Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House the Fiscal Year 2006 Transportation, Treasury, HUD appropriations bill which was passed out of committee via voice vote last week.

Before getting into the specifics of the bill, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their tireless work to finish these bills by the end of this week.

Here we are on June 29 marking up the final of the 11 spending bills. I am sure that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) has been saving best for last.

Mr. Chairman, I must acknowledge the role that my ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), played in assembling this bill. I consider him a partner in creating the product before you because his input has been invaluable. We have found common ground more often than not, and what few differences remain are the result of honest disagreement.

He and I have had several conversations about almost every facet of this bill. The staff has met repeatedly, and information has been shared in a timely manner. I believe the bill is stronger because of the input the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has provided.

I also want to mention, of course, the staff which has contributed heavily and in mighty ways, extraordinary ways, to the completion of this bill. My clerk, Dena Baron, Cheryle Tucker, David Gibbons, David Napoliello, Steve Crane, Tammy Hughes, Kristen Jones; and on the minority side, Mike Malone, the clerk, and Michelle Burkett. They have done tremendous work.

As my colleagues know, this is the committee's first year with its current jurisdiction, and I believe the product before us is worthy of this body's

strong support. It is a fiscally responsible bill, funding high- priority programs and eliminating Federal funds for other programs that are duplicative or ineffective.

The bill before us is at our 302(b) allocation of $66.9 billion in BA and provides total budgetary resources, including transportation obligation limitations and mandatory spending, of $134.9 billion, an increase of $7.2 billion over last year and $8.8 billion over the request.

Let me be very clear here. These increases do not represent frivolous spending by the committee. The increases over the budget request and last year are due to House rules mandating certain funding levels for highways, transit and aviation programs, House rules that we voted for.

We also retained CDBG in the bill and were able to fund it at a level near last year's limit. As most of my colleagues know, the President proposed eliminating that program, but the response was overwhelming to keep it right here in HUD.

In transportation, we have met all of our guarantees for surface transportation and safety, and aviation infrastructure as included in TEA-LU and Vision-100. For FAA operations, we have provided funds for 595 new controllers, plus an additional $8 million over the request for safety inspectors.

I realize there will be a lot of attention paid to Amtrak today. The bill provides $550 million, $190 million more than was included in the budget request, and $657 billion below last year's enacted level. To that end, this bill prohibits Federal funds for any Amtrak route that requires a subsidy of $30 or more per passenger, most of which, of course, are long-distance routes. The 24 routes that require a Federal subsidy of less than $30 per passenger will continue to receive Federal aid, and those 24 routes account for more than 80 percent of Amtrak's annual ridership. Let me just repeat that: The 24 routes that will continue to receive the Federal subsidy make up more than 80 percent of the ridership.

Specifically, the bill permits Amtrak to use Federal funds to support operations for the following: All routes in the northeast corridor, including spurs that run from New York City to Albany, from New Haven, Connecticut, to Vermont, and from Portland, Maine, to Boston; routes running through Pennsylvania; most corridor routes in the Midwest; trains running from Portland, Oregon, to Vancouver; and corridor routes in California.

I want to also be clear that it does not prohibit Amtrak from using non-Federal resources to support other routes, nor does it mandate that any routes be shut down or truncated. We need to make it clear that Congress will no longer sanction the use of taxpayer dollars on such extremely unprofitable routes.

From the very first time I picked up the subcommittees gavel, I knew that Amtrak would be a major issue of contention. I came in with an open mind and had no preconceived notions of an outcome. I instructed staff to follow the facts wherever they may lead, and Mr. Chairman, they have led us right here. The Amtrak proposal before the House is an honest one and worthy of our support.

In the Department of the Treasury, we fully funded the budget request for the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The Community Development Financial Institutions program fund is funded at last year's level of $55 million.

The IRS is funded at a total of $10.5 billion, an increase of $313 million from last year and a decrease of $130 million from the request. This funding level allows IRS to maintain the critical balance between taxpayer services and enforcement activities. While the IRS requested more funds for enforcement, the request relied on a Budget Enforcement Act provision that our Committee on the Budget did not adopt in the budget resolution.

Also included in Title II is an administrative provision that prohibits the IRS from closing taxpayer assistance centers until IRS submits a report outlining the impacts of the closures on taxpayer compliance and consults with stakeholders.

The committee had two priorities to meet for HUD in 2006. First and foremost was the protection of all extremely low-income families currently receiving Section 8 and public housing rental assistance, and to continue to restore facilities and rental assistance for low-income individuals that are severely disabled or have HIV/AIDS, all of which the administration proposed for major reductions. Failure to fully meet this commitment would have resulted in thousands of families losing their assistance and becoming homeless. To achieve this, the committee added more than $2 billion over last year's funding level and more than $700 million over the administration's proposals for these programs.

Our second priority is to retain and restore to the maximum extent possible the formula funding for cities and towns across America through the Community Development Block Grant. As my colleagues know, the administration proposed to terminate this program, which was funded at $4.7 billion last year, but we were able to restore formula funding for CDBG to within 6 percent of the amounts provided in 2005.

To fund these high priorities, 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 gets started receiving Federal funds, but we have to make these decisions in order to meet our main funding objectives.

For the Judiciary, the bill provides sufficient funding to maintain current services of the Federal Judiciary, including rent and personnel increases. In addition, we fully fund the Judiciary's revised request for court security.

For the District of Columbia, we provided the budget request for Federal payments to the District, which includes tuition assistance, court costs and school improvement. As for the District's local budget, the bill appropriates the budget and financial plan by reference, and carries many of the same general provisions of the past.

We funded HIDTA, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program at $227 million. That is the same as last year, and it was $77 million over the request. Other Executive Office of the President programs are funded at the requested levels.

As for the General Provisions, we recommend no substantive changes to the provisions carried in prior years.

All in all, after much hard work and discussion, I believe that we have a balanced bill before us. No, we did not 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 is our responsibility.

I would like to take a moment and talk about a few of the amendments which may be before us today. This is a large bill with a rather vast and disparate list of agencies under its title. When it comes to dividing up the 302(b) allocation, we really have to do a balancing act. Each agency has a responsibility to the citizens of this Nation and each has a role to play.

GSA has the responsibility for being the Federal landlord, for every citizen receiving Social Security or needing a passport or a visa, for every veteran needing his claim adjudicated, for every neighborhood waiting on an economic development grant, every citizen seeking justice in a Federal courtroom, or relying on the Department of Homeland Security to keep our borders safe. GSA provides those buildings to do its work, and the public, of course, to find the government. To view the Federal Buildings Fund as a bottomless offset for ``program'' spending is dishonest to the programs we propose to fund.

I do have an amendment to offer with the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee, that takes money from an unidentified project in GSA and moves it to CDBG for Youthbuild and tax law enforcement.

Other than that one amendment, I think it is a good bill. I urge its adoption quickly so we can move to other urgent business.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the vice chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) for working with me on CDBG and for his efforts to help fund this program.

Restoring the funds for CDBG was our highest priority after funding assistance for the neediest families in our society. Funding for CDBG remains one of our highest priorities, and I will do everything to return the program as close to the 2005 enacted level as possible.

That was my intent during the development of this bill, and it remains my intent as we continue to final passage of this appropriation act for 2006.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a very important issue. I acknowledge that series-type hybrid systems have the same goals and encourage the Federal Transit Administration to increase the procurement of buses utilizing both types of systems.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the accounting problem that split-funding the Federal Transit Administration program has created. I will work on this issue in conference and trust that there will be a long-term authorization in place by the time the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Appropriations Committee convene a conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we had included funding in last year's bill to study flight attendant fatigue. I understand the study was due to Congress on June 1, 2005, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman from California to determine the status of CAMI's current study and expedite its completion, if possible.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank everyone that participated in this opening inning or two of activity. We have a long way to go. But I do think, with the work of the staff on both sides, who I think have done extraordinarily well to shape this product into what it is, I am very, very happy with where we are in terms of the kind of bill. I know there is going to be more debate, and we look forward to that.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Further, the rule states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment includes an emergency designation and, as such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides an additional $38 million for tax enforcement efforts at IRS. These funds will significantly enhance our ability to close the tax gap by more than $400 million over 3 years.

Further, this amendment restores $67.5 million to CDBG. Some of these funds may need to be used to provide some funding for the YouthBuild program if the program is not authorized under the Department of Labor by the time of final passage of the appropriations act.

The program, for the moment, has been left in suspension because the administration has not yet submitted the needed legislation, but I am assured that the legislation will be submitted very soon.

I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for his diligence on these issues and for working with us.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Knollenberg-Olver amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentlewoman that I will do everything I can to work with her to make sure that we do address this issue. So I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it up.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be limited to 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as opponent, and that this limitation also apply to any amendments thereto, except one pro forma amendment each by the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on TTHUD.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time, and I do not have at this point an additional speaker because there are a couple of things we are trying to work out right now.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment, which is a wholesale slash- and-burn attempt to restore funding for Amtrak. First, I want to state clearly that I want to reform Amtrak. It is a broken system that has siphoned billions of dollars from other priorities over the years.

For Members who agree that Amtrak needs to be reformed, this bill provides an excellent starting point. The bill preserves Federal funding for routes that are heavily utilized and that show signs of economic sustainability. It also preserves Federal subsidies for more than 80 percent of Amtrak riders, 80 percent. While the amendment proposes to leave the route limitation in place, I have little doubt that if it is successful another will follow to remove the limitation and return Amtrak to the status quo. I do not want to go to the status quo.

If that happens, Congress will again send the message to Amtrak that it is acceptable to run a route so unprofitable as to require a Federal subsidy of $466 per ticket. We have seen Amtrak's Federal subsidy grow from $521 million in fiscal year in 2002 to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2005, and now Amtrak is asking for $1.8 billion. When is it going to end?

Continuing to throw good money after bad to maintain the status quo is totally unacceptable to me. Amtrak is threatening to shut down again because it is unwilling to make changes to improve its profitability. This marks the sixth time since 2002 that Amtrak's CEO, the sixth time since 2002, that Amtrak's CEO has threatened a shutdown if we do not provide more money.

The flaw in the argument that $550 million is not sufficient to operate trains is the assumption that Amtrak would have to shut down routes. There are cost-saving measures that Amtrak could adopt to continue long distance rail service, but it simply refuses to do so. Furthermore, the offsets to this amendment would cannibalize the Department of Transportation and important GSA facilities. These in effect would cause severe disruption to programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

First, the amendment proposes to completely eliminate several offices within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.

Second, it cuts funding from the Transportation Planning, Research and Development account; $20 million of that funding is for commuter rail in the event Amtrak cannot meet its financial obligations. And $1.2 billion, if expanded to all routes, as I suspect will be offered, is according to Amtrak a ``shutdown'' number. So the amendment leaves commuter rail, particularly in the Northeast, in jeopardy.

Third, the amendment cuts funding from the DOT headquarters building. DOT's current lease runs out in June of 2007. If the building is not complete, significant rent increases on the old building will kick in, as will rent payments on the new one.

Fourth, the amendment eliminates railroad research and development which provide science and technology support for rail safety rulemakings. That means no funding for research on such things as grade crossing safety, derailment prevention, hazardous material transportation, like the chlorine tank cars that were involved in Graniteville, South Carolina, earlier this year, or simply passenger protection.

Fifth, the amendment cuts $435 million in repairs and alterations to government buildings nationwide. Some may be in your State. This funding is critical, given that the backlog in repairs and maintenance currently stands at $6.2 billion.

Six, the amendment takes funding from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which would delay completion of construction, including security-critical features and the cuts to building operations, much of which are a part of that. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has repeatedly stressed the importance of modern, safe facilities.

If GSA is impacted in this fashion, we will not be able to pay for utilities, for maintenance, or cleaning. These cuts are in direct conflict with that policy.

Seventh, the amendment would void the FAA's flight service station contract that would deliver tremendous benefits to the general aviation community and save the FAA $2.2 billion over the next 10 years. Instead of realizing these savings, taxpayers will be on the hook for up to $350 million in additional costs to the FAA in the form of termination penalties.

This contract has been years in the making. Congress should not step in after the fact to stop this contract and deny better services to more than 600,000 private pilots.

Eight, the amendment eliminates the air transportation stabilization program which issues credit instruments to air carriers.

I know the authors of this amendment feel strongly about Amtrak, and I appreciate their interest in the issue. And what I am trying to do is to make sure that we do keep a system in the short term and one that will develop into a long-term situation. But if you obliterate important safety and construction projects, that is no way to go about funding a railroad that desperately needs to be reformed.

For these reasons, I ask Members to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am just inquiring about the amount of time for each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

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

I want to just comment on a couple of things in closing. This has been recommended to the CEO of Amtrak over and over: eliminating sleeper car service would save 100 million a year. Just improving their food and beverage service would save $83 million a year. If it would match its train sets to the actual locomotives and the cars they need, they could save still more money. All those things have been ignored.

Let me tell my colleagues a little about our friend who is the CEO of Amtrak.

This is a quote from David Gunn, ``President Bush's proposal to give Amtrak just over half of what it is seeking in Federal subsidies would shut the railroad down just as more passengers are taking the train.'' That was February 10, 2004.

Secondly, ``It would be a chaotic shutdown,'' says David Gunn, Amtrak president, on what would happen to the railroad if a bill passed last week by a House Appropriation Subcommittee becomes law. That was July of 2003.

Amtrak President David L. Gunn said last week that if the passenger railroad corporation does not get a loan of at least $200 million by the end of month, he will be forced to begin an orderly shutdown of all Amtrak passenger service in July; June 15, 2002.

And when he was with the folks in Toronto, ``Bits and pieces of the Toronto Transit Commission risk being shut down and abandoned unless the cash-strapped organization gets proper funding from the metro and provincial governments, transit boss David Gunn said.'' That was in the Toronto Star, February 17, 1996.

Going back to December 30, 1982, ``Authorities in Philadelphia and the New York area are bracing for possible shutdowns or slowdowns of commuter rail service beginning New Year's day. `I would not assume my train will be there Monday morning,' General Manager David Gunn warned commuters.''

Finally, ``Without an emergency transfusion of public funds, this area's commuter-train service could die before next July, transportation officials have warned. `There is the real risk of a shutdown for the rail service,' said David Gunn.''

This gentleman has done nothing but ask for money; no reform, just money. And this amendment lies on a phoney offset to reward mismanagement of Amtrak. The bill fully supports rail service for four out of five riders or 80 percent of Amtrak's ridership. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

This amendment would add $47.7 million to the fair housing budget. The amendment would more than double funding for the program over the 2005 level. There is no possible justification for doubling the program in 1 year.

Additionally, this program has one of the lowest spend-out rates in all of HUD. Simply put, these funds could never be used by HUD, and they are absolutely unnecessary. The committee has funded the program at the requested level which HUD has said is full funding. I have already indicated why this is the case.

Also, as drafted, all of the funds would go to the FHAP program. If Velazquez did not mean to double the total and put it all in the FHAP program, I strongly suggest that the gentlewoman should withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I am very opposed to increasing this program at the expense of other critical programs. There are a number of reasons.

The committee mark fully funds the amount requested by the administration and fully funds the program that has been in place for the last decade. These funds go to State and local governments to abate lead-based paint in homes that will not be restored through modernization or resale. Three years ago, the Senate began a new demonstration program and added between $50 million and $75 million. The House has not included these funds in subsequent years, and the Senate has attempted to continue the demonstration program each year. They may well try to do so again.

The committee is simply not in a position to absorb a $60 million increase in funding for this demonstration program at the expense of programs that are being funded at the 2005 level or below. This is not an appropriate trade-off.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that the amendment be defeated and we work to determine if the program should be included during conference.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 342 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

I would like to take a moment to reiterate that we bring this rule forward under an open rule. Obviously, historically, appropriations bills have come to the House floor with open rules; and we continue to do so in order to allow every Member in this House the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration, obviously as long as they are germane.

This is the last rule bringing forth an appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2006, Mr. Speaker; and I think that it speaks very highly of the Committee on Appropriations. Obviously, the chairman and the ranking member have had much to do with that, as well as all of the members of the Committee on Appropriations who have worked very hard in bringing forth all of these appropriations bills in such a timely fashion.

The bill that we are bringing forward today appropriates over $66 billion for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and independent agencies, an increase of 6 percent over last year. The bill is fiscally sound. It represents our commitment to provide necessary resources for programs and projects throughout the Nation, ranging from transportation, to housing, the Judiciary, the Executive Office of the President, the District of Columbia.

As all Members of this House know, the transportation infrastructure of the country is really the backbone of the economy, and its continued strength is essential to foster economic growth. The underlying legislation brought forth today goes far in ensuring that we have a reliable and stable transportation infrastructure to continue to help the economy grow.

The bill includes $37 billion in funds for the highway system, representing an increase of almost $2 billion. H.R. 3058 includes $14.5 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of $887 million. Included in that amount is $25 million to hire and train 595 new air traffic controllers. I think it is vitally important as air traffic controllers retire and air traffic continues to grow. This is really essential to so many of our districts.

In my district, home to Miami International Airport, the third largest international airport in the country, without an increase in the number of air traffic controllers, MIA would not be able to continue its projected growth and continue to serve really as the hub of the Americas.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is funded at $37.5 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion. These funds will permit the Department to administer programs that assist the public with housing needs, economic and community development, and fair housing opportunities. These funds will also empower low- and moderate-income residents towards self-sufficiency.

Under HUD, the bill includes funding for such important programs as Tenant Based Rental Assistance, also known as section 8; and Project Based Rental Assistance. These two programs serve almost 3.5 million households with vouchers and project-based housing. The bill includes $20.63 billion in funds for the program, an increase of almost $1 billion. In Miami-Dade County alone, which I am honored to represent, the housing authority uses the funds provided through these programs to house over 30,000 residents and for payment vouchers for 16,000 units.

H.R. 3058 provides $5.8 billion for the judiciary, an increase of 6 percent over the current fiscal year. This will fully fund the courts' revised requests for security improvements at Federal judicial facilities and enable the courts to effectively process the priority criminal, civil, and bankruptcy cases.

This legislation was introduced by the chairman of the subcommittee, who has done a tremendous job, the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg), and reported out of the Committee on Appropriations on June 21 by voice vote. It is good legislation. It is essential to our continued commitment to the security and safety of all in the United States, and we bring it forth under a fair and open rule.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their leadership on this important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the subcommittee, who, along with the chairman of the full committee, have done tremendous work in bringing forth these pieces of legislation, including the one on the floor today.

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

I think this is a very important piece of legislation that deserves our support. And, obviously, the rule bringing forth the underlying legislation in an extremely fair manner, with an open rule, deserves our support, but also the underlying bill, the underlying appropriations bill. It grows, it increases over last year by approximately 6 percent. It provides over $66 billion for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury and HUD, the Judiciary, and Independent Agencies. That is an increase of six percent, Mr. Speaker.

Now, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle more requests for spending, more and more and more and more. But I think it is important to keep in mind that what we are bringing forth, the bill that we are bringing forth to the floor increases spending, this bill increases spending by 6 percent over the current fiscal year. I think sometimes perspective is proper. So I wanted to mention that as I reiterate my support for the rule bringing forth this legislation as well as the underlying legislation and asking colleagues to support them both.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple of points to put the debate back in the perspective and the context of what we are doing today. We are debating the rule bringing forth the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Transportation, Treasury, Housing Urban Development, the Judiciary. This bill includes over $66 billion. It provides to those Departments being funded an increase of 6 percent over the current fiscal year, an increase of 6 percent.

A number of issues have been brought out, for example, the issue of an amendment that was passed in the Appropriations Committee. The substance of that amendment was debated September 10 of the year 2003 here on the floor of this House on an authorizing bill, and again, this may sound technical to some folks, especially if they are watching on TV, the rules of the House say that appropriations bills should not be vehicles for legislating, in other words, for changing the law. Rather, they are vehicles to fund, to appropriate the Federal Government.

Now, on an authorizing bill, which is expected and called for in the rules of the House, this credit card issue was brought forth and it was debated. Again, September 10, 2003. The amendment by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on this issue was defeated 272-142. So I think it is important to mention that because facts, I think, should be relevant to debates.

And then, Mr. Speaker, again, the issue of tax cuts. We hear time and time again, no matter what the issue before us, tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the wealthy. The policies under the leadership of President Bush that we have put into law, including tax relief have benefited all taxpayers. Every taxpayer, every payer of Federal income tax in this country received tax relief. Obviously, if you paid more in taxes than someone else, and everybody gets relief, you get more relief than if you pay less taxes. But everybody obtained tax relief under our policies.

And I think it is relevant to put in context what has happened to the economy ever since we implemented those measures. Ever since we provided tax relief to the American taxpayer: 3 million jobs in the last 18 months alone, unemployment rate at 5 percent.

I think it is relevant, Mr. Speaker, when we hear these attacks continuously against the policies of the majority, I think it is relevant to learn, to note what those policies have accomplished. And the creation of over 3 million jobs in 18 months, an unemployment rate almost at record lows are something that I think all of us should be proud of.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wished to do when my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) had the floor, I wanted to ask him a question. I was trying to understand and I was a little confused.

Does the gentleman admit that 3 million jobs have been created in the last 18 months in this economy?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

So the gentleman's answer is yes or no?

Maybe the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) could answer. Have 3 million jobs been created in the last 18 months, yes or no?

Reclaiming my time, I think, Mr. Speaker, what I have heard is yes. And I think that what we have seen is remarkable, considering that we had a recession that began toward the end of the year 2000 and that was coupled by the unprecedented attack on in country, including on our economy and on our way of life on September 11, 2001. Despite that unprecedented attack, the policies, yes, under the President's leadership that this Congress instituted have permitted and have incentivated the creation of 3 million jobs in the last 18 months.

We have a record, almost a record low unemployment rate of 5 percent. And I think that despite the static from which I am trying to learn, understand the answers of my respectful questions, the answer is yes. It is a remarkable achievement.

And so to keep in mind and in perspective of what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, job growth, almost a record low unemployment rate, and with regard to what we are doing today, which I think is relevant to remember and put in context. What we are doing today is bringing forth legislation, the appropriations bill on the funding the Treasury Department, Housing and Urban Develop Department, the Department of Transportation, that includes a 6 percent growth, 6 percent growth over and above the legislation for the current fiscal year.

I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has done a great job. I think the Committee on Appropriations has done a great job.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have participated in this very interesting debate.

We are bringing forth the last of the appropriations bills with this rule. I think it is a remarkable achievement, and I think the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) really deserves commendation as do all on the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has done a great job on this bill.

This particular bill that we are bringing forth with this rule is the Treasury and HUD, Transportation bill. I am not sure if it is the bill that increases the most from the current fiscal year, but it certainly has to be one of the most significant increases at 6 percent. We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle requests and demands for further spending and for further government growth; and obviously, that is legitimate, that debate is very legitimate.

I think it is also important and legitimate to put in context that this bill which has caused so much angst in terms of it being categorized as insufficient in spending from the other side of the aisle includes 6 percent more than the current fiscal year.

So it not only is an important piece of legislation, but it is funded, obviously, at a very high level.

With regard, again, to points that were made, so many of them were made by colleagues who took the floor. It is an undeniable fact, Mr. Speaker, that the economic downturn began in the third quarter of the year 2000.

It is an undeniable fact that September 11 of 2001 this country suffered a tremendous, unprecedented and horrible criminal attack. That obviously contributed to the economic downturn.

It is also an undeniable fact that due to the policies, certainly it is an undeniable fact that there have been 3 million jobs created in the last 18 months, that the unemployment rate is about 5 percent, and I think we all should be proud of that.

It is important to put in context, in the context of what has happened in the economy, I think, the attacks which we have heard so repeatedly, as though we were living in a different reality. The reality we are living is one of 3 million jobs being created in the last 18 months. The reality we are living is one that reflects one of the lowest unemployment rates in history. It is fair to point that out.

And I think it is fair to point out, yes, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) talked about we will have a debate on the Cuban dictatorship. I am sure we will. There is a lot to report in terms of the repression and torture and the continuation in the local prisons and so much more. So, yes, we will probably see amendments to loosen sanctions on that dictatorship, amendments that, if passed and if they became law, would see flows of hard currency going to that dictatorship. We will have that debate, but at the end of the day, I am confident that this Congress will continue to stand with those who suffer and those who are repressed and not those who cause the repression.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, support the underlying legislation which I think, again, we owe a debt of gratitude to the entire Committee on Appropriations not only for having it brought it forth in such a timely way but especially the chairman who will now soon take the floor. We have much to commend, and I know that we have all of the chairmen we see here, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) on the floor as well, so many who have worked so hard to make sure that all of these bills have come forth in really a remarkably timely way.

So, again, I am supporting the underlying legislation, as well as this very fair rule, which is an open rule and urging support for both by all of our colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) for managing to get us here before the end of June to the final bill. And with any luck at all, we will actually finish this final bill before the end of June.

For the second year in a row, last year as the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies, and this year now as the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, House and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies, this has been the last subcommittee to report. The reorganization does not seem to make much difference. We are still the last subcommittee to report to the floor, and I do not know what else can be said or inferred from that except that the best has been left for last.

First, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for the positive and constructive relationship that we have forged thus far in this expanded and reorganized subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) put the bill together, he listened to both majority and minority Members, the concerns that they might have, and worked to resolve a good many issues. That cooperative approach was not limited to subcommittees or even subcommittee members or even to full Committee on Appropriations members. He considered all Members concerned, and where he was able to help, he did that, even to the last 12 hours, as he has indicated in his remarks, the amendment that will be offered early on in the process, and I thank him for that.

I particularly want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for his mark in regards to his thoughtful approach to our capital city's budget which is embodied in this bill.

I also want to take a moment to thank the excellent staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this legislation. On the minority side, Mike Malone, Michelle Burkett, Matt Washington, Kathleen Harris on my staff, and Shalanda Young.

On the majority side, Dena Baron, the majority clerk, Cheryle Tucker, Steve Crane, Dave Gibbons, Tammy Hughes, David Napolielo and Kristen Jones.

This bill has become more complex than I think any of us realized it would, and I appreciate the efforts and the long hours of each and every one of those staff members.

Mr. Chairman, every dollar of budget authority allowed in the severely inadequate allocation where a subcommittee has been used, were I in charge of the distribution of that allocation, it would be different. However, there would be still the same volume of holes. So I stipulate that this inadequate allocation created problems.

On the one hand, I am very pleased to see significant increases for transportation funding because transportation investments are critical for a healthy, growing economy for our growing and shifting population. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration funding is 13.5 percent above the President's request at $14.427 billion. The Federal Transit Administration is 9 percent above the President's request at $8.482 billion. Federal Highway Administration's allotment here is 4.5 percent above the President's request at $37.026 billion. Mr. Chairman, even the Federal Railroad Administration is 32 percent above the President's request at $732 million. Mr. Chairman, as we can see, these are good levels for transportation funding.

On the other hand, I am very concerned about the impact that meeting the House TEA-LU levels was having on other agencies and accounts in the bill.

In Title I, the transportation title, Federal aviation, Federal highway, Federal transit are funded substantially above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and way above the President's request for 2006.

That is driven by current authorization on FAA and the anticipated authorization, which we all fervently pray for within the next month or so of Federal highway and Federal transit through the TEA-LU bill.

The lone exception to adequate funding is Amtrak. The chairman uses an extremely blunt instrument on Amtrak, somewhat like the proverbial 2-by-4 between the mule's eyes. The bill terminates all Federal subsidy on 18 long-distance lines, which are the most heavily subsidized lines, thereby terminating the very concept of a national passenger rail system. Those 18 lines carry roughly 20 percent of Amtrak's passengers and provide the only passenger rail service in 23 States, represented by a lot of Members of the House and, incidentally, by 46 Members of the other body.

The shutting down of those lines would incur $300 million in labor and contractual costs in fiscal year 2006 alone. That $300 million, plus $275 million in mandatory debt servicing, plus $130 million of Federal subsidy to keep the remaining 24 inner-city lines operating is already $150 million above the $550 million provided in the bill, and that is before any allocation for capital improvements on the deteriorating northeast corridor trackage, wholly owned by Amtrak and carrying 50 percent of all Amtrak passengers.

Mr. Chairman, if this body funds Amtrak at $550 million, it should be no surprise if there is no passenger rail service this time next year. And there will be one or more amendments offered to address that problem.

Mr. Chairman, there remain holes in title III, the HUD title. Section 8 and public housing accounts are relatively well funded, but there are substantial reductions from 2005 enacted levels in the community development accounts, and that is largely because the committee wisely rejected the proposal by the President to move almost all of the community development accounts into a different department and a different piece of legislation. And in rejecting and bringing back that material, which has always been the material of the community development portion of housing and community development, the funding ended up not being high enough to be anywhere close to enacted levels from last year.

As examples, the CDBG formula grants, which go to virtually all of our communities around the country, are down below the 2005-enacted level by 6 percent, and the HOPE VI and Brownfields Development are defunded, defunded, just as examples. The YouthBuild program, which is operated successfully in so many districts, is not yet funded.

So, Mr. Chairman, our bill has some shortfalls. These shortfalls should not be allowed to remain in this bill as it becomes law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our capital city.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a good general debate here for this hour that covered a lot of the different areas in the bill and certainly reflects some of the issues that we will be debating as the amendment process goes forward.

Again, I want to thank the chairman and the staff on the majority and the minority side for all the work that they have done. It has been a process which has gone a long way. It will go more in the next day or two. All of it should improve the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether this is on the point of order, but I would just like the body to know that there would be no objection on this side of the House to having this item made in order. Notwithstanding the comments by the chairman here, if that manages to keep this issue in the forefront, even though he is suggesting and has suggested that the final actions on this legislation would not occur for 3 months, if that manages to keep the issue before the body, it is important enough that that in itself would be valuable, that it be kept there so that we do indeed find a fast way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor and endorse this amendment. This amendment represents exactly what I said an hour or so ago, that the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) has listened to both majority and minority Members' concerns and has worked to resolve all issues. He has considered all Members' concerns and, where he could help, he did; and I thank him for that.

With this amendment, the bill would now provide $50 million for YouthBuild and will keep YouthBuild alive while the authorizing committees figures out exactly where YouthBuild should best be authorized.

The YouthBuild program is a good program. Several other Members during general debate have talked about it. It is a program that serves young men and women in their late teens and early 20s who dropped out of high school, or graduates from high school who find 2 or 3 years later that they have no real job skills and poor prospects of a good job. Dropouts in this program get a GED and other key education for the construction industry. All participants get skills and experience in housing construction trades.

The program has been in place about a dozen years. Nearly 15,000 units of affordable housing have been built, and nearly 30,000 young people have learned the housing construction and building trades, thanks to the YouthBuild program. Many of these young people have gone on to college. Those who have been in trouble with the law earlier in life have a stunningly low recidivism rate after they have been in the YouthBuild program.

Each of the items in this amendment was included in my primary remarks at subcommittee markup and again at the full committee markup and in debate on adoption of the rule yesterday. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) listening and responding, and I hope the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

(Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I believe very strongly that we should have a national passenger rail system, and I want to see that that is a successful system and a system that we can modernize and make into one that is truly a part of our balanced transportation system.

Several people have come to the floor in opposition to the amendment and pointed out how much money is expended by Amtrak. Well, yes, indeed, each of the last 3 years has been over $1.2 billion. One year, 3 years ago, it was $1.3 billion. But even at that level of expenditure, there has not been enough money to even make a serious dent in the capital needs for the northeast corridor, the northeast corridor which carries 50 percent of all of the passengers on our version of the national rail system. So we are being

quite unrealistic in the idea that some seem to have that it is possible to run a passenger rail system on the cheap.

The number of dollars that are being talked about here simply does not run even the inner-city rail system, those 24 lines that the bill purports to support. As I have said earlier today, the chairman has used an extremely blunt instrument on Amtrak, somewhat like the proverbial 2-by-4 between a mule's eyes.

Well, the bill cuts out all Federal subsidy on 18 long-distance lines, which forces them to shut down. But the cost of doing that is, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, giving a more accurate number than I gave, I said $300 million, he said, I believe, $369 million in costs that are just to close down those lines in the first year. And it continues for several years, while those costs of abrogating contractual arrangements and labor costs would continue. That plus already the debt on Amtrak's capital debt, the debt service on Amtrak's capital debt, would be another $275 million and growing.

Those two items by themselves end up being more than has been suggested for funding by the bill. So the bill is a shutdown of Amtrak. It is not a reform of Amtrak. That is really for the authorizers to do over time. What the amendment does, as has been proposed by the authorizing committee, and I commend them for putting together a set of offsets which are difficult, but not nearly as difficult in dealing with Amtrak as the proposal is in the bill, what they have done is completely funded offsets within the authorization committee's area. And they are the ones ultimately that are going to have to figure out how to come up with a bill that in the long run provides a national passenger rail system and reforms it, which does not have to be by the basis of cutting out all of these long-distance lines.

The lines that are cut out, shown by that map that everybody has seen, cuts out all passenger rail service in 23 States, representing 154 Members of this House of Representatives and 46 Members of the other body. That is just not a realistic position. And the position which the authorizing Chair and the ranking member of the authorizing subcommittee have put forward is a position that still requires reform, because that number of dollars in the long run does not fully fund a functioning and efficient national passenger rail system.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment that has been put forward by the gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Florida. Both States, by the way, lose all of their passenger rail system. I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the bill. Simply put, this bill significantly and irresponsibly shortchanges key funding for Amtrak and several programs in the Housing and Urban Development Department. While this bill provides slight funding increases for highways, transit and aviation programs, it slashes Amtrak to the point of extinction and eliminates important HUD programs like Brown-fnl;fields and Youthbuild.

This bill provides $550 million for Amtrak, an amount that places the future of national passenger rail in jeopardy. This $657 million cut will not only terminate all intercity passenger rail service, but will also cause a massive disruption of the commuter and freight rail system across the country. Quite literally, this allocation is a death sentence for Amtrak.

Ironically, the amount provided in this bill is a whopping $1.25 billion below the level that President Bush's appointed Amtrak Board of Directors recommended. President Bush and the Republican leadership believe that starving Amtrak will save it. The administration and the Republican leadership believe that a forced bankruptcy upon Amtrak will bring about a change for the better, that it will create a more efficient system.

Mr. Speaker, this just does not make any sense. You do not save starving children by denying them food, and I cannot understand how the President believes Amtrak can be saved by slashing its funding. I guess by ``better,'' Amtrak opponents mean no intercity rail service anywhere, and by ``more efficient,'' apparently these same opponents mean costs of upwards of $900 million for severance payments and mandatory debt service and labor payments. All in all, the closure of routes will result in layoffs of thousands of workers, which in turn creates hundreds of millions of dollars of immediate debt.

Mr. Speaker, this backward argument that squeezing the life out of Amtrak will save it is unacceptable and irresponsible. The only thing that starving Amtrak will do is destroy it.

On top of making Amtrak extinct, this bill eliminates several critical programs within HUD. Programs like brownfield cleanup, Empowerment Zones, section 108 loan guarantees and La Raza activities have all been eliminated. Every single one of these programs has contributed to the overall improvement of our communities, and it is shameful that Congress is turning its back on our neediest communities.

In my home State of Massachusetts, brownfields cleanup has proven to be a highly successful, efficient tool for cleaning up the environment and revitalizing a community. In the 2005 annual report of the Massachusetts Brownfields Redevelopment Fund, it is noted that 4,500 new housing units and 3,250 new jobs have been created by the Brownfields program. Because redevelopment is concentrated in areas that are already in use, brownfield cleanup preserves open space, bringing opportunity to economically distressed parts of a community. Zeroing out Brownfields is a bad move, and I encourage my colleagues to offer any amendments that could provide for its funding.

Another important program that has been placed on the chopping board is Youthbuild. Youthbuild is a nonprofit program which pays at-risk youth to build houses in low-income neighborhoods. This community development program offers job training, education, counseling, and leadership opportunities to unemployed and out-of-school young adults ages 16 through 24. These at-risk youth build and rehabilitate affordable housing in their own communities, garnering life skills and adding to revitalization in their own backyards.

Mr. Speaker, how can such a thoughtful program that is full of incentives be eliminated? There are 226 Youthbuild programs in 44 States across the country, attracting 7,000 young adults. In 2004 alone, 10,000 young men and women had to be turned down for the program due solely to the lack of funding. The demand is high and the need is even greater for programs like Youthbuild. We should not turn our backs on the youth of America.

It is clear that the Republican leadership is doing its best to protect tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country while eliminating programs that benefit the neediest. At the same time, the Republican leadership hides behind a veil of fiscal discipline.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that argument just does not cut it, and the American people know it. These programs are being starved simply because the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate refuse to acknowledge their mistakes. Their tax cuts have drained the Federal surplus. Their policies continue to drive this Nation further into debt.

This is an important bill. We have a responsibility to fund Amtrak, to fund Brownfields and Youthbuild, and we have the means to do it if the Republican leadership would just acknowledge their mistakes.

My friend from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules yesterday that would have restored $1.2 billion of funding to Amtrak, as well as funding to Brownfields and Youthbuild. This funding would have been paid for by a slight reduction in the tax breaks given to millionaires.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership once again proved that protecting millionaires' tax breaks is more important than keeping Amtrak trains running, and they denied the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) the opportunity to have his amendment voted on.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a fully funded, nationwide intercity rail system that services the entire country. They deserve effective housing programs. They deserve Brownfields funding and Youthbuild, which revitalize our communities and improves the quality of life.

I will vote ``no'' on the rule and vote against this bill because the American people deserve better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, those on the other side keep on talking about the tough decisions that have to be made. My question is, why do always the tough decisions fall on the backs of middle income families and those who are most vulnerable? Why can not, for example, some of the sacrifice be made by those who are earning over $1 million? That is what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) tried to do yesterday in the Committee on Rules.

We disagree with your budget priorities. We disagree that all of this money should be going for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. We think that protecting programs like Youthbuild, that protecting Amtrak is important.

This bill, if it passes and the funding for Amtrak is not adjusted, is the death knell for Amtrak. It is that simple. There is no way to spin your way out of it. For those of us who support a vibrant, strong, intercity rail system, this bill, with these numbers right now, is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had asked who would have the chutzpah to come on the House floor and to object to his provision regarding credit cards. I should tell you that last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to protect this language, the language that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) championed, the language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has said he agrees with. I offered an amendment to protect this from a point of order, and every single Republican on the Rules Committee that was present last night had the chutzpah to not protect it, which I think is outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me clear up one fact for my colleagues who are listening to this debate. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) just said that the rules of the House prohibit us from adding legislation to appropriations bills; that is the rules of the House. Well, the majority does that all the time. We routinely waive points of order on these appropriations bills. And this bill is no exception. We had a supplemental appropriations bill where you added the REAL ID legislation to that bill.

We had just recently a legislative branch appropriations bill where you added the continuity of Congress legislation.

The gentleman talks about how great this economy is. I want to tell you, there are a lot of people suffering out there. Poverty has increased since you guys took over here, since George Bush became President. There are more people that are hungry in this country. These jobs that you are talking about being created, a lot of them are jobs that provide people with less pay than they were making before.

Our problem here, and the reason why we want to amend this bill, is we think your priorities are wrong. We think it is more important to save Amtrak than to give a millionaire or billionaire a tax cut. In fact, we are even willing to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut. What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) was trying to do was to reduce the amount of tax cut a millionaire would get from $140,000 a year to $131,000 a year. That money saved by doing that could have funded Amtrak, could have funded the Hope VI program for the revitalization of severely distressed public housing. It could have funded more money for community development block grants. It could have funded Youthbuild. It could have funded the Help America Vote Act.

But your priorities are different. You come on to the floor and you debate passionately about the need to give those with the most even more while you neglect what is happening to those who have the least.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The recession began in March 2001 under the watch of President Bush. Secondly, poverty in this country has increased dramatically, and for anybody to get up here and to try to boast about this President's job creation record when he is dead last amongst all Presidents is pretty outrageous.

Go outside the Beltway and talk to some people about how they think this economy is going right now. I will tell you, people feel it is not going as rosy as you think it is. This President has also accumulated the largest debt of any President in history. That is not something we should be proud of. That is passing on a credit card bill to our kids and our grandkids. That is something you should be ashamed about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I urge my colleagues to support any amendment that will be offered today to relax the travel restrictions on Americans to Cuba. I have met with Sergeant Lazo, who is a veteran who served in Iraq who, as a result of the U.S. law, is unable to visit his own parents in Cuba. That is wrong. This man served our country. We should be able to adjust that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and let me simply say that I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has tried to do everything in his power to make this bill as acceptable as possible, given the circumstances. So I do not object to what he has done, but I do object to the circumstances.

I would simply say that the problem is that Chairman Knollenberg has not been given the tools necessary to make this a desirable bill. It is sort of like giving a surgeon a spoon and telling him to go ahead and perform surgery. He needs more than that in order to get the job done.

This bill, I think, is an important failure in terms of our obligation to meet a number of national needs. As has been mentioned previously, we have a number of important HUD programs which are crunched and zeroed out. Brownfields, for instance. My community has had some wonderful successes in cleaning up polluted areas through the use of that program. That program, if this bill has its way, would be gone. We have other problems in the housing area which have already been discussed.

Amtrak. As my friends in this House know, I often quote my favorite philosopher, Archie the Cockroach. Archie said once: ``Did you ever notice when a politician does get an idea, he gets it all wrong?'' And I would say that this budget for Amtrak gets it all wrong.

Amtrak, frankly, does not impact my district to any significant degree, but the fact is it is an important national resource which should not be scuttled like it is an old World War I battleship. The fact is that it provides an important national service, and we ought to be able to preserve a national passenger rail system.

The idea that is wrong is the idea that somehow we ought to require passenger rail service in this country to show a profit. We do not require airlines to do that. The Federal Government pumps a lot of money into the budget in order to provide service to hard-to-serve areas in the country as far as air travel is concerned, and we need to treat rail transportation the same way.

We would not have a Federal highway system if we only built the routes that ``paid for themselves.'' Most of rural America would be flat out of luck, especially the West, when it comes to highways, if we applied the same logic to highway construction that the House is trying to apply to railway transportation in this bill.

Another shortcoming, in my view, is the fact that it provides a $250 million reduction to the Community Development Block Grant. I do not represent a city over 40,000 in my entire district, but those small- town mayors that I represent make terrific use of the money in this program in order to revitalize neighborhoods in ways that they otherwise would never be able to do.

I would also say, and this is no particular fault of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) either, but this bill represents the last chance that we have to do something about the fact that the administration for 2 years has kept the truth from Congress about the needs of the veterans health care system in this country.

We have been trying for 2 years to get more money into the VA for veterans health care. We have steadily been told by the administration, No, no, no, the budget is fully adequate, we do not need any more money. Now we know it has all been baloney.

Yesterday, the administration finally broke down and admitted that they are more than a billion dollars short for this year, and for the coming year, they will be $2.6 billion short. We have an obligation to do something about it. The Senate did something yesterday on the Interior bill. The Senate added $1.4 billion as an emergency appropriation to deal with what is an emergency situation in the veterans health care agency.

This is the last appropriation bill that is going to go through here on a regular basis, and because we were not allowed to offer this amendment on the subcommittee bill where it should have been offered, we have no choice but to try to get it offered to this bill, unless this House wants to sit, as FDR used to say, ``frozen in the ice of its own indifference.'' I would hope we would not do that and would respond to the challenge at hand.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me simply say, I hate to say, we told you so, but we told you so. We warned the majority that, if you listened to the denials of the Veterans Administration, you would eventually be embarrassed because their request was inadequate to meet the needs of returning veterans.

We have now been told yesterday, finally the VA is telling us the truth, and the fact is, this is the only remaining appropriation vehicle that we can use to add the necessary funds. The Senate added $1.4 billion yesterday to the Interior bill. That was not germane either, but the Senate did not let dunghill jurisdictional politics get in the way of dealing with the problems of veterans. I would urge the House to follow the lead of the Senate and to allow this amendment to be added so that we can take care of the problem.

We are not even adding the extra $400 million that the Senate added yesterday. We are simply saying, take what the VA has already admitted they need for this year. We know it is going to be more for next year. But at least take the $1 billion we know is needed now, so that we do not continue to listen to false promises from the VA.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I would simply state that the House is in a strange position today because, under the rules of the House, every item that is brought to the floor is supposed to be germane to the bill at hand unless the Committee on Rules has provided exceptions to that. My understanding of the rules is that notwithstanding the fact that the rule does not specifically allow for this amendment, if no Member objects, this amendment could be considered.

So I would simply ask every Member of the House, through the Chair, whether or not this matter is sufficiently important enough that a point of order not be lodged.

The gentleman from California suggested that this ought to be considered in some other venue. We would be happy to do that if someone had another suggestion; but right now, this is the only dog in the hunt. I am afraid that if the gentleman persists in his point of order, the gentleman from Texas and I would have to concede the point of order; but I would hope that we would not be pushed into that position.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I want to just comment on a couple of things that were said by the distinguished subcommittee chairman during the debate. He described this amendment as being a ``slash and burn amendment.'' Well, I want to suggest that what was ``slash and burn'' was the budget resolution which has enforced these kinds of reductions across the budget.

In my view, it is the budget resolution which slashed and burned when it wound up producing an education budget that left No Child Left Behind education programs $800 million below last year. It was slash and burn which left the National Institutes of Health with 500 fewer medical research grants than they had 2 years ago. It was slash and burn that eliminated nine out of the 10 programs that were supposed to focus on the development of health professions in rural areas and in urban inner-cities. It was slash and burn which has caused this very bill to provide, in essence, a shutdown of Amtrak.

The gentleman from Oregon summed it up as well as anyone in the debate today when he pointed out the strange dichotomy that exists between believing that railroad transportation must show a profit, but airline transportation, passenger service at least, does not have to.

And I would add that there are hundreds of miles, thousands of miles in this country of interstate highway that in actuality have very few riders and standing alone could not justify their construction in the first place. So it seems to me, as has been said, we need a balanced set of transportation alternatives in this country. And you do not balance your transportation system by putting one leg of that transportation system out of business, as this committee product essentially does.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge support for the amendment. I do not like the reductions in the offsets any more than many other persons in this Chamber like them, but the fact is they were forced by every single Member who voted for that Republican budget resolution. So like it or not, those are the choices you enforced, and we choose not to shut down one of the major transportation legs in this country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring the House's attention to one fact: Since Members keep asking me, are we going to be here Friday, I would like to make the point simply that this is the 224-page bill. We are still on page 2.