  I do believe that we have a balanced budget before us. It is a good 
budget with some modification as we go through the amendments today.
  I first want to bring to the Members' attention the earned income tax 
credit which in this bill allows $100 million for 45,000 people to be 
looked at to see if they are in compliance in order to receive the 
EITC.
  We believe, and we will be offering an amendment later today to 
reduce that to 25,000 people and to use 50 million of those tax dollars 
to look at corporations and other high-wagers to see if they are in 
compliance.
  The earned income tax credit assists moderate and low-income 
families. It provides for them revenues and monies they need for 
college educations and other things that this budget does not apply. So 
we hope that that $50 million will be adequate for the pilot program, 
and we will hear more on that as we go on throughout the day.
  Another is the Buy American provision that I have offered in this 
bill. In my home State of Michigan over 400,000 people are out of work. 
Many of the manufacturing jobs have gone offshore. I am told now that 
many of the service jobs are going offshore and we have to do something 
about that. This budget can do that and it can do better. We need the 
Buy American language, and I hope that we can retain it in this budget.
  Lastly, I think it is very important that we talk about Amtrak and 
save its funding. Amtrak does a wonderful service in our country, the 
eastern corridor, and across this country. I do not personally have the 
Amtrak service I want in my district. I would like to see it expanded. 
The number here for Amtrak is sorely underfunded. With those provisions 
as we address our amendments, we hope that we can make it a better 
bill.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for that purpose?
  Mr. OLVER. I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 305, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                                AYES--87

     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Snyder
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt

                               NOES--305

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)

[[Page H7857]]


     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--41

     Clay
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     English
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Graves
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Janklow
     John
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Majette
     Matsui
     McCotter
     Nadler
     Owens
     Oxley
     Payne
     Pickering
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun (KS)
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Thornberry
     Turner (TX)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are informed that there are 2 
minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1341

  Mr. TAUZIN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who is a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) the very kind and distinguished ranking 
member, for yielding me this time. I also want to thank my chairman for 
all of his cooperation and friendship and going out of his way to help 
me and the people of my district on a number of different issues, along 
with, of course, my ranking member, the staffs of my chairman and the 
ranking member. By the way, I have so many things to talk about, but I 
am only using 2 minutes in the interest of the group; so I will cut to 
the chase.
  There was an issue involved in a one-size-fits-all FAA regulation 
that would have had a devastating effect on the people of northern New 
Jersey. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a bipartisan 
agency, the bipartisan elected officials in New Jersey and all the 
people of my region were adamant that Washington should not force a 
solution that was wrong for us on them, and the chairman and his staff 
bent over backwards along with the ranking member to accommodate a 
reasonable commonsense solution to that problem, and I am extremely 
grateful to the chairman and the ranking member for accommodating the 
interests of the hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise 
have been negatively affected.
  I intend to support this bill. It is not perfect. I hope Amtrak gets 
plussed-up in the conference, but by and large this is a bill that we 
can all be proud of, and I thank my chairman again and my ranking 
member for all their kindness and courtesies.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip and a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), first of all let me 
congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) on his taking 
the responsibilities of ranking member. He is doing an outstanding job 
in that capacity.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few general comments. I will have some 
possible amendments, which may be withdrawn, some of which may be 
pressed. But I want to thank the committee and I want to thank the 
chairman for pursuing what the Republican majority budget provided for 
with respect to pay parity. I think that was appropriate and consistent 
with our past policies. We have a lot of folks who are on the front 
lines who we will recognize.
  However, I want to raise some concerns. As the chairman knows, the 
Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton 
administration, and now the present Bush administration, as I 
understand it, is for the project, although has not funded it. We have 
been pursuing the creation of a campus for the Food and Drug 
Administration which, of course, now has even more challenges dealing 
with the integrity of the food and drug supply in light of terrorist 
threats. But we have been trying to construct this campus, which will 
save the Federal Government money.
  The reason it will save the Federal Government money is now the FDA 
is located around the Washington metropolitan area in 19 different 
leased facilities, and, of course, they are for the most part very old 
facilities and they are expensive facilities. GSA tells us it would be 
cheaper to build at the site that has been agreed to, not in my 
district, but in the State of Maryland. We have done some of those. 
There is currently in the plan a project for $48 million. I have reason 
to believe the Senate might include that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very hopeful that we will be able to include that 
in the conference report. I am not going to offer an amendment on that 
in the committee, but I really do believe that it is a very cost-
conscious effort to continue this project to completion, because, as I 
say, it is not a partisan difference. As a matter of fact, the proposal 
was made, as the gentleman knows, by the Reagan administration and a 
Republican director of the FDA. But it is one that I think is very 
important.
  In addition, I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we have not included 
in this legislation not only some of the money that has been talked 
about in terms of Amtrak and transportation, but in particular the 
election reform legislation that we passed. It was one of the few 
pieces of legislation that we passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan 
fashion. The Speaker was very proud of that. On our side of the aisle 
we were proud of it. The President in signing the bill indicated it was 
a bipartisan success.
  We pledged to fund that effort, and we imposed deadlines on the 
States to accomplish certain things that were required to ensure access 
and accuracy of voting in elections. The deadline for the 
accomplishment of those objectives is 2006.
  The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has been extraordinarily 
helpful and was a critical player in our initial funding. As the 
chairman knows, the bill would authorize $1.5 billion additional. We 
are $1 billion behind. There is $500 million in this bill. I appreciate 
the chairman's including that. I know he has been supportive of this 
effort.
  But I will be working with the administration again. There is going 
to be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings). I will speak on that. I am not sure that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) will press that. The problem, of course, is 
where you take money from to get money for this objective. I think the 
chairman has a very real problem in that regard.
  I am pressing the administration, and I have talked to the gentleman 
from Florida (Chairman Young) about this, to seek emergency funds from 
the administration so that this project can be accomplished by the 2006 
deadline. I would hope we could work on that.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, 
for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much 
for yielding me time.

[[Page H7858]]

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
want to thank him for participating in this colloquy with me today to 
address a significant issue which was raised during the committee 
consideration of this bill.
  As the gentleman knows, when the committee marked up the Treasury-
Transportation bill in July, we directed the General Services 
Administration to complete its review of MCI WorldCom's fitness to 
serve as a Federal contractor. This directive resulted from revelations 
that the company had overstated its profits by $11 billion and lacked 
adequate internal controls.
  Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the GSA announced the proposed 
debarment of MCI WorldCom on July 31. Although the process took longer 
than hoped and the committee was forced to take action to get GSA to do 
its job, the GSA has now prohibited MCI WorldCom from receiving any new 
Federal contracts. GSA has reached the only responsible conclusion 
possible.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my strong belief that the Federal Government must 
condemn corporate malfeasance and provide strict oversight of Federal 
contracting. GSA's proposed action to debar MCI from Federal 
contracting is a step in the right direction, and I applaud their 
efforts.
  With the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), 
this committee has ensured GSA performs its due diligence and has 
protected the American taxpayers from a fraudulent company. I would 
like to personally thank the gentleman for his support and assistance.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to 
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for bringing this 
important matter to the committee's attention. As overseers of GSA's 
budget, I believe the committee acted in a responsible way and 
responded to this issue appropriately.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
thank the gentleman. As this process continues, GSA must remain 
responsive and should provide regular detailed reports to the committee 
on the status of the case.
  Would the gentleman agree to work with me during the conference to 
clarify the report language, if necessary, so that the committee can 
continue its oversight of GSA actions on the MCI WorldCom debarment 
proceedings and further Federal contracting actions?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) as we move towards a final 
resolution of this issue, and will certainly work to clarify the report 
language during conference as events dictate.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will continue to 
monitor the GSA's actions in this area as the Treasury-Transportation 
measure moves to conference. If there is any backsliding by the agency, 
I am confident the committee will be able to respond.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I hope the chairman 
recognizes the authorizers' role in overseeing GSA in this and the 
appropriators' role in this and will keep us in the loop, and will not 
try to authorize without consultation with the authorizers.
  Am I correct on this, or am I being rolled on this?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I did not really hear the 
question.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my question is although the 
Committee on Appropriations has appropriations oversight, I would hope 
we would work with the authorizing committee on GSA, which is the 
Committee on Government Reform, which I chair, as we work towards 
language on this.
  We have spent a lot of time on these issues as well. The language of 
the gentleman from New York was worked out and shared with us. I hope 
this is not an attempt on the part of the appropriators to once again 
override authorizing committees and try to accomplish what they could 
not accomplish on the floor.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say 
to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), that he is 
absolutely right. It is essential that the Committee on Appropriations 
and the authorizing committees work together as we deal with issues of 
this type. The gentleman is exactly right.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I find a certain amount of irony as we return to 
unnecessary controversy on one of the most important bills that this 
Congress will consider this year. The chairman of the subcommittee is 
concerned about congestion around the Nation, and well he should be. 
Yet the bill would cut back on people's alternatives to reduce 
congestion by further squeezing Amtrak and gutting the popular 
important bipartisan support for the enhancements program.
  People need choices. I am going to speak later in the debate on the 
enhancements program in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a bipartisan amendment to try to fix it. 
Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to talk about the problems 
with Amtrak which are going to be ruled out of order when offered.
  I find it sad. There are some who dispute the notion that we should 
be the only industrialized Nation in the world without a backbone of a 
national rail transportation system. We have lavish subsidies for the 
airline industry, which in its history of passenger transport has 
produced a net profit of zero, zero; yet somehow, providing a little 
support for Amtrak is deemed theologically unacceptable.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, much of the blame for the problems of Amtrak is 
that this Congress has refused to appropriate the money that Congress 
itself has authorized. Yet Congress has interfered with the management 
decisions of Amtrak, and, much like the mythical educational 
performance in Houston, where they sort of in schools ``will'' children 
to stay in school so they are not dropped out, that they somehow are 
all going on to college, people have tried to will Amtrak to a 
different type of performance than they are willing to pay for.
  Luckily, there is broad bipartisan support in this country and in 
this Congress to overrule this ill-conceived cutback in Amtrak. I am 
convinced that ultimately through the process we will succeed. I hope 
we can fix what we can on the floor to preserve the critical 
enhancements program, and fight for a bill that the country deserves to 
preserve the potential for a comprehensive rail transportation system.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, once again the Committee on 
Appropriations, in the light of day, has voted to prohibit corporate 
expatriates from enjoying more than $1 billion a year in Federal 
Government contracts, and, once again, Mr. Chairman, in the dark of 
night, the Committee on Rules, has cobbled together a rule which 
rewards those corporations who run off to Bermuda to avoid paying 
United States income taxes.
  The American taxpayer has said tax fairness and tax equity matter, 
but apparently not in this Congress. Corporate expatriates will drain 
$5 billion from our Federal Treasury, and yet, in return, corporate 
expatriates will win, time and again, lucrative Federal contracts to 
build our nuclear facilities, guard our government buildings, provide 
health care to our veterans, landscape the national parks, and even 
money appropriated in this bill today, believe it or not, a 
multimillion-dollar contract to help the IRS collect taxes.
  We stay here and we pay our taxes while these corporations run off to 
Bermuda to avoid them. They then turn around and get paid to help 
collect money from us. If it was not September, most of us would come 
to believe based upon this issue it was April Fool's Day.

[[Page H7859]]

  Try, as an individual taxpayer announcing that your address is in 
Bermuda and avoiding your share of personal income taxes, to find what 
the result will be. I am astounded that after months and months of 
discussing this issue, when we were promised a vote on the floor, we 
are no closer to doing that now than we were before. Instead, the 
Committee on Appropriations does what they are supposed to do, and the 
Committee on Rules decides not to let the issue come to the floor.
  If they are confident in their position, let the matter come to the 
floor for an up-or-down vote. I guarantee you if it came to the floor, 
there would be 300 votes to affirm what I have said in the last couple 
of minutes.

                              {time}  1400

  I hope that during this debate there will be others who continue to 
bring this matter before us, and I hope that all of you on the other 
side will stop protecting many of these financial traitors.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the passion of the gentleman who 
just spoke and everyone else, but, of course, we have followed the 
normal protocol. This is what is considered in this House an open rule 
to give people the opportunity to bring up issues. But as the Chairman 
and everyone else in this body knows, just because a bill is on the 
floor, it does not mean that every topic can be offered on that bill. 
We have to break our work into pieces. And some of the issues the 
gentleman is talking about should properly be raised on other pieces of 
legislation, not this one.
  The Committee on Rules and its leadership has provided a very good, 
very solid, open rule that provides Members the opportunity to make 
fair comments and make fair amendments upon the proper topics of this 
bill. And I would certainly hope that the gentleman would work with the 
committees of proper jurisdiction for the changes that he wants to 
make. But I do very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the efforts of the 
Committee on Rules in helping us to make the progress and helping to 
make sure that we have a controlled and proper debate on the issues 
that are the proper subject of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair appreciates the gentleman's very thoughtful 
statement.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers on general 
debate, and I yield back the balance my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just by way of brief closing, I indicated that I wanted 
to express appreciation for the members of our staff that have worked 
so diligently to bring this legislation to the floor: the chief clerk 
of our subcommittee, Rich Efford, and the other clerks on the 
committee, Cheryle Tucker, Kurt Dodd, Leigha Shaw, Walter Hearne, Ben 
Nicholson, and from my office Kurt Conrad.
  I do not want their efforts to go unnoted and unappreciated, and I 
wanted to make sure that they appear in the Record next to the work 
product that they have worked so diligently on. We could not accomplish 
these things without them.
  This is a good bill. I ask every Member of the House to support it.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
language weakening the United States' Cuban embargo policy by allowing 
travel to Cuba and urge my colleagues also to oppose allowing travel to 
Cuba.
  The regime of Fidel Castro continues to prove to have no respect for 
dissidents, for human rights, and cannot be trusted. This past March, 
Castro carried out a sweeping crackdown on dissident leaders, rounding 
up 75 and providing harsh prison sentences after charades of trials. 
Further, Castro resumed executions with the execution of three men by 
official firing squad. For those dissidents merely attempting to 
exercise basic freedoms, punishments include forced exile, 
interrogations, house arrest and searches, intimidation and aggression, 
telephone bugging, eviction and loss of employment.
  The fact remains: Cuba under the dictatorship of Fidel Castro is a 
terrorist state, ruled by fear, and grossly violating the human rights 
of dissidents. The Cuban regime remains on the Department of State list 
of seven terrorist-sponsoring nations. United States policy should 
never bend against the tide of oppression in Cuba or any country--we 
must maintain a firm line. Our victory in the Cold War was due to 
holding firmly to our core democratic values and principles and being 
strong, not bending to communist ideology, torture, and oppression.
  The House of Representatives should not vote to reward a terrorist 
state with unrestricted travel--providing resources needed to sustain 
the Castro regime. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment to 
weaken the embargo against Cuba by allowing travel to Cuba.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, as we debate the FY04 Transportation, 
Treasury Appropriations bill, I rise to express my concern for recent 
actions undertaken by the Internal Revenue Service.
  It is a fundamental tenet of fair tax administration that taxpayers 
can rely on guidance and rules issued by the Internal Revenue Service. 
Unfortunately, in its administration of the tax credit for coal-based 
synthetic fuels, the IRS has breached this fundamental rule.
  Congress enacted section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide a 
tax credit for the production of synthetic fuel. This tax credit was 
created to encourage domestic energy production and it works. In my 
home state, and coal producing states throughout the Southeast, the 
credit has increased domestic coal production and kept open thin seam 
mines. The coal-based synthetic fuels increases combustion efficiency 
and reduce fuel costs for electricity consumers throughout the United 
States.
  Since 1995, the IRS has issued revenue rulings, revenue procedures 
and over 80 private letter rulings that detail the processes that 
qualify for producing synthetic fuel and the tests taxpayers should 
utilize to demonstrate that the synthetic fuel they produced qualify 
for the tax credit.
  Taxpayers and recognized scientific experts met repeatedly with the 
IRS as it developed the revenue rulings, revenue procedures and private 
letter rulings. Taxpayers explained the processes they intended to use 
to produce synthetic fuel and the tests that they would use to 
demonstrate that synthetic fuel qualified for the tax credit. After 
full opportunity to review the processes and the tests, the IRS issued 
private letter rulings telling taxpayers that these processes and these 
tests qualified.
  Since 1995, taxpayers have been investing in synthetic fuel 
production facilities designed to meet the tests that the IRS agreed 
demonstrated that the synthetic fuel produced qualified for the tax 
credit. In June of this year, the IRS decided that it was not sure that 
the tests it had approved over the years were acceptable. The IRS told 
taxpayers that it questioned the test results it had previously 
approved because a single scientist the IRS hired attempted to perform 
the tests using different methodologies. However, the IRS refuses to 
tell taxpayers what test it is using and how it is different from the 
tests it has approved in 80 private letter rulings.
  In short, the IRS changed the test it told taxpayers to use and 
refuses to tell taxpayers how it changed the test. Taxpayers no longer 
know whether their synthetic fuel, including fuels produced in prior 
years, qualifies for the tax credit. As a result, hundreds of millions 
of dollars of investments are at risk. Many public and private 
companies in all sectors of the economy are facing huge potential 
economic losses. Some companies are facing bankruptcy because the IRS 
is changing the rules after they made their investments.
  Taxpayers worked in good faith with the IRS to design tests that 
demonstrated that their facilities produced a qualified synthetic fuel. 
Taxpayers invested in reliance on the rulings the IRS provided 
approving those tests. The IRS should publish an announcement that it 
will honor the rules under which taxpayers invested in synthetic fuels 
facilities and that it will follow the rules the IRS published in 
Revenue Procedures 2001-30 and 2001-34. The IRS must abide by the rules 
it laid down for taxpayers.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague Chairman Quinn. From its inception, 
Amtrak was expected to pursue conflicting goals. It was to provide a 
national rail passenger service while simultaneously operating as a 
commercial enterprise. Although, at this point I think that it is a 
foregone conclusion that no one expects Amtrak will be profitable.
  As mandated in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, 
which required Amtrak to achieve self-sufficiency by December 2002, the 
rail system has received reduced appropriations funding each year. 
However, due to inflation and a poor economy, operating costs continue 
to rise. Many important infrastructure and equipment improvements have 
been delayed or postponed due to the lack of funding. Rising operating 
costs--declining revenue--this is a formula for failure.

[[Page H7860]]

  We are now faced with the challenge of salvaging a vital link in our 
national transportation system. To quote the Secretary of 
Transportation Norm Mineta: ``Intercity passenger rail service is an 
important part of the nation's transportation system.'' Some critics of 
Amtrak insist that reforming Amtrak will save it. I disagree. Until 
necessary improvements are made on the infrastructure and equipment, 
the system cannot function efficiently.
  We need to provide Amtrak with adequate funding.
  In some areas the rail infrastructure is over 100 years old. 
Repairing existing infrastructure to good condition and upgrading 
equipment will ultimately lead to reduced operational costs. But, as 
with most endeavors of this magnitude we cannot expect overnight 
results. The process will take time.
  Looking to the states that rely on rail service to stabilize Amtrak 
is not the answer. My state of Maryland has been a strong supporter of 
Amtrak as it is a critical part of the overall transportation 
solution--especially in the congested Northeast corridor. The MARC 
trains in Baltimore are operated under a contract with Amtrak. Many 
Maryland communters depend on MARC service. But, we are not asking for 
a free ride. Since 1990, Maryland has invested over $124 million in 
state and federal funds to improve Amtrak owned facilities. I'm sure 
that Maryland does not stand alone when we say that we cannot afford to 
pay for the substantial needs of Amtrak.
  Maintaining a sound, efficient rail system is a national concern. We 
are ever vigilant in our efforts to get people to leave their cars at 
home and use mass transit in order to each congestion and lower 
emissions. Since 1971, Amtrak has sought to balance competing public 
service and commercial objectives without the benefit of adequate 
resources to fully deliver either. The government must provide the 
necessary funding and oversight that is essential for a national 
passenger rail system.
  We've come a long way in transportation technology since Amtrak began 
its service in 1971. However, because of the condition of current rail 
infrastructure and stock this progress is far from evident. I think 
that it is time for Congress to ``step up to the plate.'' We need and 
deserve a national passenger rail system.
  We must provide adequate funding for Amtrak.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2989, the Transportation-Treasury-Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Act for FY 2004.
  First, I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for 
including $20 million for the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) 
facility in Houston, Texas.
  Houston's four million residents are served by Bush Intercontinental 
Airport, Houston Hobby Airport, and Ellington Field. Together they form 
one of North America's largest public airport systems and position 
Houston as the international gateway to the south central United 
States.
  Unfortunately, the current TRACON facility was constructed in the 
late 1960's and is inadequate to meet the needs at these three 
airports.
  The facility is in a low lying area which floods often, disrupting 
air traffic, and cannot be expanded to provide the airspace capacity 
needed to achieve the full benefits of the additional runway capacity 
expected to be online at Bush Intercontinental in spring 2004.
  Expedited construction of the new TRACON is necessary to realize the 
36 percent capacity increase identified in the FAA Operational 
Evolution Plan (OEP). The current state of the Houston TRACON does not 
fit its place as a major hub in a modern air traffic control system.
  The $20 million included in this legislation is an important first 
step that will help create a new facility in a timely manner. This 
funding will help resolve an urgent air traffic control facility 
problem for the greater Houston, Texas area.
  I am also happy to see that, on top of the East End Rail Task Force 
study on rail and mobility conditions completed in February 2003 and 
the Harris County/Port of Houston's $600,000 ongoing county-wide study, 
there is $1 million in the House Transportation Appropriations bill for 
a Freight Rail Transportation Corridor and Urban Mobility Program for 
Harris County.
  I worked with my Texas colleague Tom DeLay on this issue, and am glad 
that the appropriators saw fit to include this important project.
  The goal is to expand the work of the East End study to the entire 
rail network of Harris County in order to initiate a comprehensive 
approach to rail system rationalization, addressing the regional issues 
associated with train routing, rail traffic levels, yard operations, 
and through-traffic versus local service to quantify the safety and 
mobility impact they have on residents. Researchers on this project 
will work with a public-private partnership to oversee the direction 
and scope of work. The partnership will include public officials, the 
Port of Houston, residents, and representatives of Union Pacific and 
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads.
  A consensus approach is needed because a major freight rail and 
mobility plan will take significant amounts of federal, local, and 
private sources of investment to complete. Such freight rail 
reorganization plans have been successfully done for LA-Long Beach, CA, 
Reno, NV, and one was recently announced for Chicago, IL.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, these are important projects for my area, and I 
am glad to see that they were included in this important bill. I'd like 
to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of this committee for 
their hard work.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2989, Chairman Istook's Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation and 
Treasury Appropriations bill. Chairman Istook has worked within the 
framework he was provided to put forward a fair and balanced approach 
to fund the Departments of Transportation and Treasury and other 
Independent Agencies.
  The Chairman's bill makes a strong commitment to our nation's highway 
improvements by providing $33.8 billion, which is $6.1 billion above 
last year's level.
  Equally as important to New Jersey is Federal support for transit 
operations. As such, I commend the Chairman for including $7.23 billion 
for transit program spending, which is $52 million above last year's 
level. I am especially thankful that this bill provides full funding 
for New Jersey's top two transit priorities, the Newark Elizabeth Rail 
Link and the Hudson Bergen Light Rail projects.
  Notably, every year in New Jersey, nearly 4 million passengers ride 
Amtrak trains. Each day, 109 Amtrak trains operate in New Jersey. In 
addition, Amtrak provides all of the maintenance and locomotive power 
for the 250 daily commuter trains that are operated by New Jersey 
Transit for hundreds of thousands of daily rail commuters in my home 
state, which is so densely populated and depends so much on trains and 
buses to minimize traffic congestion and air pollution.
  By sharing the same tracks and tunnels within the Northeast Corridor 
with Amtrak, New Jersey has a strong interest in seeing a stable and 
continuing Amtrak operation, with increased funding! That said, the 
Chairman and the Congress have every right to demand necessary reforms 
of Amtrak management, strict accountability, and reasonable labor 
agreements.
  To be clear, I feel it is absolutely essential that we do more to 
support Amtrak while making sure that it follows the committee's 
direction to carry out much needed reforms.
  I want to again thank the Chairman for increasing Amtrak's funding 
from its original mark.
  In the transportation world, the issue of safety and its importance 
can never be over emphasized. Thus, the more than $77 million included 
for the National Safety Transportation Board, is well directed dollars.
  On the Treasury side, this bill takes important steps in our nation's 
continued war on terrorism. H.R. 2989 includes critical dollars ($57.5 
million) for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Included in this 
funding are dollars for the establishment of the Office of Terrorist 
Financing and Financial Crimes, which will help root out the financial 
infrastructures that support terrorist organizations and their 
murderous ways.
  H.R. 2989 also includes more than $228 million for the Financial 
Management Service, which is responsible for the management of Federal 
finances.
  For all these reasons and more, I support the Chairman Istook's 
Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations bill, and 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I would have amended H.R. 2989, the 
Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 
2004, to address concerns about an unfunded mandate and ensure 
integrity in our voting system. However, this amendment was not in 
order. My amendment would have given States a waiver from compliance 
with the Help America Vote Act until it is fully funded at the 
authorized level. States should not have to comply with an unfunded 
mandate in 2006. Many of our states are facing serious budget crises, 
and worry that if they are not first in line to receive the federal 
matching funds the money will run out. If this happens, the local 
taxpayers will be left holding the bill for compliance with the 
unfunded HAVA mandate in 2006. My amendment would not require states to 
comply with the HAVA mandate until it is fully funded at the level 
authorized.
  The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires, among other things, that 
each precinct have at least one Direct Recording Electronic voting 
system, or DRE. However, currently these machines do not have a 
permanent, auditable and individually verifiable trail. Questions 
remain about whether electronic voting

[[Page H7861]]

system software could be hacked into and election results tampered 
with. Until DRE machines have a verifiable audit trail, we should not 
spend federal tax dollars on unreliable machines. The Help America Vote 
Act was motivated by electoral integrity--we must insure that the DRE 
machines meet that goal before spending millions of dollars on them and 
requiring states to use them in every precinct. At a cost of $4,000 to 
5,000 per DRE, we can't afford to be wrong.
  In fact, at a cost of thousands of dollars per machine, many rural 
precincts will have only one voting machine available for voters, and 
it will have to be a DRE according to the requirements of the Help 
America Vote Act. If sparsely populated rural voters are forced to vote 
on DRE machines that are susceptible to fraud, we risk mass 
disenfranchisement of rural voters in small precincts. This 
disenfranchisement will extend to disabled voters who use a DRE to 
vote, which was hardly the intent behind the voting reform legislation.
  Ensuring electoral integrity and preventing vote fraud is a high 
priority for me. Although I was not able to offer my amendment today, I 
intend to continue to work towards solutions to these problems.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2989

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Transportation and Treasury and independent agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary, 
     $93,577,000, of which not to exceed $2,212,000 shall be 
     available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to 
     exceed $841,000 shall be available for the immediate Office 
     of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $15,560,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to 
     exceed $12,717,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed 
     $8,630,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed $2,518,000 
     shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
     for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $28,882,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
     Administration; not to exceed $1,982,000 shall be available 
     for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed $1,447,000 
     shall be available for the Office of the Executive 
     Secretariat; not to exceed $730,000 shall be available for 
     the Board of Contract Appeals; not to exceed $1,268,000 shall 
     be available for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged 
     Business Utilization; not to exceed $16,565,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of the Chief Information Officer; 
     and not to exceed $225,000 shall be available for the Office 
     of Intelligence and Security: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated 
     for any office of the Office of the Secretary to any other 
     office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided further, That 
     no appropriation for any office shall be increased or 
     decreased by more than 5 percent by all such transfers: 
     Provided further, That any change in funding greater than 5 
     percent shall be submitted for approval to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $60,000 shall be for allocation within the 
     Department for official reception and representation expenses 
     as the Secretary may determine: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, excluding fees 
     authorized in Public Law 107-71, there may be credited to 
     this appropriation up to $2,500,000 in funds received in user 
     fees: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in 
     this Act shall be available for the position of Assistant 
     Secretary for Public Affairs.

                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $8,569,000.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems development, development 
     activities, and making grants, to remain available until 
     expended, $8,336,000.

                          Working Capital Fund

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed $116,715,000, 
     shall be paid from appropriations made available to the 
     Department of Transportation: Provided, That such services 
     shall be provided on a competitive basis to entities within 
     the Department of Transportation: Provided further, That the 
     above limitation on operating expenses shall not apply to 
     non-DOT entities: Provided further, That no funds 
     appropriated in this Act to an agency of the Department shall 
     be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the 
     approval of the agency modal administrator: Provided further, 
     That no assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $500,000, as authorized 
     by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $18,367,000. In addition, for administrative expenses 
     to carry out the guaranteed loan program, $400,000.

                       Minority Business Outreach

       For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center 
     outreach activities, $3,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2005: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 
     332, these funds may be used for business opportunities 
     related to any mode of transportation.

                       New Headquarters Building

       For necessary expenses of the Department of 
     Transportation's new headquarters building and related 
     services, $45,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                               Operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities, 
     the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and 
     maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made 
     available by Public Law 104-264, $7,532,000,000, of which 
     $6,000,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $6,076,724,000 shall be 
     available for air traffic services program activities; not to 
     exceed $870,505,000 shall be available for aviation 
     regulation and certification program activities; not to 
     exceed $218,481,000 shall be available for research and 
     acquisition program activities; not to exceed $11,776,000 
     shall be available for commercial space transportation 
     program activities; not to exceed $49,783,000 shall be 
     available for financial services program activities; not to 
     exceed $75,367,000 shall be available for human resources 
     program activities; not to exceed $87,749,000 shall be 
     available for regional coordination program activities; not 
     to exceed $140,429,000 shall be available for staff offices; 
     and not to exceed $29,681,000 shall be available for 
     information services: Provided, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to finalize or implement any regulation that 
     would promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically 
     authorized by law after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act: Provided further, That there may be credited to this 
     appropriation funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, foreign authorities, other public 
     authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in 
     the provision of agency services, including receipts for the 
     maintenance and operation of air navigation facilities, and 
     for issuance, renewal or modification of certificates, 
     including airman, aircraft, and repair station certificates, 
     or for tests related thereto, or for processing major repair 
     or alteration forms: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not less than $7,500,000 
     shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing program: 
     Provided further, That funds may be used to enter into a 
     grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting 
     organization to assist in the development of aviation safety 
     standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this 
     Act shall be available for new applicants for the second 
     career training program: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay 
     under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration 
     employee unless such employee actually performed work during 
     the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station 
     in the contiguous United States: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and 
     cartography are available for activities conducted by, or 
     coordinated through, the Working Capital Fund: Provided 
     further, That of the amount appropriated under this heading, 
     not to exceed $50,000 may be transferred to the Aircraft Loan 
     Purchase Guarantee Program:

[[Page H7862]]

     Provided further, That not later than March 1, 2004, the 
     Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, shall 
     issue final regulations, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8335, 
     establishing an exemption process allowing individual air 
     traffic controllers to delay mandatory retirement until the 
     employee reaches no later than 61 years of age: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided under this heading, 
     $4,000,000 is available only for recruitment, personnel 
     compensation and benefits, and related costs to raise the 
     level of operational air traffic control supervisors to the 
     level of 1,726: Provided further, That none of the funds in 
     this Act may be obligated or expended to execute or continue 
     to implement a memorandum of understanding or memorandum of 
     agreement (or any revisions thereto) with representatives of 
     any FAA bargaining unit unless such document is filed in a 
     central registry and catalogued in an automated, searchable 
     database under the executive direction of appropriate 
     management representatives at FAA headquarters: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated 
     or expended for an employee of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to purchase a store gift card or gift 
     certificate through use of a government-issued credit card.

                        Payments to Air Carriers


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the essential air 
     service program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742(a), $63,000,000, 
     to be derived from the airport and airway trust fund and to 
     be available until expended.

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, technical support services, 
     improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of air 
     navigation and experimental facilities and equipment, as 
     authorized under part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United 
     States Code, including initial acquisition of necessary sites 
     by lease or grant; engineering and service testing, including 
     construction of test facilities and acquisition of necessary 
     sites by lease or grant; construction and furnishing of 
     quarters and related accommodations for officers and 
     employees of the Federal Aviation Administration stationed at 
     remote localities where such accommodations are not 
     available; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft 
     from funds available under this heading; to be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, $2,900,000,000, of which 
     $2,479,158,800 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2006, and of which $420,841,200 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2004: Provided, That there may be credited to 
     this appropriation funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private 
     sources, for expenses incurred in the establishment and 
     modernization of air navigation facilities: Provided further, 
     That upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal 
     year 2005 President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital 
     investment plan for the Federal Aviation Administration which 
     includes funding for each budget line item for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009, with total funding for each year of the 
     plan constrained to the funding targets for those years as 
     estimated and approved by the Office of Management and 
     Budget: Provided further, That of the funds provided for 
     ``In-plant NAS contract support services'', $7,000,000 is 
     only for contract audit services provided by the Defense 
     Contract Audit Agency: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided under this heading, $20,000,000 is available only 
     for the Houston Area Air Traffic System: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to implement section 106 of H.R. 2115, as passed the 
     House of Representatives on June 12, 2003.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     including construction of experimental facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant, 
     $108,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2006: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred for research, engineering, and development.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and under other law authorizing such 
     obligations; for procurement, installation, and commissioning 
     of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at 
     airports of such title; for implementation of section 203 of 
     Public Law 106-181; and for inspection activities and 
     administration of airport safety programs, including those 
     related to airport operating certificates under 49 U.S.C. 
     44706, $3,425,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the 
     obligations for which are in excess of $3,425,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2004, notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 47117(g): 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not more than $64,904,000 of funds limited under this 
     heading shall be obligated for administration and not less 
     than $20,000,000 shall be for the Small Community Air Service 
     Development Pilot Program.

          General Provisions--Federal Aviation Administration

       Sec. 101. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant: 
     Provided, That, the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     accept such equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and 
     maintained by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
       Sec. 102. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 350 technical staff-years under the 
     federally funded research and development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     2004.
       Sec. 103. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for engineering work related to an additional runway 
     at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport 
     sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration 
     without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities 
     and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for 
     services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or 
     weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in 
     this section does not apply to negotiations between the 
     agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
     market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that 
     require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the 
     FAA for air traffic control facilities.
       Sec. 105. For an airport project that the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determines will add 
     critical airport capacity to the national air transportation 
     system, the Administrator is authorized to accept funds from 
     an airport sponsor, including entitlement funds provided 
     under the ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports'' program, for the FAA 
     to hire additional staff or obtain the services of 
     consultants: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized 
     to accept and utilize such funds only for the purpose of 
     facilitating the timely processing, review, and completion of 
     environmental activities associated with such project.
       Sec. 106. None of the funds appropriated or limited by this 
     Act may be used to change weight restrictions or prior 
     permission rules at Teterboro Airport in Teterboro, New 
     Jersey.
       Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for official travel by Federal departments and 
     agencies may be used by such departments and agencies, if 
     consistent with Office of Management and Budget circular A-
     126 regarding official travel for Government personnel, to 
     participate in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot 
     program.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

       Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the 
     Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $359,458,000, 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration 
     together with advances and reimbursements received by the 
     Federal Highway Administration.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $33,385,000,000 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 2004: Provided, That within the $33,385,000,000 
     obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction programs, not more than $462,500,000 
     shall be available for the implementation or execution of 
     programs for transportation research (sections 502, 503, 504, 
     506, 507, and 508 of title 23, United States Code, as 
     amended; section 5505 of title 49, United States Code, as 
     amended; and sections 5112 and 5204-5209 of Public Law 105-
     178) for fiscal year 2004: Provided further, That this 
     limitation on transportation research programs shall not 
     apply to any authority previously made available for 
     obligation.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
     Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, 
     including the National Scenic and Recreational Highway as

[[Page H7863]]

     authorized by 23 U.S.C. 148, not otherwise provided, 
     including reimbursement for sums expended pursuant to the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $34,000,000,000 or so much 
     thereof as may be available in and derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.


                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned to each 
     state under the program authorized under sections 1101(a)(1), 
     1101(a)(2), and 1101(a)(3), 1101(a)(4), and 1101(a)(5) of 
     Public Law 105-178, as amended, $137,000,000 are rescinded.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                          (highway trust fund)

       For an additional amount for Federal-aid highways and 
     highway safety construction programs pursuant to title 23, 
     United States Code, $400,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That amounts 
     under this heading shall be distributed in the same manner as 
     if made available under 23 U.S.C. 110: Provided further, That 
     the amounts under this heading shall not be subject to, or 
     computed against, any obligation limitation or contract 
     authority set forth in this Act or any other Act: Provided 
     further, That, before such allocation and distribution are 
     made, $133,450,000 shall be retained for surface 
     transportation projects.

           General Provisions--Federal Highway Administration

       Sec. 110. (a) For fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall--
       (1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid Highways amounts authorized for administrative 
     expenses and programs funded from the administrative takedown 
     authorized by section 104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United States 
     Code, for the highway use tax evasion program, and for the 
     Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
       (2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation 
     for Federal-aid Highways that is equal to the unobligated 
     balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety programs for the previous fiscal 
     year the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
       (3) determine the ratio that--
       (A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways less 
     the aggregate of amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), bears to
       (B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     (other than sums authorized to be appropriated for sections 
     set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (b) and 
     sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of title 
     23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to in 
     subsection (b)(8)) for such fiscal year less the aggregate of 
     the amounts not distributed under paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection;
       (4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     Highways less the aggregate amounts not distributed under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) for section 201 of the Appalachian 
     Regional Development Act of 1965, and $2,000,000,000 for such 
     fiscal year under section 105 of title 23, United States Code 
     (relating to minimum guarantee) so that the amount of 
     obligation authority available for each of such sections is 
     equal to the amount determined by multiplying the ratio 
     determined under paragraph (3) by the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for such section (except in the case of section 
     105, $2,000,000,000) for such fiscal year;
       (5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for 
     Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not 
     distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts 
     distributed under paragraph (4) for each of the programs that 
     are allocated by the Secretary under title 23, United States 
     Code (other than activities to which paragraph (1) applies 
     and programs to which paragraph (4) applies) by multiplying 
     the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for such program for such 
     fiscal year; and
       (6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for 
     Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not 
     distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts 
     distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5) for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs (other than 
     the minimum guarantee program, but only to the extent that 
     amounts apportioned for the minimum guarantee program for 
     such fiscal year exceed $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian 
     development highway system program) that are apportioned by 
     the Secretary under title 23, United States Code, in the 
     ratio that--
       (A) sums authorized to be appropriated for such programs 
     that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear 
     to
       (B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     such programs that are apportioned to all States for such 
     fiscal year.
       (b) The obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways 
     shall not apply to obligations: (1) under section 125 of 
     title 23, United States Code; (2) under section 147 of the 
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under 
     section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under 
     sections 131(b) and 131(j) of the Surface Transportation 
     Assistance Act of 1982; (5) under sections 149(b) and 149(c) 
     of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance Act of 1987; (6) under sections 1103 through 1108 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991; (7) under section 157 of title 23, United States Code, 
     as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; and (8) 
     under section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, only 
     in an amount equal to $639,000,000 for such fiscal year).
       (c) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     after August 1 for such fiscal year revise a distribution of 
     the obligation limitation made available under subsection (a) 
     if a State will not obligate the amount distributed during 
     that fiscal year and redistribute sufficient amounts to those 
     States able to obligate amounts in addition to those 
     previously distributed during that fiscal year giving 
     priority to those States having large unobligated balances of 
     funds apportioned under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, 
     United States Code, section 160 (as in effect on the day 
     before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century) of title 23, United States Code, and under 
     section 1015 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1943-1945).
       (d) The obligation limitation shall apply to transportation 
     research programs carried out under chapter 5 of title 23, 
     United States Code, except that obligation authority made 
     available for such programs under such limitation shall 
     remain available for a period of 3 fiscal years.
       (e) Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     distribution of obligation limitation under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds: (1) 
     that are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year 
     for Federal-aid highways programs (other than the program 
     under section 160 of title 23, United States Code) and for 
     carrying out subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49, United 
     States Code, and highway-related programs under chapter 4 of 
     title 23, United States Code; and (2) that the Secretary 
     determines will not be allocated to the States, and will not 
     be available for obligation, in such fiscal year due to the 
     imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year. 
     Such distribution to the States shall be made in the same 
     ratio as the distribution of obligation authority under 
     subsection (a)(6). The funds so distributed shall be 
     available for any purposes described in section 133(b) of 
     title 23, United States Code.
       (f) Obligation limitation distributed for a fiscal year 
     under subsection (a)(4) of this section for a section set 
     forth in subsection (a)(4) shall remain available until used 
     and shall be in addition to the amount of any limitation 
     imposed on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway 
     safety construction programs for future fiscal years.
       Sec. 111. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     whenever an allocation is made of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for expenditure on the Federal lands highway 
     program, and whenever an apportionment is made of the sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for expenditure on the surface 
     transportation program, the congestion mitigation and air 
     quality improvement program, the National Highway System, the 
     Interstate maintenance program, the bridge program, the 
     Appalachian development highway system, and the minimum 
     guarantee program, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     deduct a sum in such amount not to exceed 1.35 percent of all 
     sums so made available, as the Secretary determines necessary 
     to administer the provisions of law to be financed from 
     appropriations for the programs authorized under chapters 1 
     and 2 of title 23, United States Code, and to make transfers 
     in accordance with section 104(a)(1)(A)(ii) of title 23, 
     United States Code: Provided, That any deduction by the 
     Secretary of Transportation in accordance with this 
     subsection shall be deemed to be a deduction under section 
     104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United States Code, and the sum so 
     deducted shall remain available until expended.
       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49 
     U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways 
     account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such 
     expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction.
       Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of law:
       (1) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 112 
     Stat. 191; 115 Stat. 871) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (42), by striking ``Fulton, Mississippi,'' 
     the first time that it appears and all that follows to the 
     end of the paragraph and inserting ``Fulton, Mississippi.''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(45) The United States Route 78 Corridor from Memphis, 
     Tennessee, to Corridor X of the Appalachian development 
     highway system near Fulton, Mississippi, and Corridor X of 
     the Appalachian development highway system extending from 
     near Fulton, Mississippi, to near Birmingham, Alabama.''.
       (2) Section 1105(e)(5) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 115 
     Stat. 872) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``(A) In general.--The 
     portions'' and all that follows through the end of the first 
     sentence and inserting:

[[Page H7864]]

       ``(A) In general.--The portions of the routes referred to 
     in subsection (c)(1), subsection (c)(3) (relating solely to 
     the Kentucky Corridor), clauses (i), (ii), and (except with 
     respect to Georgetown County) (iii) of subsection (c)(5)(B), 
     subsection (c)(9), subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), 
     subsection (c)(36), subsection (c)(37), subsection (c)(40), 
     subsection (c)(42), and subsection (c)(45) that are not a 
     part of the Interstate System are designated as future parts 
     of the Interstate System.''; and
       (B) by adding the following at the end of subparagraph 
     (B)(i): ``The route referred to in subsection (c)(45) is 
     designated as Interstate Route I-22.''.
       Sec. 114. None of the funds limited or made available in 
     this Act shall be available to carry out 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(2).
       Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century--
       (1) item number 230 is amended by striking ``Monroe County 
     transportation improvements on Long Pond Road, Pattonwood 
     Road, and Lyell road'' and inserting ``Route 531/Brockport-
     Rochester Corridor in Monroe County, New York''.
       (2) Item number 1149 is amended by striking ``Traffic 
     Mitigation Project on William Street and Losson Road in 
     Cheektowaga'' and inserting ``Study and implement mitigation 
     and diversion options for William Street and Broadway Street 
     in Cheektowaga, I-90 Corridor Study; Interchange 53 to 
     Interchange 49, PIN 552830 and Cheektowaga Rails to Trails, 
     PIN 575508''.
       (3) Item number 476 is amended by striking ``Expand Perkins 
     Road in Baton Rouge'' and inserting ``Feasibility study, 
     design, and construction of a connector between Louisiana 
     Highway 1026 and I-12 in Livingston Parish''.
       (4) Item 4 of the table contained in section 1602 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, relating to 
     construction of a bike path in Michigan, is amended by 
     striking ``between Mount Clemens and New Baltimore'' and 
     inserting ``for the Macomb Orchard Trail in Macomb County''.
       Sec. 116. Intelligent Transportation Systems appropriations 
     made to the State of Wisconsin in Public Law 105-277, Public 
     Law 106-69, and Public Law 107-87 shall not be subject to the 
     limitations of Public Law 105-178, sec. 5208(d), 23 U.S.C. 
     sec. 502 (Notes).
       Sec. 117. Notwithstanding Public Law 105-178, sec. 5208(d), 
     Intelligent Transportation Systems appropriations for--
       (1) Wausau-Stevens Point-Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, in 
     Public Law 105-277 and Public Law 106-69 shall be available 
     for use in the counties of Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, 
     Burnett, Chippewa, Douglas, Iron, Lincoln, Marathon, Polk, 
     Portage, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, Washburn, Wood, Clark, 
     Langlade, and Oneida; and
       (2) the City of Superior and Douglas County, Wisconsin, in 
     Public Law 106-69 shall be available for use in the City of 
     Superior and northern Wisconsin.
       Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of assisting in the development, construction and 
     financing of additional improvements to the Alameda Corridor, 
     including construction of a truck expressway or other 
     enhancements, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify 
     the loan agreement entered into with the Alameda Corridor 
     Transportation Authority pursuant to Public Law 104-208 to 
     revise the interest rate to equal the average yield, as of 
     the date of modification of the loan agreement, on marketable 
     Treasury securities of similar maturity to the expected 
     remaining average life of the loan: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, such modification 
     shall be deemed to be eligible under section 184 of title 23, 
     United States Code, and shall be funded under section 188 of 
     title 23, United States Code: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may revise the interest rate or modify other terms 
     of the existing loan agreement to the extent that the 
     marginal budgetary costs, if any, of such modifications do 
     not exceed $80,000,000 and are funded under section 188 of 
     title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 119. (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall enter into an agreement with the State 
     of Nevada, the State of Arizona, or both, to provide a method 
     of funding for construction of a Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge 
     from funds allocated for the Federal Lands Highway Program 
     under section 202(b) of title 23, United States Code.
       (b) Methods of Funding.--
       (1) The agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall 
     provide for funding in a manner consistent with the advance 
     construction and debt instrument financing procedures for 
     Federal-aid highways set forth in section 115 and 122 of 
     title 23, except that the funding source may include funds 
     made available under the Federal Lands Highway Program.
       (2) Eligibility for funding under this subsection shall not 
     be construed as a commitment, guarantee, or obligation on the 
     part of the United States to provide for payment of principal 
     or interest of an eligible debt financing instrument as so 
     defined in section 122, nor create a right of a third party 
     against the United States for payment under an eligible debt 
     financing instrument. The agreement entered into pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall make specific reference to this 
     provision of law.
       (3) The provisions of this section do not limit the use of 
     other available funds for which the project referenced in 
     subsection (a) is eligible.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                          Motor Carrier Safety


                (limitation on administrative expenses)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses for administration of motor carrier 
     safety programs and motor carrier safety research, pursuant 
     to section 104(a)(1)(B) of title 23, United States Code, not 
     to exceed $236,753,000 shall be paid in accordance with law 
     from appropriations made available by this Act and from any 
     available take-down balances to the Federal Motor Carrier 
     Safety Administration, together with advances and 
     reimbursements received by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration: Provided, That such amounts shall be 
     available to carry out the functions and operations of the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

                 National Motor Carrier Safety Program


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 31102, 31106 
     and 31309, $190,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $190,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier 
     Safety Grants'' and ``Information Systems''.

                       Border Enforcement Program


                          (highway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses to continue the Border Enforcement 
     Program authorized under section 350 of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, 
     $47,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) and to remain available until 
     expended.

    General Provisions--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

       Sec. 130. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     whenever an allocation is made of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for expenditure on the Federal lands highway 
     program, and whenever an apportionment is made of the sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for expenditure on the surface 
     transportation program, the congestion mitigation and air 
     quality improvement program, the National Highway System, the 
     Interstate maintenance program, the bridge program, the 
     Appalachian development highway system, and the minimum 
     guarantee program, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     deduct a sum in such amount not to exceed .90 percent of all 
     sums so made available, as the Secretary determines 
     necessary, to administer the provisions of law to be financed 
     from appropriations for motor carrier safety programs and 
     motor carrier safety research: Provided, That any deduction 
     by the Secretary of Transportation in accordance with this 
     subsection shall be deemed to be a deduction under section 
     104(a)(1)(B) of title 23, United States Code, and the sum so 
     deducted shall remain available until expended.
       Sec. 131. None of the funds appropriated, limited, or made 
     available in this Act shall be used to implement or enforce 
     any provision of the Final Rule issued on April 16, 2003 
     (Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350) as it applies to operators of 
     utility service vehicles as defined in 49 CFR section 395.2.
       Sec. 132. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall 
     be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section 
     350 of Public Law 107-87, including that the Secretary submit 
     a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
     annually on the safety and security of transportation into 
     the United States by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                        Operations and Research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, and part C of 
     subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, $206,178,000, of 
     which $171,110,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2006: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or 
     implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 
     49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement 
     pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the 
     three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature 
     resistance) already in effect.

                        Operations and Research


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to remain available until 
     expended, $72,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the total 
     obligations for which, in fiscal year 2004, are in excess of 
     $72,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.

                        National Driver Register


                          (highway trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to

[[Page H7865]]

     the National Driver Register under chapter 303 of title 49, 
     United States Code, $3,600,000, to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund, and to remain available until expended.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of 23 
     U.S.C. 402, 405, and 410, to remain available until expended, 
     $225,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the total 
     obligations for which, in fiscal year 2004, are in excess of 
     $225,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402, 
     405, and 410, of which $165,000,000 shall be for ``Highway 
     Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, $20,000,000 shall be 
     for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 
     405, and $40,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving 
     Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410: Provided 
     further, That none of these funds shall be used for 
     construction, rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, or for 
     office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private 
     buildings or structures: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $8,150,000 of the funds made available for section 402, not 
     to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds made available for section 
     405, and not to exceed $2,000,000 of the funds made available 
     for section 410 shall be available to NHTSA for administering 
     highway safety grants under chapter 4 of title 23, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed $2,600,000 
     of the funds made available for section 157, and $2,600,000 
     of the funds made available for section 163, shall be 
     available to NHTSA for administering highway safety grants 
     under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $500,000 of the funds made 
     available for section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving 
     Countermeasures Grants'' shall be available for technical 
     assistance to the States.

   General Provisions--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

       Sec. 140. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     States may use funds provided in this Act under section 402 
     of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place highway 
     safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema, 
     and print media, and on the Internet in accordance with 
     guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation: Provided, 
     That any state that uses funds for such public service 
     messages shall submit to the Secretary and the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations a report describing and 
     assessing the effectiveness of the messages: Provided 
     further, That $10,000,000 of the funds allocated for 
     innovative seat belt projects under section 157 of title 23, 
     United States Code, and $12,000,000 of funds allocated under 
     section 163 of title 23, United States Code, shall be used as 
     directed by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administrator, to purchase advertising in broadcast media to 
     support the national mobilizations conducted in all fifty 
     states, aimed at increasing seat belt use and reducing 
     impaired driving: Provided further, That up to $2,000,000 of 
     the funds allocated under section 163 of title 23, United 
     States Code, shall be used by the Administrator to evaluate 
     the effectiveness of alcohol-impaired driving programs that 
     purchase advertising as provided by this section.
       Sec. 141. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the purpose of enforcing compliance with 49 CFR 
     section 579.24, promulgated by the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration in accordance with section 30166(m) of 
     title 49, United States Code, with respect to trailers rated 
     at 26,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                         Safety and Operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $130,922,000, of 
     which $11,712,000 shall remain available until expended.

                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $28,225,000, to remain available until expended.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program


            (limitation on direct loans and loan guarantees)

        The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as 
     amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments 
     shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium 
     during fiscal year 2004.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

       For necessary expenses for the Next Generation High-Speed 
     Rail program as authorized under 49 U.S.C. 26101 and 26102, 
     $28,250,000,  to remain available until expended.

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, $900,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2004, including 
     $400,000,000 for quarterly grants for operating expenses, 
     $373,000,000 for quarterly grants for capital expenses along 
     the Northeast Corridor Mainline, and $127,000,000 for 
     quarterly grants for general capital improvements: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of Transportation shall approve funding to 
     cover operating losses and a long-distance train of the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation only after receiving 
     and reviewing a grant request for each specific train route: 
     Provided further, That each such grant request shall be 
     accompanied by a detailed financial analysis and revenue 
     projection justifying the federal support to the Secretary's 
     satisfaction: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Amtrak Board of Directors shall ensure 
     that, of the amount made available under this heading, 
     sufficient sums are reserved to satisfy the contractual 
     obligations of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
     for commuter and intercity passenger rail service: Provided 
     further, That within 60 days of enactment of this Act but not 
     later than October 1, 2003, Amtrak shall transmit to the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations a business plan for operating 
     and capital improvements to be funded in fiscal year 2004 
     under section 24104(a) of title 49, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That the business plan shall include a 
     description of the work to be funded, along with cost 
     estimates and an estimated timetable for completion of the 
     projects covered by this business plan: Provided further, 
     That not later than October 1, 2003 and each month 
     thereafter, Amtrak shall submit to the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations a supplemental report regarding the business 
     plan, which shall describe the work completed to date, any 
     changes to the business plan, and the reasons for such 
     changes: Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act 
     may be used for operating expenses and capital projects not 
     approved by the Secretary of Transportation nor on the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation's fiscal year 2004 
     business plan: Provided further, That none of the funds under 
     this heading may be obligated or expended until the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation agrees to continue abiding by 
     the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 11 of the 
     summary of conditions for the direct loan agreement of June 
     28, 2002, in the same manner as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

          General Provisions--Federal Railroad Administration

       Sec. 150. To authorize the Surface Transportation Board to 
     direct the continued operation of certain commuter rail 
     passenger transportation operations in emergency situations, 
     and for other purposes:
       (a) Section 11123 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``failure of existing commuter rail 
     passenger transportation operations caused by a cessation of 
     service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,'' 
     after ``cessation of operations,'';
       (B) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4)(C) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) in the case of a failure of existing freight or 
     commuter rail passenger transportation operations caused by a 
     cessation of service by the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation, direct the continuation of the operations and 
     dispatching, maintenance, and other necessary infrastructure 
     functions related to the operations.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``When'' and inserting ``(A) Except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), when''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) In the case of a failure of existing freight or 
     commuter rail passenger transportation operations caused by a 
     cessation of service by the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation, the Board shall provide funding to fully 
     reimburse the directed service provider for its costs 
     associated with the activities directed under subsection (a), 
     including the payment of increased insurance premiums. The 
     Board shall order complete indemnification against any and 
     all claims associated with the provision of service to which 
     the directed rail carrier may be exposed.'';
       (3) by adding the following new paragraph at the end of 
     subsection (c):
       ``(4) In the case of a failure of existing freight or 
     commuter rail passenger transportation operations caused by 
     cessation of service by the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation, the Board may not direct a rail carrier to 
     undertake activities under subsection (a) to continue such 
     operations unless--
       ``(A) the Board first affirmatively finds that the rail 
     carrier is operationally capable of conducting the directed 
     service in a safe and efficient manner; and
       ``(B) the funding for such directed service required by 
     subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(3) is provided in advance 
     in appropriations Acts.''; and

[[Page H7866]]

       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(e) For purposes of this section, the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation and any entity providing commuter rail 
     passenger transportation shall be considered rail carriers 
     subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
       ``(f) For purposes of this section, the term `commuter rail 
     passenger transportation' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 24102(4).''.
       (b) Section 24301(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``11123,'' after ``except for 
     sections''.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs, $14,500,000: Provided, 
     That no more than $72,500,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes: Provided further, That of the 
     funds available not to exceed $948,000 shall be available for 
     the Office of the Administrator; not to exceed $6,126,000 
     shall be available for the Office of Administration; not to 
     exceed $3,848,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Chief Counsel; not to exceed $1,067,000 shall be available 
     for the Office of Communication and Congressional Affairs; 
     not to exceed $7,303,000 shall be available for the Office of 
     Program Management; not to exceed $6,027,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of Budget and Policy; not to exceed 
     $4,328,000 shall be available for the Office of Demonstration 
     and Innovation; not to exceed $2,657,000 shall be available 
     for the Office of Civil Rights; not to exceed $3,732,000 
     shall be available for the Office of Planning; not to exceed 
     $17,697,000 shall be available for regional offices; and not 
     to exceed $16,567,000 shall be available for the central 
     account: Provided further, That the Administrator is 
     authorized to transfer funds appropriated for an office of 
     the Federal Transit Administration: Provided further, That no 
     appropriation for an office shall be increased or decreased 
     by more than 3 percent by all such transfers: Provided 
     further, That any change in funding greater than 3 percent 
     shall be submitted for approval to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for travel expenses: 
     Provided further, That of the funds in this Act available for 
     the execution of contracts under section 5327(c) of title 49, 
     United States Code, $2,000,000 shall be reimbursed to the 
     Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General 
     for costs associated with audits and investigations of 
     transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed 
     guideway systems: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,200,000 for the National transit database shall remain 
     available until expended.

                             Formula Grants


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5308, 
     5310, 5311, 5327, and section 3038 of Public Law 105-178, 
     $767,800,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $3,839,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 3008 of Public Law 105-178, 
     $50,000,000 of the funds to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall be 
     transferred to and merged with funding provided for the 
     replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and 
     related equipment and the construction of bus-related 
     facilities under ``Federal Transit Administration, Capital 
     investment grants''.

                   University Transportation Research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5505, 
     $1,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $6,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes.

                     Transit Planning and Research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304, 
     5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322, 
     $24,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $122,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes: Provided further, That 
     $5,250,000 is available to provide rural transportation 
     assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)), $4,000,000 is available to 
     carry out programs under the National Transit Institute (49 
     U.S.C. 5315), $8,250,000 is available to carry out transit 
     cooperative research programs (49 U.S.C. 5313(a)), 
     $60,385,600 is available for metropolitan planning (49 U.S.C. 
     5303, 5304, and 5305), $12,614,400 is available for State 
     planning (49 U.S.C. 5313(b)); and $31,500,000 is available 
     for the national planning and research program (49 U.S.C. 
     5314).

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 5303-5308, 
     5310-5315, 5317(b), 5322, 5327, 5334, 5505, and sections 3037 
     and 3038 of Public Law 105-178, $5,807,020,000 to remain 
     available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass 
     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That 
     $3,071,200,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's formula grants account: Provided further, 
     That $97,800,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's transit planning and research account: 
     Provided further, That $58,000,000 shall be paid to the 
     Federal Transit Administration's administrative expenses 
     account: Provided further, That $4,800,000 shall be paid to 
     the Federal Transit Administration's university 
     transportation research account: Provided further, That 
     $64,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's job access and reverse commute grants 
     program: Provided further, That $2,507,220,000 shall be paid 
     to the Federal Transit Administration's capital investment 
     grants account.

                       Capital Investment Grants


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309, 
     5318, and 5327, $599,280,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That no more than $3,106,500,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes: 
     Provided further, That there shall be available for fixed 
     guideway modernization, $1,214,400,000; there shall be 
     available for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase 
     of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-
     related facilities, $677,700,000; and there shall be 
     available for new fixed guideway systems $1,214,400,000, to 
     be available as follows:
       Baltimore, MD, Central Light Rail Double Track Project, 
     $40,000,000;
       BART San Francisco Airport (SFO), CA, Extension Project, 
     $100,000,000;
       Boston, MA, Silver Line Phase III, $3,000,000;
       Charlotte, NC, South Corridor Light Rail Project, 
     $4,000,000;
       Chicago Transit Authority, IL, Douglas Branch 
     Reconstruction, $85,000,000;
       Chicago, IL, Metra Commuter Rail Expansions and Extensions, 
     $52,000,000;
       Chicago, IL, Ravenswood Reconstruction, $45,000,000;
       Dallas, TX, North Central Light Rail Extension, 
     $30,161,283;
       Denver, CO, Southeast Corridor LRT (T-REX), $80,000,000;
       East Side Access Project, NY, Phase I, $70,000,000;
       Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Tri-Rail Commuter Project, $18,410,000;
       Las Vegas, NV, Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway, $15,000,000;
       Los Angeles, CA, Eastside Light Rail Transit System, 
     $10,000,000;
       Memphis, TN, Medical Center Rail Extension, $9,247,588;
       Minneapolis, MN, Hiawatha Corridor Light Rail Transit 
     (LRT), $74,980,000;
       New Orleans, LA, Canal Street Streetcar Project, 
     $23,921,373;
       New York, Second Avenue Subway, $3,000,000;
       Newark, NJ, Rail Link (NERL) MOS1, $22,566,022;
       Northern, NJ, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (MOS2), 
     $100,000,000;
       Phoenix, AZ, Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit 
     Project, $13,000,000;
       Pittsburgh, PA, Stage II Light Rail Transit Reconstruction, 
     $32,243,422;
       Portland, OR, Interstate MAX Light Rail Extension, 
     $77,500,000;
       Raleigh, NC, Triangle Transit Authority Regional Rail 
     Project, $3,000,000;
       Salt Lake City, UT, Medical Center LRT Extension, 
     $30,663,361;
       San Diego, CA, Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit 
     Extension, $65,000,000;
       San Diego, CA, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project, 
     $48,000,000;
       San Juan, PR, Tren Urbano Rapid Transit System, 
     $43,540,000;
       Seattle, WA, Sound Transit Central Link Initial Segment, 
     $15,000,000;
       Washington, DC/MD, Largo Extension, $65,000,000;
       Washington, DC/VA, Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project, 
     $25,000,000;
       Hawaii and Alaska Ferry Boats, $10,296,000;
       Oversight set-aside, $12,144,000; and
       San Francisco, CA, Muni Third Street Light Rail Project, 
     $10,000,000;

     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for the purpose of calculating the non-New Starts share 
     of the total project cost of both phases of San Francisco 
     Muni's Third Street Light Rail Transit project for fiscal 
     year 2004, the Secretary of Transportation shall include all 
     non-New Starts contributions made towards Phase 1 of the two-
     phase project for engineering, final design and construction, 
     and also shall allow non-New Starts funds expended on one 
     element or phase of the project to be used to meet the non-
     New Starts share requirement of any element or phase of the 
     project: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in 
     this Act for the San Francisco Muni's Third Street Light Rail 
     Transit Project shall be obligated if the Federal Transit 
     Administration determines that the project is found to be 
     ``not recommended'' after evaluation and computation of 
     revised transportation system user benefit data.
  Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 51, line 10 be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order?


                            Points of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have three points of order, and I would 
like to take them one at a time.

[[Page H7867]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his points of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the provision 
found on page 9 beginning on line 14 and ending on line 15. The phrase 
``to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and.'' This is 
an unauthorized appropriations from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that my 
colleague from Florida made this point of order, but in the event that 
he did, I must insist that the point of order be applied to the entire 
paragraph and not only to provisions within the paragraph to which the 
gentleman from the authorizing committee objects.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is extended to the entire paragraph.
  Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we would concede the point of order as 
extended as the Chair has stated to the entire paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. That 
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a second point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the provision found on 
page 12 beginning with the word ``for'' on line 12 through ``49 USC 
44706'' on line 16 and again on page 12, line 22 beginning with the 
words ``provided further'' through page 13, line 2. This would fund 
administrative expenses of the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, and 
the cost of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program 
from contract authority that is authorized only for airport grants, not 
administrative expenses or other programs. It would also waive existing 
law. Both the proviso and this related language are legislative in 
nature and, therefore, in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again, I must insist that the 
point of order be applied to the entire paragraph and not only to 
provisions within the paragraph to which the gentleman from the 
authorizing committee objects.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that it applies to the entire 
paragraph, namely, from line 1 on page 12 through line 2 on page 13, to 
that extent, applying to that entirety, we would concede the point of 
order, but only to that extent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the point of order is conceded and sustained and the 
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a third and final point of order I 
would like to offer on behalf of myself and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of section 105 
which begins on page 14, line 16 through page 15, line 2. That section 
authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to accept funds from an 
airport sponsor to expedite the environmental review process for 
airport projects that would add critical airport capacity to the 
National Air Transportation System. The conference report on H.R. 15 
contains a provision that is similar but, in fact, broader in scope. 
The language in H.R. 15 will allow the FAA to accept funds from an 
airport sponsor in order to facilitate the timely processing, review 
and completion of environmental activities associated with any airport 
development project.
  To avoid the confusion that could arise from the enactment of two 
inconsistent provisions, I object to section 105 on the grounds that it 
is legislative in nature and in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we would concede this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and 
section 105 is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I have 15 points of order to the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, I make a point of order against the provision found 
on page 17, lines 6 through 11. This provision would rescind $137 
million in unobligated balances of Highway Contract Authority.
  Under this provision, each State Department of Transportation would 
lose funds from the Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion 
Mitigation Air Quality Program, the National Highway System Program, 
the Interstate Maintenance Program, and the Bridge Program. This will 
reduce each State's ability to move funds from one category to another 
within its obligation limitation and will be particularly harmful given 
that States may soon need to use their unobligated balances to continue 
their programs pending enactment of a long term reauthorization of 
surface transportation programs. The creation and recision of contract 
authority is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. This decision is legislative in 
nature and in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, although the effect of the amendment, 
unfortunately, is to add $137 million which we do not have in the 
budget authority to the underlying bill, thereby complicating the 
efforts to ultimately achieve a successful conference with the Senate, 
nevertheless, we must concede that the point of order is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?

  If not, the point of order is conceded and sustained, and that 
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 110 
which begins on page 18 and ends on page 23, line 15. Section 110 
specifies the distribution of funds for the Federal-aid Highways 
Program. I expect that this Congress will extend the existing highway 
program for a period of time. If we do so, this provision will create 
confusion and conflict and is unnecessary. This entire section is 
legislative in nature, in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, although the effect of this point of order 
would be to remove the distribution formula and leave us in limbo, 
which we hope to ultimately correct, nevertheless, we must concede the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Anyone wishing to be heard?
  If not, the point of order is conceded and sustained, and section 110 
is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 111 
which begins on page 23, line 16 and ends on page 24, line 12. Section 
111 increases the Federal Highway administrative takedown authorized in 
23 USC 104(a) from one and one-sixth percent to 1.35 percent. It would 
also waive existing law. This is legislative in nature, in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we unfortunately must concede the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and 
section 111 is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the last two 
provisos of section 118 on page 28, line 19 beginning with ``provided'' 
and through page 29, line 3.
  Section 118 directs the Secretary of Transportation to modify a 
specific loan agreement and to have the proposed loan modification 
funded under the Transportation and Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act Program. By statute, eligibility for federally 
guaranteed loans under the TIFIA program is determined by the Secretary 
of Transportation in accordance with rigorous and selective criteria. 
It also waives existing law. Waiving existing law is legislative in 
nature and violates clause 2 of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I feel the need to speak a little bit in 
greater length because of the consequences of this point of order.
  This point of order would strike the final two provisos in section 
218 but leave intact the remainder of that section. Those provisos that 
would be stricken would ensure that the loan refinancing of the Alameda 
Corridor Transportation Authority are subsumed, that is, contained 
within the

[[Page H7868]]

Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act and thereby would 
limit the overall expense of this refinancing to $80 million.
  The effect of the amendment is to increase, again, the cost of our 
bill by upwards of $160 to $170 million in budget authority and a 
similar number in outlays.
  The reason the committee included section 118 as written is to ensure 
that the refinancing of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority 
can be funded through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act Program and that the cost of that refinancing to the 
Federal Government will not exceed $80 million.
  If the point of order is sustained, the refinancing costs will no 
longer be limited and it cannot be paid for from the TIFIA program. The 
effect of the elimination of these provisos may cause the Congressional 
Budget Office to increase their scoring of the bill by the $160 to $170 
million. That would put the bill well over our 302(b) allocation.

                              {time}  1415

  We have already had another point of order that pushed us above that 
allocation. We cannot afford this change. The effect of sustaining the 
point of order could be to make it impossible to do this refinancing 
that is crucial in the Alameda corridor. So I would ask the gentleman 
to consider the serious financial effect of his point of order and 
consider withdrawing the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair finds that this provision explicitly 
supersedes existing law. The provision, therefore, constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained, and section 118 is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' found on page 31, line 
5. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations 
bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of 
Representatives.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the gentleman's 
point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that 
language is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase 
``to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
Transit Account)'' on page 31, lines 19 through the word ``account'' on 
line 21. This section appropriates $47 million from the Highway Trust 
Fund for the border enforcement program. There is no current 
authorization of a border enforcement program. This language clearly 
constitutes an unauthorized appropriation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again, I must insist that the 
point of order be applied to the entire paragraph and not just to the 
provision within the paragraph to which the gentleman from the 
authorizing committee objects.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member wishing to be heard?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the point of order is 
correctly applied against the entire paragraph, namely, the text from 
page 31, lines 14 through lines 21 to its entirety and not just to a 
portion thereof, to that extent and only that extent we would concede 
the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order? The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of 
section 130 which begins on page 31, line 24. This section authorizes 
an administrative takedown that exceeds the one-third of 1 percent 
administrative takedown authorized by section 104(a)(1)(B) of Title 23. 
It also violates existing law. This increase is legislative in nature 
in violation of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order against this 
section.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and 
section 130 is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' found on page 34, line 
24. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations 
bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of 
Representatives.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that 
language is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the two 
provisos which begin on page 36, line 17 starting with the words 
``provided further'' through page 37, line 5. These provisos of section 
104 earmark the manner in which certain safety-related grants are to be 
used by the States. These unauthorized earmarks reduce both the amount 
of funding available to the States and the States' discretion in the 
use of these funds. I object to these earmarks on the grounds that they 
are unauthorized, in violation of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard on this point 
of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, despite the negative consequences, we 
believe we must concede this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and those 
two provisos are stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the proviso 
that begins at the end of line 16 on page 45 through line 23. This 
proviso purports to transfer $50 million provided by TEA for the clean 
fuels bus formula grant program to the transit bus discretionary grant 
program, where it is distributed not by the statutory formula 
envisioned in TEA but rather by earmarks in report language. It also 
waives existing law. This proviso is legislative in nature in violation 
of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that 
proviso is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' found on page 46, line 
25. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations 
bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of 
Representatives.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that 
language is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. I have additional points of order, but they are starting 
on page 51 which would that be in order at this point?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman seek to raise a point of order on 
page 50?
  Mr. PETRI. No. Page 51, line 12 is my next point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The bill is read only through line 10 on page 51. Are 
there any other points of order against provisions in his portion of 
the bill? If not, are there any amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       On page 6, line 9 of the bill, delete ``$6,000,000,000'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$4,043,000,000''.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple and straightforward 
amendment. It lowers the amount for the Federal Aviation 
Administration's operating budget that would be coming from the 
Aviation Trust Fund, changing the amount that comes from the Aviation 
Trust Fund from $6 billion to $4.043 billion. The remainder, however, 
would remain appropriated, but from general revenue.
  The amended figure is the amount that would be allowed under the 
current aviation authorization if it were

[[Page H7869]]

to be extended until fiscal year 2004. The amount originally under the 
bill, the $6 billion, was the amount proposed by the administration in 
the President's budget.
  The effect is that the funding in the bill for this purpose will 
remain the same. It will remain $6 billion of overall funding. It is 
just that the source will be slightly over $4 billion from the Aviation 
Trust Fund and slightly under $2 billion in general revenue fund.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had raised an 
objection to the higher Aviation Trust Fund figure. They had suggested 
a potential point of order might lie against it as an unauthorized 
appropriation. So we worked this out with the authorizers, and I know 
of no objection to it.
  This does not add funding to the bill. This does not take funding 
from the bill. It only changes the mix of general fund and trust fund 
dollars used to finance the FAA.
  I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member seeking time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Hoyer:
       Page 2, line 8, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,268,000)''.

       Page 5, line 21, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $8,268,000)''.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment will be to 
transfer $8.2 million from the construction fund for the transportation 
building which we have cleared cannot be spent this year in 2004. It 
will be spent in 2006, and we did not want to damage that building 
because we are very strong supporters of that building, and put $8.26 
million for the general aviation airports into the Washington 
metropolitan area. I would like to speak about it and then have a 
little discussion with the chairman and then perhaps take some action 
and we can work on this later.
  In the aftermath, Mr. Chairman, of the September 11 terrorist 
attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration issued temporary flight 
restrictions on the small aircraft of general aviation as part of its 
efforts to make commercial air travel safer. Unfortunately, while those 
restrictions were lifted for general aviation in the entire rest of the 
country, small airports in the Washington metropolitan area have 
continued to languish under binding restrictions of their operations.
  These are private sector. This is not public. These are private 
sector entrepreneurs, businessmen and -women who have invested their 
dollars in the operations of these general aviation airports. In fact, 
the only airports in the country that are closed or severely restricted 
to incoming and outgoing general aviation are Reagan National Airport 
and the three D.C. general aviation airports.
  I might say that I offer this amendment on behalf of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and others and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is here. He can speak for himself. As a 
result, these small airports, specifically College Park Airport, 
Potomac Airfield, Washington Executive, and National, National is not 
on the brink of financial collapse, obviously, because it is associated 
with a large public airport. The other three airports, however, are not 
in that situation. They survive or fail solely on the revenues from 
their general aviation, and they are in dire straits. These airports 
have been forced to nearly cease their operations, effectively 
endangering the livelihood of their employees who have lost income and 
jobs and airport owners who have lost longtime customers and almost all 
of their revenue.
  There is no doubt that we must stem the tide of economic decline for 
general aviation. This industry is a proven integral part of the 
Nation's economy, providing vital service and economic stability to 
individual families, churches, hospitals, colleges, industry, small 
businesses and communities.
  Aviation transportation in Maryland is a $1.3 billion industry. My 
amendment is, therefore, very simple. It will reimburse these general 
aviation airports for the security costs incurred and revenue foregone 
because of government restriction.
  Let me say, I have had discussions with Sean O'Keefe, who is now the 
administrator of NASA, but who was the deputy administrator of OMB. He 
believes this is fair. Secretary Mineta testified before our 
subcommittee that this was their proposal that this be done, and there 
is legislation pending to accomplish that, but obviously it needs an 
appropriation.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to yield to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) who represents the District of Columbia and 
National Airport.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank the gentleman for 
the leadership he has given to this issue to mitigate some of the 
almost total losses of the airports in this district which handle 
charter flights and commercial flights. This is the Nation's Capital. 
One can imagine a major business destination without any charter 
flights for almost 2 years.
  What we are asking for is a pittance compared to what the losses have 
been. Originally I think the amendment was $15 million. It is now $8.2 
million.
  I do want to indicate that these airports I think are three small 
ones, in Maryland, perhaps Virginia, and there is, of course, the 
larger one here in the District. They said whatever regulations, in 
fact, that we come forward with they will meet. Instead they have been 
closed. At the very least what we have got here is close to a taking. 
We ought to compensate them somewhat for what they have done. We 
compensated all the other airlines. There is no other commercial 
aviation in the United States, indeed in the world, that is closed 
today except in this region.
  We ask for forbearance and for some compensation. That is all it 
would be, some compensation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her work and her 
cosponsorship of this amendment and her comments.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from 
Maryland for taking leadership on this, and my colleague from the 
District. I have asked the chairman of the subcommittee, I know he is 
interested in this as well.
  This is something that 9/11 shut these airports down. They are 
actually very, very important to the Nation's security here in terms of 
ingress and egress, and we have, I think, a national interest in 
preserving these. As was stated before, it is just a pittance, but it 
is important to keep them economically viable.
  Let me ask the chairman of the committee can he work with us to make 
sure that in conference this money is included if he is not comfortable 
with where this money is coming from at this point.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the comments of each 
of the gentlemen. As I believe everyone is aware, originally my mark as 
chairman included funds for this purpose when it came out of the 
subcommittee. Unfortunately, when other extremely large demands were 
imposed upon the bill, including demand for Amtrak and other things, 
this and many other worthwhile things had to be dropped out of the bill 
in full committee in that process. Nevertheless, the underlying 
equities, I think, are very much as the gentleman has stated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)

[[Page H7870]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the chairman of the 
subcommittee
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
  As I was mentioning, this and many other meritorious things, 
unfortunately, had to be dropped out in full committee not because they 
lacked merit but simply because of the funding restrictions.
  As I have certainly told the gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman 
from Virginia, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, I 
remain committed to addressing this. I believe the equities are there. 
Frankly, I believe the government is open to an inverse condemnation 
litigation that would cost us even more. So it is something I do hope 
we can accomplish in the conference process with the Senate.
  I stated that previously, and originally had that intent and put that 
in my original chairman's mark. So while I remain committed to that 
objective, it is just that we had to balance this with the overall 
figures in the ultimate House-Senate conference. But I most definitely 
am committed to working with my colleagues towards the same goal.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
his comments and would remind my colleagues that we have given billions 
of dollars to the airlines, these are billion dollar corporations, as a 
result of 9-11. These three little airports, plus National Airport, are 
the only private business people so situated in the airline industry 
who have not received compensation. And they, unlike the airlines per 
se, are losing their entire investments because of their inability to 
operate these airlines.
  I appreciate the chairman's observations with respect to the equities 
of the claim here. I also appreciate the observation of the chairman 
and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that we may be 
subject to a lawsuit which we would lose because this is in fact an 
effective taking of their property without due process. None of these 
folks want to damage the security of this region or the White House or 
the Capitol. They understand our concern. But we certainly need to 
compensate them.
  In light of the fact the chairman has indicated his willingness to 
work with us to try to ensure the funding, I believe $8.2 million which 
we have in here is the approximate amount for National, a larger sum, 
and then a much smaller sum for the other three; and I believe that the 
sum from which we have taken it will not in any way adversely affect 
the Transportation Department's building going forward because of the 
scheduling of those expenditures; but because the chairman has made 
that representation, I will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at 
this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my good 
friend, the gentleman from Maryland, as well as the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); and I 
know several of the Senators in this area are supporting this as well. 
This is terribly important to our economy in the Washington region, but 
also to the Nation's economy.
  We have pretty much recovered on the surface of things from 9-11, at 
least we have rebuilt the Pentagon, we are now functioning as well as 
we can at National Airport in terms of commercial jets and we are 
responding to national and international challenges. But general 
aviation is in the same situation it was when it was closed as a result 
of the tragedy of September 11, 2001. This is unfair. It is wrong. We 
have to do something about it.
  Outside the infrequent use of official government planes, general 
aviation operations at National Airport are prohibited. There were more 
than 60,000 business aviation flights a year at National Airport. It 
was not the kind of mom and pop Cessnas and Piper Cubs that were 
bringing visitors to Washington to tour the Capitol and the museums; it 
was business executives, top government officials, and CEOs who need 
their own aircraft and need the efficiency of an airport close to the 
city to do their business.
  This is hurting Washington's economy, and it is devastating a company 
like Signature Flight Support, which is the sole provider of general 
aviation services at National Airport. They were generating revenues of 
$20 million a year. They had hundreds of employees. Those people are 
out of a job. Signature Flight Support has lost about $3 million, $1 
million a year, and it is hemorrhaging money every single day.
  Under the terms of its lease, it is required to staff and operate 
National Airport 24 hours a day, 7 days a week regardless of whether 
there is any demand for its services. For 8 months, the Department of 
Transportation worked with them. They said that they were going to be 
able to open the airport, and it encouraged Signature to stay in 
business. But then on July 19 of 2002, Secretary Mineta informed 
airport officials that general aviation would remain closed 
indefinitely for security reasons. They have lost too much money. They 
have had to lay off too many people, and it is not fair to expect them 
to maintain Federal Government planes when that is not their job. Their 
job is to service all of general aviation, and we shouldn't be 
preventing them from doing their job.
  This has not gone unnoticed by the House, and I want to thank those 
on the authorizing committee. There is a provision in the Aviation 
Reauthorization Act that authorizes funds to help general aviation 
activities that have been hurt by these security restrictions. With the 
adoption of the Hoyer amendment, we would be able to fulfill the 
legislation's intent and actually provide some very needed relief to 
those businesses that are suffering through no fault of their own.
  This is a Federal responsibility. We really ought to fund the Hoyer 
amendment. We ought to get these businesses back on their feet. They 
have a right to recover from 9-11 too.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his 
leadership in this effort as well. He and I have worked very closely on 
this issue and he has been very focused on National and the other three 
airports.
  It is certainly ironic that we are making efforts, I think 
appropriate efforts, to fund infrastructure in Iraq; but we cannot 
compensate business people who were damaged by 9-11 and who are almost 
driven out of business at a very, as the chairman said, at a relatively 
nominal sum. So I hope with the chairman's leadership we will be able 
to do this in conference.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman very much and would add one last word. This is not a security 
threat. We know everybody that is on these planes, and they are the 
last people that would engage in any kind of terrorism. It is a much 
safer passenger list, I have to say, than the normal population that 
gets on a commercial airline flight. We don't really know much about 
them except what they might be carrying in their shoes or something.
  This is not a security issue; it is an economic issue and an issue of 
fairness. General aviation needs to be opened.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

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

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri:
       Strike section 114 of the bill and redesignate subsequent 
     sections of the bill accordingly.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I am joined by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and several other Members in offering an 
amendment that would strike section 114 of the bill.
  This provision, as described in the committee report, ``discontinues 
the mandatory 10 percent set-aside from the surface transportation 
program for the transportation enhancement program.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is wrong on many levels, and the provision should 
be stricken from the bill. Over the last 12 years, enhancements have 
become an appreciated and important part of our transportation program. 
Though individual projects are not costly, enhancements nevertheless 
pack a big punch in

[[Page H7871]]

terms of promoting economic growth and tourism. They fund bike paths 
that are enjoyed by families on a Saturday morning. They complete 
street-scape projects that revitalize the neighborhood. They improve 
our quality of life and have become important to communities across our 
country. All of them have a transportation-related purpose.
  It has been said that we need to give State transportation 
departments the flexibility to decide how to spend their money. Well, 
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
which is known by the phrase AASHTO, support the amendment. They have 
come to value the contributions of this program.
  In reference to diversions, I would like to point out that nonhighway 
recreational users contribute, according to the estimate of the 
Treasury Department and the Transportation Department, up to $268 
million a year in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. I trust that in 
the last several decades recreational users still have contributed more 
than they have received since we created this program.
  It has been said that we need to eliminate the enhancements program 
because we are billions short for covering our basic highway and bridge 
needs. I am glad there is recognition of the need to invest in our 
transportation systems, but I daresay that eliminating this $600 
million program is not the answer to our funding needs. Finally, 
Members should be aware that the President's reauthorization proposal, 
which was just recently submitted, continues to dedicate funding for 10 
enhancement programs.
  While this amendment should pass on the merits of the program alone, 
I must also say that it is wrong to use the appropriations process to, 
in essence, rewrite the transportation program and allow funds now 
dedicated for enhancements to be used for other purposes. This is more 
appropriately the function of the authorizing committee.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, State Departments of Transportation through 
their organizations support this amendment; counties support the 
amendment; cities support this amendment; environmental groups support 
the amendment; AARP supports it; bike, architects, conservation and 
historic conservation groups support it. Recreation and travel groups 
support it. Even various health groups and the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America have expressed support. And the list goes on. It is not a 
State's rights issue. The States have spoken. They want to retain 
dedicated funding for transportation enhancements.
  Mr. Chairman, let us follow the lead of our President and continue 
dedicated funding for transportation enhancements by passing this 
amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we understand more 
correctly what we are talking about here. We are talking about money 
that comes from the fuel taxes. When we drive a car or we drive a 
truck, we pay a fuel tax. Where does that money go? Right now, for 
every $6 in fuel taxes paid, $1 never even goes back to highways 
because it goes to mass transit funding.
  That is one of the reasons that we have a $400 billion backlog in 
road needs in this country. That is one of the reasons we have tens of 
thousands of unsafe bridges. It is one of the reasons we have tens of 
thousands of miles of roads that need improvement, that need to be 
safer, that need wider shoulders or better dividing. It is one of the 
reasons we lose billions of dollars each year in productivity because 
we do not necessarily pick our priorities right.
  It is not a question of whether it is nice and whether people say, 
yes, we would like to have a program to build more bike trails and 
pedestrian ways, and what has not been mentioned is that this money 
also goes for things like transportation museums and so forth. Of 
course people want that money. But if we ask them what is more 
important to them, is it more important to have the enhancements or to 
take care of the basics, this bill says that rather than having to take 
10 percent, as the current standard requires, 10 percent of the surface 
transportation dollars and put them into the transportation 
enhancements, the pedestrian ways, the bike ways, the museums, they 
must, they must do it right now, we say let them have a choice. Let 
them work on improving safety first, if they say that is the highest 
priority. For goodness sake, put the money where the priority is the 
highest. Not just because people say, sure, I like this program, but is 
it the most important thing in a Nation with a $400 billion backlog 
because the highway trust fund has been decreasing.
  Every year this program is taking $600 million paid for by drivers 
and putting it into everything but roads through this transportation 
enhancement program.

                              {time}  1445

  Let the States have a choice. Let them decide for themselves where 
their priorities are highest. I ask Members, they come to me and they 
say they need funding for a road. If Members vote that they do not 
think roads are their highest priority, do not ask for money for roads 
if Members want to divert that money.
  This provision is about options, letting people make priority 
decisions. We should not try to dictate to the States from Washington, 
D.C. that they cannot spend the money that drivers pay to relieve the 
congestion drivers are experiencing, and they have to spend it on other 
things. We should not be doing that.
  We have spent billions of dollars already that our roads needed that 
were mandated for these things. It is time to give communities a 
choice, not a commandment. That is what the amendment is about. The 
bill gives them a choice. The amendment says States do not have a say, 
they must take the money paid by drivers and put it into things that do 
not move as many people and do not move the goods and do not relieve 
the congestion and do not improve safety. They are definitely nice 
things to have, but when we have limited money, we have to make tough 
decisions. We are tying to make the tough decisions.
  I hope that every Member that thinks they have roads that are 
important in their community will remember whether they voted to say 
our communities should be able to address those needs, or Washington is 
dictating and saying they have no say in the matter, States are 
compelled to take 10 percent of their surface transportation dollars 
and take them away from the people who paid at the pump for roads.
  And do not tell me we need to adjust fuel taxes upward if we are not 
using the money rightly that we get right now. If we are not using the 
money for the intended purpose, if we are not honoring a trust fund 
principle and using user fees properly, for goodness sake, do not be 
asking to raise the fuel tax. There is some money paid by recreational 
people. We have $50 million in an off-road fund already to pay for 
trails. We have millions more in other provisions in this bill to pay 
for rails-to-trails, to pay for pedestrian ways, to pay for bikeways. 
We have some of those projects in this bill. There are some with merit; 
but we should not be dictating to the States what they do with the 
money their taxpayers pay, and it is coming back to them with a mandate 
to divert it. I ask for the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the conference committee for both ISTEA and TEA-21, 
I was totally immersed in developing the transportation enhancements 
program and ensuring its long-term viability. As authorizers, we were 
very specific about the 10 percent mandatory set-aside and feel that 
section 114 of the fiscal year 2004 Transportation, Treasury and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act changes the laws that this 
House created. This constitutes a major legislative change in the 
highway bill and is without question the wrong way to go.
  The transportation enhancement program accounts for a mere 2 percent 
of the overall funding of the highway program. Many people do not 
realize this because while the funding amount may be small, the 
benefits local communities receive make a tremendous impact on the 
character and vitality of towns and villages across America.
  Transportation enhancements have improved the health and environment 
as well as the economic well-being of our communities by funding more 
than

[[Page H7872]]

17,000 projects. These projects have ranged from restoring streetscapes 
on local main streets to preserving landmark roads and bridges to 
revitalizing old transportation facilities.
  Transportation enhancements create an environment where cyclists and 
pedestrians can safely coexist with motorists while also improving the 
landscape of a community. Nationwide communities have enhancement 
projects that they are very proud of. Whether a trail or a bike lane or 
a streetscape enhancement or a pedestrian bridge, these small projects 
are oftentimes how a community identifies itself and takes great pride 
in these projects with tourists and visitors, and that produces 
economic vitality. These projects also help to decrease congestion and 
improve the quality of the air we breathe, further adding to the 
quality of our life.
  I could go on and on listing various groups that support 
transportation enhancements and benefit from them. They range from 
mayors and Governors and park directors to hikers and bikers and 
farmers. My own State Department of Transportation has requested us to 
make the set aside mandatory because of the tremendous benefits derived 
from the program. To appreciate the value of the transportation 
enhancements program, one needs only to imagine the pathways teaming 
with strollers and rollerbladers and people biking to work. Picture the 
historic transportation structures that have breathed life and vitality 
into declining downtown areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I included for the Record the remainder of my 
statement, and urge strong support of the Petri-Olver enhancement 
amendment.
  The enhancement program has encouraged communities to come together 
and craft a vision for revitalizing their downtown areas, for 
constructing networks of pathways along creeks and rivers, and for 
preserving the transportation history of this country.
  This process builds support from a broad swath of interests, 
including elected officials, business owners, walkers, bicyclists, fans 
of historic preservation and neighbors. The Enhancement program serves 
as a catalyst, leveraging more local investment, as one project builds 
support for the next. Our investment in the Transportation Enhancement 
program is modest, but the rewards are immeasurable. I urge strong 
support of the Petri/Olver amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start by commending the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri) for his leadership in presenting this amendment. I want to 
point out and remind Members that this amendment has been cosponsored 
by a bipartisan group from both sides of the aisle, including myself on 
the Committee on Appropriations, several members from the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and several Members who have no 
connection with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or 
the Committee on Appropriations. This is truly a bipartisan amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike section 114 
to preserve the enhancement program as it has been authorized and in 
law for the last 12 years.
  Make no mistake, a vote against this amendment would cripple the 
extremely popular enhancement program. The transportation enhancement 
program created in 1991 in the ISTEA bill was designed to help 
communities expand transportation choices. Enhancement funds are used 
to create alternative means of transportation such as bicycle trails 
and pedestrian walkways which are directly associated with roadways. 
Enhancements also include the renovation of streetscapes, scenic roads, 
beautifications, and preservation and investment in the reuse of 
historic transportation infrastructure that creates both jobs and 
community amenities.
  Congress in both ISTEA and the TEA-21 bill, and now the 
administration in its transportation reauthorization proposal, 
determined that a small portion, about 2 percent of our $30-plus 
billion every year that goes into the highway program, should be used 
for these kinds of projects. From 1998 to 2003, a total of $4 billion 
was provided to the States for these enhancements, of which almost $3 
billion had been obligated by the middle of this year.
  But there is a more telling statistic: From 1971 to 1991, the 20 
years before there was an authorized and overwhelmingly voted and 
agreed to set-aside for enhancements, only $40 million was spent 
nationwide on bike and pedestrian paths, by far the largest component 
of the enhancement program. Yet under the authorized ISTEA and TEA-21 
legislation, in those 12 years from 1991 until now, over $2.2 billion 
out of a total of almost $300 billion for highway programs, only that 
small amount has actually been allocated and directed in this manner 
for such bike and pedestrian paths. This occurred largely because of 
the guaranteed funding designated for enhancements over those two 
authorization bills which, as I point out again, have been voted for, 
established by the Congress and voted for by overwhelming numbers.
  Without the guaranteed authorized set-aside, the program will perish. 
The fact is Congress has set-asides for many transportation activities. 
We have them for safety, for interstate maintenance, for bridges and 
many other areas. These enhancements should be no different.
  Enhancements are popular and a needed component of a balanced 
transportation policy. Hundreds of Members in this body requested money 
for enhancements, and a good many of those projects are included in 
this very bill. In fact, the list includes such things as a Hot Springs 
Bike Trail in Arkansas, Independence Biking Road Access in Kansas, 
Mountain Bay Trail in Wisconsin, Riverfront Trail in Georgia, the Salk 
Trail in Illinois, the Toledo Waterfront Redevelopment in Ohio, the 
Anacostia Riverwalk in the District of Columbia, and the list goes on 
and on. They include projects that have major social and economic 
benefits and provide jobs, like the Union Station rehabilitation 
project in Meridian, Mississippi, funded by enhancements that spurred 
$10 million of private investment in the Depot District, and the 
Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development has estimated that the River 
Heritage Museum, funded by enhancements, will bring in $20 million to 
the Paducah area over 5 years.
  We should continue more than a decade of success and bipartisan 
support for this very popular enhancement program. If Members support 
the enhancement program and believe in a balanced transportation bill, 
they will vote for the Petri amendment that so many other names have 
been associated with, including my own, and I urge an aye vote on the 
amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Petri-Olver 
amendment. I support this amendment because nearly every community in 
the Second Congressional District of Kentucky has benefited from 
enhancement program funding.
  During the August recess, I spoke with people who know the importance 
of this funding. Everything from streetscaping to structural 
rehabilitation to historic preservation has been helped due to the 
availability of these funds. By keeping the mandatory 10 percent set-
aside, Kentuckians will see an enhanced quality of life and our 
Nation's heritage will stay alive for this and future generations.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The issue at hand 
is relatively simple. The transportation enhancement program is about 
our communities and the enhancement and the empowerment of localities.
  As a Member who has served on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for going on 27 years now, and a former chairman as well 
as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways, I can recall that 
this was somewhat of a radical proposal when we adopted it back in 
1991.
  Prior to that, Federal highway legislation was largely viewed as the 
bastion of the States, highway contractors, asphalt, cement and steel 
manufacturers. The enhancement program transcended those interests and 
brought a relatively small portion of a State's annual Federal highway 
apportionment directly to local communities for local community 
projects. As I have said, a somewhat radical proposal perhaps in 1991, 
but certainly not

[[Page H7873]]

today, which is why after this program has worked so well over these 
past 12 years, it is odd that it is suddenly under attack.
  Every Member of this body has a community where the lifestyle of its 
people have been enhanced by this program, where people have been drawn 
closer together and the old-fashioned American values are again 
flourishing as a result of enhancement projects.
  In Princeton, West Virginia, for example, the community is being 
revitalized, partly as a result of a railroad museum partially funded 
under this program. In Milton, West Virginia, a historic covered 
bridge, cherished by the community, was rehabilitated under this 
program. And throughout the State, rails-to-trails, bike and pedestrian 
facilities, safety projects, and scenic beautification initiatives are 
enhancing the quality of life.

                              {time}  1500

  I am sure as we have already heard that all Members of this body have 
similar projects in their districts, projects that serve local 
communities, provide for families and children and which deliver so 
much in the way of benefits for relatively small cost.
  I say let us stay the course. Vote for the Petri-Olver amendment. If 
changes are really needed to be made in this program, let us consider 
them in the normal legislative process as part of the TEA-21 
reauthorization rather than going through the back door approach taken 
by the pending legislation.
  So I urge support of the pending amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I find no small amount of irony. Yesterday, we were 
celebrating the accomplishments of that great American Lance Armstrong 
for his prodigious bicycle accomplishments, and today we are moving to 
gut the enhancements program that extends the benefits of cycling to 
millions of Americans.
  I heard the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee speak to a 
couple of points. One, he talked about choice in transportation. Well, 
the fact is today, under the enhancement programs, there is choice that 
is available. States have the opportunity of flexing money in and out 
of the enhancements program if that is their priority.
  The fact is that this is a priority for people if they have the focus 
of an enhancement program. The gentleman talked about safety. There is 
less than 1 percent of the money spent on 7 percent of the trips that 
are cycling and pedestrian, and they account for 13 percent of the 
fatalities.
  If the gentleman was concerned about safety, I would suggest that 
maybe we would increase the funding in these enhancement programs. 
These are programs where people have indicated they want choices.
  There are national surveys that indicate, in fact, over half the 
American public would put more money into bike and pedestrian 
activities even if it meant less money for roads. The fact is, under 
the bill that has been offered up, we do not have this either/or 
situation. All we have to do in striking section 114 is maintain the 
status quo and the integrity of the enhancements program. This is the 
single most popular Federal aid highway program for the Federal 
Government.
  As chair of the Bikes Caucus, I can tell my colleagues that the 
bicycle interests are a vital part of each and every one of your 
communities. There are over 50 million American bicycle customers that 
have 100 million bikes. These have 80 million people employed in this 
industry in every one of our districts. They epitomize small town, 
small business ownership.
  But it speaks also to pedestrians, to handicapped. I am not at all 
dismissive of issues of parks and museums and historic preservation. 
Each Member has received an outstanding memorandum from the National 
Trust for Historic Preservation that points out that this is the single 
largest area for funding historic preservation-related activities. It 
has been invaluable in mitigating the damage that transportation 
projects can do to historic places.
  Since I have been in Congress, I have been privileged to visit over 
100 communities dealing with issues of things that make those 
communities more livable. Every place we go, people focus in on the 
programs that deal with the enhancements program.
  It would be a tragedy at a time when the media is filled with reports 
of the obesity epidemic among our children, when we have an energy 
crisis, when we found just last week medical studies that talked about 
communities that have the facilities that the enhancement program gives 
are six pounds on average lighter and have lower blood pressure, that 
this Congress in its first full day back after Labor Day would vote to 
cut it.
  This last few days there has been a marvelous coalition quietly 
moving on Capitol Hill. Sadly, I think they have been almost too quiet 
because they represent millions of Americans who care about historic 
preservation, who care about fitness, who care about the revitalization 
of central cities, retrofitting sprawling suburbs, helping our children 
get to school safely, fighting the obesity epidemic.
  They have visited every office, provided critical information about 
how the enhancements funding has made a difference in every State of 
the Union.
  This enhancements program was born under a Republican administration 
and a Democratic caucus. It has enjoyed broad bipartisan support ever 
since.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Petri-Olver amendment to 
retain the integrity of the enhancements program and make sure that our 
communities are more livable and make our families safe, healthy, and 
more economically secure.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in very strong support of this amendment. 
The interstate highway system was established in the 1950s, and it has 
served this country very well. The Congress is very proud of what it 
has done. But transportation has evolved. We have other 
responsibilities. We need to be concerned about the traffic congestion 
that we are generating, the deteriorating air quality, the loss of open 
space, and, as some other of our colleagues have said, an obesity 
epidemic among our youth. This Enhancement Program is one of the most 
popular aspects of our entire transportation program, because it 
encourages communities and individuals to be creative, to take 
initiative, to convert old, abandoned rail lines to trails.
  Rails to Trails is exciting. It has given people other opportunities 
when they might spend much of their weekend in an automobile to go 
bicycling, jogging, walking along trails. It has done so much across 
the country. And it is transportation oriented. But most importantly, 
it is community oriented. That is key. That is really what this is 
about. Communities have an opportunity to have some input into how the 
billions of dollars in road projects are used, to enhance their quality 
of life.
  At one point, 90 percent of our Nation's schoolchildren walked to 
school. Today, less than 10 percent do. Many have to take buses or rely 
on their families or friends to drive, primarily because there are no 
sidewalks or safe ways to get to school. Building sidewalks is one of 
the many eligible activities for this Transportation Enhancement 
Program. If we take away this component, we are going to weaken the 
ability of local communities and neighborhoods to address their 
priorities. I also think that we are going to lose an awful lot of 
important opportunities to beautify our transportation corridors, 
rehabilitate train stations and other transportation assets, provide 
safe wildlife crossings, and protect our historic, our scenic, our 
natural resources. We can do this all for about 1\1/2\ cents per 
surface transportation dollar. It is important. It is a critical 
element of a transportation program that is also concerned about 
congestion, air quality, loss of open space.
  Just one last thing. Many Members live in northern Virginia, 
Alexandria and Arlington, for example. If we provided highways to 
accommodate everybody that wants to drive from outside the Beltway to 
the inner city of D.C., it would be all asphalt. There would not be any 
neighborhoods. There would be no grass. What we have to do is to find 
ways for public transportation to relieve our highways to give people 
an incentive to ride a bicycle, to find whatever way they can get to 
work in a way

[[Page H7874]]

that is healthy, that reduces the amount of congestion, and that 
enhances our quality of life and the strength of our communities. This 
program does all that. That is why the Petri-Olver amendment should 
pass. It has many other sponsors, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) has done a great job on this. It is bipartisan. It is 
important. Let us make sure it continues as part of our transportation 
program.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I think I am one of two members on our side who 
voted to support this effort to restore this program the way that it 
has existed for several years. I know it is probably not fashionable 
for me to be up here talking in favor of this amendment, but I feel 
strongly about it. I am a jogger. I have been a jogger for almost 30 
years. I have taken full advantage of the Rails to Trails Program that 
exists in my congressional district and other parts of Illinois. I 
think it is a marvelous program. We have promoted around here a new 
caucus that has been formed by the Members to get Members to exercise 
more, to get Members to stay in shape. Part of the way that some of us 
do it is disembark from the Rayburn Building and jog down the Mall. It 
is not really a Rails to Trails, but it is a marvelous place to jog.
  You see people jogging all over this part of the country. You see 
people jogging along the parkway from Old Town all the way down to 
where George Washington once lived. These are Rails to Trails. These 
are opportunities for people that would not have existed without this 
program. The last thing I want to do is to turn this program over to 
the Governor of my State. Every State in the country has a deficit. I 
guarantee you what these Governors will do is not turn this money into 
Rails to Trails or other amenities or other enhancements. They will use 
it to fund other things.
  We have got a $5 billion debt in Illinois. We have got a Governor who 
has been in office now 6 months, a new Governor, who has not been able 
to figure out how to do that. But I guarantee you that if you hand him 
a bag of money from the enhancements, from the Rails to Trails, he will 
find other uses for it. As we are encouraging people all over the 
country to exercise, to be fit, to eat right, to exercise and to do 
things that will continue to make people healthy, there is no better 
way to do it than to have this program. I am encouraging Members to 
support this amendment. This is a good program. It is a program that 
works. It is not broke.
  I want to, too, mention what the gentleman from Oregon talked about, 
the whole issue of obesity. There has been more written about obesity 
in the last 6 months or so or last year. If we really want Americans to 
be fit and healthy and get in good shape, the way to do it is to allow 
for the enhancement program that has worked so well, that allows people 
to get outdoors, to ride their bikes, to jog, to walk. What better way 
to bring people in a community together. This program has been a 
marvelous program. We should not change it. It is a program that works. 
It is not broke. I encourage Members to support the amendment and 
continue the fine program we have had.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters in support 
of the amendment from the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials; the American Association of Retired People; 
the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors; and the Transportation Enhancements 
Coalition.

         American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
           Officials,
                                Washington, DC, September 3, 2003.
       Dear Congressman: I am writing on behalf of the American 
     Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
     (AASHTO) to urge your support for an amendment sponsored by 
     Congressmen Thomas Petri and John Olver to strike language in 
     H.R. 2989, the FY 2004 Transportation, Treasury, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, that eliminates 
     funding specifically dedicated for transportation 
     enhancements. The Petri-Olver amendment would strike Section 
     114 from the bill, restoring the Transportation Enhancements 
     (TE) Program set-aside first established in 1991 in the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
       The TE Program is one of the most popular of the federal 
     transportation programs with over 17,000 projects in 
     communities located in almost every congressional district 
     across the country. Projects ranging from pedestrian, bike 
     and trail facilities to historic bridges and rehabilitated 
     train stations have significantly contributed to the quality 
     of life in these communities. AASHTO, which represents 
     transportation agencies in the fifty States, the District of 
     Columbia and Puerto Rico, supports continuation of this 
     popular and worthy program.
           Sincerely yours,
                                             James C. Codell, III,
     President
                                  ____



                                                         AARP,

                                Washington, DC, September 2, 2003.
     Hon. Ernest Istook, Jr.,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and 
         Independent Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House 
         of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We urge you to restore the 10 percent 
     set aside from the Surface Transportation Program to fund 
     Transportation Enhancements. Transportation enhancement 
     projects help meet the mobility, health, and recreational 
     needs of mid-life and older persons.
       AARP supports the development of pedestrian and bicycle 
     infrastructure as part of a balanced transportation system. 
     Walking is the most common mode of travel for older persons 
     after the private vehicle. Community design that promotes 
     walking and bicycling is highly valued by mid-life and older 
     persons. In a recent AARP survey, 58 percent of persons age 
     45 and older rated having walking or bike trails nearby to be 
     an important community characteristic. Sidewalks and paths 
     designed for safe walking can help address the 
     disproportionate safety risk experienced by older 
     pedestrians. In 2001, persons age 70 and older were nine 
     percent of the population, but accounted for 18 percent of 
     all pedestrian fatalities.
       AARP also seeks to encourage older Americans to be 
     physically active because of the many health benefits 
     exercise promotes, including helping to maintain independence 
     in later years. Research has shown that persons living in 
     communities with sidewalks are 28 percent more likely to be 
     engaged in regular physical activity than those in 
     communities without sidewalks.
       We appreciate that the Subcommittee on Transportation, 
     Treasury and Independent Agencies allocation for FY 2004 will 
     require many difficult funding decisions. Nonetheless, we 
     respectfully urge you to restore the 10 percent set aside 
     from the Surface Transportation Program to fund 
     Transportation Enhancements.
       If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me 
     or have your staff call Tim Gearan of our Federal Affairs 
     staff at 202-434-3800.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael W. Naylor,
     Director of Advocacy.
                                  ____

         National Association of Counties, National League of 
           Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors,
                                                September 3, 2003.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the nation's local 
     elected officials, we urge you to support Representative 
     Petri's amendment to fully restore dedicated funding for the 
     Transportation Enhancements (TE) program, during 
     consideration of the FY2004 Transportation and Treasury 
     appropriations bill.
       The Transportation Enhancements program has been very 
     important to local governments by allowing them to undertake 
     alternatives beyond the traditional highway construction 
     projects. Over 17,000 local transportation projects have been 
     initiated as part of the TE program, and the results have 
     been significant, both in terms of increased mobility and the 
     economic development generated by the construction of these 
     facilities. TE projects have contributed to decreased 
     congestion and improvements in air quality in our nation's 
     cities and counties. Both ISTEA and TEA-21 were very specific 
     concerning the Transportation Enhancements program set aside 
     and local governments have been pleased to carry out the 
     intent of Congress concerning this program over the past 12 
     years.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Larry Naake,
       Executive Director.
     Donald J. Borut,
       Executive Director.
     Tom Cochran,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    Transportation


                                       Enhancements Coalition,

                                Washington, DC, September 2, 2003.
     Re Thursday, September 4 Vote--H.R. 2989.

       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of a broad partnership 
     of national organizations, we are writing to urge your 
     support for the restoration of dedicated funding for 
     Transportation Enhancements (TE) during House

[[Page H7875]]

     action on H.R. 2989, the FY04 transportation and treasury 
     appropriations bill. Specifically, Section 114 of the 
     committee-passed bill eliminates the funding set-aside for 
     TE--a modest and very successful program established in the 
     1991 Federal surface transportation law. We respectfully ask 
     you to support the bipartisan effort, led by Reps. Tom Petri, 
     John Olver and others, that would strike Section 114 and 
     restore the Enhancements program when H.R. 2989 is considered 
     by the full House of Representatives.
       Established in ``ISTEA'' and reauthorized with minor 
     adjustments in ``TEA-21,'' TE ensures that a small percentage 
     of our Federal gas tax dollars are reserved for small-scale, 
     community-initiated, locally selected transportation 
     projects. TE is the largest source of Federal funding for 
     pedestrian, bicycle and trail facilities. The program also 
     beautifies our transportation corridors, rehabilitates train 
     stations and other transportation assets, provides safe 
     wildlife crossings, and protects our historic, scenic, and 
     natural resources. We achieve all this for about one and a 
     half cents per surface transportation dollar.
       TE projects are essential--they have been shown to promote 
     health, safety, economic development, tourism, energy 
     conservation, and community pride, all within the context of 
     our surface transportation system. Our Nation has benefited 
     from over 17,000 local transportation projects, in every 
     congressional district in the country. For countless 
     communities, TE remains the most popular program of the 
     Nation's surface transportation law.
       The attached materials provide additional details on how TE 
     has benefited your state and district: a pie chart 
     summarizing how your State has divided its TE funds across 
     the program's 12 eligible activities; a similar pie chart for 
     the entire country; and a list of every TE project in your 
     State, sorted by county.
       In places large and small, Americans are working to address 
     challenges such as growing traffic congestion, deteriorating 
     air quality, loss of open space and an obesity epidemic among 
     our youth. TE provides some of the solutions, and allows 
     local communities the opportunity to make transportation 
     investment decisions that will greatly enhance their quality 
     of life.
       The record of success in this program is clear and 
     substantial--a small investment that produces considerable 
     results. Please support the bipartisan effort to preserve the 
     Transportation Enhancements program when H.R. 2989 is 
     considered on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
         Marianne Fowler, Sr. Vice President of Programs, Rails-
           to-Trails Conservancy, Co-chair; Dan Costello, Senior 
           Program Associate, National Trust for Historic 
           Preservation, Co-chair; Bill Sawyer, Executive 
           Director, Adventure Cycling Association; Martha 
           Roskowski, Campaign Manager, America Bikes; Edward H. 
           Able, Jr., President and CEO, American Association of 
           Museums; Tobey Williamson, Federal Policy Program 
           Manager, American Farmland Trust; Celina Montorfano, 
           Director of Conservation Programs, American Hiking 
           Society; Paul Farmer, Executive Director, American 
           Planning Association; William W. Millar, President, 
           American Public Transportation Association;
         Cara Woodson Welch, Director, Government Affairs, 
           American Society of Landscape Architects; Pam Gluck, 
           Executive Director, American Trails; Robert L. Lynch, 
           President and CEO, Americans for the Arts; Richard 
           Olken, Executive Director, Bikes Belong Coalition; Rich 
           Stolz, Coordinator, Transportation Equity Network, 
           Center for Community Change; Jacky Grimshaw, Vice 
           President for Policy, Center for Neighborhood 
           Technology; Dr. Margo Wootan, Director, Nutrition 
           Policy, Center for Science in the Public Interest; 
           Daniel Swartz, Executive Director, Children's 
           Environmental Health Network; Jim Campi, Policy and 
           Communications Director, Civil War Preservation Trust;
         Robert Dewey, Vice President for Government Relations, 
           Defenders of Wildlife; John Balbus, Director, 
           Environmental Health, Environmental Defense; David 
           Hirsch, Director, Economics for the Earth Program, 
           Friends of the Earth; David M. Feehan, President, 
           International Downtown Association; Kalinda Mathis, 
           Executive Director, International Inline Skating 
           Association; Tim Blumenthal, Executive Director, 
           International Mountain Bicycling Association; Mele 
           Williams, Director of Government Relations, League of 
           American Bicyclists; Judy Corbett, Executive Director, 
           Local Government Commission; Jonathan Katz, President, 
           National Assembly of State Arts Agencies;
         Patrick M. Libbey, Executive Director, National 
           Association of County and City Health Officials; Ross 
           Capon, Executive Director, National Association of 
           Railroad Passengers; Michael W. Duplechain, Director, 
           Government Relations, National Association of Service 
           and Conservation Corps; Bill Wilkinson, Executive 
           Director, National Center for Bicycling and Walking; 
           Karen Silberman, Executive Director, National Coalition 
           for Promoting Physical Activity; Nancy Schamu, 
           Executive Director, National Conference of State 
           Historic Preservation Officers; Laura Loomis, Director, 
           Visitor Experience Program, National Parks Conservation 
           Association; Barry Tindall, Director of Public Policy, 
           National Recreation and Park Association; John 
           Kostyack, Senior Legislative Counsel, National Wildlife 
           Federation;
         Deron Lovaas, Deputy Director of Smart Growth and 
           Transportation, Natural Resources Defense Council; 
           Susan West Montgomery, President, Preservation Action; 
           Meg Maguire, President, Scenic America; Don Chen, 
           Executive Director, Smart Growth America; Lynne 
           Sebastian, President, Society for American Archaeology; 
           Kevin McCarty, Senior Director of Federal Policy, 
           Surface Transportation Policy Project; Randy Neufeld, 
           Chair, Thunderhead Alliance; William S. Norman, 
           President and CEO, Travel Industry Association of 
           America; Allen Front, Sr. Vice President for Federal 
           Affairs, Trust for Public Land.

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of this bipartisan initiative 
and commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for offering it. 
He came personally, at the invitation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith), to central Texas last December and saw firsthand a variety of 
our pressing transportation needs with highways and public 
transportation, but also had a chance to see the important role that 
enhancement projects play in our community.
  Unfortunately, there are some in this Congress, in the State 
transportation bureaucracies, and some of the trade associations and 
lobby groups who think if it is not asphalt or buying something to put 
asphalt on it is merely a transportation frill. In central Texas, we 
certainly know that this is not true. Transportation enhancement 
projects are, as the very name suggests, designed to enhance economic 
development and to enhance the quality of our lives. In our community, 
they have done both of those despite significant intransigence and 
disinterest by the Texas Department of Transportation, which has put 
one roadblock after another in front of our local enhancement 
proposals.
  In Austin, Texas, for example, we have Plaza Saltillo, which would 
not exist were it not for enhancement funding.

                              {time}  1515

  Many of us will gather there soon for the Diez y Seis celebration. 
This has been an economic development magnet. It has had a multiplier 
effect for small Hispanic businesses in the area, and now we are seeing 
a number of developers, Hispanic and non-Hispanic, develop a wide range 
of residential housing in this transportation corridor. This 
enhancement project not only improves the quality of life for all in 
the neighborhoods who celebrate this important Hispanic holiday, but it 
has proven to be a key factor in the economic development of the East 
Austin community.
  It is certainly true in terms of the quality of our cycling and 
pedestrian trails throughout central Texas. These trails enhance the 
quality of life. They have also become, thanks originally to the work 
of Lady Bird Johnson and now supplemented around Town Lake, the center 
of Austin where people are coming to host conferences, conventions, and 
business meetings. A real factor for many of our tech companies moving 
downtown is the fact that we have trails people can enjoy jogging and 
cycling on, and can bring their families to. Some of these trails, 
frankly, have become on the weekends, and at key times in the early 
morning and late afternoon, almost as congested as some of our 
highways.
  We do not have enough of these projects to meet the needs of a 
growing community in terms of enhancing the quality of life or 
enhancing economic development, and we need more. We have had 
resistance at the State level already. If we turn it over entirely to 
the States, there will not be a dime coming to provide this key 
enhancement factor.
  Looking at the data about transportation, there has been a 
significant amount of work on the revision of TEA-21 focusing on 
fairness and parity. The data suggests that about 7 percent of the 
trips made in this country are

[[Page H7876]]

not by car or public transportation, but by people on two wheels, on a 
bicycle, or walking. Yet, less than 1 percent of our transportation 
dollars are being committed to trail-type projects for cyclists and 
pedestrians. Now, that 1 percent will not be assured unless this Petri 
amendment is adopted. We know employers can provide parking spaces, and 
that many progressive employers are providing public transportation or 
metro passes. However, for cyclists these days the only incentive is 
strong legs and maybe a pat on the back. For a clean form of 
transportation, we need to maintain this bare minimum amount of funding 
under the enhancement program for cyclists to have a safe lane or trail 
to travel.
  Our colleague from Oregon mentioned my constituent Lance Armstrong, 
and we were so pleased to honor him yesterday with a resolution. In his 
book he writes: ``I've spent my life racing my bike, from the back 
roads of Austin, Texas to the Champs-Elysees, and I always figured if I 
died an untimely death, it would be because some rancher in his Dodge 
4x4 rammed me head first into a ditch . . . Cyclists fight an ongoing 
war with guys in big trucks, and so many vehicles have hit me so many 
times, I've lost count . . . One minute you're pedaling along a 
highway, and the next minute you're face down in the dirt.''
  For Lance Armstrong, for the leadership of the Downtown Austin 
Alliance and many people who have communicated from central Texas, let 
us adopt the Petri amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment to strike section 114 from 
the fiscal year 2004 transportation appropriations bill, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), my committee leader, 
for offering it, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver).
  This is obesity USA right now. And in Texas along with obesity, we 
have air pollution; and I believe that the enhancements funding, 
although small compared to the highway funding, contributes in a major 
way to building a healthy, active and community-based society. In the 
Dallas-Fort Worth region, we see families and kids out riding, walking, 
skating on the Katy Trail every weekend and often during the week. We 
see people riding bicycles to the park and ride areas to get on the 
DART area transportation system. The types of trails build a sense of 
community. They promote physical fitness and increase property values.
  Enhancements also promote safe ways for kids to get to school. 
Studies show many more kids want to ride or walk to school, but there 
is insufficient money to promote safe routes to school. And we see 
overwhelming obesity in our young people now which leads us to have to 
spend a great deal more money for health care later. If transportation 
enhancement funds are cut, there will be virtually no incentives for 
States and communities to continue to create balanced integrated 
transportation systems. For more than 20 years through the 
transportation enhancement program, communities across the Nation have 
developed and implemented alternative forms of transportation that 
promote livability, connectivity, and a better quality of life. The 
vast majority of these projects are locally selected and are of 
tremendous value to the communities. We need substantial highway 
funding; but more importantly, we need a balanced transportation 
system.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and restore 
funding for enhancements that contribute to a higher quality of life, 
personal health and livability in all of our communities.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the language in the 
bill and against the amendment. I point out to the Members that the 
Inspector General for the Department of Transportation, Kenneth Mead, 
testified to our Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and 
Independent Agencies appropriations that the highway trust fund has 
shown a decline in revenues of about $18 billion less this year than 
projections that were made originally in April of 2001, and as a result 
of the declining revenue coming into the highway trust fund that 
highway and transit programs will see continuing constraints on their 
ability to improve mobility, safety, and economic growth unless taxes 
are raised, a greater portion of the financing burden is shared by 
State and local governments, or greater reliance is placed upon the 
general fund to supplement highway trust fund receipts.
  I strongly support the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Chairman Istook) 
language in this bill because this simply allows Texans to run Texas. 
Governor George W. Bush, when he ran for Governor originally, I had the 
privilege of serving longer under Governor Bush than any other Governor 
I served under in the 14 years I served in the Texas legislature, and 
Governor Bush was elected Governor of Texas to let Texans run Texas. 
The language in the bill simply allows each State to choose on their 
own how to spend that revenue. The Nation today faces an ever-growing 
national debt that has now exceeded $7 trillion, which is absolutely 
inexcusable. We must pay it off. We face a growing national Federal 
deficit that we must balance. We simply must balance our Federal 
budget. I strongly support the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Chairman 
Istook) constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.
  In light of our deficits at the State and local level, in light of 
deficits at the Federal level, in light of a declining highway trust 
fund, I think it is only prudent to give the States the option to 
choose how they will spend this 10 percent of these highway trust funds 
on hike and bike trails, as they may choose to do in the State of 
Oregon; or some other State may choose to decide to take some of that 
10 percent and invest more of it into any other type of transportation 
project that they believe will help move people and reduce travel time 
and reduce congestion.
  The bottom line is, I think, Mr. Chairman, this language that is in 
the bill will allow every State to make those decisions on their own 
through their State legislatures, through their State highway 
commissions. I think that the genius of our system of government is 
that it is built around the concept of letting each State make local 
decisions on their own, and this language in the bill does that. I 
strongly urge Members to vote against the amendment and support the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) in voting ``no'' on the 
amendment and allowing Texans to run Texas and each State to make these 
decisions on their own.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) to restore guaranteed funding 
for the transportation enhancements program. With over 15,000 projects 
receiving funding nationwide, it is very clear that the benefits of 
this program have not been confined to any one district, State, or 
region. These projects are very critical in establishing and in 
maintaining livable communities.
  In my district alone the transportation enhancements program has 
funded nearly 30 projects over the last 12 years at a cost of about 
$22.5 million, and these projects have provided a very big improvement 
to the quality of life for many of my constituents and the residents of 
the Bay Area as a whole, not to mention the thousands of tourists who 
come through our region every month. The program has funded projects 
ranging for something as simple as a bike locker at local BART stations 
to pedestrian and streetscape improvements throughout Berkeley, 
Oakland, San Leandro, and Fruitvale, to construction of the Oakland 
section of the very ambitious 400-mile San Francisco Bay Trail project 
that links 47 cities and nine Bay Area counties together.
  Other projects include the acquisition of scenic shoreline in Oakland 
for beautification and recreational purposes, the berthing and 
preservation of several historic ships, the construction and upgrade of 
the Berkeley train stop, the construction of bicycle underpasses along 
the very busy I-80 freeway, as

[[Page H7877]]

well as a number of other landscaping and beautification projects 
throughout my district.
  Mr. Chairman, our constituents really value each and every one of 
these projects, not only in my district but throughout our country, as 
I mentioned earlier, which the transportation enhancement program has 
really helped to pay for. And let me tell the Members that ever since 
word got out that this House was considering removing the dedicated 
funding for this program, I do not think that a day has gone by where I 
have not received a phone call, e-mail, fax, or letter from 
constituents which criticize this move. So we must make this bill 
right. We must pass this amendment so that we can continue to fund the 
construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, Rail to Trail 
conversions, the acquisition and preservation of historic land, and a 
host of other projects that have all contributed to the quality of life 
in our neighborhoods and really for the increased safety which people 
so deserve.
  Once again, as I said earlier, these projects are so critical in 
establishing livable communities.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Petri-Olver amendment 
which would strike language in this bill that eliminates dedicated 
funding for transportation enhancements. Transportation enhancement 
funds may be used for fundamental economic development in tourist-
dependent communities, to ensure preservation of vital historic 
resources. These resources then become a draw to the visiting public. 
While many enhancement projects are small in size, they achieve 
enormous benefits in terms of promoting economic growth and development 
and developing historic tourism. The President has initiated a program 
called Preserve America to encourage historic tourism. This program is 
dependent on transportation enhancement funds.
  The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, headed by my good 
friend John Nau from Texas, has advised that we restore these funds in 
order to ensure the goals of Preserve America. A ``yes'' vote on the 
Petri-Olver amendment would help us do just that. So we are looking to 
preserve America.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. OBESTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Petri-Olver 
amendment. We are here today to discuss one of the cornerstones of 
ISTEA and TEA-21 of our current transportation program, a cornerstone 
that our current Secretary of Transportation not only supports, the 
administration supports it, the bill to extend the life of TEA-21, but 
our current Secretary of Transportation was chair of the Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee in 1991 when we fashioned the enhancements 
provisions of ISTEA. And what we did in 1991 was landmark legislation. 
We had come to the end of the interstate era, and now the debate 
focused on the future of transportation in America.

                              {time}  1530

  What would be the face of transportation in the post-interstate era? 
How would we best invest our dollars?
  We assessed the quality of transportation and the quality of life in 
America in a long series of hearings, some of which I conducted as 
Chair of the Oversight Investigations Committee, as Chairman Mineta did 
in the surface subcommittee, as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
participated in, now the Chair of that subcommittee. And what we found 
was that Americans wanted more out of their transportation experience 
than simply getting from point A to point B. They wanted to use the 
interstate system to get to their destination, but then to enjoy a 
quality of life, to enjoy more of America's historic, archeological, 
cultural and scenic treasures, and the way to do that was to open a new 
vista within our transportation program, to use some of their dollars 
that those very travelers and visitors have invested in the Highway 
Trust Fund to improve and enhance the quality of life, projects that 
would initiate from the community, from the grassroots up, projects 
that had been proposed and undertaken, but frustrated because the 
dollars were not there to do them over a period of the previous series 
of transportation programs.
  But those are highway programs. What we fashioned was a 
transportation concept; not only highways and not only bridges, but 
transportation. Part of that transportation experience is scenic 
America, the quality of life, the issues the gentleman from Illinois 
spoke about, of jogging and hiking, and bicycling, as the gentleman 
from Oregon spoke to, and things that I enjoy as a cyclist.
  But those issues come from the people. The choice of how to invest 
those transportation dollars come from the people themselves, from all 
throughout America. And you can see the upwelling of spirit that has 
followed the issuance of this transportation appropriations bill, when 
the enhancements community, a wide spectrum of Americans, rose up and 
said, please, do not make this change.
  There is a compact here between the citizens of America, between the 
people who use our highways, our transit ways, our enhancement ways, 
and our Federal Government and the States. State governments now have 
opted into this program. They have become partners. Citizens have taken 
control of their destiny and the quality of life that they want to see 
in America. Enhancement programs makes that possible.
  We can cite the thousands of projects, but what really counts is 
those decisions that were made in each and every community to take a 
piece of that Highway Trust Fund and invest it in the future of 
America, in the quality of life in America, to enhance the life of 
those who come after us. And that is what enhancements does. That is 
what this program does. It is a citizens' bottoms-up investment in the 
quality of life of our transportation program.
  It is not enough just to roll over the highways and roll over the 
bridges. It is more important to enhance the life of every community in 
America, and that is what the enhancements program has given us the 
opportunity to do.
  Without the set-aside, it would not have happened. In the 20 years 
before ISTEA we invested only $40 million in building bicycle 
facilities across America. Since then we have invested $3.8 billion and 
enhanced the quality of life in America. Pass the Petri amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Petri/Olver amendment to 
strike Section 114 from the bill.
  Section 114 is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to kill the 
Transportation Enhancements Program initiated in 1991 under ISTEA and 
continued in 1998 under TEA 21. This boldfaced attempt to kill one of 
the most popular Department of Transportation programs ever enacted is 
reckless and misguided, and should be soundly defeated.
  Section 114 would eliminate the mandatory requirement that each State 
use up to 10 percent of its Surface Transportation Program funding for 
the Transportation Enhancement program. Under existing law, States must 
use that 10 percent of STP funds for alternative transportation 
projects such as bike and pedestrian trails, streetscape renovations, 
rail-to-rail conversions, and other surface transportation-related 
activities that contribute to the revitalization of communities and 
local and regional economies.
  Continuation of the existing Transportation Enhancements Program, as 
enacted in ISTEA and continued in TEA 21, is supported by more than 70 
national organizations that make up the Transportation Enhancements 
Coalition. These include: The American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials; National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, Institute of Transportation Engineers; League of American 
Bicyclists; Rails to Trails Conservancy; and a wide variety of other 
environmental, preservation and recreational organizations.
  Transportation, like all human activity, affects our communities and 
the environment. The Transportation Enhancements Program enables us to 
balance transportation improvements with the need to protect the 
environment and the character of our communities.
  Although Section 114 does not make enhancements ineligible for 
funding, it removes the requirement that 10 percent of STP funds must 
be used for these purposes. It is clear that without the set-aside, 
many State Highway Departments would shift money now going to 
enhancements to larger traditional projects.

  Before a set-aside was established in ISTEA in 1991, enhancements 
were eligible

[[Page H7878]]

for funding, but States did not fund them. In the 20 years before 1991, 
only $40 million was spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects. From 
1991 through 2002, however, with the set-aside in place, over $2.2 
billion was spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects, with 75 percent 
of the funds coming from the Transportation Enhancements Program. The 
total amount of funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects jumps to $3.8 
billion for 8,526 projects nationwide when projects in the pipeline, as 
well as completed projects, are included in the totals. For all types 
of transportation enhancement projects nationwide, the grand total 
programmed since 1991 is an impressive $8.4 billion for 17,920 
projects, less than $500,000 per project nationwide. Clearly, these 
kinds of results could not have been achieved in the absence of a 
dedicated Transportation Enhancements Program.
  The enhancement program requires less than 2 percent of the entire 
program for surface transportation. This is a modest amount to spend on 
these projects, which bring substantial transportation benefits and are 
supported by a wide constituency.
  Any Member who doubts the importance of the Transportation 
Enhancements Program need only look at the projects completed in his or 
her congressional district. If Section 114 is enacted, future 
enhancement projects in your congressional district will clearly be 
placed at risk. None of us should take that risk. I urge Members to 
vote for the Petri/Olver amendment to strike Section 114.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Petri-Olver 
amendment, which would restore the set-aside for the transportation 
enhancements program.
  Passed over a decade ago, when Congress recognized a serious 
shortcoming in the Nation's transportation system, the Transportation 
Enhancements program has ensured consistent funding for pedestrian- and 
bicycle-friendly transportation projects. Large Federal highway budgets 
over the past several decades were instrumental in creating an 
integrated transportation network. The absence of serious intercity 
transportation alternatives, however, increased reliance on cars, 
resulting in gridlock, longer travel times, additional pollution, and 
reduced quality of life. Federal transportation planners' preoccupation 
with interstate highway construction and seeming neglect of local 
challenges frustrated many mayors, especially in my area.
  This is why the Transportation Enhancements program, which guaranteed 
a portion of Federal highway aid would go to multi-use paths, 
sidewalks, and bicycle lanes, is so important, and why the decision to 
eliminate the guaranteed funding component of this program in this 
year's transportation appropriations bill disappointed transportation 
analysts, environmental and public health advocates, and state and 
local leaders.
  New York needs this funding. Although the State has spent $300 
million on transportation enhancements since 1991, many of its needs 
remain unmet. Indeed, New York could afford to fund less than 30 
percent of proposals received in the past 3 years, ultimately opting to 
use other Surface Transportation Program funds to pay for projects.
  My own constituents are especially worried. Since the creation of the 
Transportation Enhancements program, over $13 million has flowed to 
municipalities in my district to construct river paths, renovate town 
parks, refurbish scenic promenades, preserve historic sites, and 
improve pedestrian safety. Between 2001 and 2003, only 16 percent of 
the 74 eligible mid-Hudson projects received funding, a testament to 
both the program's popularity and current funding constraints.
  The benefits of the program are many and well known, but I would like 
to mention a few:
  (1) Quality-of-life. Over the past several decades, the car has 
become the preferred method of movement, even for short distances. The 
resulting congestion has made everything from commuting to work to 
picking up groceries, genuine headaches. Multi-lane arterials now zig-
zag through formerly quiet neighborhoods, exposing residents to noise 
pollution and threatening our children's safety. By financing 
construction of bicycle and pedestrian paths, the Transportation 
Enhancements program has provided individuals with serious 
transportation alternatives that can cut traffic, reduce accidents with 
cyclists and pedestrians, protect green spaces an create truly livable 
communities.
  (2) Environment. Our reliance on cars, which produce acid rain and 
smog-forming chemicals, has harmed our environment and needlessly 
compromised public health. Transportation is responsible for 50 percent 
of all the air emissions that cause smog, which decreases lung capacity 
and triggers asthma attacks. Over one million New Yorkers have asthma 
and over 14 million State residents live in areas where smog levels 
exceed the Federal Government's health standard. Full funding of the 
Transportation Enhancements program would help to bring into compliance 
the many New York metro areas that fail to meet ozone standards.
  (3) Obesity. Finally, the Centers for Disease Control recently 
identified obesity, particularly among children, as a top national 
health risk. The absence of walking and bicycling opportunities has 
played a major role in sky-rocketing obesity rates, which, according to 
the CDC, equal or exceed 20 percent in 30 states. Obesity, which can 
lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, and stroke, not only 
carries a tremendous health toll but also steep economic consequences. 
In 2001, indirect and direct economic costs were estimated at $117 
billion. So, it is vital that opportunities to walk and bicycle grow 
rather than diminish. Restoring the funding guarantee for the 
Transportation Enhancements program is critical to making this happen.
  Once again, I appreciate Congressman Olver and Congressman Petri's 
leadership on this issue and encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri) will be postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California:
       Under the heading ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries and 
     Expenses,'' strike ``not to exceed $225,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of Intelligence and Security'' and 
     insert ``not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Office of Intelligence and Security'' and under the heading 
     ``Office of the Chief Information Officer,'' strike 
     ``$16,565,000'' and insert, ``14,565,000''.

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment at the desk is 
an amendment that comes from the Secretary, Mr. Mineta. He essentially 
is urging the House to move a $2 million amount from the administrative 
funds to that piece of the work done in the Department of 
Transportation that involves intelligence and security matters.
  There is willingness to accept this amendment on the part of the 
majority, as I understand it, and the minority. I will take no more of 
our time if that is the case.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am willing 
to accept the amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am happy to 
accept the amendment as well.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
       Page 10, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by 
     $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. Lo BIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to 
increase funding for the Federal Aviation Administration William J. 
Hughes Technical Center located in Pomona, New Jersey. I understand 
that the committee chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) 
is prepared to accept the amendment. I would like to see if that is 
still the case.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. Lo BIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Lo BIONDO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to 
thank the chairman very much. The Tech Center engages in matters of

[[Page H7879]]

aviation safety and security that impact the entire system.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a second amendment that I had planned to offer 
today which I will not be offering. This second amendment would have 
restored funding for research and development. I have had conversations 
with the chairman about this. I know that there are tremendous 
pressures from the Aviation Trust Fund downturn as far as how these 
dollars would be distributed, but I would like to ask the chairman to 
please do everything he can in conference. This affects the Oklahoma 
Technical Center as well as the one in Pomona, New Jersey. These are 
dollars which would go to aviation safety and security.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman will work to help restore those 
dollars in conference.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we 
will certainly work together in conference to do everything that it is 
possible to do within the funds available.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
very much.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 15, after line 13, insert the following:
       Sec. 108. (a) Review.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall conduct a review of the proposed project for 
     construction of a remote passenger check-in facility at Los 
     Angeles International Airport to determine whether the 
     project as designed will protect the safety and security of 
     air passengers and the general public.
       (b) Report.--Upon completion of the review, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to Congress and the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration a report containing the 
     results of the review.
       (c) Prohibition.--The Administrator shall not allow 
     construction of the proposed project until such time, if any, 
     as the Secretary has completed the review and determined that 
     the proposed project as designed will protect the safety and 
     security of air passengers and the general public and will 
     offer greater protection than is currently available at the 
     exiting facilities of Los Angeles International Airport.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, Los Angeles International Airport, which is 
located in my congressional district, is the third largest airport in 
the United States, with capacity to serve 78 million air passengers per 
year. The operator of LAX has proposed a rather controversial airport 
modernization project that would include the construction of a remote 
passenger check-in facility. The details of this proposal and the 
environmental impact report were released on July 9, 2003, and are now 
open for public comment. There is a strong coalition in the district 
opposed to this plan.
  Supporters of the proposed project to construct a remote passenger 
check-in facility claim that the facility is necessary to improve the 
safety and security of LAX, and, they claim, to prevent terrorist 
attacks at LAX. However, it is even more likely that the concentration 
of passengers in a remote passenger check-in facility could actually 
reduce the safety and security of LAX.
  The Rand Corporation conducted a security study of the proposed 
remote passenger check-in facility which was released May 14, 2003. The 
study concluded that the proposed project would not significantly 
improve the security of LAX. The study also suggested that 
concentrating passengers in the remote passenger check-in facility 
would make this facility the likely target of a terrorist attack. The 
study even suggested that concentrating passengers in a remote 
passenger check-in facility would exacerbate the effects of such an 
attack.
  Mr. Chairman, this idea is not only opposed by many of the homeowner 
groups in the area, it is basically opposed by the coalition throughout 
southern California who is trying to get LAX to move to a regional 
response to passenger increase. The Rand study did conclude that 
limiting the capacity of the airport would reduce the overall 
vulnerability of LAX to terrorist attacks. However, this could be 
accomplished by maintaining LAX at its existing capacity with no 
additional airport construction projects.
  My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
review the proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in 
facility at LAX to determine whether the project, as designed, will 
protect the safety and security of air passengers and the general 
public. The amendment would also prohibit the construction of this 
project until such time as the Secretary of Homeland Security has 
completed the review and determined that the project will improve 
protection of the safety and security of air passengers and the general 
public.
  We cannot afford to experiment with the safety and security of the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, we have gone through 9/11 and we have created Homeland 
Security, and it seems to me that Homeland Security cannot be excluded 
from the review of these so-called expansion projects or 
reconfiguration projects, whatever name they come under, in the many 
airports in this country, if in fact we are concerned about the 
security of airports, and I know that we are, and I am certainly 
concerned about LAX. It has been said more than once that LAX is a 
target and that it is at risk.
  We should not allow politicians to expand airports, to create 
construction projects. We should not allow politicians to do this 
without the benefit of the kind of review that will go even beyond what 
FAA has been doing in the past and would include the considerations of 
Homeland Security. Why did we develop a whole Department on Homeland 
Security if we cannot include in it the review of these proposed 
projects for reconfiguration and expansion by elected officials and 
politicians in all of these local areas?
  I know that my colleague on the other side of the aisle has reserved 
a point of order, and I respect that; but I would just ask my 
colleagues to find some way to work with me, to take a look at these 
kinds of expansion or reconfiguration projects. Mine may be the one 
that is being brought to you today, but this is going to happen all 
over the country. What are these local city councils, what are the 
mayors, what are the Governors, what are they doing? Are they expanding 
construction in the name of politics, looking towards the next 
election, or do we have really security factors built in to these kinds 
of projects? I would ask you to find a way to work with me on this.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, first, of course, the amendment is not 
germane to the bill. It relates to the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
which is not within the jurisdiction of this legislation.
  Further, the amendment proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states in pertinent part that an 
amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if 
changing existing law. This amendment gives affirmative direction, in 
effect, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair accordingly.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Does any 
Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment directly amends existing law. The 
amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not 
in order.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 17, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $320,000,000)''.

[[Page H7880]]

       Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $320,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $120,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would transfer $320 million 
from Amtrak to the Federal Aid Highway Program, reducing Amtrak's total 
appropriation to $580 million for this year. This amount, by the way, 
is the original amount that the Transportation Appropriations bill 
called for prior to the adoption of an amendment in full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, Amtrak has posted staggering losses in recent years, 
despite their continued promises to become self-sufficient. Time and 
time again, however, those promises have been broken as Amtrak 
continues to hemorrhage money and continues to come back to this body 
with out-stretched hands.
  Ironically, Mr. Chairman, Amtrak was originally established in 1971 
as a, believe it or not, for-profit corporation by Congress. Over the 
last 30 years though, Amtrak has never once turned a profit. It has, 
however, racked up nearly $30 billion in operating losses and even 
managed to receive a $2 billion tax credit in 1997. That is despite the 
fact that the rail provider has never paid a penny in income tax.
  Now, some of my friends who oppose this amendment will tell you that 
the service provided by this inefficient monopoly is invaluable to the 
traveling public, but the statistics do not bear that out. According to 
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
for example, the percentage of Americans who walk to work every day is 
roughly equal to the number that ride the train, about 5 percent.
  In light of these statistics, one wonders as one political 
commentator noted, if it makes as much sense for Congress to subsidize 
Nike sneakers as it does for them to subsidize rail service.
  Subsidies on some of the longest routes are so high, reaching about 
$250 per passenger in some cases, that many times it would actually be 
cheaper for the Federal Government to purchase plane tickets for 
passengers than to subsidize the purchase of their train ticket.
  Not surprisingly, Amtrak is back again asking Congress to bail them 
out with yet one more $1 billion appropriation. And this is after the 
beleaguered rail carrier promised Congress financial solvency just a 
short time ago.
  Mr. Chairman, the unhealthy relationship between Amtrak and the 
Congress has become a seemingly endless cycle of empty promises and 
bottomless government subsidies. This has to come to an end sometime. 
We must shut off the spigot of Federal funds and require the States, 
communities and organizations that purport to need Amtrak services, to 
foot a larger share of the bill.
  Remember also that during the chairman's opening remarks and then 
subsequently through several responses, he has had two amendments that 
have been offered, he has reiterated the need for more funding for our 
highways. In fact, I think the figure he last used was a $400 billion 
deficit. We are $400 billion shy of what we need to maintain our 
highway systems and our bridges, $400 billion dollars. Now, I suggest 
that this is a relatively easy decision for Members to make. What is 
more important to their constituents?
  Now, I recognize fully well that many Members here have worked for a 
long time to bring home a chunk of money to their constituents to keep 
this rail service subsidized, and I can say to them they have done a 
wonderful job, $30 billion over 20 years. They have brought home plenty 
of pork. It is not a matter that we should be worried about whether or 
not more is necessary. I think they can be proud of the fact that they 
have been able to do as well as they have done over the last 20 years, 
but really this has to come to a stop. And when we have such pressing 
needs as the chairman has laid out for us in the area of highways and 
road construction and bridge repair, it seems to me to be a fairly easy 
decision for us to make, to transfer the amount of money, the $320 
million from Amtrak to Federal aid for highways.
  Again, I want to reiterate the fact that what we are doing here is 
simply taking the appropriation down to the same level that the 
Committee on Appropriations, that the Transportation Appropriations 
bill called for originally, and then it got plussed up when it got to 
the full committee. But I think that the original amount was being very 
generous to this entity, to Amtrak, a private corporation, after all, 
that has simply had never had the ability to live up to the promises 
that have been made.
  We are in tight financial times. There are not dollars flowing into 
the coffers of the government that can be distributed so liberally. So 
I ask when that time occurs to make a decision about what is more 
needy, vote for your highways and bridges and not for the Amtrak 
subsidy. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to speak against that amendment, 
and I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) 
and the other 220 Members of the House of Representatives that sent a 
letter to the Committee on Appropriations seeking full funding for 
Amtrak. But the Republican leadership and this Bush administration do 
not care what we, the people, think. Just like the reauthorization of 
TEA-21, which would improve our crumbling transportation infrastructure 
and put millions of people back to work, the issue concerning Amtrak 
brings up a fundamental question as to where this Nation stands on 
public transportation.
  We have an opportunity to improve a system that serves our need for 
passenger rail service, or we can let it fall apart and leave this 
country's travellers and business with absolutely no alternative forms 
of public transportation.
  We could fund this Nation's entire passenger rail system for a year 
with the money that we spend in just one week in Iraq. Let me repeat 
that. We could fund this Nation's entire passenger rail system for a 
year with the money we spend in just one week in Iraq. But I guess the 
House leadership and the Republican administration have decided it is 
more important to fund the needs of the Iraqi people than the citizens 
right here in America. We continue to subsidize highways and aviation, 
but when it comes to our passenger rail system, we refuse to provide 
the money Amtrak needs to survive.
  Last year alone, we provided $18 billion in direct funding to the 
airline industry. Let me repeat that. Last year alone, we provided $18 
billion in direct funding to the airline industry.
  On November 12, 2001, I was in New York when American Airlines flight 
587 crashed shortly after taking off from JFK Airport, creating a 
national panic and shutting down the entire city. Fortunately for me 
and many Members of Congress who ended up at Penn Station that day, 
Amtrak was still running and returned us safely to Washington to deal 
with this latest tragedy. I realized, once again, just how important 
Amtrak is to the American people and how important it is for this 
Nation to have alternative modes of transportation.
  This issue is bigger than just transportation. This is about safety 
and national security. Not only should we be giving Amtrak the money it 
needs to continue to provide services, we should be providing security 
money to upgrade their tracks and improve safety and security measures 
in the entire rail system.
  Some people think the solution to the problem is to privatize the 
system. If we privatize, we would see the same thing we saw when we 
deregulated the airlines. Only the lucrative routes will be maintained, 
and routes in rural locations will be expensive and few.
  Once again, we see the Bush administration's ``too little too late 
policy.'' I am surprised they have not suggested a tax cut to solve 
this problem. Instead, they are trying to take the money from the hard 
working Amtrak employees, who day and night work to provide top quality 
service to their passengers. These folks are trying to make a living 
for their families, and they do not deserve the shabby treatment from 
the President. It is time for

[[Page H7881]]

the Bush administration to step up to the plate and make a decision 
about Amtrak based on what is best for the traveling public and not 
what is best for the right wing of the Republican party and the bean 
counters at OMB.
  This is not about fiscal policy. This is about providing a safe and 
reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this Nation 
need and deserve. Let us stop this crisis now before it is too late.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabor the point here or take 
extended amounts of time, but I feel compelled to rise and respond to 
my friend from Colorado in this amendment because in just two speakers, 
after the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), I will be offering an 
amendment to increase the aid for Amtrak.
  While we have an opportunity to discuss this, I would like to point 
out that when we talk about money for rail passenger systems in this 
country, many of us do not consider that to be pork, no matter what 
kind of money we have brought back, to what kind of district, for what 
kind of rail transportation, we do not consider that pork. When people 
depend on that to get to work, to get to where they need to be, how 
much money over any number of years is not considered pork to many of 
us? So I need to disagree with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) a little bit.
  I think we have given Amtrak, I have said this so many times, just 
enough money each year to make certain it fails, so that friends like 
the gentleman and others want to know why it does not work, because we 
have not funded it properly. The new president, David Gunn, has made 
significant changes at Amtrak. He has talked with us on the 
Subcommittee on Railroads. He has talked with the chairman of the 
subcommittee for Appropriations, and I think it would be in our best 
interest not to take money away but to give Mr. Gunn and others the 
tools they need to get the job done correctly.
  So I respectfully will oppose the gentleman's amendment, and in a few 
short minutes offer an amendment to increase the funding.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been 
offered because this is ground that we have already been over. The bill 
that is before us provides $900 million for fiscal 2004 for Amtrak, and 
that, it turns out, is exactly what the President had recommended for 
Amtrak for fiscal year 2004.
  In fact, we are covering old ground because this was settled at an 
earlier point. The Transportation Subcommittee had in fact made a 
recommendation to full committee for the number which the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) has asked for. And it was one of those 
provisions that was changed in order to bring it to the full Committee 
on Appropriations in order to have enough votes to get that bill out of 
the full Committee on Appropriations to bring it back to the $900 
million level that the President had asked for. In fact, I should 
remind Members that 220 Members of the House of Representatives had 
petitioned the Committee on Appropriations asking that the full funding 
requested by Amtrak should be provided for Amtrak and that was double 
what is already here.
  So this is replowing the old ground that we in the Committee on 
Appropriations had to go through to bring this bill to the floor in the 
first place and would be reversing that movement. I think that is 
distinctly a wrong thing to do. Let me also point out that in regard to 
the $900 million appropriation which is included in the bill before us, 
and I am interested in the comment that my good friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Quinn) stated, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Railroads of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has 
made about providing Amtrak just enough so that it would fail, when Ken 
Mead, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General was asked by 
me as to what would be the result of the appropriations of $900 
million, and I intend to support the idea of increasing that 
appropriation farther down the road, but he sent a letter back to me, 
and I will quote from that letter. He sent a letter on July 10 in 
response to those questions about the impact of various funding levels. 
In regard to the $900 million level which the gentleman from Colorado's 
(Mr. Tancredo) amendment would reduce substantially, he said, ``Because 
there would not be any funds remaining for other capital investments, 
operational reliability likely would suffer. None of the backlog of 
capital needs could be addressed at that funding level.''

                              {time}  1600

  So that puts us a step backward on the process of funding Amtrak at a 
level that would allow it to continue and continue safely as a provider 
of passenger rail service for this Nation. So I would urge Members to 
oppose this amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I too oppose this amendment, and I concur with those 
speakers who have spoken to that, and I will certainly support the 
amendment of the distinguished gentleman from New York State (Mr. 
Quinn).
  We have really in this country the time has come to start looking at 
our transportation systems. If we look at our airlines, if we look at 
our airports and the entire air systems, if we look at our roads, if we 
look at our ports, we are going to find that America is at least 
competitive, if not ahead, of every other single country in the world. 
If we look at our rail systems in the United States of America, we will 
find we are behind almost every highly civilized country in the world, 
the European countries, Japan and a lot of others.
  We have for years and years and years not funded rail to the extent 
that it is needed, and it is true that we fund it and it is true that 
it is so-called subsidized, but the bottom line is that we are dealing 
with tunnels going into Baltimore, built right after the Civil War, 
into New York City, or most close to that, and we are simply not making 
the improvements we have to make to get the speeds up to attract the 
ridership.
  In spite of that, we have more people riding the rails now from New 
York City to Washington than are taking airlines from New York City to 
Washington. We pour tremendous money into our other infrastructure and 
into the upkeep costs of other forms of transportation.
  Look at the air industry, for example. We pay, often locally and by 
States, we pay for the airports, a huge expense which is out there, and 
the FAA, we pay for the comptrollers. The Transportation Security 
Agency primarily is aimed at that. It cost billions of dollars to do 
all these things, much more than we are trying to put into rail, far 
more than we have ever put into rail before.
  The infrastructure is absolutely needed. Obviously we put a lot of 
money into the concrete of our roads. We do get a return as far as gas 
money is concerned. I drive from Wilmington, Delaware to here from time 
to time. It is incredible how crowded those roads are, but it is also 
incredible to see how crowded the trains are and how we could use more 
trains.
  So I will be the first to agree there need to be more efficiencies.
  I would just say this to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado. 
I hope he will talk to David Gunn. I do not know if he talked to him or 
not. He is the new CEO, relatively new, in the last couple of years at 
Amtrak. He really has some good ideas. He really has some good 
strategies in terms of how to make Amtrak, and I am not going to call 
it profitable because I am not sure that is right, but to reduce the 
subsidies which are necessary to provide this very important form of 
transportation for at least portions of the United States of America, 
obviously the eastern seaboard, the region around Los Angeles and 
around Chicago and various other areas. I am not suggesting we need to 
go across the country and go for 4 days, whatever it may be, but the 
bottom line is this is an extraordinarily important mode of 
transportation, and I think we need to sit down and recognize that and 
do all that we can.
  I implore the White House, this committee, the Senate and everybody 
to try to do this. The Senate has spoken

[[Page H7882]]

to this, at least to a degree. They have raised their amount in 
subcommittee which is looking at it to $1.34 billion; 218 Members, that 
is a majority of this House, have signed a letter requesting the $1.8 
billion. There are many people who recognize what we have to do.
  I am, like everybody else, if there is fat there, sure, we want to 
squeeze that out and we want an efficient system, but we need a good 
rail system in America, and we cannot continue to underfund it so badly 
that we cannot make the capital improvements and do the other things 
which are necessary to keep it up. So I implore all of us to do this.
  I do not know where these amendments are going, but obviously at some 
point this is going to be in conference, and very important decisions 
are going to be made about the future of rail in America, and I hope 
when that happens that we put together a good plan that really works, 
we listen to Mr. Quinn and others who are vitally interested in that.
  I would encourage the defeat of the amendment. I would encourage 
support of the Quinn amendment, and hopefully when we get to conference 
we will really get the job done on rail in the United States of 
America.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I thank the chairman for recognizing me and want to rise in 
opposition to my good friend and classmate the gentleman from 
Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) amendment and preemptively rise in support of 
my other good friend and State mate the gentleman from New York's (Mr. 
Quinn) amendment that he will offer later on restoring full funding to 
the Amtrak system.
  In doing so, I want to point out that we have had this debate in 
Congress for a decade at least, that it is almost unreasonable to 
expect that this transportation appropriation bill is going to be the 
bill, the vehicle in which we are going to be able to solve the many 
problems that we have in Amtrak; but in doing so, I want to recognize 
the diligence of my chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) 
who worked and strove diligently throughout this process. As we marked 
up the bill in the subcommittee, the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), pointed out that a number of us voted to 
support this bill so we could push it along the process and get it into 
the full committee and now on to the floor to talk about the 
intricacies and the many problems facing Amtrak today.
  I support the notion that we restored to $900 million a portion of 
the White House's recommended portion of the funding but recognize that 
we are woefully short and recognize that this is a vital national 
interest with which we must soon address its needs, and in failing to 
do so, we further put at risk the viability of a system that, as was 
pointed out by a speaker before, served us ably and importantly and 
critically at a time when the airline industry could not. It has served 
us in the past when other means of transportation could not.
  I want to go to the core of the Amtrak question, and that is the 
northeast corridor, and say simply that it faces imminent threat in 
terms of its reliability and utility, because as the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Quinn) points out, I believe this Congress has undertaken a 
methodology in which we simply ensure its failure rather than its 
success if we continue to defer investment, and we risk losing service 
between Boston and Washington, which is at the hub of that core of 
service, if any service disruptions in Amtrak are experienced.
  The northeast corridor is critical to our Nation and it is the 
heaviest traveled railroad in North America. It is not a simple luxury 
for many people. In fact, 1,700 trains operate over some portion of the 
Washington-to-Boston route each day in this Nation, providing people 
the opportunity to work, providing people the opportunity to carry on 
the business of this Nation and go to the places they need to go.
  As the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out, the 
northeast corridor carries more from New York to Washington each day 
than both airlines in providing their shuttle service, combined, do. 
Pretty critical service that it provides. It carries more than 35,000 
people a day, the entire corridor, and the Northeast is the only area 
in which Amtrak runs trains and owns tracks and I think provides us the 
greatest opportunity to build from within that railroad's experience.
  As it relates to the notion that this is somehow pork, I want to 
point out to my good friend and others that this Congress has not been 
hesitant to subsidize private entities like airlines, has not been 
hesitant, as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out, to 
provide other infrastructure subsidies throughout the system, and that 
to decide arbitrarily or subjectively that while Amtrak may not serve 
portions of the Nation, it is therefore not in the national interest, 
is simply wrong.
  I want to again thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Quinn), and involve my support for his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Page 5, line 21, after ``$45,000,000'' insert ``(decreased 
     by $45,000,000)''.
       Page 68, line 11, after ``$1,628,739,000'' insert 
     ``(decreased by $165,000,000)''.
       Page 91, line 1, after ``$495,000,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $232,000,000)''.
       Page 108, line 23, after ``$35,914,000'' insert 
     ``(decreased by $22,000,000)''.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to H.R. 2989. This amendment increases the amount of funding 
provided in this bill for election reform.
  When the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed the Help America Vote 
Act, it made a commitment to the American public that we would restore 
reliability to America's elections system. Last year, Congress grossly 
underfunded its authorized commitment. Again, today, we are considering 
a bill that provides less than 50 percent of the amount authorized. The 
Help America Vote Act authorized more than $1 billion in funding for 
fiscal year 2004. Yet this bill appropriates only $500 million.
  In less than 6 months, Mr. Chairman, Americans will begin traveling 
to the polls to vote in the Presidential primaries. The unfortunate 
reality is that they will be returning, in many respects, to the same 
system that failed them in many respects 3 years ago, simply because 
Congress has not followed through with its financial commitment to 
States, counties, and local governments.
  The amendment I am offering today increases funding in the bill for 
the implementation of the Help America Vote Act by $232 million. This 
extra money for election reform funding today will improve local 
election systems while offsetting the increase with funds that might 
not be used for well over 2 years. This body has an opportunity to say 
to Americans across the country that we are committed to election 
reform. My amendment makes this commitment clear and takes us one step 
closer to a day when Americans will walk away from the polls knowing 
that their vote will not only be counted but will actually count. I 
would urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.
  I would also like to take a point of personal privilege to thank the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) 
and the many Members who have supported the Help America Vote Act in 
its present form, and assuredly all of us should bring ourselves to 
want to do what is right by all of our constituents as it pertains to 
voting.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Florida's 
(Mr.

[[Page H7883]]

Hastings) amendment. I understand his concern with having more Federal 
funds for voter reform and voting systems reform in the country. We 
have the money of course in the bill, which frankly we have treated as 
inviolate. We have not sought to diminish the amount or invade the 
election reform dollars for the purpose of transportation or any other 
function. However, if we open up that Pandora's box, I think we would 
find a great many Members who would be interested in saying we need 
transportation more than we need to be subsidizing some States that 
have not reformed their system on their own.
  The gentleman's amendment opens up that box. I am not trying to take 
the money we have in the bill for election reform and move it out 
elsewhere, but I think the money we have in the bill for the 
modernization of the IRS, for Department of Transportation, and for the 
National Archives should not be invaded to put money into the election 
reform pot to be sent around to States.
  With the funding provided in the bill already, Congress will have 
appropriated $2 billion to date for reforming the election system in 
this country. I am well aware it is not the same as the authorized 
level, but $2 billion is still an enormous amount of money. Nearly 99 
percent of that money has gone or will be going directly to the States 
for the improvement of voting systems, including the purchase of up-to-
date, reliable ballot equipment; $650 million of that money has already 
been obligated.
  The gentleman, though, wants to accelerate that process. In doing so, 
it eliminates the $45 million for the Department of Transportation 
headquarters, reduces by $165 million the critical and already long-
overdue reform of the IRS information systems accounts so taxpayers can 
get honest, accurate, timely, reliable information about their tax 
status in this country, and the $22 million that he wants to pull out 
of the National Archives with their important preservation of the 
heritage of the country.
  The Committee on Appropriations has decided to fund these programs at 
the levels which we have after very careful consideration and working 
closely with the authorizers.

                              {time}  1615

  We have funded at the level that was mutually agreed upon. I have not 
sought to invade that for transportation needs. Similarly, I would not 
want to invade the other portions of this bill for the election reform. 
I do not want that carefully crafted compromise to fall apart, as I 
believe the gentleman's amendment would cause it to do.
  I know that the gentleman offers the amendment in good faith in an 
honest desire to improve more rapidly the election reform systems in 
the country, but we should not be hampering the modernization efforts 
of the other parts of government which are equally critical to every 
taxpayer in the country.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's effort, but I do oppose his 
amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to 
support the Hastings amendment that will provide much needed money for 
election reform grants to states, which are to be used to update state 
election systems and replace obsolete voting equipment.
  After the 2000 presidential election cycle, many Americans felt 
disenfranchised or even worse that their vote was not counted. These 
lingering problems mostly affected minority and poor neighborhoods. In 
response to the national outcry for reform, Congress overwhelmingly 
passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) establishing minimum federal 
standards for federal elections that include upgrading voting machines 
and registration processes. Passage of the bill provided an opportunity 
to reform outdated systems and show the American people and the world 
that fair and just elections are important and possible.
  The HAVA authorized more than $3 billion over five years to improve 
our election systems, which includes improving voting technology. 
However, the bill before us today only appropriates $500 million, 
leaving states without resources to make critical systems updates for 
the upcoming elections this year and in 2004. States deserve the 
resources to make a real change. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Hastings goes a long way to make true election reform 
a reality.
  The Hastings amendment increase funding for the implementation of 
HAVA by $232 million, which will be offset in accounts that do not need 
the money, this fiscal year. This money will help restore confidence in 
this country's election system.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons given for going to war in Iraq was 
to bring democracy to Iraq. We also must do all we can in this country 
to preserve the right to vote and provide the necessary funds to update 
voting procedures in the United States. Voting is not just a right but 
also a privilege. We must ensure that the voting mechanisms in America 
are fair and just.
  The Hastings amendment will help put us on the correct path. The 
world will closely watch the next election to make sure our actions 
speak louder than our words. Let this body act with integrity and 
support the Hastings amendment and renew our commitment to establishing 
federal standards for federal elections and voting an outlined in HAVA.
  As such, I urge all of my colleagues to support this worthwhile 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Quinn

  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Quinn:
       Page 39, line 1, strike ``$900,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,712,000,000''.
       Page 39, line 2, strike ``$400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$668,000,000''.
       Page 39, lines 3 through 6, strike ``$373,000,000 for 
     quarterly grants for capital expenses along the Northeast 
     Corridor Mainline, and $127,000,000 for quarterly grants for 
     general capital improvements: Provided'' and insert 
     ``$1,044,000,000 for quarterly grants for capital 
     improvements: Provided, That the Secretary shall not obligate 
     more than $544,000,000 for quarterly grants for general 
     capital improvements before October 1, 2004: Provided 
     further, That no payments of principal or interest shall be 
     collected during fiscal year 2004 for the direct loan made to 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation under section 502 
     of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 
     1976 (45 U.S.C. 822): Provided further''.
       Page 157, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 742. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act for the Department of the Treasury that 
     is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 4 
     percent.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin this discussion by 
commending subcommittee Chairman Istook for his diligence for bringing 
this bill to the floor today. He and his committee have done their 
level best with obviously limited resources that he was given to meet 
tremendous transportation needs and infrastructure needs throughout the 
country.
  We need to build roads; there is no question about that. We need to 
repair bridges. We need to expand the capacity of our airports, but I 
do not believe that we can forget about our other major mode of 
transportation and that is passenger rail service.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is not enough money to go around. 
In order to provide safe, efficient, and reliable passenger rail 
service, Amtrak president David Gunn has said the company needs $1.8 
billion next fiscal year. This bill appropriates only half of that.
  In my opinion, this will simply continue to do what we have done 
before, and I said it earlier this afternoon, we will provide Amtrak 
with just enough money to make sure that it fails. In this case, Mr. 
Chairman, I think with even worse results.
  Our railroad subcommittee and the full Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure earlier this year passed an authorization of $2 
billion. Following that, I organized and sent a letter with over 220 
signatures to the appropriators asking for this same amount of money.

[[Page H7884]]

  That bill coupled with our bonding proposal to develop high-speed 
rail corridors would create the type of passenger rail network that 
this country needs and has to have.
  My amendment this afternoon would raise the level of funding for 
Amtrak to $1.7 billion and forgive them the $100 million loan that they 
received from the Department of Transportation 2 years ago. It would 
provide Amtrak with the necessary capital and funding to make those 
improvements along this popular northeast corridor that we have talked 
about today as well as track and bridge repairs throughout its entire 
system, not just the northeast corridor.
  The Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee just yesterday 
passed their version of this bill and included $1.3 billion for Amtrak. 
While this is a step in the right direction, I believe even more needs 
to be done.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a firm believer that a national passenger rail 
system has to be in place. I intend to work with the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and the full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), to increase the funding for 
Amtrak in the conference negotiations with the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, if these numbers hold that we see today, I will predict 
disastrous consequences for passenger rail service next year as we know 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a hypothetical question of 
Members on my side of the aisle that next August when the meeting is 
held in New York City I want to know who is going to answer the 
questions when there is no Amtrak service provided to get to the city 
and from the city and around the city.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I do make my point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill, therefore violating clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  That rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect, and I ask for a 
ruling from the Chair.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, if he would yield to let me speak to this 
for a couple of minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma may continue to 
reserve his point of order.
  Mr. ISTOOK. As long as my point of order is reserved, I have no 
objection if the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) would like to 
strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Point of order is reserved.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do not 
want to wear out my welcome.
  I did speak to this just a few minutes ago, but there are a couple of 
additional points. Obviously I agree with the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). We are not going to win this 
point. I understood the point of order of the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook) and notice he is a good friend and a good chairman and is 
doing the best job he can with this particular bill, which is 
difficult.
  I just have to go back to what we are doing in transportation and 
just ask everybody in leadership and everybody that is going to be 
involved in the ultimate conference on this to really pay attention to 
what is happening to rail service in the United States of America and 
to other services in general.
  I have already indicated in our airports, for example, that we have 
the comptrollers, we have the TSA, and we have billions of dollars of 
expenses; we put $15 billion, $15 billion, after 9-11 into 
stabilization for our airline industry in this country. The request 
here is $1.8 billion for a significant industry to allow them to do the 
infrastructure which they would have to do in order to be able to carry 
out a proper transportation system.
  Let us look at what we have: not a single passenger rail system in 
the world which operates in a profitable way. Countries with well-
developed rail systems with much smaller populations, such as Germany 
and Japan, invest $3 billion to $4 billion, while we are asking for 
$1.8 billion, $3 billion to $4 billion annually on passenger rail, 
which is over 20 percent of their total transportation spending.
  What happens to the roads there? The roads free up and people go with 
the rail systems. That is what we want to do here in the United States 
of America. I honestly believe if we give this a long-term approach, 
with the capital improvements, with the maintenance which is necessary 
running the systems where it should, and with the decisions for 
efficiency where it is needed, that we will have a system of rail in 
this country for which we can always be proud. But frankly, if we 
continue to try to keep nickel and diming this operation by giving 
them, say, $900 million when indeed they need twice that amount of 
money to run this, unfortunately we will never get to that point.
  We are not going to rescue this today. Unfortunately, we do not have 
a large enough body of votes here to be able to do that necessarily. 
But the bottom line is that at some point this Congress and this 
administration need to sit down and make that decision, and hopefully 
it will be a firm decision to make sure that rail is elevated so that 
it is at the point where it is absolutely competitive with other 
countries and other transportation systems in the United States of 
America. I do hope that we will be able to do that, and I would suggest 
that we would be best served if we did it, and the sooner the better.
  So I am in support of the amendment, but also I am in support of 
making sure we resolve this problem.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
York is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) for his remarks, and I deeply appreciate the position of 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). I realize that this is not 
the place for this discussion, not only where the discussion should 
take place but the decision made.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Quinn Amendment to 
the Transportation Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
  If we do not pass this amendment, Amtrak is guaranteed to close 
because of lack of funding. Amtrak is a valuable resource to this 
nation and to my home state of California. It carries millions of 
passengers every year and employes thousands of workers. This nation is 
not in the position to lose such a valuable resource. We must continue 
to fund Amtrak and fund it 100 percent.
  Last year Amtrak shut down because of lack of funding. This bill is 
certain to close Amtrak's doors once again this year because it simply 
provides $900 million in funding. That is not enough to keep Amtrak 
operating. Amtrak needs $1.8 billion in survive.
  Amtrak is a company that has not been fully funded since its creation 
in 1970. We have never given this company the full resources that it 
needs to survive and it is time to change this.
  Amtrak provides a valuable resource to commuters and travelers all 
over this nation, and yet it only absorbs 1 percent of the federal 
transportation budget. 1 percent!
  Amtrak last year covered nearly 65 percent of its own operating 
costs. No rail system in the world is that self funded! It is a good 
program and it must continue to keep its doors open.
  We need more job creation right now, not job elimination. Amtrak 
employs over 20,000 workers. If we allow it to close, what will happen 
to these families? How will these families replace the loss of income 
and the loss of benefits? Our economy simply isn't in the position to 
keep closing doors on workers.
  In California, 3.5 million people used Amtrak last year. That is 16 
percent of its total ridership!
  Amtrak employs over 4000 people in my state and represents over $100 
million dollars in salaries. My state simply cannot afford to see 
anymore job loss and it cannot afford to see any more families lose 
their benefits.
  We must think about the consequences of our actions today. We must 
think about what the abandonment of our national rail system will do to 
commuters, workers, and families in this nation. At a time when other 
nations are expanding their intercity passengers rail systems, we 
should not guarantee the shutdown of ours. At a time when Americans are 
traveling more than ever, we cannot turnour backs on affordable 
transportation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?

[[Page H7885]]

  There was no objection.


            Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Hooley:
       Page 2, line 8, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 83, line 7, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and 
could go a long ways towards increasing the security of our States' 
drivers licenses, which are the primary means of photo identification 
in this country. These documents are too easily forged, counterfeited, 
stolen, or improperly distributed. In fact, the Inspector General for 
the Department of Transportation recently stated that a Maryland DMV 
employee had pleaded guilty to falsifying driver licenses for 10 
people. How many of these could have ended up in the hands of 
terrorists or criminals seeking to steal the identity of law-abiding 
citizens?
  Drivers licenses are literally the keys to the country's security. 
With a driver's license, when you show your identity, you can write a 
check. When you show your driver's license, you can get on a plane; 
when you show your driver's license, you can take a tour of the White 
House. In Oregon, a local woman is serving an 11-year sentence in 
prison because she was finally caught producing counterfeit drivers 
licenses right out of her home.
  State DMVs must do a better job of securing our primary piece of 
identity, and this $500,000 in funding will allow the Secretary to 
direct the Department of Transportation to study and present 
recommendations on how we can better secure these crucial documents. I 
believe this study should have three major goals.
  Number one, the study should determine the best practices that States 
can use to secure their drivers licenses from fraud and theft. Our 
government has already conducted a great deal of research on security 
measures such as biometrics and digital watermarks and other technology 
that could increase the security of state-issued photo identification. 
In fact, we think the technology is already there.
  Second, the study should determine how best to encourage the States 
to put these measures into place. I understand the issuance of license 
and photo identification is the responsibility of the State, and I do 
not want to infringe on that right. However, given the increasing 
reliance on all levels of government and businesses on these documents, 
I believe we must act to ensure that false documents are not used by 
terrorists, criminals, or others who would normally be unable to obtain 
these credentials.
  Finally, the study should determine the approximate cost for States 
to initiate these security features so we can determine the impact this 
would have on State budgets and the feasibility of various approaches 
from a cost perspective.
  As a matter of national security, we must take steps to protect our 
primary source of identification both to protect our homeland from 
terrorist threats and to stem the growing tide of identity theft. This 
amendment would provide the necessary knowledge to accomplish this 
mission. The additional funding for the study is offset by a reduction 
of $500,000 out of the administrative account of the Office of 
Management and Budget. The CPO has scored this amendment as revenue 
neutral.
  Again, this bill deals with drivers licenses. It looks at the best 
practices States can use to secure those drivers licenses, it looks at 
how we encourage States to put this in place, and it determines a cost. 
This is an antiterrorist amendment. This is an anti-identity theft 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to protect our citizens and our 
national security by supporting this important amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
certainly appreciate the good intentions of the gentlewoman from 
Oregon; however, I cannot support the amendment.
  We already have, through the National Highway Safety program, a great 
number of efforts with States regarding their drivers license programs. 
There is funding already there. We do not need another $500,000 study. 
In fact, a number of States have already adopted provisions. For 
example, my State of Oklahoma has moved to biometric identifiers, 
fingerprints, on that. Other States have acted through their 
legislatures.
  I think we would be behind the curve if we spent $500,000 of Federal 
money on another study at this point. States are already doing this. We 
already have money working with the States through appropriations in 
this bill on their drivers license improvement programs. And 
furthermore, we should not take money from the Office of Management and 
Budget, which has already been cut by $14 million in this bill from the 
fiscal year 2003 level.
  So I think, frankly, that the amendment is behind what is already 
going on in the country. It is good, but a study is not going to make 
things happen any faster than they are already happening in the States, 
and it will cost $500,000 of Federal money we do not need to be 
spending. So I appreciate the efforts of the gentlewoman but rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Ms. Hooley) will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
       Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $320,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $273,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 61, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,285,000)''.
       Page 67, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $12,250,000)''.
       Page 67, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,250,000)''.
       Page 67, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 84, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $28,790,000)''.
       Page 85, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $276,675,000)''.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It 
increases funding for some incredibly important programs within this 
bill. The amendment doubles funding for the Office of Terrorist 
Financing and Financial Crimes, the tax counseling for the elderly 
programs, low-income tax clinics, and the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. It also increases funding for the high-intensity drug 
trafficking areas program. These increases are offset by restoring 
funding for Amtrak to the level originally approved by the committee.
  We have heard a lot about Amtrak today, and I support intercity rail 
transit where it can be viable. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney) said that the core of Amtrak was in the northeast corridor, 
and I am confident with regional support that northeast corridor can 
continue to thrive and be successful whatever we do at the national 
level. And where we have even close to the population density of Europe 
that makes sense, but there are too many lines where we are pouring 
money in as fast as we can in areas that will never be viable. Given 
the scarcity of our dollars, we should be focusing on things like high-
speed rail or roads or other forms of transportation which make more 
sense.
  The simple fact is that Federal subsidies to Amtrak are a poor 
investment that offer little return. Having done

[[Page H7886]]

some research, if we look at the Sunset Limited line from Orlando to 
Los Angeles, that costs $347; and I found 11 different flights that 
cost less than the average per passenger loss that the Federal 
Government subsidizes for that route. One of those flights was $232, so 
this means that the Federal Government would save $115 per passenger if 
it bought every Sunset passenger a round-trip plane ticket as opposed 
to subsidizing the long-haul route one way.
  We can say the same about the Pennsylvanian which has a $292 loss per 
passenger to go from Philadelphia to Chicago; a plane ticket would cost 
$135. We would save $157 per passenger. The list goes on and on.
  Members do not need to be a CPA to understand that when Amtrak's rate 
of return is twice that to pay for Amtrak as competing services, which 
would get people there quicker, this is not where we ought to be 
prioritizing Federal dollars.
  If we look at the areas I am spending it in under my proposal, as 
indicated during debate on the rule and general debates, the Office of 
Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes is a new entity within the 
Department of Treasury. Its purpose is to provide support to our 
efforts to combat the funding of terrorism and other crimes committed 
within the U.S. and abroad. We know that terrorism does not work unless 
the terrorists have money, and so it is important that we do more to 
deny those who wish to do us harm the means to carry out their 
intentions.
  My amendment would also double funding for two programs which provide 
critical assistance to low-income and elderly Americans when they pay 
their taxes. The Federal Tax Code is made up of four huge volumes that 
are each thicker than the Bible. In fact, the Tax Code is over 7 
million words long. These programs help people with a task that is far 
too burdensome and they need more resources.
  My amendment also increases funding for the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy and the high-intensity drug trafficking program, two 
vital elements in our Nation's war on drugs. The principal purpose of 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy is to establish policies, 
priorities, and objectives to reduce the illicit drug trade, drug-
related crime and drug-related health consequences. From enforcement of 
our drug laws to treatment of individuals by the tragic effects of 
substance abuse, this program plays a critical role in helping our 
country fight this terrible problem. As a father of four, I believe the 
importance of this work cannot be understated.
  Finally, we need to do more to help States fight and win their local 
war on drugs. In Minnesota, police have been battling the devastating 
problem of methamphetamine production and use. They are in desperate 
need of assistance.
  The high-intensity drug trafficking program is a Federal program that 
many of my colleagues know and respect. From Houston to Los Angeles to 
the Appalachian region, from Hawaii to New England and throughout the 
Midwest, this program has helped State and local official tailor highly 
specialized solutions to unique areas of need. Drug use is a national 
problem, and we need to fund national programs like the high-intensity 
drug trafficking program to fight it. My amendment will deliver those 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, the programs funded by my amendment will help the poor 
and the elderly with the confusing task of filling out their taxes, 
will help States battle illegal drug use, and help law enforcement 
officials cut off the financial resources terrorists need before they 
can act. These are broad, bipartisan programs and ones that every 
Member should support. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment 
and fund these vital national priorities at the highest level possible.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the whipping boy today seems to be Amtrak on the part 
of one group; and there is another group that feels that the number 
that is there for Amtrak is totally inadequate. I am more a part of 
that group.
  The amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kennedy) again reverses the action taken by the Committee on 
Appropriations in full committee to provide the level of funding that 
the President had asked for for Amtrak. I happen to believe that is 
quite inadequate. The number that has been proposed now will strangle, 
and, by the way, is specifically intended to strangle the very idea of 
a national passenger rail system for America. I hope that will not be 
the direction that we take here today.
  The proposals for increases of funding where $320 million are used, 
there are 6 of them, I guess, and each one has arguments that can be 
made in favor of it, but the cost of doing that is to reduce the 
funding for Amtrak to the point where it absolutely goes belly up. It 
is the very end, and is intended to strangle the passenger rail system.
  As I have pointed out before, the level of $900 million is what the 
President requested. And even at that level, it is clear that it is not 
possible to make any inroads in the years of deferred maintenance and 
inadequate capital investment at Amtrak. The Inspector General for 
Transportation had pointed that at that $900 million level, none of the 
backlog of capital needs could be addressed at that funding level.
  We have already heard that 220 Members of this House of 
Representatives had written the Committee on Appropriations asking for 
a higher number than the $900 million level. In fact, the number was 
$1.8 billion which Amtrak asked for, which the new president of Amtrak 
had asked for.
  I just have to point out and remind Members that over the last 5 
years Amtrak has received an average of $1.1 billion each year, and at 
that level of funding they have not been able to keep up with capital 
needs. They have had to defer important capital investments. They have 
a backlog of $3.8 billion on infrastructure, $1.1 billion for fleet, 
and $900 million for stations and facilities, so such a level would 
make it impossible to do anything of significance in capital needs. 
Again, the inspector general has estimated that Amtrak would need $1.5 
billion annually for capital needs alone throughout the system.
  The president of Amtrak, David Gunn, the new President and CEO, has 
cut waste, reduced expenses, increased revenues, improved Amtrak's 
operations, and he has said that he would need $1.4 billion to $1.8 
billion each year to stabilize the system over the next 5 years. That 
includes the funding for upgrading track and bridges and tunnels in the 
northeast corridor, which is one piece of it which carries a huge 
number of passengers, and runs somewhere fairly close to break even, 
except for capital expenditures.
  The fact here is the amendment is intended to terminate the idea of a 
passenger rail system in this country. I hope we would not adopt this 
amendment. I urge a no vote on this amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to join the Amtrak debate. We have a great 
amendment before us, proposed by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kennedy). I think he is well-intended. It shows the depth we have sort 
of sunk into when the debate on our national rail passenger service has 
a Member come forward and say we are subsidizing $350 a ticket on a 
losing route, which serves my area, and it would be better to put the 
money on a drug rehabilitation program, for which I probably concur.
  I did not come to speak in favor of the amendment, but I think there 
is a lot of logic if we are going to throw money away on a losing 
proposition on Amtrak the way it is currently constituted, it would be 
better to put it on the proposal the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kennedy) has brought forth.
  First, let me say I am not an opponent to national passenger rail 
service and increasing actually good service. What we have now is a 
Soviet-style partial government operation of our national passenger 
rail service. We have had reports for as long as I have served on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on 
Railroads, for some 11 years, we have got to reform Amtrak.
  The problem is not Amtrak. The problem is right here: Congress. 
Congress has failed to authorize a program under which we can provide 
good national passenger long-distance service, a program under which we 
can provide and catch up with the rest of the world in high-speed 
service.

[[Page H7887]]

                              {time}  1645

  Yes, we need to put the money into it. But do we want to put the 
money into a losing proposition that we would be better off putting it 
into a drug program? I heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). 
He is very well intended, and he wants to up the amount to $1.8 
billion. We just heard from the ranking member of the subcommittee that 
they have been losing $1.1 billion. The facts are that Amtrak has lost, 
as we heard, $1.1 billion in need of that subsidy in addition, but 
below that their debt now exceeds $5 billion each year for the past 4 
or 5 years. They have gone into debt, they have hocked the whole system 
and even their real estate assets. So that the debt and the depth of 
problems with Amtrak is far greater than what is brought here today.
  Mr. Gunn is a great administrator, but he has to administrate the law 
that Congress passed some 30 years ago to do everything as far as 
passenger service and high-speed service and other activities that 
Amtrak is involved in and nothing gets done well. So you can have the 
best manager and if Congress does not make the changes necessary, it 
will not run. He came to us at our subcommittee and said he needed $2 
billion, first for 5 years, a total of $10 billion. Then he came back 
and he said he needed $2 billion for 3 years, a total of $6 billion. 
The maintenance backlog of Amtrak alone exceeds $6 billion. So if you 
think you are fixing Amtrak by throwing more money at the problem, you 
are wrong. It will not solve it because they are losing more than $2 
billion a year if you add in the debt. Just their debt payment is a 
quarter of a billion dollars a year. Plus, they have a retirement fund 
obligation which exceeds $7 billion.
  What we need to do is reorganize Amtrak, and Congress needs to 
organize it so we have high-speed service and long-distance service. 
And we do it right, we just do not throw money at the problem. I would 
favor $60 billion towards national passenger rail service and high-
speed, or $100 billion, because we need that alternative. And in the 
end, it is cost effective to concrete and cement and roads and other 
alternatives that we are faced with. So it is cost effective, but who 
wants to give Amtrak more responsibility for high-speed service?
  The Acela program, we gave them billions, billions of dollars, and 
they blew it. The contract is in litigation. They bought equipment that 
does not fit the chassis, and it runs 82 to 83 miles per hour. Is that 
high-speed service? Even under our national definition of high-speed 
rail, it does not meet that criteria. Let us reform Amtrak and let us 
solve the problem. Let us not throw money at the problem.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kennedy of Minnesota 
amendment. I have listened to this debate now for more than an hour. I 
have certainly come to the conclusion that the fact of the matter is 
that the Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 does not adequately fund the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation that we call Amtrak. As a 
matter of fact, this bill provides $900 billion for continued 
assistance to Amtrak.
  Last year, Congress provided just over $1 billion to keep Amtrak 
running through fiscal year 2003. Amtrak now estimates that it will 
need $1.8 billion to maintain existing operations in fiscal year 2004. 
The present bill before us is not sufficient to meet Amtrak's 
contractual obligations for commuter and intercity passenger rail 
service. If Amtrak is unable to continue its existing operations, many 
commuter railroads that are dependent upon Amtrak operations would be 
unable to continue to provide quality and reliable services to their 
customers.
  Amtrak is a major part of the economy of the city where I live. I 
live in the city of Chicago, which we call the transportation capital 
of the Nation. Amtrak operates more than 50 trains into and out of the 
city of Chicago each and every day. These include an extensive network 
of long-distance trains that provide service to the east and west 
coasts, the Gulf of Mexico and Canada. Amtrak also operates dozens of 
regional corridor trains to most major cities in the Midwest. Last 
year, Amtrak carried two million passengers to or from Chicago. Nearly 
600,000 more boarded Amtrak trains at other stations within Illinois.
  Amtrak employs 2,075 individuals in Chicago. And of those employees, 
897 were actually Chicago residents. In calendar year 2002, the total 
wages of Amtrak employees living in the city of Chicago were 
approximately $37.7 million. Should Amtrak not be able to continue its 
operations, imagine the negative impact this would have on the people 
of Chicago and the people who live in that region, the people who work 
for Amtrak, and the thousands of people all over the country who look 
to, expect and need Amtrak as their primary mode of transportation, 
even to and from work every day.
  I oppose this amendment because I think it goes in the wrong 
direction, and I would certainly support the Olver amendment to 
increase Amtrak funding by $500 million rather than cut it in any way, 
shape, form or fashion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kennedy).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kennedy) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Holt:
       Page 43, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 43, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. HOLT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment that would 
help ensure adequate winter access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton 
National Parks.
  Yellowstone, America's premier park, is being loved to death, and 
there are many Members here who are concerned about the effect of 
vehicular pollution, traffic, on Yellowstone Park. In fact, precisely 
half of the Members here recently voted to ban snow machines. This 
amendment, that I have before the body at the moment, would do nothing 
with the number or type of snowmobiles allowed in the park. It is not 
unrelated. As I point out, half of the House voted to ban snowmobiles, 
and all of those Members should support this amendment. Some, who voted 
otherwise because there was insufficient alternative transportation 
available, should also support this.
  Since that discussion a few weeks ago, there is new information. The 
Environmental Protection Agency, having done tests shows that the new 
generation of snowmobiles approved for use in Yellowstone Park after 
being promoted as cleaner and quieter, in fact, emit more pollution. 
Said a spokesman for Yellowstone Park, ``We started all this in good 
faith. We based our decision on the fact that the machines would 
continue to be cleaner and quieter and the industry would work toward 
that end.'' In fact, none of the new machines tested by the EPA meet 
the park's standards. They are dirtier than before.
  What I am trying to do is to see that we have adequate access to 
Yellowstone Park whether my colleagues support snowmobiles or not. 
There exists now some multipassenger vehicles for access in the snow, 
over the snow, into the park. They range from the old-fashioned, and I 
would say classy, red Bombardier vehicles to the newer models adapted 
from Ford Econoline vans.

[[Page H7888]]

  Just this year, the new prototype of snow coaches has been unveiled. 
These new vehicles are environmentally friendly and can run on diesel, 
gas, compressed natural gas or ethanol. And they include big windows 
and a fabric top that folds back so passengers can get a good look 
around. What is more, the vehicles can be lowered to accommodate 
disabled individuals. This means that people who could not enjoy 
Yellowstone Park's winter beauty before can now fully experience these 
national treasures.
  The Federal Transit Administration, in a private-public partnership 
along with the Heart Corporation of Michigan, Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy 
and the National Park Service have designed and developed this new 
prototype. My amendment is intended to provide $2 million for the Park 
Service to use 12 new coaches of this type.
  As I said, this amendment, I believe, should be acceptable to 
everyone. Anyone here in this body who voted to ban snowmobiles from 
Yellowstone should support this. Anyone here who voted against the ban 
on snowmobiles should also support this because it provides alternative 
means of travel.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the committee consider approving this 
transfer of funds within the Federal Transit Administration for this 
important purpose in our major, premier national park.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the efforts of the gentleman 
from New Jersey and his focus on this issue. I regret that I cannot 
agree to the amendment, because I know he has devoted a lot of time to 
it, but for a couple of reasons. One, of course, is that the National 
Park Service customarily has its appropriations through the Interior 
Department Appropriation bill. As much as some people may consider it 
mass transit in Yellowstone, I do not think that fits the normal 
definition of the work of the Federal Transit Administration. But I 
look forward to working with the gentleman to learn more about the 
issue and see what we might be able to improve on it and consider his 
request in whatever is the appropriate committee.
  I also feel compelled to point out, it has come to my attention, an 
article reported today through the Los Angeles Times News Service, and 
I will just read the first sentence of that particular article, which 
says, ``A new generation of snowmobiles approved for use in Yellowstone 
National Park after being promoted as cleaner and quieter, emit more 
pollution than models produced 2 years ago, according to test data from 
the Environmental Protection Agency.'' I do not know on the particular 
vehicles that the gentleman is promoting whether they are actually 
covered by this particular study or not, maybe they are, maybe they are 
not. But I do not know the ramifications of it all, and I certainly 
would not want to be shifting around within a bill that has such tight 
funding as we have, $2 million to go out of the general transportation 
purposes and into a specialty use in Yellowstone National Park, 
although I think that is a good question for the Interior Committee.
  But I am interested in learning more, working with the gentleman, and 
I think the whole House needs to consider his interest. But I cannot 
agree to support the amendment, unfortunately.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. It is precisely because those single-passenger and dual-
passenger vehicles to which the chairman refers do not meet the 
environmental guidelines of the National Park Service that the Transit 
Administration and others have developed these multipassenger vehicles 
which do emit less pollution per passenger, per recreation enthusiast. 
So, in fact, they would be a substitute.
  With regard to the point that this would be used in Yellowstone Park, 
yes, indeed they would. In fact, all mass transit is used somewhere, 
where people are, where people want to travel, and that is an 
appropriate use of, I think, the Transit funds. But with the chairman's 
assurance that we can continue this discussion, I would be pleased to 
withdraw my amendment at this time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Olver:
       Page 39, line 10, insert before the colon the following:
     : Provided further, That, in addition to the amounts 
     otherwise provided under this heading, for grants to the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation, $500,000,000: 
     Provided further, That, in the case of taxpayers with 
     adjusted gross income in excess of $1,000,000 for the tax 
     year beginning in 2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting 
     from enactment of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced 
     by 2.8 percent.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. OLVER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order against 
the amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is one of those that proposes 
to add $500 million or nearly that sum of money, in my case exactly 
$500 million, to this legislation for Amtrak and would bring their 
total funding to $1.4 billion. The amendment does this by reducing the 
size of the tax cut for those earning more than $1 million of taxable 
income by less than 3 percent, from an average of $88,000 to an average 
of $85,500 or about $2,500 on average, which represents less than 3 
percent of the size of that tax reduction.
  The chairman has already reserved a point of order, and I would like 
to just point out that I would have supported the amendment being 
offered by the gentleman from New York, who is the chairman of the 
Railroads Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, had it not been for the way the offsets come.
  So here we are with a substantial number of people, and it probably 
comes to all of those 220 Members, both Republicans and Democrats, a 
good smattering of both parties, who sent a letter to appropriators 
asking for support for requests of $1.8 billion for Amtrak; and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) and I in two different ways have 
offsets that neither he could support mine nor could I support his, but 
it goes to show that there is a substantial number of people who really 
do believe in the concept of a national passenger rail system, and that 
is not what we are going to have in the direction that we are going.
  I just want to comment also that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Mica) of the Subcommittee on Aviation has indicated, and I think this 
is what I heard, that he thinks it would be appropriate to do perhaps 
as much as a $90 billion program on high-speed rail, and I am a 
supporter of high-speed rail as well and will probably if we get the 
opportunity vote for that because high-speed rail in appropriate places 
is something that might well be done. But high-speed rail is never 
going to be a substitute for a national passenger rail system. That is 
not possible under high-speed rail, and I would point out that if we 
are talking about doing $90 billion in capital funding for a high-speed 
rail system, which under circumstances I certainly will support, we are 
now talking about instead being unable to provide merely the $1.5 
billion per year which the transportation IG, Ken Mead, says is 
necessary to make our present effort at a national passenger rail 
system function.
  So we have to keep in mind that we are talking about a huge sum of 
money for doing some high-speed rail when we cannot even figure out how 
to do a national passenger rail system which would on a per-year basis 
cost no more than 10 percent of what is being proposed for a high-speed 
rail program, a set of initiatives that will not come anywhere close to 
providing for such a national passenger rail system.
  My amendment, with the increase to $1.4 billion a year, would provide 
money so that Amtrak can begin to

[[Page H7889]]

tackle the years of deferred maintenance and inadequate capital 
investment that has been the history of Amtrak for quite a number of 
years, and I would just point out that no large private or public 
intercity passenger rail system in the world has been profitable or 
been able to survive without substantial public subsidy. When national 
governors no longer want to support such intercity rail service, the 
rail service disappears; and Amtrak was created because private 
companies were unable to make a profit on passenger rail. And if we 
believe in a national passenger rail system, then we are going to have 
to start by dealing with a national passenger rail system.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I had not planned to talk, but since my name was brought up in the 
debate in some comments about my comments, I thought it was important 
to respond.
  First, again, I view myself as a strong advocate of national 
passenger rail system; but we need a system that makes sense, a system 
that serves areas that need to be served and require the service, and 
if we want to have losing routes across the country, there is no 
problem. We subsidize aviation. We subsidize roads. We subsidize every 
form of transportation. Let us have a transparent subsidization. Let us 
subsidize the transportation at the lowest possible cost to the 
taxpayer, and let us also bring in partners from those areas who want 
the service. If they want service and they want to subsidize it $350 a 
ticket, God bless them. They should have that service, and if they are 
willing to pay for part of that, maybe we will pay part of it too.
  But we have to look at, for one thing, the taxpayers' pocketbook 
here. The fact is, again, I do not know how to make this any clearer to 
my colleagues, Amtrak was given by Congress the mandate to run national 
passenger service. They have had that mandate. They have gotten into 
high-speed service. Can we tell the finances of Amtrak? I would venture 
to say if we looked at the Enron report and Enron loss-of-investor 
money, we are talking about losses of taxpayers' billions of dollars, 
five point X billion dollars in the last 5, 6 years that they have 
lost, we cannot tell the finances. This committee cannot tell us the 
finances. I just asked the staff for information about the finances of 
Amtrak.
  So I have identified the problem. The problem is Congress, because we 
have failed to put together a plan to provide national passenger 
service that makes sense. We have failed to put together corridors for 
high-speed service.
  The question comes to us should we give Amtrak more money, and if we 
give them $1.4 billion, can they do the job? If we give them $1.8 
billion, can they do the job? Two billion dollars, can they do the job? 
It is ``no,'' by any stretch of financial accounting. Just add it up. 
Their deferred maintenance is over $5 billion. What are we going to do 
in this, a couple hundred million dollars at most? Their debt is a 
quarter of a billion, plus they have been hocking the family jewels to 
keep this thing operating. So the problem is us.
  I do not mind a high-speed corridor that makes sense. Honest to 
goodness, and I know a lot of people here are lawyers and we have got 
politicians and they cannot figure it out, but a route from Washington 
to New York that truly went high speed, 125 miles an hour as defined by 
law or whatever we have, that got people there in less than 2 hours, my 
goodness, even the people from Wall Street have said that is a winner. 
That will make money. They cannot figure that out in Washington. They 
want subsidization of a Soviet-style passenger service and impose it in 
a high-speed corridor. Does that make sense?
  Yes, these projects can make sense if we look at them from a business 
standpoint or a taxpayer standpoint as to how we are spending the 
money. So let us take a deep breath. We are not going to solve Amtrak's 
problem with $1.1 billion, with $1.4 billion, or with $2.4 billion; and 
I guarantee the Members, and I have got all the reports from the last 
several years, we will be back here again with the same debate no 
matter how much money we give them today if we do not solve the basic 
fundamental organizational, administrative problems and service 
problems that Amtrak is facing. So that is the story, the long and the 
short of it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment, and it 
follows the discussion and my support for preserving dedicated funding 
for transportation enhancements with goals to ensuring that community-
based projects are supported at the local level. And the reason why I 
tie the two together in our support for Amtrak is that all these 
projects point to the public responsibility for transportation. We know 
that on the floor of the House today we are not debating the 
involvement of the public sector. We want to be efficient. We want to 
be responsible as it relates to Federal dollars; but when we discuss 
matters on the floor of the House, we are suggesting what the public 
and Federal roles should be.
  It is well known that transportation itself is a public entity and 
responsibility, whether it goes to fixing our freeways and highways and 
bypasses and bridges, which we all realize is an important component of 
now the Committee on Homeland Security, a committee on which I serve. 
Then we cannot doubt the fact that all aspects of transportation, 
whether it is trucking or when it is utilization of our highways and 
freeways by cars, of individuals who travel over Federal roadways, 
whether or not it is the airlines or whether or not it is the train 
system, if it is localized, it is controlled by local entities. But 
Amtrak happens to be a system that travels interstate. I cannot 
imagine, on the basis of jobs, on the basis of transportation, and on 
the basis of security that we would not want to be responsible in 
funding Amtrak.
  I realize that these are difficult questions. I will be on the floor 
shortly with a very difficult question. But the question should be 
answered in favor of the people. I believe my amendment should be 
answered in favor of the people who have voiced their opinions. Amtrak 
has a constituency that in many instances cannot do without it.
  I happen to be some distance away from the eastern corridor, but I 
can assure the Members that in Texas, the Texas 21 organization that 
has any number of Texas transit organizations involved happens to have 
a very favorable position on Amtrak and the need for passenger travel. 
In fact, in Texas, where we are very far away in our different cities 
and hamlets and counties because we are a very big State, sometimes 
rail travel may be the only vehicle. It does not mean in any way that 
we intend to diminish our very able intra, which is now interstate, 
airlines or locally based airlines.
  I happen to think the world of Southwest Airlines that was based 
initially on travel within our State, but I believe they could be 
complementary to the extent that we can find an effective and efficient 
way to ensure that Amtrak uses Federal dollars correctly but that we do 
not sacrifice the needs of the public because we are not willing to 
participate in our responsibility.
  I think this is a reasonable approach. This is where we should be 
debating this question. The resources are resources that we can find, 
Mr. Chairman, simply by repealing the President's tax cut and investing 
in the infrastructure of this country. We already realize that 
infrastructure is crumbling, as evidenced by the very serious blackout 
that we had just a couple of weeks ago. That is infrastructure. Public 
transit is infrastructure. And it would make a lot of sense to reinvest 
in infrastructure.
  I support this amendment, and I would hope my colleagues would find a 
way to err on the side of supporting passenger travel by rail.

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Olver amendment. Let me 
talk about my home State of Connecticut, where Amtrak service is a 
vital component of daily life, as it is to thousands of cities and 
towns. The same is true all along the East Coast.
  Over 1 million Connecticut citizens rely on Amtrak annually; 411,000 
in my hometown of New Haven. People rely on Amtrak to commute to work 
to New York City. They rely on Amtrak to

[[Page H7890]]

bring commerce and tourism into cities without a commuter airline 
service.
  In the Northeast, people travel Amtrak because it quite simply is the 
most convenient and time-efficient method of traveling from city to 
city, alleviating heavy rush-hour traffic which is faced by so many 
commuters today. In doing so, it is a major contributor in reducing 
emissions that contribute to respiratory illnesses like asthma, and it 
helps to keep the air clean and our children healthy.
  If you have ever been on the I-95 corridor, you will know that it 
does not make any difference what time of day you are traveling that 
road by car, it is always jammed. For us, being able to alleviate some 
of that problem by putting people on trains would be well worth an 
investment.
  Amtrak means jobs as well. Nearly 700 employees are in Connecticut. 
Amtrak owns and operates a rail yard in New Haven, Connecticut where 
maintenance and equipment repair take place. Given the continual 
underfunding of Amtrak, over 100 cars in the fleet remain sidelined 
waiting for repair due to inadequate capital.
  Deferred maintenance on all Amtrak locomotives and passenger cars has 
reduced reliability, revenue, and raised costs, further hindering 
overall financial performance.
  I speak from experience as a dedicated Amtrak traveler. For 13 years 
I have frequently commuted between Connecticut and Washington, D.C. 
Amtrak represents the best of what public transportation has to offer: 
convenience, comfort and efficiency.
  Sadly, though, for over 3 decades, funding for America's passenger 
railroad has barely been enough to keep the system operating on a year-
to-year basis, which prevents it from meeting its longer-term public 
service mission, not to mention its capital obligations.
  Mr. Chairman, this country and its transportation system was created 
and its vision was a bold and daring vision, where people invested in 
infrastructure and made it possible for people to go from coast to 
coast, from city to city, by rail, to transmit goods by rail, and it 
was visionary on the part of those who invested in that effort.
  That needs to happen with this institution. It needs to be visionary 
in understanding what the infrastructure needs are with regard to rail 
travel. Pruning or eliminating the long-distance network will not make 
Amtrak profitable. Failure to provide the necessary funds will not only 
mean the suspension of Amtrak service in the busy northeast corridor, 
but the likely permanent loss of its long-distance trains. It will not 
only strand thousands of commuters around the Nation, it will also mean 
the loss of production, the loss of millions of dollars for communities 
and companies in the areas it services. That simply is unacceptable. It 
should be unacceptable. We need to embark on that bold vision that 
those folks of yesteryear had in putting in the dollars needed for rail 
travel and its maintenance.
  Support Amtrak and vote for the Olver amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the distinguished ranking member's 
amendment for a critical part of the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. There are so many ways in which one could look at the 
preservation of Amtrak in terms of national interests. I would like to 
talk first about one of those, and that is on security.
  After September 11, we learned very clearly on that fateful day, and 
my district sits right across from midtown Manhattan, that it was the 
redundancy of different transportation modes when everything else was 
shut down that ultimately allowed people to escape from that tragedy, 
because we had a redundancy of transportation modes.
  We saw that again very recently again in the blackout; that but for 
the redundancy of transportation modes, people would not have been able 
to get home and to be safe.
  So, at a time in which corporate America looks to have redundancy in 
their corporate headquarters and operations, we as a government should 
be looking at how do we have a redundancy of transportation modes in 
order to ensure the vitality of our country and the safety of its 
citizens. Amtrak is one of those elements of that vitality and of that 
redundancy, and we need to ensure that it is preserved.
  Now, under the appropriations bill that is before the House, if it 
were to become law, in essence that would result in the immediate 
shutdown of Amtrak, which would be catastrophic for rail passengers 
that rely on Amtrak's operation in the northeast corridor, as well as 
those passengers who use Amtrak for long-distance intercity travel. The 
Nation faced that prospect during the summer of 2002, and it was 
narrowly averted by a Federal loan and supplemental appropriation. We 
do not need to suffer such a needless transportation crisis again.
  The long-term effects of Amtrak's demise would be just as severe. The 
States and municipalities who benefit, for example, the northeast 
corridor service, would have to scramble to replace it at a time when 
those States are in fiscal distress. The communities only served by 
Amtrak's long-distance trains would lose service altogether, with no 
realistic chance of that service's restoration.
  Put simply, the shutdown of Amtrak is something that cannot be 
allowed to happen, and the way that this bill funds Amtrak clearly 
would lead to that reality if it became law with this appropriation.
  Now, in addition to security and having different modes of 
transportation to get people to their destinations in a time of 
heightened security concerns, we also look at, as we are trying to 
languish with coming up with a highway bill, a major transportation 
bill, the toll that the lack of such rail passenger service would have 
on our highways, on our bridges, on our roads. The consequences would 
be enormous. That is not factored into the value that Amtrak provides 
us; the commerce that takes place by those who travel through passenger 
rail, to be able to conduct commerce and research and development as 
those companies along the northeast corridor participate throughout the 
corridor and visit and do business; for those in the financial services 
community; and the consequence on the environment as well from adding 
all of those other forms of transportation that would have to take the 
place of passenger rail, the more cars, and that which is produced 
through Amtrak that may in fact have to be carried by trucking.
  So, ultimately, this has a series of effects on the Nation's economy, 
on the Nation's security, on the environment and the quality of life 
for people who are served by Amtrak.
  Mr. Chairman, we have those Members who just simply do not understand 
that this is as crucial as subsidies are to agricultural parts of the 
country, as dams may be to some parts of the country. This is crucial 
to significant elements of the country for its security, for its 
transportation needs, for its commerce, for its environment.
  That is why the gentleman's amendment makes eminent sense. He moves 
an amount just sufficient to keep Amtrak alive in doing so, and he does 
so by taking from those who already have so much and who were given so 
much more, taking a small amount to ensure that the many who need this 
transportation service can achieve it.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to put into the Record, since we 
are having this Amtrak debate, a couple of facts relating to the 
service of Amtrak, and I will be very brief.
  Amtrak's long-distance service record, just one example: From Boston 
to Albany, in 1936 the B Minuteman, it took 4 hours 50 minutes to go 
from Boston to Albany. That is before Amtrak. In 2003, Amtrak Lakeshore 
Limited goes from Boston to Albany in 5 hours.
  Then I just wanted to also make certain that we have in this debate, 
we talked about subsidizing the losses. This is the Amtrak Reform 
Council, which we put in place in 1997 I believe it was, to look at 
reforming Amtrak, coming up with a proposal, which has so far been 
ignored, for restructuring the five routes with the most losses and the 
amount estimated per rider

[[Page H7891]]

loss: From Los Angeles to Chicago is a $236.76 subsidy, a loss; from 
Chicago to New York we lose $244.69 per passenger; from San Antonio to 
Chicago, we lose $258.25; from Chicago to Philadelphia, we only lost 
$292.34 cents; and from Los Angeles to Orlando, to serve my area, we 
only lose $347.45.
  I thought that would be appropriate to read into the Record at this 
time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I do insist upon my point of order, because 
the amendment proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill, therefore violating clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The amendment modifies existing powers and duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to speak on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment indirectly amends existing law. 
The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: The amendment offered by Mr. Petri of 
Wisconsin; Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Tancredo of Colorado; 
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida; Amendment No. 9 
offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon; and the amendment offered by Mr. 
Kennedy of Minnesota.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated 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 327, 
noes 90, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 469]

                               AYES--327

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--90

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goss
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Lewis (CA)
     Manzullo
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     DeGette
     Gephardt
     Janklow
     John
     Kucinich
     Linder
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Payne
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1749

  Mr. BONILLA, Mrs. EMERSON, and Messrs. MURPHY, COX, and BURTON of 
Indiana changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GIBBONS, FORBES, ALEXANDER, BURR, and BALLANCE changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the remainder of 
this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 90, 
noes 322, not voting 22, as follows:

[[Page H7892]]

                             [Roll No. 470]

                                AYES--90

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Everett
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gingrey
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--322

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     DeGette
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Gephardt
     Janklow
     John
     Kucinich
     Lipinski
     Lynch
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Payne
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Sessions
     Tiahrt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1757

  Mr. GINGREY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 470 had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 228, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 471]

                               AYES--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kline
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons

[[Page H7893]]


     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Berman
     Cannon
     DeGette
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Janklow
     John
     Kucinich
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Payne
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Watson
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on this 
vote.

                              {time}  1805

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DOGGETT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
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 CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 203, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 472]

                               AYES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--203

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berman
     Cannon
     DeGette
     Gephardt
     Janklow
     John
     Kucinich
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Payne
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1813

  Mr. DUNCAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TANCREDO and Mr. ROYCE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded. A recorded vote was 
ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.

[[Page H7894]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89, 
noes 325, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 473]

                                AYES--89

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burr
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Franks (AZ)
     Gingrey
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McIntyre
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--325

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Berman
     Cannon
     DeGette
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Granger
     Janklow
     John
     Kucinich
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Payne
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1821

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments to this portion of 
the bill, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

       Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law 105-178, 
     as amended, for necessary expenses to carry out section 3037 
     of the Federal Transit Act of 1998, $17,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That no more than 
     $85,000,000 of budget authority shall be available for these 
     purposes: Provided further, That up to $200,000 of the funds 
     provided under this heading may be used by the Federal 
     Transit Administration for technical assistance and support 
     and performance reviews of the Job Access and Reverse Commute 
     Grants program.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica) rise?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order on this 
section.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase, 
in quotes, Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law 105-178, as 
amended, end quotes, beginning on page 51, line 12. This phrase waives 
the statutory distribution of funds specified in TEA-21 for the job 
access and reverse commute grants program. In doing so it makes 
possible report language earmarking of projects that under section 
3037(g) of TEA-21 must be selected on a competitive basis.
  In addition, it negates the formula allocation of the program based 
on community size as is required by section 3037(l)(3) of TEA-21. This 
blanket waiver is legislative in nature and in violation of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any Members wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we would concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The cited 
language is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             General Provisions--Federal Transit Authority

       Sec. 160. The limitations on obligations for the programs 
     of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation.
       Sec. 161. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Capital investment grants'' for projects specified in this 
     Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not 
     obligated by September 30, 2006, and other recoveries, shall 
     be made available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 162. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 2003, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
     available for expenditure may be transferred to and 
     administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
     any such section.
       Sec. 163. None of the funds in this Act shall be made 
     available for the design, construction, or maintenance of any 
     segment of a light rail system in Houston that has not been 
     specifically approved by a majority of the participating 
     voters in the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority service 
     area in a referendum.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
       Beginning on page 52, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through page 53, line 2.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for 
indulging us on what I believe is a point that can be embraced by all 
of my friends and colleagues and Members of this body on both sides of 
the aisle. It is a simple point, Mr. Chairman, that we are asking for, 
and I

[[Page H7895]]

might in this very costly bill which I happen to support, let me 
suggest to my colleagues that I am not asking for any money nor am I 
asking for any Member to intrude in local matters.
  In fact, this has to do with the Houston rail system that many 
Members who have been here for a period of years have had the pleasure 
of hearing debated over a long, extended time frame.
  I could have come to the floor of the House of Representatives and 
offered an amendment to change the framework which has been established 
in the local community. Right now we have a plan that will be put on a 
November 4, 2003 ballot, an election plan, that indicates that the 
first stage of building a rail in Houston would be 22 miles.
  I could have offered an amendment to suggest to instruct my local 
authority to have it be 39 miles. But I prefer, Mr. Chairman, to go to 
my local authority and engage in debate and discourse and work it 
through the community. Why is that? Because the local Metro board has 
proceeded through the community and engaged all of the voters on a very 
simple question, the question of whether or not we will have rail in 
Houston, Texas, and whether or not we will secure or attempt to secure 
Federal funding.

                              {time}  1830

  All of what has occurred over the last year should be a compliment 
and a tribute to local involvement. The Houston Metro Board, chaired by 
Arthur Schecter, has held a number of hearings throughout the 
community. They have held a number of board meetings of which they have 
voted on a 72-mile program for the Houston/Harris County area.
  Again, let me emphasize to my colleagues, I ask you for nothing but 
to remove the language that is a limitation that suggests that no 
action can be taken unless Houston/Harris County has a referendum. Mr. 
Chairman, we have already agreed to have a referendum. There is a time 
certain and a date certain upon which that referendum will be held, 
November 4, 2003.
  The chairman of the committee, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Schecter, said 
the entire community must address this issue now, that is transit. The 
community can no longer afford to be divided. Chairman Schecter stated 
that other areas in the Nation are making significant strides in 
transit development and we must do the same. He noted that by the way 
of a resolution, 99-105, the Metro Board adopted a 21st century, high-
capacity transit vision which provided a conceptual framework of 
development of high-capacity transit in our major travel corridors.
  In addition, we will have a specific and direct ballot issue on the 
November election. I would also like to say that the Houston 
Partnership, our chamber has just yesterday agreed to be supportive of 
this effort and reiterated that we will have a referendum. All I am 
asking my colleagues to do is to eliminate the redundant language in 
this legislation, section 163, that has no basis in purpose. It is not 
instructive because we have already agreed by board authority, by 
ordinance, the requirement to have a referendum. All this does is 
confuse both Members of Congress and agencies that will ultimately have 
to interpret this language and try to understand what they were saying 
in Houston, Texas. Are we divided, are we confused, and that is not the 
case. The voters of Houston/Harris County in the State of Texas will 
have the authority of going forward at that time.
  There was a point made at one of the board meetings, Mr. Chairman, 
where there was an issue regarding when the referendum would be held, 
whether there was a rush to have a referendum. It was responded to by 
the very proponent that there is no Federal requirement causing Metro 
to rush toward a referendum. By the very same token, there is no 
Federal requirement for language to be in this appropriations bill 
dealing with a local issue such as the Houston Metro plan. There is no 
Federal requirement to have language instructing us to have a 
referendum when we have already decided to do so. Again, my colleagues, 
I have come not to ask for more money. I hope that we will get in a 
posture to do so. I have come not to implode the decisions of the local 
community because I will choose, as many of my colleagues will choose 
to do, to work locally with the mayor, the county government, the Metro 
Board and the business community on that issue as well as the citizens 
of that area.
  I would simply say that I would ask my amendment to be accepted by my 
colleagues because of the necessity of this legislation.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Houston and her 
arguments. However, I rise in opposition to the amendment. If a 
referendum is scheduled in Harris County, then if the voters in Harris 
County approve it, they have satisfied the requirements of the language 
in the bill. However, if we remove the language in the bill and the 
voters say no, then they are not protected from anyone seeking to do an 
end run. The language in the bill merely assures that the will of the 
voters will prevail. If the voters have a referendum and the referendum 
says yes, they have satisfied the conditions in the bill, and there is 
no limitation. However, if the voters have a referendum and they say 
no, then all that the language in the bill does is to give meaning to 
what the voters said and to give assurance that the will of the people 
will prevail.
  I oppose the amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas and ask that it 
be defeated.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand 
why the proponent of the amendment has offered it. Most of the proposed 
rail in Houston would be built in her district to the exclusion of most 
of the suburbs and the rest of the region participating in the rail 
system. So this is a very controversial issue, and this bill tries to 
make sure that the people on the local level will have a voice in what 
will be proposed and ultimately will ask for Federal funds.
  Section 163 of this bill actually prohibits Houston Metro from using 
funds to build a light rail system until a specific plan is approved in 
a local referendum. After all, the city's people will bear the brunt of 
the multi-billion-dollar price tag, so they should have a say in 
whether the project moves forward.
  This is a huge financial burden for the people of the Houston area, 
many of whom I represent. The project's ultimate usefulness is still 
uncertain. That is why the Transportation Appropriations bills for each 
of the last 4 years, which this amendment's author voted for, have 
included similar provisions to guarantee affected residents the right 
to have their voice heard in this matter. It is also why the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and I worked closely with officials at 
Houston Metro when we were writing this provision to give Metro 
flexibility should the voters approve the light rail project.
  The referendum that we are talking about is scheduled for this 
November, and the current proposal on the ballot begs many questions. 
For instance, if, as studies conclude, new jobs and people are moving 
in droves to the Houston suburbs, why would we spend billions of 
dollars on a centralized, downtown rail system? Is a multi-billion-
dollar light rail system the best use of our resources when studies 
conclude that new roads, highway lanes and busing systems have been 
less costly and more effective than light rail around the country? With 
an ever-sprawling population, will light rail be convenient enough to 
attract commuters?
  And finally, an important question Metro has not answered yet, how 
does a massively expensive light rail system, accounting for a small 
fraction of area trips, fit into Houston's long-term 100 percent 
mobility plan?
  I do not have all the answers, but neither does the author of the 
amendment. Patience has been our policy for 4 years, and I think it 
makes sense for another 2 months.
  Vote ``no'' on the amendment and make sure that the people of Houston 
have their voices heard.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask what I think is a very fair question. Why 
is the Federal Government telling the city of Houston that it has to 
have yet another referendum on rail in order to get Federal rail 
funding that has been offered without any type of election to

[[Page H7896]]

every other major American city? We have already had one referendum in 
Houston on rail, and we are going to have another in November as 
mandated by Texas State law. There is simply no need whatsoever to have 
similar language included in this Transportation Appropriations bill we 
are considering here today. So I am rising in support of this amendment 
which strikes that language.
  Why is it necessary to continue to single out the city of Houston on 
rail funding issues in Federal legislation? It makes absolutely no 
sense. I think it is a travesty that anyone would go out of his way to 
add language to the Appropriations bill that specifically targets 
Houston and try once again to deny our community the Federal funding it 
desperately needs to break the gridlock. What happened to the concept 
of local control that we hear the Republicans so often trumpet as their 
greatest cause in life?
  In the end, this amendment is not about whether or not you support 
rail. It is about local control. Let us give the city of Houston the 
local control it deserves to determine its own course just as we give 
every other city in the United States that right. The language in this 
bill is unnecessary and solely designed to impede the enormous efforts 
made by Houston community leaders to get light rail working for the 
city of Houston. Enough is enough. The referendum is on the November 
ballot, and I believe it will pass. It is time to stop playing games 
with the very real problems of one of our country's largest cities and 
let Houston get on with business, unencumbered by Federal interference.
  Mr. Chairman, as we pass this Transportation Appropriations bill, let 
us be serious about local control. Let us be serious about allowing 
American cities like Houston to find real transportation solutions. 
Stand up for local control of our cities and vote for this important 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BELL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comment. I might share with his point of view on local control to 
reemphasize that this is not a plan that is district-based. It is a 
plan that crosses a multitude of congressional districts, though we are 
not the prime arbiter of how the plan is to be designed. This goes into 
counties beyond Harris County. It includes Fort Bend. The small city 
representatives on the board were enthusiastic about the 72.8-mile plan 
and as well the Greater Houston Partnership, which is our chamber, 
voted on September 3, 2003, to acknowledge that the plan that will be 
on the ballot includes local and express bus service, buses, new 
transit centers, additional park and rides and other bus-related 
facilities and 72.8 miles of rail projects as delineated on a map 
attached to the resolution, a very expansive, if you will, effort by 
our community.
  I think this impacts all of us and the decision should be left to 
those of whom will be impacted.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. It is 
all about local control. If we are going to be serious about being in 
favor of local control, then this amendment definitely deserves a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the chairman and our majority leader in 
opposition to this amendment because the language in the Appropriations 
bill, which this amendment would strike, simply guarantees the people 
of Houston the opportunity not only to vote and approve any rail system 
in Houston, but this language also assures the people of Houston that 
they will be told on the ballot where specifically the rail lines would 
be built.
  I worked this language, developed and wrote this language in careful 
cooperation with the Metro authorities. Metro's representative here in 
Washington signed off and approved of this language. They were 
comfortable with it. I did it in careful consultation with them. 
Indeed, State law in Texas does require an election for bonding 
authority, but State law in Texas has no requirements, there are no 
guidelines in Texas law on what the ballot should look like. So this 
Federal language is an essential part of the equation in Houston for 
voters in Houston to have a good, clear understanding of not only how 
much this rail line is going to cost us as taxpayers, but, more 
importantly, where it is going to be built.
  The language in the bill is very reasonable, and as the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has said, it is an essential, we think, 
first step for, frankly, any transit system anywhere in the country to 
be able to move forward with a plan that would cost billions of 
dollars. In fact, this rail system in Houston will ultimately cost, if 
the voters approve it this November, $5.8 billion. That would make this 
rail system in Houston the Nation's second most expensive 
transportation project, second only to the Big Dig, the tunnel project 
in Boston.
  The amendment would seek to strike language which would give the 
taxpayers of Houston the right to approve by majority vote this rail 
project. The amendment would strike the right of the people of Houston 
to see where, specifically, the rail lines are going to be built. I 
would urge, as the majority leader and the chairman have done, the 
Members to vote against the amendment. This is not the place to debate 
the merits of this rail line.
  I note that the author of the amendment, the gentlewoman from Texas, 
has expressed her support for this rail line. I would welcome an 
opportunity and, in fact, invite her to debate me in Houston on the 
merits of this rail plan.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made a point of 
cost and made a point that this amendment would strike the referendum. 
Let me correct the record. The community board, Metro Board, has voted 
to have a duly authorized election and referendum on November 4, 2003. 
This is redundant and unnecessary, and we have collaborated in Houston, 
as my good colleague and friend knows, where we have even generated the 
support of the Partnership, we have given the voters a chance to make 
their own decision, and I invite my friends on the other side of the 
aisle to vote for local emphasis and local impact and local decision.
  Mr. CULBERSON. If I could, reclaiming my time, this is not the place 
to debate the merits of this plan. Would the gentlewoman debate me in 
Houston on the merits of this plan?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think that we will have that opportunity 
as the election proceeds.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I look forward to that opportunity.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I will be happy to debate in the course of 
the election, in the forums of my choosing.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, this language was worked out with 
the assistance and cooperation of Metro. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' against the amendment to guarantee Houston voters the right to 
approve this plan.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of this amendment that has been 
put forth by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). This 
amendment would provide the citizens of Houston the opportunity to 
decide their fate regarding the construction of light rail. This is 
something that is local. It is something that makes a difference to 
Houston. We ought to be making those decisions for ourselves. For far 
too long this Congress has arbitrarily revoked the rights of 
Houstonians to make significant infrastructure decisions. Quite 
frequently I have heard many of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle rise in support of allowing significant decisions which affect 
localities to be made at the local level. Communities should have the 
opportunity to determine what is in their best interests.
  Houston is a city which is rapidly growing. It is spliting at the 
seams because of lack of necessary infrastructure. The citizens of 
Houston have attempted for years to build light rail, but they have 
been stymied at almost every attempt. And as a member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, I certainly recognize the 
importance of having multiple modes

[[Page H7897]]

of transportation available to metropolitan areas.
  Houston now suffers some of the worst highway congestion in the 
Nation. The average commute for Houstonians is over an hour. Mr. 
Chairman, Congress should not and must not be in the business of 
micromanaging the politics of localities. The city of Houston has asked 
for and they should receive the same treatment as any other 
metropolitan areas that have been granted access to Federal funds for 
light rail. Let us do what is right for Houston. Interestingly enough, 
they have reached across party lines; they have reached out across 
ideological lines. They came together in a compromise that is putting 
this issue on the ballot on November 4. They have done an extraordinary 
effort to do what is right for themselves, and all we are asking for is 
that we leave them alone and let them make the decisions for Houston. 
Let us do what is right for Houston. And I do urge a ``yes'' vote for 
this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I understand Houston is a very special 
place, but is there some reason why it is so special that it is 
apparently the only city in the entire 50 States, in the entire United 
States, that has been singled out for this special treatment?
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, that is what we understand. We also 
understand it is the single largest city that does not have this kind 
of infrastructure that the citizens themselves have chosen to put into 
place and definitely want to have.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, there is a group down, I think, in San 
Antonio but they are just against all public transportation. They have 
an ideological commitment that they do not believe in public anything, 
I think; but they certainly do not believe in public transportation or 
public rail transportation. They are just against it as a matter of 
principle. If we had one of these extremist groups come in, could they 
use this as a precedent to apply to Beaumont and to Austin and to other 
cities across Texas and across the United States?
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I imagine when a precedent is set, it 
could be used in other places. It would be the wrong direction for us 
to go in for this.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, we have had a referendum in the city of 
Austin; and by about a percentage point, a 1 percent point, the idea of 
a light rail system was defeated, and I am actually interested in 
seeing what the citizens of Austin think if this issue comes up again; 
but we do not have any Federal law requirement telling us if we do not 
approve it again that we will never be eligible for Federal funds, and 
in fact, we have some Federal planning funds that are in the 
transportation authorization this last time, and I expect there is a 
good chance they will be in there again. But this would be the kind of 
precedent that could restrict people who want public transportation who 
do not agree with these right wing ideologues and extremists that are 
against all public transportation. This would be a precedent where they 
could come in and interfere with the people in my district.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we truly do not want to restrict the 
rights or interests of a community to be able to choose for themselves 
what they want, and in this case Houston has said let us bring it to 
the people on November 4. They have the referendum set. They are going 
to speak. They want to do for themselves what they can do and then 
reach out to the Federal Government for the assistance that is there 
for other communities. We do not want the kind of precedent that the 
gentleman is speaking about set.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the history of this, this 
would not be the first time that a Federal-elected official had 
interfered in the desire of the people of Houston, the support of the 
business community in Houston to get public transportation; but it 
would be the first time that instead of just one individual going down 
and interfering in it, it was written into Federal law where the full 
force and effect of Federal law would interfere with the will of the 
people of Houston.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we do not want any Federal officials 
impacting. We want to reach out and make sure the people of Houston 
have their own say in this matter.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleague from Houston's strong 
advocacy for light rail, but I am afraid that at this late date this 
amendment is at best immaterial and perhaps, I think, undermines the 
voices of the voters in our Houston region. Today on the House floor we 
are rehashing a delegation disagreement about the need for a referendum 
that has been really rendered moot. As we speak, a referendum on light 
rail is being held, scheduled for just a few weeks from now. For more 
than a year, the community has undergone and continues a detailed and 
highly public debate about the scope and the merits of light rail for 
the Houston region. Seemingly every corner in every neighborhood and 
every party interested in this issue has offered input, and soon an 
informed electorate will head to the polls to make their voices known 
about this issue.
  Who in our region would dispute that this has been a healthy debate 
on an important issue that will impact the region for decades to come? 
It has been a welcomed debate based solely because of existing language 
in Federal law. But under this amendment today, what we will tell 
Houston voters is, if they approve light rail, it can go forward. If 
they reject light rail, it can go forward as well. We have made this 
referendum meaningless. On the eve of this election to attempt to 
nullify or dismiss this very healthy public referendum it will have the 
effect of disenfranchising tens of thousands of Houston area voters who 
simply wish to have their voices heard. Let us trust the voters. We 
certainly have the choice of who should represent them in Congress. We 
need to let the referendum go forward and let it matter. The voters 
deserve no less.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  First of all, let me say to all of our colleagues, we are almost 
going to hear from every Member who represents a section of Harris 
County and the city of Houston. As we can tell, there is difference of 
opinion, but there is also some misinformation. Let me correct what has 
been said. There is a referendum on the ballot for November. No matter 
what we do today, there will be a referendum on the ballot. The ballot 
language may be changed in a couple of weeks, but the issue of bonds 
under State law is what our local Metro board has to do. They have to 
have a referendum. And that referendum will be about a plan, at least 
the first installment, we hope, of a plan that will really bring more 
light rail to Houston.
  It will serve more than what is already planned. We already have a 
7.5 mile segment that is built with local money because of the original 
amendment in this bill that serves from downtown out to our football 
stadium and the Astrodome and serves the medical center and Rice 
University and lots of areas in between; but to serve areas in my 
district, we have to have a referendum. To serve northside and east end 
of Houston, we have to have a referendum, and that is why we do not 
need this language in the bill.
  It is important that Houston is the only city in the country that has 
been held to this higher standard. Granted, the amendment that is in 
the bill by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) is better than the 
original language, but we are still spelling out that they have to put 
the projects in the referendum. We do not do that for any other city, 
in fact, cities that are much smaller than the fourth largest city in 
the country. That is why it is unfair to do this. I was an opponent of 
heavy rail because I think in Houston we are so geographically diverse, 
and for years as a legislator I opposed it; but I watched how other 
cities in the country have used light rail, and it hurts me as a 
Houstonian to say that even the city of Dallas is successfully using 
light rail and Federal dollars to expand without jumping through the 
hoops that we would require them to do if the original language in this 
bill is done.

[[Page H7898]]

  That is why I rise in support of the gentlewoman from Texas's (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) amendment. Again, two of those lines that are on the 
ballot that will be approved come to my area. They are not all in 
district 18. They serve an area near east end.
  I represent a district that is very urban and also suburban; so I 
realize we need light rail along with lots of highway construction; and 
for years it have been known that I love to build highways, but I also 
know we cannot build them fast enough in Houston to solve the problems 
of transit any more than Dallas could, any more than any other part of 
the country, any other urban area in the country can do it. That is why 
we need to take all the language out of the bill and let the 
Houstonians and the people who are in that metro area pass this bond 
election in November and expand the light rail with Federal funding 
like many cities that are much smaller than us.
  Unfortunately, this legislation prohibits the use of Federal funds 
for planning, designing and building this light rail unless it is 
itemized in there. And as much as I would like to see my two projects 
in my area itemized, the city of Houston or any city does not list in 
their bond what water projects they are going to do. They are going to 
do as many as they can because they need to have that local 
flexibility. But I will tell the Members what, if Metro does not do the 
plan that they have, I would be the first one back up here to say wait 
a minute, they fooled the voters of Houston and they will be punished 
for that. They should not do that.
  Do not hold the city of Houston and my constituents to a higher 
standard than we hold Dallas, than we hold any other city in the 
country, including many that are much smaller. We have a referendum 
plan. The voters will make that decision this November, and let us let 
the voters make that decision with their Federal tax dollars to help 
with light rail, and that is why I support the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, having 
been a former State senator, for the clarification of State law. I 
think that is extremely important. And I want to just hold up for my 
colleagues the minutes of Metro board over the last 30 days which 
affirm the very points that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) has 
made. They voted an overall plan that is 72.8 miles. Ultimately, the 
segments will have to be bonded. That requires an election. Those miles 
will be designed to go into urban and suburban and even somewhat rural 
areas because that is the configuration and the geography of the 
Houston/Harris County metroplex area. My good friends that are here 
will have the opportunity to have light rail in their respective 
communities. In fact, the small city representatives on the board that 
represent the Fort Bend area, for example, are enthusiastic about a 
rail system that would come to a city like Sugarland. But the point is 
that the board did vote to have a referendum, and it is not necessary 
to be in this bill.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's 
amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this Congress really should leave 
local decisions with local communities. We really should not try to run 
Houston as if we were the City Council for Houston or the Houston Metro 
Authority. That would put Houston in the same unenviable position that 
our own capital city where this body sits is in, and that would be 
inappropriate.
  The Texas Metro Board has already held the public hearings that are 
necessary under the law. Furthermore, the referendum required by the 
language of section 163 has already been scheduled for November 4. So 
section 163 is clearly unnecessary. The referendum is already scheduled 
for the entire Houston area. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the 
Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank 
the ranking member very much for his ability to dissect the language. 
And I want to make the point that this is not, though it may seem, 
likely a discussion of those who are for or against rail.

                              {time}  1900

  That is not the debate here. I would not draw my colleagues into that 
kind of personalized debate.
  The test is simply, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) 
has indicated: The local governing authorities, including Harris 
County, the City of Houston, led by Mayor Lee P. Brown, our civic 
community, the partnership, the actual Metro board that has 
representatives of county government, city government, and small 
surrounding cities, have already acted, and their act is that we will 
have a referendum on November 4, 2003, and subsequently will have other 
referendums as the light rail would be expanded, if approved by the 
voters.
  What we are suggesting, as my good friend from Austin said, we are 
the only city in this Nation where this intrusive language, this really 
restrictive language that has no basis in fact or substance, it is 
redundant, repetitious and unnecessary, what we are suggesting to my 
friends and colleagues, I cannot imagine why both ends of the spectrum 
could not support eliminating this language, particularly when we all 
have some respect for the 10th amendment, which really suggests that 
there are certain items that should be left to the States and local 
communities. That is all we are asking to do, is simply strike this 
language.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a former elected official at the local level and 
knowing the importance of joint powers of authority, I rise to support 
the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  I cannot understand why Houston should be held to a higher standard 
than any other city in this Nation. As a senior member on the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, I am cognizant of the fact that 
light rail is the driving force in cities across this country. It is 
important that light rail becomes part of the Houston intermodal 
transportation because of the rapid increase in population in Houston.
  So we should not leave the fate of the Houston light rail system to 
the Houstonians and the stakeholders of Harris County? The people of 
Houston have been fighting for years to develop a light rail system 
that will help to reduce traffic congestion. We know the importance of 
reducing congestion now, and this is one of the reasons in the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure we are fighting to try 
to bring about light rail, because of the congestion and to maximize 
regional mobility and ensure adequate funding for transportation 
improvements to maintain Houston's status as an attractive place to 
live.
  It is important that we look at cities like Houston in trying to move 
the congestion by bringing on light rail. This is why the Texas Metro 
Board has held public hearings to obtain the input of the voting public 
of Harris County in Houston, Texas. A referendum will be held on 
November 4, 2004, to cover the entire Houston Metropolitan Transit 
Authority service area.
  Mr. Chairman, it is just absolutely unconscionable that one would try 
to circumvent Houston local authorities from having the authority to 
control their own fate in terms of light rail. I am adamant about this 
particular amendment, trying to be hijacked. I support the Jackson-Lee 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the 
gentlewoman, and I appreciate very much, having come from local 
government, her leadership in local government; as a local elected 
official, has she had the experience of having the long arm of the 
Federal Government intrude upon decisions made by either her local 
boards, if these decisions, of course, were with the input and the 
impact of a local community? Is that the way that local government 
chooses to operate, by having the long arm of the Federal Government 
instruct how to be

[[Page H7899]]

constructive and positive in maybe transit issues or water issues or 
whatever issues might be relevant at that time?
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to the 
contrary, local governments have tried to ensure and to maintain their 
local control, thereby not asking the Federal Government to intrude at 
all. In my experience as a mayor of a city, I know firsthand how joint 
powers of authority work independent of Federal Government, and this is 
the way it should be in Houston, as it is in other cities around the 
country.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would 
yield further, I hope this amendment will be supported by my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, because I restate the fact that I have come 
to do nothing more than to strike language. I am not asking for money, 
I am not asking to add any language.
  I could have come here with an amendment responding to neighborhoods 
crying for light rail. Why is not Acres Home not more expanded with the 
light rail? Why is it not more in our rural areas or suburban areas at 
this point, because it is geared to going there? Why is Northeast not 
included at this time? What is the status of Harrisburg?
  All of those issues we are going to work on locally. I do not intend 
to give up on them, but I believe we will do that locally with Members 
of Congress, county governments, city government, the business 
community and, of course, the voters.
  My point here, listening to the gentlewoman, appears to be 
reinforced, that what we are doing with this language, the only city in 
the Nation, is undermining what the local officials have done. And as I 
understand what the gentlewoman has just suggested, that is clearly an 
intrusion that is not welcomed by local government that works so very 
hard.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I hope that out of her, if you 
will, solicitation, that we will be able to have our colleagues 
supporting us on both sides of the aisle. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure has been very, very receptive and 
warm to our needs in Houston, and the Committee on Appropriations. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and, of course, the chairman, 
have been very welcoming to the mobility needs we have had.
  I would simply say, being supportive of local needs, I have supported 
roads and toll roads, as have my other colleagues. But yet when it 
comes to light rail, we allow this to be so divisive. This language 
should be stricken, we should never see it again, and we should stop 
this decisive debate on the floor of the House when the community has 
actually come together.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hayes) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2989) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and 
independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________