To amend the automobile fuel economy provisions of title 49, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to set fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles based on one or more vehicle attributes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to present the House H.R. 5576, the fiscal year 2007 Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill, which was passed out of committee by a voice vote on June 6.

As you know, this is only the subcommittee's second year with its current jurisdiction, and I believe the product before the House is worthy of strong support. It is a fiscally responsible bill funding high priority programs and eliminating Federal funds for other programs that are duplicative or ineffective.

I am aware of a number of amendments that would seek to undo these decisions, but I want people to know we made these decisions by looking at program performance, effectiveness and a balance of other priorities in the bill.

The bill before us is at our 302(b) allocation of $67.8 billion in BA, and provides total budgetary resources, including transportation obligation limitations and mandatory spending of $139.7 billion, an increase of $8.5 billion over last year and $1 billion over the request.

Many of the increases over the budget request are due to House rule mandating certain funding levels for highways, transit and aviation programs; restoring CDBG funding in the bill; and some scoring differences between CBO and OMB.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to salute the hard work of the subcommittee

members, both on the majority and minority side of the aisle. The bill before us is the product of numerous budget hearings and thoughtful input of each member of the subcommittee, and they deserve to be saluted.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge the role the subcommittee's ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, played in assembling this bill. I consider Mr. Olver a partner in creating the product before you because his input has been invaluable. I believe this bill is stronger because of the input that Mr. Olver has provided.

And without much fanfare, I would like to give a quick overview of what we have been able to accomplish under our allocation.

In transportation, we have met all of the guarantees for surface transportation and safety and aviation infrastructure as included in SAFETEA-LU and Vision-100. For FAA operations, we have provided funds for 132 net new controllers, plus an additional $16 million over the request for safety inspectors.

I realize there will be a lot of attention paid to Amtrak today, tonight, and perhaps even tomorrow. The bill provides $900 million, the same as the budget request, and $394 million below last year's enacted level. The bill continues our tough stance requiring Amtrak to reduce losses and achieve operational efficiencies with close supervision by the Inspector General.

I would emphasize this is not the ``Amtrak'' bill. There are a number of priorities in this bill and any amendment seeking to just slash other accounts, accounts that everyone will agree cannot sustain the cuts proposed by these amendments, is just plainly irresponsible.

The subcommittee had two priorities to meet for HUD in 2007. First and foremost was the full funding of Section 8 renewals. Failure to fully meet these commitments would have resulted in thousands of families losing their assistance and becoming homeless. We have met those needs.

Our second priority is to restore, to the maximum extent possible, the formula funding for cities and towns across America through the Community Development Block Grant. As you know, the administration proposed to cut this program by $1 billion which was funded at $4.2 billion last year. I am pleased to say we were able to fully restore funding for CDBG for fiscal year 2007.

To achieve this, however, the committee had to do a broad sweep of duplicative and lower priority programs throughout the Department, including boutique programs that have typically been funded by reducing the amounts in the formula CDBG program. It is never easy to stop funding a program once it starts getting Federal funds, but we have to make these decisions in order to meet our main funding objectives.

For the IRS, the bill provides $10.5 billion, $110 million below the budget request and $63 million below last year's enacted level. This level of funding will allow the IRS to maintain current services with some hard choices. I should warn everyone that further cuts to the IRS would severely impact their ability to meet their mission. I also note we took the first step to restructure the IRS accounts to more closely align with their core missions, taxpayer services and enforcement.

For the Judiciary, the bill provides sufficient funding to maintain the current services of the Federal Judiciary, including rent and personnel increases.

For the District of Columbia, we provided the budget request for Federal payments to the District for tuition assistance, court costs and school improvement. We were able to fund the Navy Yard Metro Station through FTA's New Starts program, and provide $1 million for the Central Library improvements. As for the District of Columbia's local budget, the bill appropriates the budget and financial plan by reference, carries many of the same general provisions of the past, and includes no new riders.

We restored funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program to $227 million, slightly more than last year. Executive Office of the President programs are funded at the requested levels.

All in all, after much hard work and discussion, I believe we have a balanced bill before us. No, we didn't fund every program, but we did fund the higher priorities under our jurisdiction that will deliver the best results to the most people, and that I believe is our responsibility. Also, we have included Member priorities in this bill.

I would especially like to note that Member projects in this bill are less than one-third of what they were in last year's bill. I will repeat that: Less than one-third of what they were in last year's bill, demonstrating yet again the committee's commitment to earmark reform and the fact that it is real. Each project was a part of the budget request or authorized under an existing program in law, and requested by a Member of Congress as being important to the district and the people they represent.

This is a fiscally sound bill, scored repeatedly by CBO. There are no gimmicks, no date changes, no unreal savings.

Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a balanced bill and I urge the Committee's support for it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes, I most certainly will work with the gentleman from Illinois on this project.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to respond.

I share your concerns. And I thank my colleague for raising this very important issue today. He correctly points out that the bill includes $227 million for HIDTA, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. The subcommittee has funded this important program again this year, even though the President requested that the program be transferred to the Department of Justice at a reduced level of funding.

I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Nevada as this bill moves forward. We can work together to make sure that the issue of methamphetamine and other drug trafficking as it relates to Nevada is forthrightly addressed in the final budget for this account.

I recognize the difficult situation that some PHAs across the country are facing. Providing flexibility to housing agencies while at the same time ensuring that HUD can effectively manage its programs is a no-cost solution that, if administered properly, will ensure continued service to low-income families. However, at the same time, NYCHA and other PHAs need to make sure that they are taking full advantage of the current flexibility that exists between the public housing operating and capital funds. As this process continues, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure now to yield to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for whatever time he may wish to consume.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would just say that I agree to work with you on this. I appreciate your bringing it forward. And we will also work with the FMCSA on this issue. So thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, following the full committee amendment process, CBO's scoring of our bill resulted in slightly more than $20.7 million in savings.

This amendment will place this funding in the IRS operations support account, which was reduced by $50 million below the President's request.

I understand that this has been cleared with the minority, and therefore I ask for the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for Amtrak by gutting and eliminating critical programs, including safety programs, resulting in reductions in force at several agencies.

This bill was put together by making some very difficult decisions to balance a wide variety of critical needs from some very diverse programs. The amendment would undermine the difficult work done by the subcommittee by haphazardly making unrealistic and undisciplined cuts throughout the bill.

It would cut the Office of the Secretary of Transportation by 25 percent. That is well below the fiscal year for 2006. This will result in reductions in force for OST and will impact mission critical operations, including security planning as well as coordination and response efforts.

These areas proved critical during last year's hurricanes, and we have now entered the hurricane season again. It would eliminate the critical rail safety research programs under the Federal Railroad Administration. This is a little confusing, because several years ago it is this research program that pinpointed the problem associated with Amtrak's brakes on the Acela and found the solution and allowed Acela to get up and running again.

The amendment would severely reduce funds for the Federal Maritime Commission and the Surface Transportation Board, resulting in RIFs for both of these agencies, and cutting the Federal Buildings Fund by $560 million will leave the fund without the resources it needs to build critical, secure crossings on our Southern border with Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, it would not strengthen the Federal buildings against threatening terrorism attacks. Let me repeat this. Vote for this amendment and you are voting against building border crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border and against funding to secure the Federal buildings against terrorism.

Let me go a little further and explain that these cuts would completely eliminate GSA's new construction of six border stations at the crossing at McAllen, Texas, at El Paso, Texas, Santa Teresa, New Mexico, Columbus, New Mexico, Calexico, California, and Nogales, Arizona.

In addition, the amendment would eliminate the Food and Drug Administration Montgomery County, Maryland Project, as well as remove the delivery facility in Anacostia for mail sorting for the Federal Government, something that is sadly needed, and with the threat of anthrax and other deadly substances in government mail.

Repairs and alterations to Federal buildings will be stopped or slowed, repairs and alterations that are needed to secure government workers and the general public from possible terrorist attacks.

Mr. Chairman, cutting border security and funds to protect Federal workers against terrorism is irresponsible. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire about how much time is left on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the subcommittee, Todd Tiahrt from Kansas.

Mr. Chairman, again I would like to inquire about the time remaining for our side.

Mr. Chairman, by the way, let me thank Mr. LaTourette for suggesting the 20-minute situation divided by two. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Would the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to accept the amendment. Your amendment, I think, is a good one.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. We all want better fuel economy. However, I must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment for a number of reasons.

There are times when throwing additional money at a problem is not going to solve it, and this is one of those times. All that is needed here is time.

Giving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration more money will not speed up the process whereby fuel economy standards would be raised. Even if Congress passed a bill tomorrow ordering NHTSA to raise fuel economy standards, it would take a minimum of 9 months for a rule to be proposed and finalized. This is because NHTSA would need the detailed product plans from every major auto manufacturer on every model they make before they could draft such a rule, and assembling these documents takes time.

Moreover, under law, there would have to be a reasonable comment period of 90 days so the public could weigh in on any proposed rule.

Finally, any proposed rule would have to be cleared by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget, and that is just the beginning.

Auto makers also need time, which they are provided under the law, to retool their product lines to comply with the new regulations. For instance, the auto makers are already developing their product lines for the 2010 model year.

As I said at the beginning, this just takes time, roughly 27 months worth of time. NHTSA has already been tasked with studying the feasibility and effects of reducing the use of fuel for automobiles. This report, required by section 773 of the energy bill, is due to Congress later this year.

I would also like to point out to Members that this committee has already significantly increased funding for NHTSA's CAFE office over the past several years. The office, which was funded at $60,000 in fiscal year 2001, was funded at almost $1.3 million last year. Giving NHTSA's CAFE office an extra $6.7 million would likely result in the money simply being unspent.

I am unsure what benefit will be gained by the public if the CAFE office were to be given $6.5 million that they realistically cannot spend. Certainly, it would not result in fuel economy standards being raised faster, which I assume is the gentlewoman's ultimate intent.

So I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The account he seeks to increase is transit research, not fuel research, and I appreciate his sentiment, but we already gave more than the guarantees, and the guarantees are killing other programs, both transportation and everything else. Repeatedly I see already that the Treasury continues to get hit over and over.

We provide a greater level of funding in 2007 to address two problems. We needed to fix a problem with SAFETEA-LU since the authorizing committee identified more projects and activities than were provided for under the guarantees. We covered that problem and found the money for the fix in order to keep the program going. We added these funds to cover some initiatives important to other Members.

The gentleman proposes to add money for alternative fuels research. However, most of that research is funded out of DOE and NHTSA. This account is for research into transit, as I repeated, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I have always felt very strongly about Mr. Miller and his ideas. I do have a problem with this particular amendment. I oppose any amendment to continue the Brownfields Program, which is recommended for elimination as part of a broad sweep of lower priority programs. We must reduce or eliminate these duplicative programs in order to free up the funds for the highest priorities in HUD, which is, among other things, assistance to extremely low-income families and restoring funds for community development.

Last year Congress recognized the lack of use of this program and rescinded $10 million in unused prior-year appropriations. The money wasn't being spent.

The activities of the Brownfields Program remain, as they have been, eligible uses for CDBG funds. States and communities can use these funds for this purpose if they choose to do so.

In addition, there are nearly two dozen Federal programs that can help communities in one way or another to assess, clean up and reuse brownfield sites.

EPA's Brownfield Program has awarded 883 assessment grants totaling $225.4 million, 202 revolving loan fund grants totaling $186.7 million, 238 cleanup grants totaling $42.7 million.

By comparison, HUD's program has been extremely slow and funds are often used as a loan loss reserve, rather than as grants for reconstructing sites.

HUD grants are a tiny fraction of project development costs. They represent just 2.3 percent of the total development costs on average. For each HUD dollar, there was $28 in private and $12 in State and local funds committed with an average of five State, local, and private sources of funding or financing for each project. HUD funding is not critical to any decision to proceed with a project or makes any difference to the completion of a project.

This amendment, and we are being hit already early in title II, this amendment cuts the IRS's Business Systems Modernization Program by $15 million. While it appears this account is $45 million above the President's request, it is actually just a restructuring of the IRS accounts. In fact, BSM is currently funded below last year's level. Cutting this $15 million will force IRS to lay off many of the 317 personnel. Let me repeat that: 317 personnel who are currently working on the BSM project, delaying all work on the modernization of IRS legacy systems.

So it is for those reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and his staff for the constructive relationship we continue to build. As Chairman Knollenberg put this bill together, he and his staff considered concerns raised by the majority and the minority coming from subcommittee members, full committee members, and the general membership of the House. Where he could help, he resolved many of those concerns, and I thank him for that.

I also want to thank the excellent staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this legislation. On the majority side, Dena Baron, the majority clerk, Cheryle Tucker, Jason Woolwine, Tom McLemore, Tammy Hughes, David Napolielo, Alice Hogans and Peter Lee.

And on the minority side, Kate Hallahan and Bob Bonner, and from my staff Matt Washington and David Pugach.

This is only the second time this complex bill has come to the House floor, and I appreciate the work and the long hours that each and every one of those staff members have put in.

I am grateful for the increase in the subcommittee's outlay allocation adopted in the full Appropriations Committee, but I said in the subcommittee markup and full committee markup as well that the allocation to this subcommittee is inadequate to meet the needs, and that is still true. The allocation, even as revised, forced Chairman Knollenberg and staff into a struggle to plug as many holes as they could as creatively as they could. In that process, several serious omissions and cuts proposed in the President's budget have been restored, notably CDBG funding, essential air services, additionally safety inspectors under FAA, and for construction of elderly and disabled housing, and for funding the important Navy Yard Metro Station in our capital city. That was no small feat.

I particularly want to commend Chairman Knollenberg for his thoughtful approach to our capital city's budget which is part of this bill. While the District of Columbia makes up only a small portion of our combined bill, the value of the initiatives funded through this bill cannot be understated, and I thank Chairman Knollenberg for his commitment to ensuring no new policy riders were placed on the District of Columbia. I sincerely hope that we can continue to work on striking a balance between the congressional responsibilities for the District of Columbia with the desire of Washingtonians to have a direct say with how the District is governed.

Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill on final passage, but if this were a conference report I would have to oppose its passage, and I want to take a few minutes to examine what I believe drives this bill this year and in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the impact that meeting SAFETEA-LU guarantees is having on other agencies and accounts in the bill. I believe that the transportation guarantees placed on this subcommittee by the authorizers ties the hands of this committee from properly funding other domestic programs included in this bill that are just as important.

As this bill was drafted, authorized guarantees had to be met or this bill is subject to a point of order. For example, in FHWA the President's budget met all of the SAFETEA-LU guarantees. However, in FAA and FTA, the President's budget was well below the authorized level. The President's request was $607 million below the authorized level in the facilities and equipment account and $950 million below in airport improvement. In FTA, the Capital Investment Grants Program was $100 million below the authorized level. These shortfalls come to a total of over $1.6 billion. The monies being added to the subcommittee's allocation allowed the chairman to bring these items to the guaranteed level.

I believe that the transportation guarantees are strangling other agencies in our bill. Without honoring the SAFETEA guarantees, the gentleman from Michigan could have increased funding for several key programs in this bill. For example, in HUD we could have used these funds for brownfields, HOPE VI and rural housing, which were all zeroed out. The additional funds could have been used to shore up the underfunded public housing operating fund and the public housing capital fund, or to add to section 8 tenant and project-based voucher programs which were cut below the President's request. The items that I have listed are only the tip of the iceberg, and the process I have described can only get worse as the years go by.

Most of these shortfalls that I believe must be improved are within HUD, but also includes the lone transportation item that does not have the protection of an authorization; namely, Amtrak. I had planned to offer an amendment to increase funding for these programs; but, unfortunately, the majority of this House has once again shown that tax cuts for the wealthiest few in our society are more important than housing programs for our most needy citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by the cuts that we have been forced to bring forward. I hope that we will be able to continue to improve the bill as it moves forward in the process. We are early in the process. There is much work to be accomplished on this bill between now and a final conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for a colloquy with the chairman.

And I can assure the gentleman that I too will work to try to correct this inequity.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) to engage in a colloquy.

I appreciate the gentlewoman for bringing forward this issue. Public housing authorities and the families they serve are struggling. And I thank the chairman for his willingness to continue to engage in these discussions as we have already had part of that discussion at an earlier stage in the process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I would be happy, especially after that trip through his district, to work with the gentleman from Texas on the issue that he has raised.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just like to point out to the gentleman from Oregon that in fact the guarantee, and it is a guarantee under the TEA-LU bill, is included in what is called the Capital Investments Fund. So there is money available there. But I need also to point out that we have been told at the subcommittee level that the Department of Transportation, the FTA, will not have rules and regulations until at least a year from now, maybe 15 months from now, which is the very end of the next fiscal year.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with that point. I think that if people from the authorizing committee will make that point strongly to the Department of Transportation, that would be very helpful because I agree with virtually everything the gentleman has said. This is a process that ought to get moving, but the money is there. We can deal with this later on in this process. We are at

an early stage in the process. They need to get the rules and regulations out faster than 15 months from now.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment shows quite clearly how difficult the job was for the chairman in the first place, and that it is very difficult to find offsets for the kind of money that was necessary to put together this amendment.

But all of the offsets come out of the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. And I think that it makes it clear that if the offsets are used in this way to fund Amtrak, which is needed, that then we will go to the later stages in the process and try to make corrections in the later stages of the process.

Mr. Chairman, it will be no more difficult to re-fund the items that have been taken out of their own jurisdiction, out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's jurisdiction, it will be no more difficult to fund them later than it is to fund Amtrak now.

Clearly with this amendment, we will still be $180 million below the enacted number for 2006, and the Amtrak board has asked this year for $1.598 billion. That is the most recently appointed board of members from the President.

So we are still very far short of what they believe is necessary to run the national rail passenger system. So I am, with some trepidation, supporting the amendment that has been put forward. I certainly intend to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this amendment. It seems to me that if we are to move toward energy independence, and particularly, if we are ever going to get away from our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, with all the uncertainty and all of the problems that go along with that, which we have seen much of, then our largest and fastest gains that can possibly be made are in increasing the efficiency of the use of our motor vehicles.

At least a third of all of the oil that we use in this country goes into our transportation sector and to the use of our motor vehicles, and we desperately need to increase the efficiency of those. That is the fastest thing that we can put into place, much faster than the work on a hydrogen economy or an ethanol economy or fuel cells or any one of those. The efficiency of the present fleet and vehicles to be sold in the near future becomes important.

So I think it is very important that when the Energy and Commerce Committee bill, H.R. 5359, which provides the authority for the Secretary of Transportation to set economy standards for passenger cars, when that which is pending on the House calendar, it has been reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee and it is pending on the House calendar, that when that is passed that there be the resources available at NHTSA to be able to evaluate the technologies and capability of the automobile industry to improve fuel economy as fast as it can reasonably be done.

When NHTSA was first created 30 years ago, and I guess it was when they were first given the job at looking at CAFE standards, they were given $10 million at the first instance 30 years ago to set fuel economy standards, and now $10 million today would probably be something like $40 million.

All the gentlewoman from Illinois is asking for here is an increase from $1.3 million to which the NHTSA account for fuel economy has been reduced to bring that up to $8 million, and the offsets in this instance are $2.7 million, which still leaves the account for the Office of the Secretary at 7 percent, almost $6 million above what it was in fiscal year 2006, even after that $2.7 million is taken out. The other part of the offset is $4 million taken from the transportation planning research and development which with $9 million left in the account still has more than the President requested in his budget submission by almost $100,000.

So I think this is a worthwhile place to put some money and make certain that NHTSA can deal with that as quickly as possible.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

This amendment that is offered by my good friend from New York, this amendment does exactly what I had spoken about in my opening remarks in relation to this bill and which the chairman of the subcommittee has pointed out as well, that this amendment starts by adding money, assuring money to already what is one of the guaranteed items under the TEA-LU guarantees, which those guarantees had to be provided in order to bring the bill to the floor at all.

This is not a rearrangement of moneys as the previous case was where I had supported the Amtrak amendment because, in that instance, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was moving money around totally within its jurisdiction, and I thought that was something that was worth supporting.

In this instance, what we are doing is taking money from one of the places in the bill which has no guarantees for minima along the way, namely the Treasury, a totally different unit of the bill, a totally different title of the bill, and simply grabs those and moves them over to an area which is already under the guarantees of the TEA-LU bill.

Under those circumstances, I must, regretfully for the gentleman from New York, oppose the amendment; and I hope that it will not be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I moved to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

If I had been allowed to move to strike the last word, I would have been happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman after I made a comment which relates to the amendment she offered.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this is one of those cutting-the-baby-in-two kinds of situations that has been forced upon the TTHUD committee by the allocation and the relationship, the juxtaposition of guarantees under the transportation accounts and no such guarantees under some of the others.

The $261 million that the gentlewoman asked to be provided by an offset which would have placed the bill under point of order and is under point of order if she had not withdrawn the amendment. That $261 million would have protected a very important infrastructure investment that we have.

We have $100 billion worth of housing under the public housing capital fund, and it is that capital fund which does the renovations, the rehabilitations, the replacements of those facilities, and it is a very important piece which I have spoken about at each stage of this process, every one of the stages, even before, Mr. Chairman, your committee just last night about the need for additional funding in the public housing capital fund.

I am very much hopeful that we will be able to find before this process runs its course to the final conference report, that we will be able to find some additional money for the public housing capital fund so we can, in fact, do something about the huge backlog which has been listed by the gentlewoman as close to $20 billion of backlog in needs for capital repair and improvements in our $100 billion of housing stock.

So that is one of the dilemmas that the subcommittee, the chairman and the staff and the committee as a whole has been laboring under, and I hope to find a way to provide some relief for the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this is the second year in a row that we have had this discussion, and it is predicated on the idea that somewhere there is a sense that the EPA has a program for brownfields that does the same thing that this HUD program for brownfields does.

Now, to the very best of my knowledge, and very recently rechecked, the EPA does assessments of hazardous materials on old industrial sites but does nothing to redevelop those sites so that this program is, to the best of my knowledge, the only place that we have done redevelopment of otherwise old hazardous material sites, industrial sites that can be put back into use.

Now, last year, even though it had been zeroed out, we ended up with a final budget of $9.9 million by amendment adopted on the floor. The offset here is an unpalatable offset. But, again, my belief is that the Brownfields Program is at least as important as the IRS Business Systems Program. If this amendment is defeated, I will assure the gentlewoman from Texas that I will do my best to see that something better comes out of the final process and the conference process on this legislation.

In the meantime, I will join her in support of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to have it considered out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that before this bill is enacted into law we must reverse an unwise pattern of disinvestment in the Nation's public housing. Therefore, I am introducing an amendment to restore the $261 million reduction in the Public Housing Capital Fund.

America's public housing inventory is a $100 billion public asset providing affordable housing to 1.1 million families. Just over half of these families are headed by the elderly or persons with disabilities, and children make up approximately 40 percent of all those we help. Public housing helps families and the elderly in large and small communities across the country in every congressional district.

In addition to safe, decent, affordable housing, public housing agencies connect people to the services they need, services that help adults become economically self-sufficient, provide children safe places to grow and learn, and allow the elderly and persons with disabilities to live independently.

Public housing funding has been declining since 2001. Despite the estimated $100 billion value of public housing assets to our communities, this bill does not provide funding necessary to maintain them for the long run. Total Federal funding for public housing has dropped precipitously over this decade. The bill before us provides $1.4 billion less than provided for funding year 2001, that is, the President's budget for funding year 2007 requests nearly $1.5 billion less for public housing than Congress provided for funding year 2001.

This drop in resources has constrained local agencies' ability to address safety and security needs, provide valuable services to those seeking economic self-sufficiency and independent living, and undermines agencies' ability to meet the recent surge in utility costs. This decline in funding is most egregious in the area of capital repair funding.

Public housing faces an estimated $18 billion backlog of capital repairs. According to a HUD-funded study, an additional $2 billion in capital repair needs accrues each year as buildings age. The President's budget and this bill cuts funding for the public housing capital funds for major repairs by $261 million, that is 11 percent compared with last year's funding. In fact, the capital fund has been cut each year since 2001, declining a total of 27 percent over 6 years if this budget is enacted.

The capital funds provided in this bill are barely sufficient to cover annually accruing needs, let alone address the backlog of need. The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials estimates that $3.5 billion is necessary to begin to address the backlog of need in funding year 2007.

At the same time we are cutting basic capital repair funds, this bill also zeros out funding for the HOPE VI program for comprehensive revitalization of the most distressed public housing communities as requested by the administration. My colleague, John Olver, categorized this approach of cutting annual capital repair funding as, and I quote, ``penny-wise and pound foolish,'' and that is exactly what this is.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to embrace the intent of my capital fund amendment in order to secure the ongoing viability of this valuable affordable housing asset. Unless greater measures are taken by HUD to preserve this affordable asset called public housing, this unique asset and the larger continuum of a sound Federal affordable housing policy will be degraded and eventually lost. And that is a plan that our communities, our seniors, and our families with children cannot afford.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that these are our most vulnerable citizens, and they need a safety net. While we want them to improve their lives, we want them to become independent. We are trying to have programs that will transition them to work and out of public housing. It is not going to happen unless we have reasonable and sensible investment to make these safe, sound, and secure places for our citizens to live.

Again, we need this in all of our congressional districts. As a matter of fact, the poor have nowhere else to turn. They are depending on us. I would ask us not to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, but rather to make what I think is one of the most prudent investments we can make.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30 additional seconds to close this out.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that has been allotted and I move to withdraw the amendment. I have not been able to find the funds to replace that which has been cut. I appreciate the time to at least explain it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Miller Brownfields amendment. The Amendment provides $15 million in funding for the Brownfields program.

Again, let me thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Joe Knollenberg and the Ranking Member, John W. Olver, for their work on this bill. HUD programs, however, have witnessed major cuts over the past several years. What I find interesting about this bill is that it does not provide any funding for the Brownfields Economic Development Initiatives (BEDI) program, but instead includes Brownfields redevelopment as an eligible activity under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Of course, this does not take into account the existence of numerous Brownfields sites across the country. These sites are often located in strategically important areas of a city or county, where economic development projects have been planned. Without funding for the Brownfields program many of these projects will not be undertaken.

The estimate of the number of vacant and underused sites around the U.S. is more than 500,000. If we could put these sites into productive economic development uses we stand to increase jobs by 500,000 million, while generating $2.4 billion in new tax revenues. The Brownfields program that I would like to see funded is truly an economic development tool that has been very effective in assisting communities to reclaim important parcels of underused land. To the extent that we eliminate funding for the BEDI program we will seriously undermine economic development efforts across-the-board. In the City of Los Angeles and in Los Angeles County, the BEDI program supports a wide variety of projects, including developments with a strong business attraction, expansion and/or retentions component, as well employment creation.

One example is the use of a $1.75 million BEDI grant that was used to convert a contaminated 130 acre oil production and storage site facility into a warehouse and distribution center, which produced 679 jobs--the City of Sante Fe Springs Golden Springs Development Park.

As many of you know, the House last year unanimously approved an amendment to provide $24 million for Brownfields, and the conference report provided $10 million. In addition, the House recently passed H.R. 280, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act to provide greater access to the BEDI program.

Whether you agree with the $15 million funding level is not important. What is really critical is that the program be in place to continue to assist communities to clean-up the mess made by industry, as well as the inadequate federal response. Many communities are at a critical stage in revitalizing themselves. A major tool at their disposal has been the BEDI program. As such, I urge your support for the Miller amendment.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin, may I have a parliamentary inquiry to have unanimous consent to interject a letter into the Record? Do I do that during this debate?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. LaTourette's amendment. One of the things you heard talked about was the fact that Amtrak was making changes. That is absolutely incorrect.

I have an article I am going to interject into the Record: ``Passenger Railroad Improves Service on Long-Haul Trains to Lure Travelers.'' The Empire Builder, which is in Montana, is the rolling laboratory for some of these changes.

I represent a district that spans the distance of Washington, D.C. to Chicago. Think about it: Washington, D.C. to Chicago. In many areas, this is the only form of transportation we have.

Many of you have airlines. We do not in northern Montana. Many of you have bus service. We do not in northern Montana. We use this service for essential service to get our people to hospitals, to doctors, to school, to visit relatives.

This is not just something we are wasting money on. This is an essential service, an essential product for the people of America. If you are going to build a more secure future for the people of Montana, then you have to be realistic.

You don't gut and undermine the effort that they are attempting to make at this time to improve the service of the Empire Builder in Amtrak. I ask you, please support Mr. LaTourette.

[From Business Focus, Mar. 17, 2006]

Passenger Railroad Improves Service on Long-Haul Trains To Lure

Travelers

(By Daniel Machalaba)

Shelby, Montana.--Karyn Hamilton, like many Amtrak riders,

had a dim view of the nation's passenger railroad as low-

class, uncomfortable and not much better than a bus. But the

marketing director of a financial-management firm in

Portland, Ore., changed her mind during a trip last August on

the Empire Builder, an Amtrak long-distance train undergoing

a dramatic makeover that includes new carpeting and colors,

pleasant staff, and upgraded food service.

After years of financial and political crisis, Amtrak is

making a calculated gamble: To boost revenue on its longer-

haul trains, the railroad is altering its longstanding one-

size-fits-all approach to passengers.

The changes began with a major makeover of the Empire

Builder last summer. Now, Amtrak plans to extend the changes

to some other long-haul trains, while also attacking bloated

food-service expenses. Amtrak's board also is considering

cuts to its headquarters overhead by streamlining repair

shops, maintenance operations, reservation call centers and

train stations.

The shakeup is an acknowledgment by Amtrak officials that

they are running out of chances to stave off pressure from

the Bush administration to break up or even liquidate the

federally subsidized--and unprofitable--railroad. ``We're

living on borrowed time,'' says David Laney, Amtrak's

chairman. ``We have to demonstrate what we can do on our own

before it is taken out of our hands.''

Last year the Bush administration proposed eliminating

subsidies to Amtrak, which has been kept afloat with $30

billion in federal aid since 1971, according to the

Department of Transportation. While Congress approved $1.3

billion in funding for the current fiscal year, the Bush

administration latest budget request includes $900 million--a

31 percent cut-- for fiscal 2007. And the DOT would hold back

nearly half of the money until Amtrak demonstrated continued

progress on reform. Yesterday, Amtrak said it would ask

Congress for $1.598 billion for fiscal 2007, almost all the

increase for capital spending.

As part of the do-or-die overhaul, Mr. Laney fired Amtrak

President David Gunn last November. Mr. Gunn had been widely

praised for stabilizing Amtrak's finances,

Jump starting repairs to the Northeast Corridor and

restoring credibility with Congress. But Mr. Laney, a Dallas

lawyer and Republican loyalist appointed to the Amtrak board

in 2002, concluded that Mr. Gunn was standing in the way of

more-drastic reforms. Mr. Gunn says he was fired because he

opposed the Bush Administration's Amtrak strategy.

Mr. Laney ways the next crucial step for Amtrak is to fix

some notorious customer-service problems, ranging from dirty

cars to unhelpful and rude onboard employees. About 30

percent of all Amtrak trains are late. Rep. John Mica, a

Republican from Florida and longtime Amtrak critic, complains

Amtrak can ``rival some of the Third World and former Soviet

Union rail experiences.'' Mr. Laney acknowledges that

passenger service by Amtrak is ``in some cases superb and in

some cases miserable.''

The restructuring likely puts Amtrak on a collision course

with its 17,000 unionized workers, two-thirds of whom haven't

had a new contract for about five years. Amtrak officials

estimate union restrictions cost the railroad about $100

million a year. Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO

union's Transportation Trades Department, said in a statement

that the Bush administration's reform effort is an attempt to

``scapegoat workers for the failures of the federal

government and the current Amtrak board.''

Some of Amtrak's worst problems are beyond its control.

Formed to relieve freight railroads of money-losing passenger

trains, Amtrak shares nearly 22,000 miles of track with the

freight trains, and congestion is worsening. Still, Amtrak

believes better service will lure riders and shrink losses on

long-distance lines. On long-distance routes that are

primarily used by passengers for basic transportation,

starting with the Texas Eagle and the City of New Orleans,

the railroad is rolling out a new type of dining service that

makes greater use of precooked meals and introduces

disposable plastic plates. Those changes are designed to cut

the number of dining-car employees to three per train from

five or six.

Meanwhile, Amtrak is replacing mandatory meal-serving

periods with more flexible hours. Over the next few years, it

plans to rebuild dining cars to replace traditional table

seating and allow passengers to sit at the bar or watch

passing scenery from crescent-shaped booths that face the

windows. Meal service will then be available as much as 18

hours a day, up from about eight hours now, allowing Amtrak

to serve more people and boost revenue. Amtrak hopes to cut

$32 million from its annual food-service loss of $123

million.

The Empire Builder is the rolling laboratory for some of

the changes. Its on-time record is about 68 percent, and it

posted an average loss or $78.57 per passenger in the fiscal

year ended Sept. 30.

While the Empire Building is so far sticking with the

traditional dining-car format, staffing level and made-to-

order food, its added amenities and upgraded service are

noticeable. Amtrak put a small fleet of rebuilt passenger

cars with hip blue-and-white interiors on the line--a big

improvement over the drab orange and brown that dominated

older cars. Employees now must introduce themselves to

passengers. Conductors must stay up all night in the dining

car in case they are needed.

So far, the Empire Builder makeover appears to be enticing

more passengers, particularly during the off-season when

ridership typically declines. But David Hughes, Amtrak's

acting president, says it is impossible to ever make long-

distance trains like the Empire Builder profitable. Those

trains are expected to generate $382 million in fiscal 2006,

or about one-fourth of overall Amtrak revenue, but post

losses of more than $493 million, or about $125 for every

passenger.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment that the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 does not fully fund the Help America Vote Act, HAVA.

HAVA was passed in the wake of the 2000 election, and authorized almost $4 billion to improve the administration of elections in this country. The 2004 election was a strong indication that there is much work yet to be done in the area of election reform in this country. And yet here we are, fast approaching Federal elections which are to be the first ones that take place under virtually all of HAVA's requirements, and hundreds of millions of dollars in funds authorized under the bill remain unappropriated.

Although the appropriations bill before us includes almost $17 million in funding for the Election Assistance Commission, EAC, which is nearly $3 million more than was appropriated to the EAC for fiscal year 2006, it still provides no funding whatsoever to help States meet their voting system requirements--especially the disability and language access requirements--under title III of the act. HAVA authorized $3 billion in so-called ``requirements payments,'' and has to date appropriated only $2.328 billion. States across the Nation are struggling to meet HAVA's voting system requirements, and $672 million in authorized funds remain unappropriated. And not one dime of that amount has been requested in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget nor provided for in this appropriations measure.

HAVA also authorized $100 million to promote access to the polls for disabled voters, of which only $44 million has been appropriated to date, and $40 million for protection and advocacy systems, of which just under $17 million has been appropriated to date. I understand that the Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations bill to be reported out of committee today will include approximately $11 million in funding for the former accessibility grants, and approximately $5 million in additional funding for the latter protection and advocacy systems. However, these new appropriations still leave a total of approximately $63 million in authorized disability access payments unappropriated.

There are certainly many important demands upon us, but I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what is more important in a democracy than the fairness and integrity of the electoral system. I rise today to register my disappointment that the measure before us provides no funding to help States meet their title III requirements under HAVA, and to urge my colleagues to work with me when the Departments and Labor and Health and Humans Services appropriations bill comes to the floor next week to fully fund HAVA's disability access payments.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by Representative LaTourette to fully fund Amtrak.

In fiscal year 2006, the Bush administration attempted to only provide $360 million to maintain commuter and freight service operated by Amtrak. With a great deal of support from many parts of America, Amtrak funding was restored to $1.3 billion.

Once again we are considering a bill that underfunds Amtrak needs to maintain its current operations. Amtrak is funded at a mere 900 million to continue its operations and make capital improvements. This is 33 percent less than current funding levels for Amtrak. This is $698 million less than Amtrak requested to continue operations and invest in capital. The Oberstar/LaTourette amendment increases funding for Amtrak to $1.114 billion.

The Northeast Corridor relies heavily on Amtrak's infrastructure and skilled workers. New Jersey Transit estimates that over 77 percent of its daily passengers would be affected if--New Jersey Transit could no longer operate its trains over tracks owned by Amtrak.

Many of my colleagues contend that the Northeast Corridor is the only area that depends on Amtrak. This is simply not true. According to a report recently published by the Government Accountability Office, across the country 18 different commuter agencies depend on the infrastructure and services that Amtrak provides, including commuter rail agencies in Dallas and Seattle. There are currently seven new agencies being planned across the country as well. If we do not continue to fund Amtrak at the levels they need to function, a shutdown is imminent. This would be detrimental to commuter rail agencies that depend on Amtrak-owned tracks and infrastructure and skilled Amtrak employees.

The GAO confirms the effect a shutdown of Amtrak would cause: ``Given the dependence of more commuter rail agencies on Amtrak for services and infrastructure, an abrupt Amtrak cessation would likely result in major disruption or shutdowns of commuter rail service throughout the country.''

We have a responsibility to promote mass transit and provide adequate funding for States and local transit authorities to move passengers effectively. Rail transportation is essential for easing traffic congestion in our most densely populated areas, reducing wear and tear on roads, protecting our environment, and preserving open space across the country.

On May 1, Amtrak celebrated 35 years of service to our Nation. We celebrated Amtrak for its ability to integrate small communities with large cities by providing economic expansion, increased mobility, and environmentally sound transit.

That is why I support the amendment offered by Representative LaTourette that would increase Amtrak funding. Now is not the time for us to cut funding for mass transportation. I urge my colleagues to support Amtrak and vote for the Oberstar/LaTourette amendment.