Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to present to the House the fiscal year 2008 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

I thank Members for their input and work on this bill. I especially recognize the important contributions of my ranking member Mr. Knollenberg in putting this bill together. As former chairman of this subcommittee, he had numerous valuable insights that make the bill and report stronger, and I have appreciated his advice and counsel during this process.

I also thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee Mr. Obey and the ranking member of the full committee Mr. Lewis for their support.

I must also recognize the hard work of the staff on both the majority and minority side. Kate Hallahan, Cheryle Tucker, David Napoliello, Laura Hogshead, Alex Gillen, Mark Fedor and Bob Letteney with the majority staff, and Dena Baron, David Gibbons and Jeff Goff with the minority have spent many late nights putting this bill together, and we would not be here today without their great dedication.

This is a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill. Indeed, this bill should not be partisan because a broad consensus affirming the great needs for transportation infrastructure investments and for affordable housing exists countrywide.

The bill provides $50.7 billion in discretionary funding for transportation and housing programs, and is within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Nonetheless, due to current budgetary constraints, the subcommittee was forced to either flat-fund or reduce numerous programs. Furthermore, there are no major expansions of existing programs and only a handful of new initiatives.

Our first hearings this year sought a broad assessment of the future challenges this country faces in transportation and housing. Not surprisingly, our hearings showed that there's a great and growing need for transportation infrastructure and affordable housing, particularly in metro areas experiencing explosive growth, such as Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix and Las Vegas; but also in older metropolitan areas such as Boston, New York, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, whose infrastructure is aging and in need of extensive repair; and even in rural communities and counties suffering from a loss of population and disinvestment in both housing and transportation.

To meet these challenges we have restored the President's deepest cuts and have continued important investments in transportation and housing started by my predecessors. In short, we've tried to make our core programs whole and function better, rather than start a lot of new initiatives.

With regard to transportation, our bill fully funds the highway and transit guarantees contained in the current transportation authorization bill known as SAFETEA-LU.

The bill contains $40.2 billion for highways, which is $631 million over the President's request; and $9.7 billion for transit investments, $334 million over the President's request.

Adequate investments in our highways and transit systems are critical to the economic and social future of our country. Vehicle miles traveled on our Nation's roads have doubled since 1980.

While we have fully funded the highway guarantees this year, I must warn my colleagues about the future solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. The Office of Management and Budget recently estimated that by the end of the fiscal year 2009, the Highway Trust Fund will have a $4 billion deficit. This deficit is far greater than any other previous projection and will inhibit our ability to fully fund the highway guarantees in the future without additional transportation revenues which must be provided through the authorization process.

Our bill also continues to make critical investments in aviation. In 1995, our aviation system handled 545 million passengers, but that system must handle 1 billion passengers by 2015. We must provide adequate infrastructure to deal with that growth.

Our bill includes $3.6 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, restoring the President's $765 million cut, and adding $85 million above fiscal year 2007. The bill restores funding for the Essential Air Service Program so that no existing service will be lost.

We have also invested over the President's request for transportation safety. Specifically, an increase of $20 million for critical aviation safety inspectors and engineers; a $2 million increase for additional investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board; a $3 million increase to preserve highway safety staff at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and a $6.2 million increase for staffing and research programs related to pipeline and hazardous materials safety.

Investments in intercity passenger rail, especially in high-density travel corridors, must also be part of a valid transportation system. The bill provides $1.4 billion for Amtrak, plus $50 million for a new intercity passenger rail State matching grant program requested by the administration; thus, the bill leverages a total of $1.5 billion for intercity passenger rail. This funding will help create a faster, safer, and more reliable intercity passenger rail system.

With regard to housing, four major categories of HUD programs provide assistance for very low-income families, the elderly, the disabled, and their communities. First, HUD provides our 3,200 public housing authorities funding for the operation and capital needs of the Nation's public housing stock. Public housing is home to 2.6 million people, more than half of whom are seniors and persons with disabilities.

Second, HUD administers rental assistance programs, largely under the section 8 tenant- and project-based programs. Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance serves about 1.9 million low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities, while the project-based section 8 assists more than 1.4 million households, two-thirds of which include elderly or disabled persons. Both the tenant- and project-based programs serve very low-income individuals and families, overwhelmingly those whose incomes are below 50 percent of the median household income for their area.

Third, HUD administers housing production programs, including the HOME program; the HOPE VI program, which revitalizes or replaces severely distressed public housing; and construction programs for the elderly and disabled.

Finally, HUD administers a number of community and economic development programs, the largest being Homeless Assistance Grants and Community Development Block Grants.

My colleagues are all very familiar with CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant program. But many of our constituents may be unaware of the importance of CDBG in their communities. CDBG funds are used by communities to rehabilitate and construct affordable housing; to construct public facilities improvements, such as streetscaping and community centers; and to promote local economic development and job creation. About 70 percent of CDBG dollars go directly to communities with populations of about 50,000 or more. The remaining funds go by formula to the States and are distributed to smaller towns and rural communities. Taken together, HUD programs address the large unmet need for affordable housing throughout the country.

The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Howard University has documented that, from 1993 to 2003 alone, we lost 1.2 million affordable housing units. In fact, approximately three-fourths of American households which, by household income, are eligible for HUD assistance receive none.

In the face of this, we have done our best to restore the President's cuts to housing. Some accounts we have only been able to freeze at last year's funding level. In other accounts we have targeted increases where the people served by the HUD program were particularly harmed. Funding is included to renew all current section 8 tenant-based vouchers so that no one who has a voucher will lose it. To that end the bill provides an increase of $330 million above the President's request for tenant-based rental assistance and nearly double that increase for project-based assistance.

Within the section 8 funding provided in the bill, we have $30 million for 4,000 incremental housing vouchers for nonelderly disabled individuals, some of whom will be homeless veterans.

The President's fiscal 2008 budget request cut CDBG by over $700 million from the 2007 enacted level, cut housing for the elderly by $160 million, cut housing for disabled by 50 percent below fiscal year 2007, and for HOPE VI zeroed the program out for 2008 and rescinded 2007 funding.

Our bill rejects all of these cuts for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. We have funded CDBG at $4.18 billion, which is $400 million over the enacted 2007 budget but still $400 million below the CDBG budget for fiscal year 2001, 6 years ago. We have restored funding to last year's level of $735 million for elderly housing, the 202 program, and $237 million for housing for the disabled, the 811 program, as well as provided $120 million for HOPE VI, a small increase from last year.

With our funding decisions, we have also promoted sustainability by encouraging more environmentally friendly transportation and housing practices. We have restored the President's cuts to transit and to our intercity passenger rail system, which are more fuel efficient than other transportation modes. Thanks to Mr. Knollenberg's leadership, we have increased funding for the clean fuel bus program by $26 million.

In the area of housing, we have included language in urging HUD to incorporate stronger energy efficiency standards into the HOPE VI program as well as other HUD programs.

Madam Chairman, this bill is a compromise, and we have had to balance a number of competing needs. There are areas where I would have liked to provide more dollars. However, we have done our best with limited dollars to invest in our transportation networks and affordable housing. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee's HUD Subcommittee, Mr. Pastor.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a valuable member of our subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), also a member of this subcommittee.

(Mr. BOYD of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

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

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I would like to make a comment on the gentleman's amendment since the gentleman has indicated that he is willing to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate that. The gentleman and I have worked for several years now together on biking and rail-trail issues, so I can remember just a few years ago that we actually were closely involved in saving the transportation enhancement program on this very bill.

We both recognize the environmental and public health benefits of bicycling. Even though I have stopped bicycling, I watch the Tour de France rather than bicycling myself these days. So I applaud the gentleman's concern and support for the Conserve by Bike program.

As we move toward conference, I will do my very best to try to accommodate this, and just remind the gentleman that we have language in the bill to make certain that enhancements are not disproportionately cut in the case of rescissions, which is a balancing act in any case. The gentleman may wish to take part in that discussion, which may occur later this evening.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment strikes the language on page 18 of the bill that delineates how the rescission will be applied. I remind the gentleman from Florida, although I suspect he does already know this, that the rescission in the 2006 bill was $3.8 billion. The rescission in the 2007 bill was $4.2 billion. The first of those was passed by the Republican majority, and the second was in its final form through the CR that came in the Democratic majority.

Surely.

That is correct. The gentleman is correct, the flexibility was there. But what we find out in that process is that the States very disproportionately focused that rescission upon enhancements and took enhancements in some places completely out of the budget, which, under the highway fund, we are supposed to be giving 10 percent of the highway formula moneys to enhancements.

So this language was, in fact, exactly or very similar to language which was passed out of the T&I Committee of which the gentleman is the ranking member a couple of days after we had marked up in committee. So the T&I Committee already has agreed to the idea that enhancements should not be disproportionately targeted for rescissions when they occur when they are required by the legislation.

In fact, we were asked by the T&I Committee to do something very similar to this, if not exactly this, which we have done, in making certain that there would not be disproportionate cuts to enhancements in the process of applying rescissions. And those data do not really affect what has happened to the 2007 or 2006 bills because we don't have the final numbers on those, but the data that I am describing is all through the rescission process in every year that there has been rescissions, that those have in sum total gone heavily against the enhancement parts of the formula funds. So we have striven to correct that in the language that we have put in at this point, and I would ask the membership to oppose this amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

First of all, I think that the subcommittee and the full committee, this legislation was passed out of full committee unanimously without dissent, by voice vote but without dissent, and we've tried to strike an appropriate balance in funding the transportation and housing problems in the bill.

As in previous bills in previous years, I've opposed amendments that take funding from housing to increase the funding for transportation programs, and similarly, I've opposed amendments which take funding from transportation and transfer those funds to housing programs.

I think that's entirely appropriate. We have this bill where we cannot have one portion. Each has its important features, and we cannot have one portion of this bill taking sizeable funds from another portion, which has equally important priorities within the bill.

I would point out to my colleagues that in the bill before us, the appropriation for the homeless is $1.56 billion. That's $119 million already above the 2007 enacted sum for the Homeless Grant Program. That's 8 percent already above the level of the 2007 enacted program from just last February.

The amendment that the gentlewoman has proposed would move another $106 million into that, which would then put it far over the President's request, that program. I don't think that that's really necessary here.

What we do have is a situation where year after year the Amtrak program has gone through reform, substantial reform, to try to reduce their cost and to provide greater service, as has been requested by this Congress over the last several years. To take that money away from them at a time when the other body, the Senate, has passed authorization legislation or has reported out of committee authorization legislation, and our own T&I Committee is working on authorizing legislation for Amtrak, which is considerably higher than even the level of the funding that we have in this bill.

For both of those reasons, the balance of the legislation not moving money from housing into transportation or vice versa, which I will oppose at every point that it comes up, because I think we are trying to keep a reasonable balance of the priorities in each of those very important areas, and because the homeless program is already funded at almost $120 million above the 2007 funded amount, that this is not a necessary amendment, not an appropriate amendment. I hope that we will not pass this amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

I withdraw my reservation.

Madam Chairman, this is an effort to bring Amtrak to a stop, simply. Over the last couple of years, we have had the President recommend no funding for Amtrak. We have refused that and funded them so they could continue service at the level that they were. We have added reform programs to them to require substantial savings out of the first-class service and the meals service and things of that sort, which have been quite substantial, and they have saved each year $80 million to $100 million a year on that program. So we are moving to make the system more efficient, though there is not any passenger rail system anywhere in this world that operates without some operating subsidy.

Where we have public transportation systems, any subway system, the fares never get to as high as 50 percent of the cost of the service, and the remaining service is then part of a subsidy for the operation of that service. In fact, most of our transit programs function at considerably less than a 50-percent fare box amount. So Amtrak is not any different from any other rail program which provides great energy efficiency in the movement of large numbers of people, and it is very important in our very densely populated corridors.

We as a Congress have then added the idea of having a national rail system that covers long-distance rail. And those even require a greater subsidy, but it has been our decision to do that over the years.

We have to have a rail program in this country. We have somehow to get over making Amtrak ultimately, somehow, to morph Amtrak into a system that will provide high-speed passenger rail in corridors of relatively short distance. But in the meantime, we also have to keep Amtrak running, and this amendment would take the operating monies completely away from a system which cannot operate without that operating subsidy.

The rest of the money, the gentleman believes most of the remainder was in there for capital improvements. Well, there isn't any point in having the capital improvements if you are not going to have an operating subsidy unless you can move the monies around, and then you have to cut seriously the total amount of service that is being provided by Amtrak with the amendment that the gentleman has offered. So it is really a killing amendment for Amtrak.

Amtrak cannot function with the amendment that the gentleman from Arizona has offered in this instance. We have gone through this fight time and time again, and each time the end result is that Amtrak is supported because Amtrak service is provided in over 40 of the States. In some cases, it is the only rail passenger service that is available to people in some of those States on some of the very long-distance rail lines that people complain are the ones that carry the highest subsidy. And those are supported the strongest because they are the only rail service, passenger service that is available in a good number of those States.

So I think that this amendment should be defeated, I think it will be defeated, and I hope it will be defeated.

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

Madam Chairman, I again oppose this amendment. This is just a continuation of the effort to strangle Amtrak.

In this instance I think that what I'd like to do is to just try to review with the, whoever is still listening at this hour of the night what the President's budgets have looked like over the last several years. I may be slightly wrong, because I maybe have 1 year misplaced as to what happened, but I have been the ranking member for 2 years, the last 2 years, in the 2006 and 2007 budgets. My recollection is that the 2006 budget that the President provided no money, and we had to fill the hole completely to keep whatever was functional functioning in the case of Amtrak.

And then in the 2007 budget, that year we ended up providing between, by the time the conference process was complete, $1.3 billion for a mixture of operating subsidies and capital programs. In the 2007 budget, the administration came up with a number which was much lower than what had been appropriated the previous year, and again we had to, it was around 8- or $900 million in total, and we, again we had to come up with a higher sum of money, back to the $1.3 billion, in order to complete, to keep the level of service where it was, which includes the whole of the Northeast corridor, which carries half of all the passengers and is trackage that is owned by Amtrak, and all the services that go out of Chicago and the other metropolitan areas, and the long-distance services on the west coast and across the country.

So what we have this year is that the President came up with an amount of $500 million for capital, and $300 million for efficiency incentive grants, which is sort of an oxymoron because in the previous year, we had provided some sort of incentive grants which Amtrak, after they had provided the savings and made serious savings in the accounts, they then found that they got exactly nothing in the way of incentive grants that were released to them. So what's the point, really, of trying to save money?

But we've included that language, included the mandate essentially, that they are to continue to look for savings in the system. In the meantime we provided, again, the $1.3-, now up to $1.4- because of inflation, a total of $1.4 billion of which now the amount was put up to $925 million for capital, which the gentleman wishes to reduce to $500 million for capital, which was never adequate in the first place.

On the Northeast corridor, we have done so little upkeep, we are nowhere close to a state of good repair, which is dangerous. It is causing safety problems in the Northeast corridor, where more than half of our total passengers are being handled, so that the gentleman's amendment takes away capital monies now. This is the second hit at it, the capital monies that would be necessary to make progress on dealing with the backlog of capital deficiencies that have been built up over a period of years.

There are tunnels and bridges and trackage and the cantanary lines, the electric lines and so forth that go with it, all of which are in need desperately of capital repair and a steady infusion of money to bring that up to date. These are expensive propositions when nothing has been done or so little has been done over a period of time.

So first the gentleman has made an effort to reduce the operating subsidy, which no rail system anywhere in the world can function without it, and now he's reducing the capital grant program down to a level which leaves us with an ever-worsening state of safety and repair on the part of the system that is actually owned by the Federal Government.

So this should not be done. This is a bad amendment. This is another killer amendment for Amtrak, and I hope that the amendment will be defeated.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 60, line 16, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

It has been my understanding that you were going to withdraw the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I think we got a little bit confused by the chairman of the authorizing committee's involvement here. But in any case, I very much sympathize with the gentleman from New Jersey's point of view. There is language in our report that deals specifically with businesses using railroad properties as waste transfer handling points and urges the Surface Transportation Board to ensure that these types of operations are subject to local, State, and Federal regulations as other solid waste facilities are.

So, again, I sympathize with the gentleman from New Jersey and Members from other affected States. My subcommittee will work with the STB to close this legal loophole and prevent instances of illegal handling of solid waste on railroad facilities. But it is an authorizing issue, and we have not allowed authorizing issues in the legislation this year. My ranking member has been particularly insistent and I have been insistent about that as we have moved thus far. And so I would have insisted on my point of order, and I appreciate the gentleman's withdrawing the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to cut the $330 million from the Tenant-based Rental Assistance account will not hold the program steady at the fiscal 2007 level. It will actually cut somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 families that are currently in the program. That means that somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 families, that is a large margin but that is families, that is real people, that currently have a section 8 voucher will find themselves without a home in fiscal year 2008.

Now, we know that rents increase each year. This is a market-based program, and market-based programs do escalate, are subject to inflation.

And that's what this $330 million amount was. It was a deficiency in the President's budget, where the President's budget was presented to the Congress before the actions in this continuing resolution in February of this year were acted upon, were taken by the Congress, and the President signed, ultimately, that legislation in the continuing resolution.

So, his original amount of money was for an entirely different set of circumstances because there was a restructuring of the section 8, the tenant-based section 8 program in the continuing resolution. And keeping the people with the number of vouchers, the vouchers that have been out there, we had to come up with the additional money in this bill which only allows the same number of people to have vouchers.

There is one $30 million amount in here for the first incremental vouchers added to the system in about 6 years; $30 million to be used for new vouchers for nonelderly disabled people and homeless veterans. As my ranking member pointed out, while we were affording 4,000 new vouchers, 3,000 of them go to nonelder disabled people, and 1,000 of them go to nonelder disabled people who also happen to be homeless veterans. That's how the 4,000 is structured. It's a very good, one of only a handful of initiatives in this bill for new vouchers for that particular program.

I can't really fathom why anybody would want to deny thousands of people with disabilities and homeless veterans a chance to live in a safe, affordable home.

I strongly oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would also like to point out to the gentleman from Ohio that we have available about, under authorization, 2.1 million vouchers of which this bill only funds 1.9 million of them at the level that we have provided the money with the 4,000 additional vouchers.

I would like to remind that the authorizing committee just brought out legislation and has added 20,000 in authorization for each of the next 5 years. Whether we will have the funding next year to actually provide that money, I do not know, but they're asking for us not only to move upward toward filling the vouchers that presently are authorized, but also adding some additional ones.

And the reason for that is that we have 8 million families roughly, 8 million households in this country which are living at incomes below 30 percent of the median income in their areas, and we are only providing somewhere in the range of 2 million, a little bit less even in this funding, of money for rental assistance for those people. So we're not coming anywhere close to dealing with the poorest people who are eligible under the law as it is written for that rental assistance because their income lies below 30 percent of median income in the area involved.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3074, the Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, THUD, Appropriations Act of 2008. First and foremost, I am pleased that the bill fully funds the Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs at the levels guaranteed by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU.

At the same time, I regret that the bill rescinds $3 billion in highway funds that have been apportioned to the States, but are not available for obligation. However, I understand the significant funding constraints faced by the Committee on Appropriations in crafting the fiscal year 2008 THUD appropriations bill. If the Committee did not rescind this excess contract authority, it would have had to make real cuts in Amtrak funding, Federal Aviation Administration operations, and other critical programs. Given the Committee on Appropriations' limited choices, I have refrained from objecting to this rescission.

I appreciate Chairman Obey's and Subcommittee Chairman Oliver's willingness to work with me on this issue. The Committee on Appropriations did agree to my request that this rescission be applied proportionally to all Federal-aid highway programs. I have been very concerned with the way States have been implementing previous rescissions, and language included in H.R. 3074 would ensure that the rescission contained in this legislation will not undermine the priorities established in SAFETEA-LU.

I am particularly concerned with the treatment of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, CMAQ, program under previous rescissions. The CMAQ program provides funding for projects and programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in

areas that do not meet Clean Air Act air quality standards (i.e., nonattainment and maintenance areas). While representing about 4-5 percent of highway apportionments each year, CMAQ funds have accounted for about 20 percent of total highway funds rescinded in recent years. In FY 2006 alone, States rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds, an amount that is equal to 55 percent of the total amount apportioned to the States for the CMAQ program that year.

Comparing the treatment of CMAQ to other highway programs further illustrates the disproportionate effects of these rescissions. In FY 2006, looking at rescissions as a percentage of the amounts apportioned for each program, the rescission of 55 percent of CMAQ funds compares to a rescission of only 12 percent of Interstate Maintenance funds and seven percent of National Highway System funds.

The Transportation Enhancements program has also received disproportionate contract authority cuts under the rescissions. The Transportation Enhancements program provides funds for bike paths, pedestrian walkways, historic preservation, and other activities that expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience.

In FY 2006, States rescinded $602 million in Transportation Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in that year. Texas alone rescinded $223 million of Transportation Enhancements funding and the Texas Department of Transportation stated that it would not fund any transportation enhancement projects in that fiscal year. Texas' actions are directly contrary to our Federal efforts to develop a balanced, multimodal surface transportation system.

The language of H.R. 3074 is consistent with the approach taken in H.R. 2701, the Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and will ensure that the priorities set by Congress in SAFETEA-LU are implemented as intended. I greatly appreciate the Committee on Appropriations' willingness to address my concerns on this issue.

Throughout the bill, there are a number of other rescissions of highway, motor carrier safety, highway safety, and transit funds that raise concerns for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In particular, section 124 rescinds $172 million of unobligated balances of contract authority for research programs conducted by the Federal Highway Administration. Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1195, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act, which provides additional resources to ensure that the highway research program receives the funding necessary to continue essential programs. Unfortunately, section 124 of the bill before us today rescinds some of these necessary research funds.

The final concern I would like to address today is the earmarking of Airport Improvement Program funds. The report accompanying H.R. 3084 includes a listing of 72 airport projects which the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, is directed to fund. The law governing the Airport Improvement Program requires the FAA to establish a priority system to decide which projects will receive funding. The FAA's National Priority System, which has been in use for many years, gives highest priority to projects that will bring airports into compliance with safety standards. Second priority is given to projects that are necessary to meet security requirements. Third priority is given to reconstruction or rehabilitation projects that are needed to preserve existing airport infrastructure. Fourth priority is given to projects needed to achieve compliance with current FAA standards. Fifth priority is given to capacity enhancement projects.

Aviation projects are not like projects in other modes of transportation. For example, an improvement to a highway project in one city does not necessarily benefit highway users in any other city, but in the national system of integrated airports, an improvement in one airport, particularly a major hub airport, could benefit aviation travelers throughout the system. For this reason, the FAA should have, and does have, discretion to fund improvements as it deems necessary to improve the aviation system as a whole. To limit the FAA's discretion in this regard would only worsen the congestion and delays we are already experiencing today.

I want to make it clear that the language in a report cannot override a priority system established under the governing law. I would like to quote from the decision of the Comptroller General on a similar situation. The Comptroller General wrote: ``It is our view that when Congress merely appropriates lump sum amounts without statutorily restricting what can be done with those funds, a clear inference arises that it does not intend to impose legally binding restrictions, and indicia in committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should be or are expected to be spent do not establish any legal requirements on Federal agencies.''

Throughout my career, I have steadfastly resisted designating airport improvement projects in authorizing legislation and in report language, and will continue to resist such designations. I urge the Committee on Appropriations to do so as well.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member of the committee, is misguided and an inappropriate amendment.

As the gentleman has already acknowledged, we discussed this in committee on our climate change legislation. We had a voice vote in which the gentleman's amendment failed.

It would strike the provision that is in this appropriation bill to require States to implement their future rescissions on a proportional basis; rescissions, that is cuts of unobligated contract authority, to make those reductions proportional.

States have applied previous rescissions in a disproportional way. They have disproportionately cut funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program that helps cities clean their air and move people more expeditiously.

They have disproportionately cut funds from the bridge program, from transportation enhancement funds, all of which play critical roles in creating mode choices and options and alternatives for moving people in our major metropolitan areas and in rural areas.

Flexibility, States have an enormous amount of flexibility under the current SAFETEA-LU law. They have the ability to transfer up to 50 percent of their programmatic apportionments to other apportioned programs. The National Highway System, States can transfer 100 percent from NHS funds to surface transportation.

This language will not in any way restrict States' flexibility in implementing the highway programs to meet

their priorities. It will restrict the practice of targeting specific programs for disproportionate cuts to meet their rescission requirements.

Now, the Equity Bonus Program, here is an example of the enormous flexibility States have under the current highway law. Funds under Equity Bonus are distributed to eligible States and apportioned to the interstate maintenance, the National Highway System, to the Bridge Program, to the Surface Transportation Program, Highway Safety Program and to CMAQ. States can use those funds to distribute the Equity Bonus account around to the eligibilities of these programs as they see fit to the needs of their specific State.

In fiscal year 2007, States got $8.327 billion in Equity Bonus accounts. They have a lot of flexibility with that amount of money. States have significant unobligated balances of contract authority available in all categories of the Federal-aid highway program.

As of May 31 of this year, States had a total of $46.5 billion in unobligated funds. That's $3.16 billion in the CMAQ program, 2 years' worth of apportionments.

They have got plenty of flexibility. They can use this money where they choose. Yet States have consistently chosen to target specific programs for disproportional cuts. Example, congestion mitigation and air quality improvement. That's only 4 or 5 percent of the total SAFETEA-LU program. But CMAQ funds account for 20 percent of the total rescissions in recent years.

States rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds in 2006. That's $1 out of every $4 out of this one little program that metropolitan areas have to reduce congestion and pollution.

In 2006, rescissions were distributed this way. They cut 55 percent out of CMAQ. They cut 12 percent out of interstate maintenance. They cut 7 percent out of the national highway system.

In 2006, they cut $602 million out of the enhancements program. It was specifically set up to benefit communities that want to provide other transportation opportunities for their people. That's 15 percent of the rescissions just out of enhancements.

Madam Chairman, in Texas, for example, of the $305 million assigned to Texas under the 2006 rescission, a total of $241 million of their cuts came from CMAQ and transportation enhancements. That's 79 percent of the amount that Texas alone cut out of these very small proportion programs.

Now, we should not allow States to just target certain programs. We have created a structure within the Federal-Aid Highway Program of categories of funding. We all voted for it. It's now law, and if they're going to cut, their cuts ought to be proportional across the board.

The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations supports our position, National Association of Counties, regional councils, Rails- to-Trails Conservancy, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. The gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, it should not pass. States have enormous amounts of flexibility. We ought to defeat the amendment.

Madam Chairman, this same amendment was offered in the last Congress and got 60 votes. It's as misguided now as it was then.

The Committee on Appropriations for the first time in a dozen years has provided a net increase in funding for Amtrak. We are not going to be here tonight or tomorrow when we vote on this and cut those funds and reduce Amtrak to the beggar position that it has been in for the last dozen years.

For the last 12 years, supporters of Amtrak have been reduced to pleading to just restore the funding; not to increase, not to advance the cause of Amtrak, but simply restore to where it was with the inadequate amounts that this administration has proposed. Most of the time they proposed to cut Amtrak.

In fact, when I hear Amtrak reform, I know what it means. It means cut the funds, tie their hands, submit Amtrak to a board that's going to run it into the ground, not run it into the 21st century.

As the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, has said, the committee bill provides nearly $120 million increase in funding for the homeless. That's the first time in 4 years. A 23 percent increase, that's substantial. I'm for it. We don't need to take money out of Amtrak to increase funds for the homeless. Amtrak needs help.

I hear this old saw time and again. Oh, Amtrak is bleeding money, and we are subsidizing it. What do you do for the airlines? What do you do for highways? We provide funds for the highway program. We provide funds for aviation.

Amtrak is the residue of what was left when the railroads abandoned their passenger service in the 1960s and to the eve of 1970 when Amtrak was created. Time and again, they conspired with the Postal Service to take the railway post office off the passenger service so that then they would have a losing proposition, and they could apply for discontinuance to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and they did. They shut down passenger rail service to small towns, and they also lost less-than-carload service, and towns went out of business because they didn't have a small shipping service on freight rail with passengers to move their goods.

So what did Amtrak get? When we created Amtrak in 1970, we got the dregs of what was left of intercity passenger rail service, and the Congress for several years was trying to build up Amtrak to provide funds for improved rail, and railbed and rolling stock. But over the last 12 years, we haven't had the funds to do that with Amtrak.

Every industrialized Nation in the world has high-speed intercity passenger service. In France you can travel on the TGV a distance from International Falls to Minneapolis-Saint Paul, 185 miles an hour, 220- some miles, in 80 minutes, 80 minutes, in France. They can do that in Spain on the Talgo. They can do it in Germany on the ICE. They can do it in Japan on the Shinkansen. We don't have a high-speed, 185-mile-an- hour passenger rail service anywhere in America. The best Amtrak can do is 150 miles in a few segments of its track.

But if we make the investments, if we invest in improving the tracks, if we invest in the catanaries and improve the patographs on the existing locomotives in the Northeast corridor, we can have that high- speed rail service. We should have it. We should have it on the Northern Tier. We should have it from Chicago down to New Orleans. With we ought to have it all through the Southwest and the Southeast.

We need Amtrak rail passenger service in this country. We need a high-speed, modern, intercity rail passenger service in this country. We are a proud industrialized Nation. We have the highest mobility of people in the world.

In the aftermath of September 11, what did people take? They couldn't fly, and the highways were crowded. They took Amtrak.

We need to upgrade Amtrak. We need to invest in Amtrak. We need to invest in its future. This is where America has an opportunity to move from this highway-dependent economy of ours, reduce our dependence on imported oil, move people more efficiently and more effectively with high-speed intercity passenger rail, as every industrialized nation in the world does except the United States.

This is a misguided amendment. I regret that my dear friend, the lovely gentlewoman from central Minnesota, has offered this amendment, one of her first offerings in the House, but I have to say, it is misguided, it is the wrong thing to do. We need to defeat this amendment as we did in the last Congress.

This is, as the chairman of the subcommittee has said, a shutdown amendment. It would totally eliminate operating grants for Amtrak and guarantee a shutdown. I suppose that is what the gentleman wants as he offers the amendment. He knows what he is doing. He is a very astute Member of this body. But I want to widen the perspective here.

The effects would ripple through our economy, through our national transportation system, stranding millions of passengers and force them onto already congested roadways and airways.

People in 106 cities served by Amtrak who are without air service would have to find new means of transportation; 19,000 Amtrak workers would lose their jobs. Their local economies, businesses would suffer. The railroad retirement and unemployment programs that cover employees of freight rail as well as passenger rail would eventually be depleted. We would be scrambling around here trying to restore the railroad retirement fund. It would disrupt commuter operations with whom Amtrak has contractual arrangements, stranding millions more passengers. GAO has reported to our committee that an abrupt cessation of Amtrak would result in major disruptions or shutdowns of commuter rail service throughout the country, stranding and straining regional transportation systems as hundreds of thousands of regular commuter rail passengers would have to look for alternative transportation.

It would increase costs for our freight rails. If Amtrak were to shut down, the freight rail industry would lose some $5.3 billion over the next 6 years. That would also include the loss of $57 million Amtrak pays each year to the four class I railroads for access to their infrastructure and increase tier II taxes to keep the railroad retirement system solvent. It would shut down operations of freight railroads in the northeast corner. Norfolk Southern relies on Amtrak's dispatch and infrastructure systems throughout that corridor to provide rail service to major mid-Atlantic markets. Without Amtrak, cost of the freight rails to maintain operations on those lines would be very substantial.

The real issue with Amtrak is it has been on a starvation diet practically since the time that we created Amtrak in 1970. But little by little, people are seeking alternative operations. They learned in the aftermath, as I said a moment ago, of September 11, that the only option to travel without air was inner-city passenger rail.

Amtrak, in 2006, had 24.3 million passengers. President Alex Kummant of Amtrak told us very recently on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that they expect 2007 to far surpass 2006 ridership levels. So far this year, just in the first quarter of this year, Amtrak had 2.17 million passengers. That is nearly a 7 percent increase over the previous year.

So keep funding Amtrak, give it an opportunity to breathe, give it this additional investment that it needs. Soon our committee will come to the floor with a substantial increase in funding for Amtrak to put it on course to be a real world-class competitor in inner-city passenger rail service.

When I was a student just graduating from college in St. Paul, the College of St. Thomas, I won a scholarship to study at the College of Europe in Belgium. I traveled from my home in Chisolm by bus to the Twin Cities, and there I talk the Milwaukee 400: 400 miles to Chicago in 400 minutes. And in Europe, I took the train from Paris to Brussels and then on to Brugge in Belgium for this program. That was a 6-hour trip. Today, that 6-hour trip is 80 minutes traveling at 185 miles an hour on the TGV.

Today you can't get to Chicago in 400 minutes from Minneapolis, not even by air. By the time you travel, drive to the airport, park your car, go through security, wait for the plane, get off the plane, try to get to your destination, you can't do it. We need a restructure, a rebuild, a reinvigorated Amtrak. Don't kill it with this amendment.

The chairman has said it very well. The gentleman from Arizona first wants to cut the operating account, and then, after Amtrak is unable to operate, then cut their capital and debt service funds, and then, I guess, bury passenger rail service in America. He doesn't provide for a burial service, however, and we're not about to do that.

This would cut the $425 million in capital and debt service grants that would go below the level recommended by Amtrak's Board of Directors, who haven't been known to be generously supportive of their own organization. It would undermine the solvency of Amtrak. The capital needs are critical to operating Amtrak, to bring it to a state of good repair and maintain it in a state of decent and good repair. The capital overhead program on rolling stock is critical to keep aging equipment in safe working order and minimize failures.

You should go out sometime to the Amtrak repair facility in Indianapolis and see the highly skilled technicians who are working to repair and restore locomotives and passenger cars and the dining service cars. They are meticulous workers who are saving Amtrak hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars a year by restoring old equipment, putting it into a good state of operation. This amendment would cut the guts out from that operation. That doesn't make any sense whatever.

Amtrak has been investing in its deferred capital needs since 2003, incrementally, with not enough money, by far too little to reach the goals that they must attain, but they're doing it nonetheless. And the result is that with those very skilled workers, 70 percent of Amtrak's passenger car fleet and 85 percent of its locomotives will be in a state of good repair by the end of fiscal 2007.

Now, if you cut this money out, they'll never be able to bridge the gap and go on to make the other improvements that are needed.

I heard the gentleman say, well, we need to cut the funding and force change, and subject Amtrak to market forces. Well, in a hospital you don't cut off the blood supply to a patient and say, we're going to push the patient into a state of good health. That idea went out with applying leeches to the body and draining the body's fluids and essential operations. It doesn't make any sense.

And the gentleman, as many others have misguidedly said, we need to subject Amtrak to market forces. That implies that there's some other competitive passenger rail service in this country. There isn't. The railroads abandoned it in the 1960s. They didn't want to operate passenger rail service. It was much easier to carry freight than to carry people in this country. And they ran the passenger rail service into the ground, and then they handed it over to the Federal Government and said, here you take it. You do it. You do something good for the country.

Well, Congress did. I was here on the staff at the time when Amtrak was created. There was great hope for it. There were going to be capital investments made. The rail was going to help out with all the support that was needed for the infrastructure of intercity passenger rail. None of that happened.

Freight rails last year earned $4.5 billion net after-tax profit hauling freight. Amtrak is on a starvation diet made worse over the last 12 years by this previous leadership in Congress refusing to provide funding. But with a few enlightened Members on the other side supporting us over here, we were able to keep Amtrak alive, just keep it moving along, just hand-to-mouth existence.

Well, no more. There's a new leadership in this Congress. The gentleman from Massachusetts has seen the need, seen the opportunity to make investments. He has provided the funding in this bill. We need to move ahead. We should not cut the operating funds nor the capital grants. We ought to be doing far more than we are doing already in this bill. But this is at least a start and moves us in the right direction. We have to defeat this amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I support the gentleman's effort here. The Surface Transportation Board has attempted to insert itself into a matter that the gentleman has very well and thoroughly described, but it is sadly mistaken in its effort to preempt State rights in this arena. So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.

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

I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, which spends $3.2 billion more than last year's Republican-crafted legislation. It also spends $2.8 billion, almost 6 percent, more than requested by President Bush for this year's transportation and housing funding.

Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record the President's Statement of Administration Policy pledging a veto of this legislation due to its fiscal irresponsibility.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3074--Transportation. Housing; and Urban Development.

and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2008

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3074 because, in

combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it

includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and

includes other objectionable provisions.

The President has proposed a responsible plan for a

balanced budget by 2012 through spending restraint and

without raising taxes. To achieve this important goal, the

Administration supports a responsible discretionary spending

total of not more than $933 billion in FY 2008, which is a

$60 billion increase over the FY 2007 enacted level. The

Democratic Budget Resolution and subsequent spending

allocations adopted by the House Appropriations Committee

exceed the President's discretionary spending topline by $22

billion, causing a 9 percent increase in FY 2008

discretionary spending. In addition, the Administration

opposes the House Appropriations Committee's plan to shift

$3.5 billion from the Defense appropriations bill to non-

defense spending, which is inconsistent with the Democrats'

Budget Resolution and risks diminishing America's war

fighting capacity.

H.R. 3074 exceeds the President's request for programs

funded in this bill by $3.4 billion, part of the $22 billion

increase above the President's request for FY 2008

appropriations. The Administration has asked that Congress

demonstrate a path to live within the President's top line

and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions

elsewhere, while ensuring the Department of Defense has the

resources necessary to accomplish its mission. Because

Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if H.R. 3074

were presented to the President, he would veto the bill.

The President has called on Congress to reform the

earmarking process that has led to wasteful and unnecessary

spending. Specifically, he called on Congress to provide

greater transparency and full disclosure of earmarks, to put

them in the language of the bill itself, and to cut the cost

and number by at least half. The Administration opposes any

efforts to shield earmarks from public scrutiny and urges

Congress to bring full transparency to the earmarking process

and to cut the cost and number of earmarks by at least half.

The Administration would like to take this opportunity to

share additional views regarding the Committee's version of

the bill.

Department of Transportation (DOT)

Federal Highway Administration. The Administration strongly

objects to increasing funds for the Federal Aid Highway

program based on adjustments determined through a revenue

aligned budget authority (RABA) mechanism. At authorized

levels, the Highway Account is spending beyond its means and

will be insolvent by 2009. Providing additional funding

through RABA adjustments only exacerbates the situation,

making the highway account oversubscribed by an additional

$500 million before the end of the SAFETEA-LU authorization

in FY 2009. Further steps will ultimately be needed, but

withholding RABA is an important first step to avoid the

threat of gas tax increases or a raid on the general fund.

Amtrak. The Administration strongly objects to providing

$1.4 billion for Amtrak, which will perpetuate a flawed model

for intercity passenger rail. While the bill provides some

funding for Intercity Passenger Rail Capital Grants, which

will help encourage sustainable, demand-driven service, the

bill fails to include reform provisions proposed by the

Administration to improve accountability and encourage

competition.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Administration

is disappointed that the Committee did not adopt the

President's proposal to align FAA's budget accounts with its

lines of business and to delineate the specific uses of the

General Fund contribution. These proposals would provide

greater transparency, improve management of resources, and

complement the reforms proposed by the Administration in the

NextGen Financing Reform Act of 2007.

Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund. The Administration

opposes the one-year extension for the war risk insurance

program for domestic air carriers, which crowds out private

sector mechanisms for diversifying risk. The Administration

has proposed reforms in the NextGen Financing Reform Act that

ensure that air carriers more equitably share in the risks

associated with this program.

US.-Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot. The Committee

report highlights a number of issues related to the U.S.

Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot. The Administration

assures the Committee that the pilot will be conducted in

compliance with the conditions and reporting requirements set

forth in P.L. 110-28. However, the Administration would

strongly oppose any amendment that is intended to delay or

restrict the pilot program.

Reduction Proposals. The Budget proposed reductions in some

programs, such as DOT's Essential Air Service program, FAA's

Airport Improvement Program, and the Federal Transit

Administration's Capital Investment Grants. These reductions

are programmatically justified and would reduce Federal

spending. In addition, the House should consider reductions

to unrequested items, such as the Rail Line Relocation and

Improvement Program.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

The bill exceeds the request for HUD programs by more than

$3.5 billion. The President's Budget provides increases for

high-performing and high-priority programs, ensures effective

implementation of HUD programs, and reduces funds for lower

performing programs.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The

Administration objects to the $1 billion increase for the

CDBG program through a formula that is long outdated and, in

many cases, provides more money to wealthier communities than

poorer ones. The Administration urges Congress to pass the

CDBG legislative reform proposal that was transmitted on June

5, 2007, which improves targeting to the neediest communities

and provides incentives to expand economic growth more

strategically. In addition, the Administration recommends

eliminating the $180 million in funding for congressional

earmarks.

HOME/American Dream Downpayment Initiative. The

Administration objects to the more than $200 million

reduction to the request for the HOME Investment Partnerships

Program. In spite of the growing need for affordable housing,

the House bill would cut this high-performing program with an

effective track record of housing production for

low-income families and flexibility for communities to tailor

housing assistance to their unique needs. Moreover, the

Administration objects to the lack of funding for the

American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides crucial

assistance to increase first-time homeownership.

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. The House bill reflects

support for the Administration's proposal to reform the

Housing Choice Voucher program. This includes tying Public

Housing Authority (PHA) administrative expense payments to

the number of assisted families, maintaining rental

assistance to the 2007 allocations based on the prior-year's

actual expenditures, and providing incentive funds for

smaller PHAs to consolidate. The House bill should also

eliminate the cap on the number of families PHAs can assist

to unlock PHA funds to permit greater housing assistance. The

Administration's request would aid significant numbers of

additional families and renew approximately 1.9 million

vouchers currently in use, without the Committee's addition

of $330 million in unrequested funds.

Reducing Chronic Homelessness. The bill supports the

Administration's goal of reducing and ending chronic

homelessness; however, the House should also fund the

Prisoner Re-Entry program.

Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The bill supports the

Administration's proposal to increase multifamily loan limits

in high-cost areas and lift the statutory cap on the number

of Home Equity Conversion Mortgages that HUD can insure

through the end of FY 2008. However, the Administration would

prefer to permanently lift the cap to allow HUD to continue

assisting the market in providing this financial vehicle. The

Administration also is concerned that the Committee report

purports to direct HUD to reverse its implementation of

certain recently enacted asset disposition reforms for FHA

multifamily programs, which would increase the deficit by $38

million in FY 2008.

Other Housing Programs. The Administration's request

provides a program base funding level for public housing that

can be sustained in future years and, hence, the

Administration does not support the substantial increases for

these programs in the reported bill. The Administration also

objects to the funding provided for the HOPE VI program. HOPE

VI has accomplished its original goal. The Administration

also opposes the unreasonably high amount of new section 202

and 811 housing unit construction in the bill, which

simultaneously reduces resources dedicated to tenant

services, threatens future preservation, and exacerbates a

large and growing fiscal responsibility.

Working Capital Fund. The Administration strongly objects

to the $95 million reduction. HUD has made significant

improvements in strategically and responsibly investing its

IT system resources, with demonstrated success The requested

funds are needed to continue to improve HUD financial

management and provide proper program delivery and

compliance. In addition, the requirement for Committee

approval of E-Government funding transfers should be removed.

These systems support HUD's core mission and operations.

Lower Performing Programs. The Administration opposes the

funding provided for lower performing programs such as

section 108 loan guarantees, Brownfields, and Rural Housing.

These programs are duplicative, lack long-term outcome

measures, and have been unable to produce transparent

information on results.

Exemption from Credit Reform. The Administration opposes

section 218, which would prohibit using funds provided in

this or any other act to implement the requirements of the

Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 beyond those already being

implemented by the Government National Mortgage Association.

Congress enacted credit reform in 1990 to more accurately

budget for the full cost of credit programs and to bring

greater transparency to credit programs in the budget

process. This provision of the bill begins to unravel this

important reform by setting a precedent that could undermine

ongoing efforts to accurately estimate and report the costs

of credit programs in the Federal budget and Federal

financial statements.

Employment Eligibility Verification System

The Administration supports the use of the Employment

Eligibility Verification System, previously known as the

Basic Pilot Program, but urges the Congress to provide for a

transition period to permit agencies to effectively implement

acquisition policies and procedures.

Constitutional Concerns

Sections 405 and 406 purport to require approval of the

Committees prior to Executive Branch action. Since these

provisions would contradict the Supreme Court's ruling in INS

v. Chadha, they should be changed to require only

notification of Congress.

This year House Republicans proposed an alternative budget that would have achieved balance by 2012 and ended the raid on Social Security without raising taxes, simply by raising a strong economy, reforming currently unsustainable entitlement programs and exercising accountability in government spending.

Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected by the majority of Democrats who have, instead, chosen to pass a budget containing the second largest tax increase in history and one that spends more than $22 billion more than President Bush had proposed for our Nation's priorities.

While today's legislation does find a number of worthy projects across the country, it also spends $1.4 billion, or $600 million above President Bush's request, for a program that has proven to be one of the Federal Government's worst fiscal black holes, Amtrak.

For the last few years, I have worked to address the rampant cost overruns and fiscal mismanagement in Amtrak by offering amendments and legislation to cut funding for the 10 worst money-losing lines and to competitively source some of Amtrak services so that the private-sector efficiencies could be used to help fix this broken system.

This week I am going to take a much narrower approach to fixing the fiscal disaster at Amtrak by offering a very simple amendment to cut funding for the most fiscally wasteful train line in the country, the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Los Angeles, California.

If a passenger were to ride the Sunset Limited from New Orleans to Los Angeles, it would take 46 hours and 20 minutes to complete the journey, assuming, of course, the train runs on time, which is highly unlikely, as this happens only 10 percent of the time. According to Amtrak's most recent performance report, the Sunset Limited ranks as the third most delayed route in 2007.

Perhaps because of this poor performance, this route lost a staggering $117 million between 2003 and 2006, losing an average of $29.27 million a year for the last 4 years. Taxpayers across the country are being asked to subsidize the fares of each passenger on this train by a whopping 57 cents per mile for each passenger.

In 2006, the Federal Government spent $524 per passenger getting these passengers from New Orleans to Los Angeles, meaning it would have been far cheaper, and, I'd add, faster, if we would just buy each passenger a plane trip ticket for their travel. The Federal Government could come out way ahead.

If my amendment were approved last year, Congress would have saved taxpayers $20.4 million. I believe it is not too much to ask for Congress to show a small bit of common sense and fiscal restraint by prohibiting funds to continue to be spent on the absolute worst line in Amtrak's system.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to debating this amendment and many others that have been proposed on the Republican side of the aisle to pare down the excessive spending contained in this bill and to bring some fiscal sanity back to the appropriations process that will ultimately increase discretionary spending by $82 billion, or a whopping 9 percent increase in spending if all the new spending proposed by the Democrat majority is signed into law.

This Congress must do better, especially for a large group of people who have been jumping up and down talking about how spending money and balanced budgets are important. But, once again, I know what happens here on this floor of the House of Representatives. Democrats want to tax, and they want to spend. What they want to do is they want to grow the Federal budget, and what I want to do is keep it from encroaching on family budgets and taxpayers from my home State of Texas and those all across the United States.

I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation as it's currently drafted.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Land of Enchantment, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Madam Speaker, under the agreement that we just had with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), I'm going to go ahead and close, and then we are now through with our speakers and allow the gentleman to do the same thing.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question for this rule. Our country is facing a very serious problem that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August, and, to date, the majority Democrats have not shown a commitment to deal seriously nor quickly enough with one of the most serious threats facing America.

If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that clarifies one very simple and critical thing; that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States.

The Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Hayden, have testified to Congress that, under current law, their hands are tied. As Director McConnell recently testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology. Today our Intelligence Community is forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside of our Nation, and, as a result, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting.'' I'll say it in my own way: The things that we would expect our government to know and be prepared for.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to be deaf and blind to terrorist communications that threaten our very existence because of a law that is woefully outdated. All of us have heard public reports from the Department of Homeland Security that terrorist chatter is at record levels that we have not seen since 2001. We have to open our ears, we have to open our eyes to keep this Nation safe. It can be done tonight with our part of this, Madam Speaker.

If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are serious about facing down the threat, they will join me in defeating the previous question so that the House will be able to address this very real and very serious threat immediately.

I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous material in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 558 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, today, the House will take up the ninth of 12 appropriation measures where we will continue the effort to take America in a new direction, where we focus on priorities of concern to average Americans throughout this country.

Through these bills, the new Congress is restoring our focus on a domestic agenda that helps all Americans, not just the wealthy few and not just the well-connected corporations.

We will make sure, as we have, that our veterans have the care they need. We'll reverse neglect in environmental protection that's been abandoned, been neglected for the past several years, and we'll fund housing programs for low- and moderate-income Americans. We will provide resources to ensure that children arrive at school ready to learn and have the health care that they need, and we will make certain that our law enforcement officials have the tools that they need to protect our citizens.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 558 provides for consideration of H.R. 3074, the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for 2008. This will be done under an open rule. This is a bipartisan bill that was presented before the Rules Committee by Chairman Olver and Ranking Member Knollenberg. It was a pleasure, frankly, to see the cooperation of these two gentlemen and the members of that committee coming together to present to the House for its consideration a very impressive plan to meet our infrastructure and housing needs in the future.

As you know, demographic changes and growth patterns in the United States over the next decade will continue to have a major impact on transportation networks and the need for affordable housing. This bill seeks to ensure that our Nation's transportation system is safe and efficient and that our citizens have access to safe and affordable housing. The bill does so in a way that strengthens the economy and is environmentally and fiscally responsible.

The bill safeguards the regional needs of our Nation by rejecting administration proposed cuts that provide air service to rural communities, and it invests in transit projects for our urban areas that will help our commuters save time and money getting to work. The bill also rejects administration cuts to Amtrak, protects national rail service, and fully funds the highway and transit guarantees set forth in the SAFETEA-LU authorization bill.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recognized the need to support rural airports, something very important to people like me from a rural State like Vermont. Investments in airports, like the Rutland State Airport in Vermont, are critical to rural States and an effective transportation system. The bill includes $110 million for essential air service to continue service to small and/or rural communities as well as $10 million for the Small Community Air Service Development Program that will continue the Department of Transportation grant program to help our small communities to attract commercial air services.

Among other things, the committee also includes $75 million for the FTA's Clean Fuels Grant program, $26 million above 2007 for clean fuel bus technology. Public transportation companies like the Chittenden County Transportation Authority in Vermont are taking responsibility for their fleet's emissions by making investments in new, fuel- efficient, low-carbon-emitting buses; and this legislation supports those efforts.

In housing, the bill rejects a $2 billion cut proposed by the administration to eliminate housing programs for the poorest citizens in this country and, instead, aims to make sure that all Americans have adequate shelter. The proposed cuts that this bill would reject include deep cuts to HUD, Community Development Block Grants and programs that provide housing for the elderly and disabled. Funding is included so that anyone with a voucher will not lose it. The President's proposed cuts come at a time when fully three-quarters of households that are

actually eligible for HUD assistance are not receiving that assistance.

And more than 1 million low-income households across New England, including elderly, disabled and families, live in federally assisted housing. Most of these households have annual incomes of less than $8,000, and they're obviously at serious risk of homelessness. Even larger numbers of households are struggling to survive in a private housing market and are paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent.

The Community Development Block Grant is a valuable resource for cities and States struggling to ensure opportunities for residents to live in safe and affordable communities. It's a tool that helps our local officials do, locally, something that builds up their communities. This program has funded projects that improve the quality of life across the country, including infrastructure improvement and economic development.

In 2007, again using Vermont as an example, we received $8.4 million in CDBG funds. This bill provides $4 billion for CDBG grants across the country. That's $228 million above the 2007 appropriation.

The need to recommit to housing and transportation priorities is necessary in every State in the country. It's a priority we must address head on in this body. This bill takes a big step in the right direction.

I also commend the committee for including very strong language requiring HUD to incorporate strong green building and rehabilitation standards into its housing program, particularly focusing on improved energy efficiency, good for the environment, a pretty quick payoff and good for keeping costs down. While green building is relatively new, it's clearly vital to our Nation's homes and buildings, and to our country, that those homes and buildings become more environmentally friendly.

Finally, this bill also reinforces the link between housing and transportation. It establishes a new interagency working group to coordinate transportation and housing policies on the Federal, State and local level.

I again applaud Chairman Olver and Ranking Member Knollenberg for their hard and cooperative work in crafting this excellent bill, and thank them and their staffs for their attention to the needs of the people of Vermont and all States in this country.

I will be urging all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, to respond to a couple of comments that my friend from Texas said, this bill complies with PAYGO. It absolutely meets the commitment that this Congress made to pay the bills that go along with the legislation we propose. It is a commitment to fiscal responsibility.

The past Congresses, as is well known and is just factually beyond dispute, abandoned PAYGO, and it has resulted in the largest deficit of this country. That's number one.

Number two, there really is a bipartisan desire to keep taxes as low as possible and spending as low as possible, but this bill also reflects a bipartisan commitment to build our infrastructure, to provide our citizens with the transportation that they need and

the housing that we need. It was passed on a very strong voice vote, bipartisan work by this committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Olver from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Madam Speaker, I'm the last speaker on this side. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a newfound respect for the Chair of this committee and the ranking member, Mr. Olver and Mr. Knollenberg. They have an incredibly difficult job, and that is to take the responsibility that this House of Representatives has, Democrats and Republicans, to put together a transportation infrastructure program and a housing program, and to do that when they have 435 Members of Congress tugging on their arms every day asking them to include projects in their districts because the Members from those districts sincerely believe that those are essential to the economic development and the transportation needs and the housing needs of the people who live there.

And they managed to do it. They came in, treated every Member of this body with enormous courtesy and patience, listened to what our requests were, and then put together a bill that was bipartisan. It was quite extraordinary. And it was a pleasure to be a member of the Rules Committee and to see these two gentlemen come up and be mutually complimentary after a hard process of allocating $50 billion of taxpayer money for infrastructure and housing improvement in this country. They are to be commended for that.

We then come down to the floor and we get into the back and forth about specific projects and try to pick and cherry pick examples of what is bad when it was the recommendation of the chairman of the committee that this be an open rule; so anybody who has got a problem with any particular project is going to have an opportunity to offer amendment to strike that project and make whatever arguments they want.

This issue of how we restore the transportation infrastructure of our country is vital. The fact is we spend too little, not too much, and it is the funding issue that is a challenge in every Congress. But our infrastructure compared to many of the countries with which we compete economically is woefully behind what the economy of our country needs and the citizens of our country deserve.

I applaud the work of this subcommittee, bipartisan work. And why it is that we have to beat up on the work of the committee by claiming it is partisan, Democrat and Republican, really escapes me. There is nothing partisan about meeting the infrastructure needs of our country. There may be fierce debates about the best way to do it, which projects should get funding, how much you allocate towards the air system versus rail; but the fact is we have got an obligation to improve a crumbling infrastructure in this country, and the bill that has been presented to this Congress on a bipartisan basis, under the leadership of Mr. Olver and Mr. Knollenberg, takes us a solid step forward.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule so that the House can consider H.R. 3074.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Westmoreland to eliminate funding for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program.

The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant is authorized under title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). The block grant is used to carry out affordable housing activities for Native Hawaiian families who are eligible to reside on Hawaiian

homelands which were established in trust by the United States in 1921 under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA).

Due to a variety of factors, including long-term leases for purposes outside of the HHCA and the lack of funding for infrastructure, only 8,000 individuals currently hold leases, and approximately 19,000 remain on a waiting list, and many of our elderly, our kapuna, have died waiting for the dream of home ownership.

I submit for printing in the Record an article from the Honolulu Star Bulletin that introduces these families to us.

[From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, July 9, 2006.]

Homestead awards end long wait for lucky few--One Hawaiian homestead is

awarded to a woman 57 years after her father applied.

(By Alexandre Da Silva with Leila Fujimori)

The line for a homestead was so long for Aloysius Lincoln

that he never saw the end of it.

But yesterday, 57 years after the former Honolulu Gas Co.

employee applied for a lease, his daughter claimed the lease

awarded for the second phase of a Department of Hawaiian Home

Lands project in Kapolei.

``Unfortunately, he died two years ago. He was 87,'' said

Frances Segundo, 60, who was a baby when her father signed up

for the program. ``However, his legacy goes on, because this

award is for our ohana, our family.''

About 2,000 people showed up yesterday morning at the Neal

S. Blaisdell Center Exhibition Hall, where the Department of

Hawaiian Home Lands awarded 250 lots in Phase 2 and Phase 3

of in their Kaupe'a project in Kapolei.

The 52-acre subdivision has 326 lots, 76 of which were

awarded in November 2005.

Segundo, a clerk at Maui Community College, said her

cousin, Naira Martin, would live in the four-bedroom, three-

bathroom house with her daughter, but there would always be

room for another relative.

``I'm free from the rent, which is going to be over with,''

said Martin, 56. The $2,000 she pays each month for rent will

now go toward her mortgage. ``When the whole family comes

from the mainland, Louisiana, they will stay with me. It's a

very good feeling.''

Gov. Linda Lingle, who was present for yesterday's

selection meeting, said the latest awards would help the

state's shortage of affordable rentals as new homeowners are

able to free up rental homes and apartments.

``Those units now become available for the general

public,'' Lingle said. ``It is better for the entire

community.''

Yesterday's crowd was a fraction of the nearly 20,000

native Hawaiians currently on the homestead waiting list,

about half of which are on Oahu, said Lloyd Yonenaka, a

spokesman for the Hawaiian Home Lands Department.

Even though more than 1,200 leases have been given out

since 2003, the department's waiting list keeps growing, at a

pace of about 100 people a month, Yonenaka said.

To qualify, applicants must have at least 50 percent

Hawaiian blood and be pre-approved to afford one of the five

Kaupe'a models, which range between $238,600 and $296,100 in

lots averaging 5,000 square feet. The lease rent for the land

under their homes is $1 per year.

The first phase of the Kaupe'a project is expected to be

completed by the end of the year, while Phase 2 and Phase 3

should be done in the first and second quarters of 2007,

according to the department.

As she signed documents for her new lease yesterday, Vivian

Perreira, 71, said she would vacate her Maili home in

Waianae--where she lives with husband, Alfred, her son and

his two children--sometime next year. Perreira said her

youngest son, 47-year-old Prince, a refuse truck driver for

Rolloffs Hawaii Inc., had to co-sign her application because

her Social Security earnings weren't enough for a loan.

After waiting 48 years for her name to be called, Perreira,

now in a wheelchair, will lease a four-bedroom home on a

corner lot in Kapolei.

``I signed up when I was 23,'' she said. ``I almost gave

up, but I left my name on for so long.''

The federal government set up the Hawaiian Homes Commission

Act in 1921, eventually reserving 200,000 acres statewide to

benefit native Hawaiians. But development of land to provide

homes has been slow, and many families have been on the

waiting list for decades.

Last month the state Supreme Court ruled that 2,700 native

Hawaiians can seek monetary damages in a lawsuit against the

state for its alleged mismanagement of the Hawaiian Home

Lands program.

Not everyone who came yesterday had a happy story to share.

Homes went to 250 families, but 750 people qualified for

lots, which are awarded on the basis of seniority. People who

have qualified and waited the longest are the next in line

for a home.

Lee Kogler, 54, who has been researching her genealogy for

more than 20 years, had to leave without a lease after

arriving at 7 a.m. with her husband, daughter, grandson and

two sons.

Kogler turned in her paperwork in 1991. But after marrying

and moving to New York, Kogler's application was returned,

with the department saying she needed to show the Hawaiian

lineage on her father's side. Finally, in 1994, Kogler combed

through the bound volumes of records at the state Archives,

where she found a Census Bureau report listing her

grandmother, Hannah Kaulia, at age 19, living in the house of

her father, Samuel, a master carpenter.

Kogler, who is number 7,954 on the wait list for Oahu, said

she would never quit trying for a lease.

``It's not a sad day,'' Kogler said, citing plans by the

department to award another 300 lots in Kapolei in October.

``I'm still with hope. I've waited a long time for this, and

I'm not going to give up.''

Aloysius Lincoln first applied for Hawaiian Home Lands in 1949. In 2006, a wait of 57 years, his daughter, Frances Segundo, claimed the lease awarded for the second phase of a Department of Hawaiian Home Lands project on the Island of Oahu. Frances claimed the lease because her father had, unfortunately, passed away 2 years before. Frances herself, now 60 years old, was a baby when her father first signed up for the program. Frances stated that ``[her father's] legacy goes on because this award is for our ohana, our family.''

That is something I would like this body to remember: That this is not just money we are talking about today. We are talking about the opportunity for families to live the American dream of home ownership, and Native Hawaiian families are among those with the greatest need. A study conducted in 1996 by the Urban Institute, the National Commission on the American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, and the State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, found that nearly half of Hawaiian households and 67 percent of those on waiting lists for Hawaiian Homes Lands experienced housing problems related to affordability, overcrowding, or structural inadequacy. That compares with 44 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives living on tribal lands, and 27 percent of all U.S. households.

In 1992, 49 percent of Hawaiian Home Lands applicants lived in overcrowded conditions compared with 37 percent of all Hawaiian households, and 21 percent of non-Hawaiian households. Twenty-eight percent of Hawaiian households put more than 30 percent of income toward housing compared with 22 percent for non-Hawaiians. The rate of homelessness among Hawaiians at 12.2 households per 1,000 is double that of non-Hawaiians.

In 1982, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of the State of Hawaii established a Federal-State task force to renew HHCA and the programs carried under that act. The Federal-State task force issued a report in 1983 with specific recommendations, including one that the State and Federal Government should each make contributions of $29 million per year to accelerate the program.

For the first time in 2000, Federal funding was made available when housing assistance for Native Hawaiians was added to NAHASDA through the Native Hawaiian Block Grant. This amendment follows what I sense is a developing pattern of challenges to programs benefiting Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian people.

The earlier failed challenge to the previously uncontroversial Native Hawaiian Housing Act earlier this year was the first apparent salvo against Native American programs. The attempt to strike funds in the Labor and Education appropriations bill for the Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and the Higher Education Act raises the concerns that all programs benefiting Native Americans will be subjected to attack by certain groups.

The same arguments of constitutionality of these programs benefiting Native Americans have been raised and rejected by this body time and again. This is not race-based discrimination. The relationship between the United States and Native Americans is based on a political relationship, as Supreme Court decisions have consistently held.

Like other indigenous peoples, such as Native Americans and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians have a special trust relationship with the United States. It has been well settled that Congress has clear plenary power to fulfill its obligations to indigenous people who once had sovereign governing entities before the establishment of the United States, and whose lands are currently within the borders of the United States. Like Native

Americans and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians suffered the loss of their sovereignty and lands to the United States.

I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but for these and many other reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.