Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2989, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. Because of the reorganization of the Committee on Appropriations, this is an entirely new arrangement for the form in which these agencies are presented to the House. In this bill, many of the historical programs that were part of the Transportation Department and the Treasury Department were merged with the new Department of Homeland Security, and then the remaining programs have now been combined in this legislative package with the appropriations for agencies such as the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the White House, the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget and other critical agencies which are, at times, dissimilar in their functions, however. As a result, in putting together this bill we have made budget trade- offs that previously were not made by this particular subcommittee. We have merged Members of Congress and committee staff from two former subcommittees, and accomplishing the production of a $90 billion bill only a few months into that task has been a Herculean task. Fortunately, we have been blessed with good people, good Members, such as the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), Mr. Etheridge and other staff that I will recognize later for their role in this bill. But I believe we have produced a good product for the House. We have had a lot of learning, many hearings, and the members of the subcommittee have shown enormous dedication to produce this bill. I believe this is a very good and solid bill. In most respects, it matches the budget request and the priorities of the President, and makes some significant improvements along the way. In particular, I am pleased that by exercising great discipline in a number of areas, we are able to do more than the President anticipated for investing in the Nation's highways. The budget, unfortunately, due to downward movement in the Highway Trust Fund revenue, proposed an 8 percent reduction in funding for Federal aid to highways. Thanks to the discipline we have exercised in other areas, this bill instead provides a 7 percent increase. So it is $4.5 billion more than the President's request expected we would be able to do, and some $2.2 billion more than Federal aid to highways during the current fiscal year. That money is excellent and significant news for America's economy, because each $1 billion of highway investment creates some 40,000 jobs. So compared to the current year's funding, this bill will add another 88,000 jobs across the country in highway construction alone. Compared to what we expected we would be able to produce this year, this bill will add some 200,000 jobs across the country. That is good news also for the millions of motorists that are stuck in traffic congestion. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, America has unprecedented and worsening levels of highway congestion. In urban areas, the largest urban areas that have 3 million people or more, 40 percent of the travel every day is under congested conditions. It costs the economy billions of dollars with lost productivity because of workers that are stuck in traffic. The backlog of highway and bridge deficiencies continues to rise. There is now over $325 billion, according to the Federal Highway Administration, and some $400 billion, according to other Department of Transportation sources, in unaddressed highway construction needs in the United States of America. We have to get America to work and move goods to market, and this bill seeks to do that. No other form of transportation offers the flexibility and the ability to move large numbers that our road network offers. Well over 90 percent of the vehicle miles traveled in the United States today take place on the highway. That is the way we move, that is the way that goods get to market, it is the way emergency vehicles and public safety vehicles are able to move. We have to address the critical problem of highway infrastructure to get America moving again. This bill seeks to do that in a very significant way, but without any increases in taxes or in revenue. While the needs go up, Mr. Chairman, our ability to respond to them has been threatened by the tightness of the budget. There has been a dramatic decline in highway gasoline tax revenues. Gas tax receipts put into the highway account of the trust funds went down almost $6 billion between 1999 and 2002. We do not expect them to return to the 1999 level until the year 2008. That is why the tough decisions that we have made and the priorities we have set in this bill are so important to work on that backlog in a time of limited resources. At the same time, there are increasing pressures on the general fund due to Homeland Security and national defense priorities. We are trying to be fiscally responsible and use this money more wisely and set tough priorities among many competing demands. We will hear many Members talk about things that they wish we had the money to do. It would be nice, but we do not have the luxury of doing things that we could in times of rising revenues. While increasing funds for highway investment, we had to hold down other increases. For the Department of the Treasury, the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, we, by necessity, have provided cost-of-living increases and other mandatory expenses that are about 4 to 5 percent increases for those agencies, but the Executive Office of the President and others have only a 1 percent increase. We are exercising the fiscal restraint which is necessary. I do want to express special appreciation, of course, to everyone that has made it possible in making these tough decisions. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) I have singled out previously. He has been tough, but fair, in presenting his priorities. His input and advice have been invaluable, and our work is the better for his contribution. I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for his fair and generous allotment to our subcommittee. Let me make sure that I also address a couple of areas that I know will be part of the debate on this bill. Let us look at Amtrak. The bill includes $900 million for Amtrak. Some will say that is not enough. Well, that is because Amtrak says they wanted twice as much. But, keep in mind, Amtrak is not a Federal agency. They are in a special status, a special private situation. They can ask for whatever they want, but their requests have not gone through the same budget and vetting process as has been the case with the other agencies that have requested money. Amtrak's request did not go through the Office of Management and Budget. It was not balanced against other transportation priorities. It was a request of what they said they want. Their desires are transmitted directly to the Congress. But the administration does not support the large request that came from Amtrak, and neither do I. As the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta, stated in a letter that he wrote to me recently, and I quote the Secretary, ``The problems at Amtrak simply will not go away with a more liberal application of dollars.'' We are at a defining moment in the Amtrak history, where we can go down the road of binding them to reform and making tough decisions on where it makes sense for Amtrak to operate and where it does not, or we can just throw money at the problem, money that we do not have and that will move millions more people if that money is applied elsewhere. We should understand that of all the rail passengers in the country, only 5 percent or less are moved by Amtrak. Most of them are moved by commuter rail systems, not by Amtrak. Amtrak is not synonymous with the railroads of America. Amtrak is not synonymous with rail passenger service. Reform legislation is pending before the Congress with Amtrak, but it has not been acted on by the authorizing committees. Until that happens, I believe it would be folly to provide huge increases for this railroad that has not kept up its commitments, that has not been honest with the American people. We should not be swayed by their claims that they would go out of business unless they receive another $1.8 billion. They have tried to make that case by adopting poison-pill policies saying, oh, we have all these hundreds of millions of dollars in severance pay that we have agreed to to make it a poison pill, to keep people from making the serious decisions that need to be made for Amtrak. Even they admit that most of their request is not needed for next year's operating bills. They want taxpayer money for their long-term capital investments because they have handled their system so poorly they find it difficult to attract private dollars. We should not accept their ``sky is falling, Chicken Little'' arguments. This bill is more than fair to Amtrak and would be sufficient, more than sufficient, to meet the really important parts of their operating needs. Let me also address what will be another part of the debate on this bill, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Highway Transportation Enhancements Program. Several Members expressed concern about the program and, because of that, the approach that was taken by the full Committee on Appropriations is to say that transportation enhancements are a program that States are permitted to spend money on with their allocation of Federal highway dollars, but we will no longer force them to spend money on bike paths or pedestrian paths if they have higher priorities for their bridges that are unsafe, as thousands of bridges are, or their roads that are unsafe, as thousands of miles of roads are, or their congestion problems. This is a decision affecting some $600 million a year, Mr. Chairman. I trust the States to make their decision. Is it of greater importance to the people in their State and in their community to move a small number of people, to make a pedestrian path available or to move a large number of people and enhance their workforce and economic development and productivity by relieving congestion where they find it? I trust States to make that decision. The bill permits them to offer an amendment I know will be offered to try to say no, they must spend 10 percent of their surface transportation dollars which comes from highway users, which comes from gasoline taxes; but they must spend it on things that do not help move the traffic and do not help do the work and the business of America. The Transportation Enhancement Program funds transportation museums, for example, at the expense of the thousands of unsafe bridges that each of us have a portion of in our district. So I look forward to what I hope will be a fair and honest and elucidating debate on that particular topic. And it will be of interest, Mr. Chairman, to know how many Members who tell me sometimes, oh, I need money for a highway project in my district, but if they vote today to say no it is more important to me to take money out of my highways and put into things that do not relieve the congestion and meet the transportation needs of the countries, then I will understand what their true priorities are. We need to make those important decisions. There is one final area of the bill that I want to make clear because I have talked mostly about transportation. The Department of Treasury is in this bill. It provides critical contributions to the war on terrorism. It is more than just the agency that houses the Internal Revenue Service. For example, the bill provides several million dollars above the President's request for stronger involvement on the Treasury Department and international affairs, including technical advisors for rebuilding the currency bank and financial systems in Iraq. The Treasury Department has a crucial role, which we fund under this bill, to stop the money trafficking that is funding terrorist activity around the globe. It includes $2.3 million more for the new office of terrorist financing and financial crimes, another $5.3 million for the IRS for counterterrorism activities, and 21, almost 22, million dollars for the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is responsible for freezing the assets of terrorist organizations, and some $57 million for the financial crimes enforcement network. All of these are important elements of the war on terrorism. We fund each of them at or above the administration's request in our bill. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill is fair and it is balanced. It provides for the major needs for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury and the other independent agencies, such as the GSA, all within the tight constraints of our budget. We have developed the bill in consultation with the minority and with each of the staffs involved. I support the bill wholeheartedly, and I ask for the support of each Member. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on the matter with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor). I am very much aware of the need to fund the Richmond Federal courthouse. I am concerned, of course, about the funding needs for all of the Nation's courthouses. As the gentleman is aware, due to budget limitations, we have not provided funding for any new courthouse construction in this bill, but I would like to be helpful to him and to his constituents, and I am looking for the necessary funds to finance courthouse construction projects, including the Richmond Federal courthouse. I understand the importance of it to the Federal Judiciary and that it is a critical element of the revitalization of downtown Richmond.

Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time remains on either side.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the passion of the gentleman who just spoke and everyone else, but, of course, we have followed the normal protocol. This is what is considered in this House an open rule to give people the opportunity to bring up issues. But as the Chairman and everyone else in this body knows, just because a bill is on the floor, it does not mean that every topic can be offered on that bill. We have to break our work into pieces. And some of the issues the gentleman is talking about should properly be raised on other pieces of legislation, not this one. The Committee on Rules and its leadership has provided a very good, very solid, open rule that provides Members the opportunity to make fair comments and make fair amendments upon the proper topics of this bill. And I would certainly hope that the gentleman would work with the committees of proper jurisdiction for the changes that he wants to make. But I do very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the efforts of the Committee on Rules in helping us to make the progress and helping to make sure that we have a controlled and proper debate on the issues that are the proper subject of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, just by way of brief closing, I indicated that I wanted to express appreciation for the members of our staff that have worked so diligently to bring this legislation to the floor: the chief clerk of our subcommittee, Rich Efford, and the other clerks on the committee, Cheryle Tucker, Kurt Dodd, Leigha Shaw, Walter Hearne, Ben Nicholson, and from my office Kurt Conrad. I do not want their efforts to go unnoted and unappreciated, and I wanted to make sure that they appear in the Record next to the work product that they have worked so diligently on. We could not accomplish these things without them. This is a good bill. I ask every Member of the House to support it.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we would concede this point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, although the effect of the amendment, unfortunately, is to add $137 million which we do not have in the budget authority to the underlying bill, thereby complicating the efforts to ultimately achieve a successful conference with the Senate, nevertheless, we must concede that the point of order is correct.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I feel the need to speak a little bit in greater length because of the consequences of this point of order. This point of order would strike the final two provisos in section 218 but leave intact the remainder of that section. Those provisos that would be stricken would ensure that the loan refinancing of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority are subsumed, that is, contained within the Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act and thereby would limit the overall expense of this refinancing to $80 million. The effect of the amendment is to increase, again, the cost of our bill by upwards of $160 to $170 million in budget authority and a similar number in outlays. The reason the committee included section 118 as written is to ensure that the refinancing of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority can be funded through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program and that the cost of that refinancing to the Federal Government will not exceed $80 million. If the point of order is sustained, the refinancing costs will no longer be limited and it cannot be paid for from the TIFIA program. The effect of the elimination of these provisos may cause the Congressional Budget Office to increase their scoring of the bill by the $160 to $170 million. That would put the bill well over our 302(b) allocation. We have already had another point of order that pushed us above that allocation. We cannot afford this change. The effect of sustaining the point of order could be to make it impossible to do this refinancing that is crucial in the Alameda corridor. So I would ask the gentleman to consider the serious financial effect of his point of order and consider withdrawing the point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It lowers the amount for the Federal Aviation Administration's operating budget that would be coming from the Aviation Trust Fund, changing the amount that comes from the Aviation Trust Fund from $6 billion to $4.043 billion. The remainder, however, would remain appropriated, but from general revenue. The amended figure is the amount that would be allowed under the current aviation authorization if it were to be extended until fiscal year 2004. The amount originally under the bill, the $6 billion, was the amount proposed by the administration in the President's budget. The effect is that the funding in the bill for this purpose will remain the same. It will remain $6 billion of overall funding. It is just that the source will be slightly over $4 billion from the Aviation Trust Fund and slightly under $2 billion in general revenue fund. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had raised an objection to the higher Aviation Trust Fund figure. They had suggested a potential point of order might lie against it as an unauthorized appropriation. So we worked this out with the authorizers, and I know of no objection to it. This does not add funding to the bill. This does not take funding from the bill. It only changes the mix of general fund and trust fund dollars used to finance the FAA. I ask for adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the comments of each of the gentlemen. As I believe everyone is aware, originally my mark as chairman included funds for this purpose when it came out of the subcommittee. Unfortunately, when other extremely large demands were imposed upon the bill, including demand for Amtrak and other things, this and many other worthwhile things had to be dropped out of the bill in full committee in that process. Nevertheless, the underlying equities, I think, are very much as the gentleman has stated.

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. As I was mentioning, this and many other meritorious things, unfortunately, had to be dropped out in full committee not because they lacked merit but simply because of the funding restrictions. As I have certainly told the gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman from Virginia, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, I remain committed to addressing this. I believe the equities are there. Frankly, I believe the government is open to an inverse condemnation litigation that would cost us even more. So it is something I do hope we can accomplish in the conference process with the Senate. I stated that previously, and originally had that intent and put that in my original chairman's mark. So while I remain committed to that objective, it is just that we had to balance this with the overall figures in the ultimate House-Senate conference. But I most definitely am committed to working with my colleagues towards the same goal.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment. Mr. Lo BIONDO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the chairman very much. The Tech Center engages in matters of aviation safety and security that impact the entire system. Mr. Chairman, I had a second amendment that I had planned to offer today which I will not be offering. This second amendment would have restored funding for research and development. I have had conversations with the chairman about this. I know that there are tremendous pressures from the Aviation Trust Fund downturn as far as how these dollars would be distributed, but I would like to ask the chairman to please do everything he can in conference. This affects the Oklahoma Technical Center as well as the one in Pomona, New Jersey. These are dollars which would go to aviation safety and security. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman will work to help restore those dollars in conference.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we will certainly work together in conference to do everything that it is possible to do within the funds available.