Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our troops and to support our continuing efforts in Iraq.

It is important that we recognize and honor our troops who are serving in the Middle East. While progress is being made there are still obstacles in the path toward a free and independent Iraqi state. The effort in Iraq is moving along steadily, and our forces are working in conjunction with Iraqi forces toward success in many different areas. American troops are fighting to secure and rebuild cities and to extinguish the insurgency. Our men and women in uniform are doing an exemplary job, and it is essential for us to salute their efforts as they work to ensure stability in a historically unstable region.

Politically, Iraqis have embraced the charter constitution, and the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq reports that 78 percent of voters were in support of its passage. This was a major step in their pursuit of a democratic government and citizens' rights through political reconstruction.

Additionally, American forces are reconstructing the services and infrastructure to move Iraq forward. Electricity, water, education, and sanitation services are being established. Water treatment plants are being built throughout the country, bringing clean water to tens of thousands of homes. Power plants are being restored and refurbished, improvements on transportation infrastructure are being made, and the completion of school renovation and construction projects will facilitate education for Iraqi children.

The war on terror is progressing as well. Our troops are successfully breaking up Al Qaeda by detaining known terrorists and seizing weapons caches. Between the 15th and 18th of October, a known Al Qaeda military leader was killed during Coalition raids and forces from the 172nd Infantry Brigade uncovered 10 weapons caches and detained 16 suspected terrorists in northern Iraq. Continued efforts like these are what it will take to eradicate the threat of terror.

Our soldiers are overseas creating these successes and they deserve our continued support. These brave men and women are risking their lives in order to protect our Nation, our ideals, and our safety. They are fighting for each and everyone of us, fighting for all that we hold dear not just in America, but also worldwide. I want to take this opportunity to thank our Armed Forces for all that they have done and to offer my unrelenting support for their hard work and sacrifice as they continue to work toward the establishment of a free Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks took a stand by refusing to leave her seat for a white man on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She forever changed the course of our nation with one simple act of courage and stubbornness. By keeping her seat in the front of the bus she started a movement which would ensure that African-Americans and other minorities would never again be required to take a back seat to bigotry, prejudice, and racism.

The significance of Rosa Parks' life was not limited to the civil rights movement, as can be evidenced by her reputation with people of all ages. She is just as important to children today as she was to the millions she inspired with her singular act of defiance in 1955. She led the life of a true heroine, refusing to bow down to intolerance, inequality, and narrowmindedness.

She was the voice of courage, the personification of bravery, and the catalyst of change. She sat down when the world told her to get up, inspiring millions to demand equality. She leaves a legacy built upon strength, pride, and hope. She was the beginning of a movement that sought tolerance and equality not only between blacks and whites, but also between people of all backgrounds.

Rosa Parks remains a role model for us all, having demonstrated the importance of perseverance and principle. I was and always will be proud to say that she was, for at least a portion of her life, a Michigander. She will be missed, but her memory will never fade.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. First allow me to congratulate my colleague from Michigan for his hard work in bringing this bill to the floor of the House today. He has been an important champion for manufacturing and this bill is a great example.

American businesses and workers are the most productive in the world. However, because of massive global competition and increasing non- direct costs, our manufacturers are under severe pressure. In many cases these businesses are being forced to deliver their products at constant or even lower prices in order to get their products sold.

At the same time, the costs of inputs they cannot directly control like health care, litigation, raw materials, energy, and many others are increasing. These trends are squeezing the industry incredibly hard.

Manufacturers throughout the country are reacting to this environment by taking the steps they can to become even more efficient and competitive. And they're continually making progress.

While American manufacturers are taking the steps they need to take, it's important for the government to look at appropriate ways we can help. Technology is an area where the federal government has an enormous impact. This bill includes some important steps forward in enhancing American manufacturing technology.

H.R. 250 provides grants, encourages scholarship and strengthens the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. MEP is an important Federal program that has had a documented positive impact on our manufacturing sector, and which is particularly vital to our small and medium-sized manufacturers.

As many Members of Congress know, MEP is a Federal-State-private network of over 60 centers with 400 locations in all 50 States. These not-for-profit centers work with small and medium-sized manufacturers to help them adopt and use the latest and most efficient technologies, processes, and business practices.

The results of MEP speak for themselves. In fiscal year 2003 alone, MEP served more than 18,000 manufacturers nationwide. Those manufacturers reported an additional $2.6 billion in sales, $686 million more in cost savings, $912 million of additional investment in plant modernization, and more than 50,000 more jobs just as a result of their projects with MEP Centers that year. Additionally, an estimate of the federal return on our investment in MEP Centers is $4 in Federal tax revenue for every $1 invested in the program.

Madam Chairman, for all these reasons, it is important for Congress to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting American manufacturing by supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, with the world watching, Israel announced on April 18, 2004 its disengagement plan to withdraw Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip and four West Bank settlements. Intended to improve security for Israeli citizens, Israel's disengagement plan also creates a possibility for greater Middle East peace.

Beginning in 1948, hostile nations have denied Israel's right to exist. Today, violence from terrorist organizations not only threatens stability in the region but the sovereignty of the Israeli people.

With the future uncertain, we must recognize one thing: freedom and security can be the future for both the Palestinian and Israeli people. The impending disengagement creates the opportunity for progress towards this goal.

We must recognize the difficulties Israel will face and support our dependable ally. We must also support efforts by the Palestinian leadership to fight terror and create more peaceful, sound Palestinian regions.

And, as Americans who have faced threats to our own existence, we must never forget what freedom is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to stress the urgency of strengthening Social Security for future generations.

Over the next twenty years, the number of seniors will grow by 70 percent because of the retiring baby boomer generation. A half-century ago, 16 workers paid into Social Security

for every retiree. Today only three workers support every retiree and in the next few decades, that number will drop to two. By 2042, the system will become bankrupt and it will only be able to pay 70 percent of promised benefits.

Younger workers can earn additional benefits by giving them the option to invest a small portion of their Social Security taxes in bonds and stocks. Personal accounts will allow them to build a financial nest-egg for their retirement; they can pass on to their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, personal accounts will give our children and grandchildren the peace of mind that they will be financially secured in the future.

Mr. Speaker, for too long, the International Trade Commission and Department of Commerce have ignored the impact that anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imported steel have had on steel consumers in the United States. Soon, the ITC will release a report on stainless steel duties and it's my hope there will be evidence that steel consumers are being considered.

Steel duties favor steel producers. Yet, the ITC has not even considered the impact such duties have on steel consuming industries. With nearly thirteen million American employees of steel consuming companies, but only two-hundred thousand employees of steel producing companies, this is simply wrong.

In the past, the ITC has not recognized the fundamental fairness of giving steel consumers the consideration they deserve. Forty-five Members of Congress have joined in cosponsoring House Resolution 84, urging the ITC and Commerce Department to consider the effects of such duties upon steel consumers. Hopefully, the ITC will finally listen.

Mr. Speaker, the Cooperative Development Program, CDP, of USAID serves an important role in America's international development assistance. For a modest annual investment, credit unions and cooperatives can have a greater opportunity to flourish through the work of the World Council of Credit Unions and other non-governmental cooperative development organizations.

In a world where three billion people live on less than $2 a day, access to safe and sound financial services is essential to helping people build better lives for themselves. The World Council of Credit Unions, WOCCU, works to strengthen credit unions implementing technical assistance programs to improve credit union performance so that these non-for-profit cooperative financial institutions can offer an array of client-responsive services, extend their geographic coverage, and harness technology.

Created by the vision of the U.S. credit union movement, WOCCU has been implementing their technical assistance programs for over 30 years. Prior to WOCCU's formation in 1970, the Credit Union National Association, CUNA, had an international division called CUNA Global Projects dedicated to overseas credit union activities. Today, CUNA and their state league system, representing 86 million credit union members in the U.S., work with WOCCU to promote credit union growth in developing countries.

Through the current funding cycle of USAID's CDP, WOCCU will spend the next 4 years working with credit unions around the world and focused in Afghanistan, Kenya, the Philippines, Ecuador and Nicaragua to build networks--expanding low-cost transaction services for members, including remittances; creating enabling environments; training credit union managers and board members; and extending credit union operations to difficult operating environments, including HIV/AIDS-affected communities, conflict-prone zones and poverty-entrenched rural areas.

Credit unions and cooperatives provide hope for economic prosperity through grassroots businesses that provide jobs, income, basic education and democratic experience. I will continue to support the USAID Cooperative Development Program to sustain overseas cooperative development in developing countries and emerging democracies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think everybody knows. They have heard quite a bit this evening.

Trade adds growth, generates more jobs, and raises our standard of living. Passing CAFTA-DR will bring more of these benefits to our economy.

Let us be very clear: it will. This is a big deal for America.

We already have a trade agreement with the CAFTA-DR countries. It is just not good enough. It is only one way. Currently, 80 percent of their exports come into the U.S. duty free. In fact, about 5 years ago, 309 Members of this House voted in May of 2000 to unilaterally cut and eliminate our tariffs on their goods to help their economies. And I have the list, 183 Republicans and 126 Democrats.

Tonight, those same Members can now vote in favor of this trade agreement which will eliminate their tariffs on our goods and help our economy. And then when this agreement goes into effect, 80 percent of our manufactured exports and 50 percent of our agricultural exports will be immediately duty free. The rest will be phased out over 10 years.

I do not think we can ask for a better deal, and it is about time we evened the score. The facts are clear. CAFTA-DR is a great deal for America.

By the way, I have those results, if anybody is interested, of the vote 5 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, United States foreign policy toward the South Caucasus nations is one of fostering regional stability and enhanced cooperation. I rise today to bring attention to the great injustice in relations in this region.

I speak today to stress my opposition and to move forward with legislation contesting the proposed railroad connecting Tbilisi, Georgia and Kars, Turkey. The proposed railroad would systematically bypass Armenia, and push them further into isolation.

As we all know, Turkey and Armenia have their differences. Although it is counterproductive to list those differences, instead I want to highlight the fact that it goes against United States policy to be in a position that further advances the turmoil in this region, The proposed legislation would bar U.S. support and funding for a rail link connecting Georgia and Turkey, but which directly averts Armenia.

Eight years ago, the former Turkish president and the former Georgian president meant to discuss the railroad that would ``open a third frontier crossing between the two countries,'' providing further commerce and economic opportunity for the South Caucasus region. Both countries would benefit immensely from this railroad.

While I will always support commerce-based proposals that spawn economic development around the world, this proposal initiates commerce at the cost of another country's economic development. This is unacceptable.

This railroad would cost between $400-$800 million to construct, while a perfectly workable and capable rail link already exists. It is evident to all that this new rail system is being proposed for the specific reason of diverting commerce around Armenia.

The construction of the proposed railroad would be equivalent to the people of Ohio building a new bridge to Canada just to avoid traveling through Michigan. The United States government would never condone this action, and we should not be in the practice of condoning the actions set forth by the Turkish government.

The existing rail would be available for use within weeks of an agreement between Armenia, Turkey, and Georgia. Furthermore, the Armenian people are willing to forego using the rail until normal relations with Turkey are established. Mr. Speaker, although normal relations may still take some time, there is no reason to further shut Armenia out of the equation.

Moreover, the building of this railroad also highlights the ongoing struggle between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Known by all, Azerbaijan's main goal is to strangle Armenia into submission of Nagorno-Karabakh. This railroad does just that.

The United States and other countries around the world, including Turkey, need to allow these two countries to agree upon a solution regarding Nagorno-Karabakh. It is necessary that third parties remain neutral. The proposed railroad not only stunts the diplomatic progress between Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, it unnecessarily blocks Armenia's economic and political progress.

I encourage my colleagues to look at the facts of this situation. The existing rail link would be available essentially as soon as possible and it would take a minimal amount of funding in order to get it usable again. Whereas, a new rail link would take months if not years to build, and would cost an estimated $400-$800 million. There should be no question as to which plan the United States supports.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 3058, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 210, line 18, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but we accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire, does the gentleman have any time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that there are no Members here that are in opposition, and I have no position on this matter except to accept the amendment.

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

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

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

Let me respond to the Sanders amendment, which I am opposed to. It is a transparent attempt to void a contract that would deliver tremendous benefits to the general aviation community and save the FAA $2.2 billion over the next 10 years.

It also could result in up to $350 million in additional costs to the FAA in the form of termination penalties.

There is no erosion of safety associated with contracting out flight service stations. Simply put, flight service stations do not control air traffic. Flight service stations receive and file flight

planes and provide pilot weather briefings, en route communications, and search and rescue services to general aviation pilots.

The contract will enhance all of these services to the general aviation community. It has strong support from private pilots because they know that better services will result in a safer system.

This contract will have little or no impact on commercial or military pilots who get these services from different sources.

It also protects existing flight service station employees. Lockheed Martin will offer jobs to all incumbent employees. Salaries will be matched, including locality pay. Lockheed Martin will provide a sign-on bonus, as well as a retention bonus for many positions, as well as up to $50,000 for relocation allowances. Additionally, Lockheed Martin will offer a 401(k) savings plan, income protection plan and performance bonuses.

The contract was fairly bid, and the flight service station employees competed in the offering.

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

Let me turn to some of the pilot private pilots on this. This is a quote: ``After spending 90 minutes getting an advance look at a 21st century flight service station and asking hard questions, all I can say is, Wow! On the basis of what the contractor will deliver under the contract, pilots are going to be much better served and much safer.''

Another: ``For the first time in history, pilots are going to get a contractual guarantee that a live briefer will answer their phone calls within 20 seconds and acknowledge their radio calls within 5 seconds. Flight plans will be filed within 3 minutes. It's in the contract.''

Then: ``And as any pilot who has been stuck on hold for 20 minutes trying to get a weather briefing can tell you, the system is overloaded and frequently non-responsive.''

These are all quotes from people who actually are involved in this process. So I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

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

Mr. Chairman, pardon me, but what is the time allotment on the other side and here?

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

I have no speakers left, but I reserve the right to close, so I want to continue to reserve my time.

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

Let me close with just a few points, Mr. Chairman. To summarize: Contracting out Flight Service Stations will result in no erosion in safety. It is a safer system and 600,000 general aviation pilots will get better service. The contract will save taxpayers money. Not a bad idea. Employees will be protected. This, in my judgment, is a no- brainer.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment very strongly and urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment as well. The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter of eminent domain and its constitutionality. Yesterday, we debated for quite some time the issue of eminent domain, for 45 minutes I would suggest. We voted and we overwhelmingly rejected, by a margin of 42 to 374, the 374 opposing, obviously, the amendment, which I thought was a very punitive amendment, to cut funds from the Court because of its ruling.

This amendment, I am afraid to say, sets a more dangerous precedent. It would allow the legislative branch to override the independent decisions of the Court. If this passes, then what will be the next Supreme Court decision that will be effectively overturned? While we may not agree with the Court's ruling, and I understand the gentleman has a right to believe what he wants, if we do not agree on the Court's ruling, we must respect it.

For this reason and for those that have already been mentioned, I ask all Members to vote ``no'' against the Garrett amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment and also to manage the time on this side of the issue, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversions in the JOBS Act, the Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The JOBS Act added a new section to the Tax Code, section 7874, which treats U.S. companies that complete a corporate inversion transaction after March 4, 2003, as domestic U.S. corporations for tax purposes.

Congress also addressed the issue of corporate inversions by enacting a contracting ban. Section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 does prohibit the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security from entering into contracts with companies that have completed corporate inversions as defined by the act. Congress revisited the issue in the 2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act where Congress expanded the scope of section 835.

Critics may argue that companies that have engaged in corporate inversions prior to March 4, 2003, should be covered by the JOBS Act. However, Congress should not bar companies from competing for government contracts because of legal transactions that they performed more than 2 years ago. Companies that qualify for government contracts and successfully fulfill their responsibilities should not be barred from future contracts because of retroactive legislation.

The rules for competing for Federal contracting should not be changed in midstream.

Retroactively imposing a contracting ban on companies would be severely punitive, particularly if a company's incorporation was conducted in compliance with existing law.

I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.

I think the points that have been made by the several individuals who have spoken out against this amendment pretty much says it all. I just would follow by saying I urge strongly a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.

We know what it is; but if the gentleman wants to take a moment or two, yes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado, has offered this any number of times; and I am not counting, but I know he has done this before. He is getting very good at it.

With all due respect to the gentleman from Colorado, I believe this to be an unnecessary amendment. The Congress cannot and should not abdicate its responsibility to review individual programs and make individual recommendations based on that review. The desire to hold spending in check should be based on congressional oversight of specific programs. We should not take a meat-ax approach, and we should not yield our power to the executive.

I ask, therefore, that this amendment be defeated.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to first yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

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

I do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the defense authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will take just a few moments to rise in opposition to this amendment which attempts to use the appropriations process to control the content of information about our economy, which I think is a wrong thing to do. I believe the committee is about learning facts, not ignoring them or being denied them.

Moreover, the proposed amendment does not change the 2005 economic report of the President which discusses the average cost of developing and introducing a new prescription drug, as has been mentioned, a new drug to the market at $800 million or more. I have been informed that the administration strongly objects to the proposed Brown amendment. Preventing any discussion on the factors that contribute to pharmaceutical pricing or in fact any other topic that might be controversial would compromise the credibility of the future economic reports of the President.

So I join my colleagues in opposing the Brown amendment and urge that it be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This is a very simple amendment. It would simply partially restore funds to HUD's Working Capital Fund that were cut by an amendment adopted yesterday. This amendment has been cleared with the minority, and I urge its adoption.

If I were to just briefly talk about it, this is not just a random pot of money. The Working Capital Fund pays the cost of all computers and phones at HUD, which is a huge expenditure. So, briefly, that is the essence of it.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Briefly, we have had, what is it, over the last 15 hours, some interesting conversations about money, and we have drawn money from a number of sources and, frankly, not too many sources, and some of that does create pain. In the case of this particular situation, these moneys are needed now. So I very much appreciate the gentleman's agreeing with me that this money should go to that particular source.

So I am content to accept his approval and move forward.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate and share the concern that my colleagues have about abusive lending practices and the need to eliminate predatory lending by financial institutions. I also recognize that HUD has been working on a regulation for more than 3 years to address the problem, the very problem my colleague mentioned.

I commit to my colleagues that, as this bill moves forward, I will work with my colleagues to include report language which helps to evaluate and accelerate a solution to what is a national problem.

Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I oppose this amendment because it will shut down the GSA e-travel program.

In 1996, GAO recommended that travel management should be consolidated government-wide; and in 2001, they found that decentralized travel operations at the agency level resulted in the following: inconsistent and/or duplicative travel processes and procedures. It is costly to maintain these multiple, redundant systems on a stand-alone basis and with an inability to effectively monitor and manage the travel function at the agency level.

Further, many agencies were developing expensive in-house custom systems. These ``boutique'' systems, if you will, were not connected, causing a heavy burden on the traveler. OMB recommended that a common government-wide travel management service would significantly improve the traveler's experience and save the government money. Government- wide e-travel is projected to save approximately $450 million over the 10-year cycle. It is expected to achieve a 15 percent savings in transactional costs over status quo in the base period of the contract, and 20 percent in outlying years.

So I do not believe that this is the answer that the gentlewoman is seeking, which brings forward the shutdown, entire shutdown of the e- travel program. So I would suggest that we all unite and vote against this amendment.

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

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

Let me say this about the amendment. What the amendment would do, it would shut down E-travel, just shut it down. The E-travel system saves money, saves taxpayers money and is easier to navigate for travel. The answer to the question that she has does not involve shutting down E- travel.

I would simply urge a no vote on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. That rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This amendment requires a new determination, and I insist on the point of order.

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

The Van Hollen amendment harms taxpayers, in my judgment, by preventing agencies from conducting public private competitions under OMB's revised circular A-76. By forcing agencies to return to the rules of the old circular world, the old circular world would disadvantage, Number 1, Federal employees by allowing much of their work to be directly converted to private sector performance without even considering in-house capabilities or the cost implications of outsourcing. It will also harm taxpayers by making them bear the cost of processes that are outdated, inefficient and not results oriented. The advantages of the revised circular are that they were developed with broad input, broad input from the public to ensure competition is used in a fair manner that accommodates the diverse needs of our citizens. And it focuses on achieving the best results for the taxpayer by requiring agencies to evaluate cost and permitting agencies to also consider the quality of the service provided such as technology support and security.

I would just stop there, but suggest to the gentleman from Virginia that this is not a friendly amendment in regard to the taxpayer. It truly is not. The committee opposes it and certainly I oppose it, and I would ask or urge for a no vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman's comments. Those appropriations bills, I believe there were five, it was different in each one of them because it was applied specifically, tailored to that particular bill and the operation of that bill.

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

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

In closing very quickly, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) referenced the fact that his idea actually was passed last year, included in the bill and there was a threat of a veto then, and so it was removed from the bill. And this administration is prepared to do the very same thing this year. So I would suggest to him that it is enough of a problem or an annoyance to them that it will be something that will be subject to a veto threat and perhaps go through the same process again.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, in 1998 the last time the Congress authorized the public housing and section 8 programs, they established this policy that tenants of public housing should undertake two responsibilities: number one, they should do some community service. The act requires that individuals in public housing do 8 hours of public service each month. There are numerous exemptions from their requirements for those that cannot do even the most minimal amount of service. The act also requires tenants to be part of the self-sufficiency program, a program designed to help tenants get jobs, keep jobs, and move off and out of public housing so other people may benefit.

My own view is that this was a sound policy then, and it is a sound policy now. Neither appears to be a huge burden and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has not indicated any large-scale problems with the provision that would need this type of action.

This is clearly an amendment that should be taken to the authorizers, and they are, by the way, right now reviewing all public housing assistance programs. So until Congress changes the policy, I believe that the policy should remain in force.

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

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

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

I just reiterate what I said. I am in opposition to the amendment, and I urge everyone to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising his concerns on this matter. If there has been a slow-down in the release of Federal soundproofing dollars from the FAA, we do need to know. We appreciate the gentleman bringing this to the floor. I thank the gentleman for his comments and pledge to work with him on this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order, and I would like to respond in this fashion.

I raise a point of order against the amendment. The amendment proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by law and, therefore, is in violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI.

Although the original account funding for FAA operations is unauthorized, it was permitted to remain in the bill pursuant to the provisions of the rule that provided for the consideration of this bill. When an authorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general appropriations bill, an amendment merely changing that amount is in order; but the rules of the House apply a ``merely perfecting standard'' to the items permitted to remain and do not allow the insertion of a new paragraph, not part of the original text permitted to remain, to increase a figure permitted to remain.

The amendment cannot be construed as merely perfecting and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair rule the amendment out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.013

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3058 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 3058, pursuant to House Resolution 342, the amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and considered as the original text for purpose of further amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

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

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

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

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. On page 7, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``increased by $263,000,000,'' and page 7, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert ``increased by $263,000,000.''

What it does simply is it adds $263 million to FAA safety programs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point order against the amendment because it increases an appropriation from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund over the amount authorized from that fund and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove from the bill the limitation on routes that would be eligible for Federal funding, take them all out. It would strip any semblance of reform out of the House bill. All reform goes out the window.

If we want to talk about killing Amtrak, if you really want to kill it, this is the way to do it. In the FY 2006 grant request, Amtrak specifically stated that it cannot continue to operate all routes with $1.2 billion, all routes. The LaTourette amendment offered earlier provides less than $1.2 billion. If this amendment is adopted, the northeast corridor is in jeopardy, the northeast corridor is in real bad shape.

The limitation in the bill protects the northeast corridor. This amendment does not. Amtrak supporters in the northeast need to understand that supporting this amendment redirects the funding to the highly unprofitable routes, routes that carry Federal subsidies up to $466 per passenger, routes that carry less than 20 percent of Amtrak's riders, and it leaves more than 52 percent of Amtrak riders in the northeast exposed to a shutdown, 52 percent, over half.

Striking the limitation on route eligibility will siphon funding from routes that chill the promise of self-sufficiency, routes that are well used, to routes that will never, never, never under any circumstances be profitable.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

What is interesting about this amendment is that only 20 percent of the people are involved in the elimination of these lines, but it is 50 percent of the cost. This is like a stake in the heart of a plan to establish some reform. You know, unfortunately, our

national rail service is no longer a source of pride. Amtrak has suffered mismanagement, irresponsible investments, poor service and a tremendous backlog of, maintenance that has sunk the system to a new low.

Amtrak, as we know it, faces tremendous debt while operating in a fundamentally flawed management system. Amtrak goes back to 1971, and the conception at that time was to produce it as a for-profit business. And it was expected to be one within 5 years. Here it is 35 years later. Guess what, they are in worse shape than ever. As has been pointed out, unfortunately for the taxpayers, its self-sufficiency is only a pipe dream. On average, taxpayers will pay a $210 subsidy, even though you do not think you are paying it, because some pay $466, you are because the system needs an average of $210 per person. All other transportation systems in our country are paid for directly. Highways and aviation are funded through user fees and excise taxes. Rail is the only passenger transportation mode that relies solely on the generosity of taxpayers. And this charity is running out.

It is funny, I have not heard one word from anybody who is complaining about shutting those lines down who is interested in doing anything locally to provide resources to keep it going. That is an option. We are not mandating the closure. And the message should be clear. In a time of flat budgets and large deficits, we cannot afford the abuse of taxpayer dollars on irresponsible ventures, poor management and unprofitable services.

I know that reform is never easy. But in Amtrak's case, it is essential. We have come to the last stop. Amtrak is no longer helping us move forward. Passenger rail must be reformed, or it will end, be the end of Amtrak.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 47, line 19, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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

I am opposed to increasing the budget for the fair housing programs for two reasons. The funds are not really needed, and a reduction in HUD staffing to pay for it is completely contrary to what HUD really needs. I do not disagree with the gentleman's interest in providing more for a worthwhile project. The increase in funds is not needed.

I think I have said this before. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, HUD was awarded $7 million in additional funding to conduct a new national survey of discrimination. This work was conducted by the Urban Institute and has now been completed, and the report is issued. However, in 2005 the increase in funds was retained to complete the work and reduce the backlog of discrimination cases that have built up at HUD and in the States. The backlog has been reduced and the report has been issued. Therefore, the administration requested that the budget return to historic funding levels, and the committee mark funds the program at the requested levels. We did not go below or above, but we did do it at requested levels.

So, therefore, I do not believe that a reduction in funding for HUD salaries and expenses is appropriate for an increase above the requested levels for fair housing programs. And what I figure is appropriate, I would say that we would urge the defeat of this.

I am prepared to go into specific details of why this does not represent any reduction in activity for the program if the gentleman would prefer, but the fact is that we have a very real and harmful cut to the agency's workforce in order to put more funds in FHIP. So I do not know where we go for more money, and that is the problem that I have.

The gentleman and I spoke yesterday; and the conversation was, I thought, very interesting; and also I admit to the fact that he has a point about things. I just wish that I could tell him this is what we can do, but we cannot do it under the circumstances.

I urge my colleagues, therefore, to prevent that from happening and vote ``no'' on the amendment. HUD can do better.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is difficult for me, but I am looking at it, and I wanted to point out a few things that I think everybody ought to know about what the Brownfields amendment, what kind of heartburn it causes us on the committee. We typically oppose any amendment to the Brownfields because of the fact that there are several reasons why this program can and should be considered a low priority. Let me explain.

While this program has been funded at about $25 million each year, the EPA has an identical program which in 2005 was funded at over $160 million per year and which has addressed over 8,000 sites. In 2006, there was an increase of $10 million to over $170 million in EPA. The facts being cited about the number of projects that Brownfields funding has served must be referring to the EPA's program, because in the HUD program, it is very, very minimal. Let me give an example.

HUD's program has been extremely slow in spending money. Only $35 million of the $175 million in appropriations received from 1998 to 2004 has been spent; $35 million out of $175 million. Rather than putting these funds into project development, funds are often used as a loan loss reserve rather than for reconstructing sites.

Besides EPA, there are several other sources of remediation funding. Besides EPA, the Brownfields tax deduction of $200 million is what is really driving redevelopment decisions, not the small amount of funds that are in HUD. Where grants have occurred, HUD grants are a very tiny portion of project development. HUD funds on average are just about 2.3 percent of the total development cost of the project. Moreover, for each HUD dollar, there are $28 in private and $12 in State and local funds committed to this project.

What all this means is that Brownfields has found a home at EPA; and it clearly belongs there, where there are fewer restrictions and more funds. However, I would pause at this point and say that on the basis of the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and what he has been doing, and we have had several conversations about this, and there may be a future again to look at this down the road, so I am not going to oppose it, but I wanted my colleagues to know something about what troubles us within HUD; and I am going to, in fact, offer to accept the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

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

It is my understanding that the chairman intends to work with us to incorporate this provision into future legislation that the House will consider. Is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is exactly my understanding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment would require HUD to close down most of its systems and its operations, and would result in a loss of almost 400 jobs at HUD. All of this would occur almost immediately after the passage of the act.

And tragically, all of this would occur just to add funds to the Section 8 program that are not needed. It adds funds for renewals of vouchers when the renewal of vouchers has already been fully funded.

This is a tragic outcome for HUD for absolutely no benefit to families on assistance.

Everyone agrees that the renewal of vouchers at $15.531 billion fully funds this program for 2006. The industry groups have said so and HUD has said so.

The only reductions in the Section 8 program that this committee took

were in overhead and funds originally requested that the Department now agrees will not be needed in 2006.

Specifically, we reduced overhead and administrative fees to reflect the transfer of assistance from the tenant-based vouchers to project- based vouchers, and we reduced tenant protection funds because the Department indicates that the anticipated regulation that might require those funds is not going to be put out until after 2006.

What this amendment would accomplish is nothing, or to fund a shortfall of any kind. Each PHA will receive the amount it is entitled to, and then the additional funds will sit there and be swept up and used for other purposes by the administration, just as excess funds have been swept up and used for non-HUD purposes for years.

But here is what I want you to look at. Look at what happens to HUD in the meantime. The original request for HUD's working capital fund was for $265 million to maintain and develop new systems in HUD, new systems for accounting and new systems for programs.

The committee has already reduced the working capital fund by $120 million in order to fully fund critical assistance programs, such as the Section 8 program. The amount remaining is the barest of minimums that HUD has to have to keep its functions, keep its systems functioning and keep its functioning going.

The committee has already removed funds for all system enhancements and removed funds for all initiatives. Funds left were for maintaining the current systems and upgrades needed to meet Federal requirements such as their accounting system.

An additional cut of $120 million in their working capital fund would, according to HUD, simply shut down their systems, shut them down, and it would abrogate the contract they have with EDS and Lockheed Martin to maintain their systems. The contract itself runs over $100 million each year, and it is only maintenance. This amendment would leave all of HUD with only $45 million.

According to HUD officials, HUD would have to shut down the accounting system, the development of the new accounting system for FHA, system for PIH and to administer the Section 8 program, and then public housing programs will be shut down. Virtually all systems will be shut down.

Shutting down the contract that was painfully negotiated over a 4- year period will also throw HUD into chaos. They have no back up, nowhere to go except to the GSA schedule that will cost 150 percent of the cost of the contract, so with this amendment, HUD could not go there either.

I would just suggest to the gentleman that this is not workable by all of the investigation that we have done, and I would urge that we oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan.

If the gentlewoman will yield, I will indeed.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I would say to my friend and colleague from Michigan that I will do everything I can to work with her. I intend to do that. I know that we have worked things out on some other issues, so we will do our darnedest to make sure we work in fulfilling her desire as best we can.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

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

Let me respond and give a little history about Hope VI. I have been on the

committee for 11 years, and I have seen this item come into view, and I have seen some of the experiences it has gone through.

First of all, we know Hope VI has had a difficult and varied history as a 10-year demonstration program. It has worked well in some cases, but in many more, it has not. The program has been unsuccessful in fulfilling its mission over the last 10 years and has been extremely difficult to implement. Consider the following: At the end of last month there remains $2.8 billion in appropriated funds that have been awarded to public housing agencies that has not as yet been spent.

Number two, Hope VI has failed to meet its mission. In the beginning, the idea was to demolish the 100,000 worst units. To date, over 133,000 of the worst units have been demolished, but only half of those were the result of Hope VI grants. The rest have been done by PHAs with their own money or with other Federal funds provided elsewhere in this bill.

Third, there are ample new funds available to continue the program until it is either fixed or dropped. No 2006 funds are necessary. I was one of the most supportive of this program when it first came on the scene, but I have grown tired over the years of seeing the subsidized failure that took place here.

The fourth item I would mention is that there would be a great disruption to the GSA programs if the amendment were adopted. The amendment proposes to seriously delay and reduce funding from seven important buildings that have been in the planning stage for many months.

I mention the security at the U.S. mission to the U.N., an FBI building in Houston, three courthouses in Missouri, Texas and New Mexico, and two border stations in Texas. These are critical projects that are scheduled for construction awards, and we plan to use them in 2005. These funds are not excess funds; far from it. They were added by GSA because of material, price increases, namely steel and concrete. Without the increases, these projects face real and significant funding shortfalls.

Last year, the committee had to reprogram funding five separate times from other projects because of materials' price increases on projects.

I know that there are places in the country that people can point to where they see this program working. But there are not as many as I would like, and for the reason I have already stated, I think this pretty much covers my position and what I feel would be the wrong move. As much as I know your hearts are strongly for this, I feel we cannot go there. We have been there, and it does not work. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.