John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of taking 5 minutes. I just want to point out since my friend, the chairman, has the chance to close, I just want to point out that this amendment has been passed each of the last 2 years in the House by fairly strong bipartisan votes. And it has then gone to conference committee and never reappeared from the conference committee in either of those years. It suggests that there is no intention on the part of the majority of adhering to the will of the House which ought to carry at least as much weight as the President's management agenda, so-called, and so I am going to just urge that we again pass this and give the conference one more chance to reject the will of the House, which seems to be its full intent year after year to do and thereby show its total contempt for the will of the House of Representatives.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for raising the issue. I, too, am concerned about the reported slow-down in this release of funds for an obviously good cause, the release of soundproofing funds to eligible recipients, in this particular case, the Lexington School in Queens. Though I do not know whether it is very close to La Guardia Airport or to Kennedy Airport, I, too, pledge to work with the gentleman from New York on this issue to ensure the early release of these funds.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have done this before. In fact, I was going to apologize to the staff and the chairman of the subcommittee for destroying the good working relationship that we have had over time, and that I complimented them so broadly about earlier, by actually offering this motion to strike the last word at a point when I really was not expecting to do so. I do know that this may have lasting implications, given the work that has been done by Dena Baron, Cheryle Tucker, Dave Gibbons, Steve Crane, Tammy, Hughes, Kristen Jones, and David Napoliello, all of whom would dearly love to get off this floor and on to the votes that we have coming before us. This bill has been a long slog year, and I have heard some people on the other side have had low-level headaches. There have been times here, as the afternoon has worn on, that I have nearly sunk under the table when amendments came, as long as the amendments we have had here today and yesterday, and with the votes on the rule on the day before, I think, though I may have lost a day in this process, so that there comes a point where I would be surprised if the chairman or I actually were able to remember our names. And it has been just suggested that I could also thank David Pomerantz of our staff, which is probably the only person I have not previously thanked. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I do, in fact, apologize to the chairman and all of the staff, not only the majority staff but the minority staff as well, because the ranking member has concluded that he does not wish to speak. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. OLVER

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. This is a bit of a surreal debate at this point. To me, the only logical thing to do with this vote is to vote to strike the section that eliminates the long-distance routes. I believe that, in large measure, the vote that was taken earlier was a vote in adding money back to Amtrak, was a vote to allow Amtrak to operate another year, and leave the authorizers with a mandate or a very strong signal that they had to do something and finally get this matter settled through the normal authorization route. My chairman, and I know, I respect what he is trying to do. He has this section which eliminates these long-distance routes that serve the only passenger rail service in 23 States, with all of those Senators on the other side of the Capitol and at least 154 of our Members in those States. And by eliminating those routes, he wishes to force reform of the system, to force the authorizing system to operate effectively. And in eliminating those routes, there is such a large cost for the elimination of the routes that the amount of money that was put in was simply not adequate to do the job, and so it was going to shut down the whole of the Amtrak system. I think that that, clearly, is what comes through as the end result of the way the bill was written. Now, if we leave the routes in there and no subsidy can be placed on those routes, then that shuts down those routes and triggers the utter waste of $360 million a year of costs for abrogating the labor and other contractual obligations that relate to those routes. It is an utter waste, and that means, in fact, that I think the chairman is right. It probably means that then the system is likely to shut down again because the total amount of money is not going to be adequate. But the chairman himself has indicated what the actual reform is. The chairman has pointed out that there is extremely high costs on these long distance routes through the luxury services, the sleeper services and the meals services, which cost $300 million or thereabouts to provide on these routes. So one could have one's cake and eat it, too, by eliminating that luxury service, those meals and sleeper services on the long-distance routes, continue to have the long-distance routes without those costs, which serve a very small group of people, a very small number of people, and then that process, the amount of money that was put in the bill would then serve to keep things going for the next year. So it seems to me that the logical thing to do would be to strike these routes and, instead, provide the reforms, not by the bludgeon of eliminating these routes which triggers that high cost of contractual changes, rather than doing that, find the reform that is going to actually keep the national rail system going and allow the amount of money that was put in to provide that service at a much lower cost than what presently is the case. So I hope that the amendment will be adopted and that we will get somewhere to what would be a real reform.

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

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

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) for managing to get us here before the end of June to the final bill. And with any luck at all, we will actually finish this final bill before the end of June. For the second year in a row, last year as the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies, and this year now as the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, House and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies, this has been the last subcommittee to report. The reorganization does not seem to make much difference. We are still the last subcommittee to report to the floor, and I do not know what else can be said or inferred from that except that the best has been left for last. First, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for the positive and constructive relationship that we have forged thus far in this expanded and reorganized subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) put the bill together, he listened to both majority and minority Members, the concerns that they might have, and worked to resolve a good many issues. That cooperative approach was not limited to subcommittees or even subcommittee members or even to full Committee on Appropriations members. He considered all Members concerned, and where he was able to help, he did that, even to the last 12 hours, as he has indicated in his remarks, the amendment that will be offered early on in the process, and I thank him for that. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for his mark in regards to his thoughtful approach to our capital city's budget which is embodied in this bill. I also want to take a moment to thank the excellent staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this legislation. On the minority side, Mike Malone, Michelle Burkett, Matt Washington, Kathleen Harris on my staff, and Shalanda Young. On the majority side, Dena Baron, the majority clerk, Cheryle Tucker, Steve Crane, Dave Gibbons, Tammy Hughes, David Napolielo and Kristen Jones. This bill has become more complex than I think any of us realized it would, and I appreciate the efforts and the long hours of each and every one of those staff members. Mr. Chairman, every dollar of budget authority allowed in the severely inadequate allocation where a subcommittee has been used, were I in charge of the distribution of that allocation, it would be different. However, there would be still the same volume of holes. So I stipulate that this inadequate allocation created problems. On the one hand, I am very pleased to see significant increases for transportation funding because transportation investments are critical for a healthy, growing economy for our growing and shifting population. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration funding is 13.5 percent above the President's request at $14.427 billion. The Federal Transit Administration is 9 percent above the President's request at $8.482 billion. Federal Highway Administration's allotment here is 4.5 percent above the President's request at $37.026 billion. Mr. Chairman, even the Federal Railroad Administration is 32 percent above the President's request at $732 million. Mr. Chairman, as we can see, these are good levels for transportation funding. On the other hand, I am very concerned about the impact that meeting the House TEA-LU levels was having on other agencies and accounts in the bill. In Title I, the transportation title, Federal aviation, Federal highway, Federal transit are funded substantially above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and way above the President's request for 2006. That is driven by current authorization on FAA and the anticipated authorization, which we all fervently pray for within the next month or so of Federal highway and Federal transit through the TEA-LU bill. The lone exception to adequate funding is Amtrak. The chairman uses an extremely blunt instrument on Amtrak, somewhat like the proverbial 2-by-4 between the mule's eyes. The bill terminates all Federal subsidy on 18 long-distance lines, which are the most heavily subsidized lines, thereby terminating the very concept of a national passenger rail system. Those 18 lines carry roughly 20 percent of Amtrak's passengers and provide the only passenger rail service in 23 States, represented by a lot of Members of the House and, incidentally, by 46 Members of the other body. The shutting down of those lines would incur $300 million in labor and contractual costs in fiscal year 2006 alone. That $300 million, plus $275 million in mandatory debt servicing, plus $130 million of Federal subsidy to keep the remaining 24 inner-city lines operating is already $150 million above the $550 million provided in the bill, and that is before any allocation for capital improvements on the deteriorating northeast corridor trackage, wholly owned by Amtrak and carrying 50 percent of all Amtrak passengers. Mr. Chairman, if this body funds Amtrak at $550 million, it should be no surprise if there is no passenger rail service this time next year. And there will be one or more amendments offered to address that problem. Mr. Chairman, there remain holes in title III, the HUD title. Section 8 and public housing accounts are relatively well funded, but there are substantial reductions from 2005 enacted levels in the community development accounts, and that is largely because the committee wisely rejected the proposal by the President to move almost all of the community development accounts into a different department and a different piece of legislation. And in rejecting and bringing back that material, which has always been the material of the community development portion of housing and community development, the funding ended up not being high enough to be anywhere close to enacted levels from last year. As examples, the CDBG formula grants, which go to virtually all of our communities around the country, are down below the 2005-enacted level by 6 percent, and the HOPE VI and Brownfields Development are defunded, defunded, just as examples. The YouthBuild program, which is operated successfully in so many districts, is not yet funded. So, Mr. Chairman, our bill has some shortfalls. These shortfalls should not be allowed to remain in this bill as it becomes law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that, in the bill that we have before us, that the appropriation for homeless assistance grants is increased by about 8 percent over last year's, the 2005 appropriation. It is up by $100 million over the 2005 appropriation, but that is almost two-thirds of the way to what had been the budget request. Now, there are many, many places in this bill that the budget request by the President is under two-thirds of the amount that had been requested in the budget by the President, and this is one where we are already at that level, at least. The increase of $100 million and an 8 percent increase in the budget is a very good set of funding, given the kind of allocation that the subcommittee was given. That, first of all. Second of all, I point out that the gentleman from Minnesota who spoke earlier for retaining the elimination of the long-distance routes, which carries with it a cost of a total waste of money, carries with it a cost of $369 million which has been estimated as the cost of shutting down those routes. It seems to me that it would be far better to retain the routes, to retain the routes over the long haul and to make the savings of $300 million in other places in the high costs of those routes which we know how to do and still have the service and still have the national passenger rail system. However, by the amendment that the gentleman offers, what he does is to now, after the previous decision adding $600 million roughly to the Amtrak, he takes $100 million of that out and puts them back in the position where the amount of money is not adequate to keep the whole system running for the year. So this is really a counterproductive amendment from the Amtrak point of view. It puts them back in the position of not having enough money to run for the year, and at the same time, he has voted and spoken even for making certain that we waste the $370 million or thereabouts on the shutdown of those long-distance routes. So I would hope that we would not adopt this amendment. I think that there are other ways that we could do that that would normally be for homeless assistance grants, except that there is already a very large increase in the homeless assistance grant, and in so doing we then return Amtrak to an untenable position. So I hope the amendment is not adopted.

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

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

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a good general debate here for this hour that covered a lot of the different areas in the bill and certainly reflects some of the issues that we will be debating as the amendment process goes forward. Again, I want to thank the chairman and the staff on the majority and the minority side for all the work that they have done. It has been a process which has gone a long way. It will go more in the next day or two. All of it should improve the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor and endorse this amendment. This amendment represents exactly what I said an hour or so ago, that the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) has listened to both majority and minority Members' concerns and has worked to resolve all issues. He has considered all Members' concerns and, where he could help, he did; and I thank him for that. With this amendment, the bill would now provide $50 million for YouthBuild and will keep YouthBuild alive while the authorizing committees figures out exactly where YouthBuild should best be authorized. The YouthBuild program is a good program. Several other Members during general debate have talked about it. It is a program that serves young men and women in their late teens and early 20s who dropped out of high school, or graduates from high school who find 2 or 3 years later that they have no real job skills and poor prospects of a good job. Dropouts in this program get a GED and other key education for the construction industry. All participants get skills and experience in housing construction trades. The program has been in place about a dozen years. Nearly 15,000 units of affordable housing have been built, and nearly 30,000 young people have learned the housing construction and building trades, thanks to the YouthBuild program. Many of these young people have gone on to college. Those who have been in trouble with the law earlier in life have a stunningly low recidivism rate after they have been in the YouthBuild program. Each of the items in this amendment was included in my primary remarks at subcommittee markup and again at the full committee markup and in debate on adoption of the rule yesterday. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) listening and responding, and I hope the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I believe very strongly that we should have a national passenger rail system, and I want to see that that is a successful system and a system that we can modernize and make into one that is truly a part of our balanced transportation system. Several people have come to the floor in opposition to the amendment and pointed out how much money is expended by Amtrak. Well, yes, indeed, each of the last 3 years has been over $1.2 billion. One year, 3 years ago, it was $1.3 billion. But even at that level of expenditure, there has not been enough money to even make a serious dent in the capital needs for the northeast corridor, the northeast corridor which carries 50 percent of all of the passengers on our version of the national rail system. So we are being quite unrealistic in the idea that some seem to have that it is possible to run a passenger rail system on the cheap. The number of dollars that are being talked about here simply does not run even the inner-city rail system, those 24 lines that the bill purports to support. As I have said earlier today, the chairman has used an extremely blunt instrument on Amtrak, somewhat like the proverbial 2-by-4 between a mule's eyes. Well, the bill cuts out all Federal subsidy on 18 long-distance lines, which forces them to shut down. But the cost of doing that is, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, giving a more accurate number than I gave, I said $300 million, he said, I believe, $369 million in costs that are just to close down those lines in the first year. And it continues for several years, while those costs of abrogating contractual arrangements and labor costs would continue. That plus already the debt on Amtrak's capital debt, the debt service on Amtrak's capital debt, would be another $275 million and growing. Those two items by themselves end up being more than has been suggested for funding by the bill. So the bill is a shutdown of Amtrak. It is not a reform of Amtrak. That is really for the authorizers to do over time. What the amendment does, as has been proposed by the authorizing committee, and I commend them for putting together a set of offsets which are difficult, but not nearly as difficult in dealing with Amtrak as the proposal is in the bill, what they have done is completely funded offsets within the authorization committee's area. And they are the ones ultimately that are going to have to figure out how to come up with a bill that in the long run provides a national passenger rail system and reforms it, which does not have to be by the basis of cutting out all of these long-distance lines. The lines that are cut out, shown by that map that everybody has seen, cuts out all passenger rail service in 23 States, representing 154 Members of this House of Representatives and 46 Members of the other body. That is just not a realistic position. And the position which the authorizing Chair and the ranking member of the authorizing subcommittee have put forward is a position that still requires reform, because that number of dollars in the long run does not fully fund a functioning and efficient national passenger rail system. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment that has been put forward by the gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Florida. Both States, by the way, lose all of their passenger rail system. I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I just want to say we agree with the amendment that has been offered.

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

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. This is an account which has been funded fully at the President's request. There are so many accounts that have not been funded at the President's request, number one. Number two, I, of course, contributed to the great reduction in the Federal Building Fund, the GSA account that was the subject of the offset for the Amtrak amendment, and I even sat quietly while a couple of amendments for $5, $6, $8 million had come along, maybe three of them, but here we have a big one, and it is quite a sizeable number of dollars. I really do at this point feel that we have gone beyond what can be reasonably taken out of the building fund. I supported the first one in large measure because the authorizers who authorized the GSA were saying that that was doable at that point. I think we have passed that point, and I would hope that we would not adopt this amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think this puts us on a remarkably slippery slope, the proposal that has been made by the gentleman from Indiana. Each of us take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that includes upholding the separation of powers between the branches of this government, for one thing. For a second thing, the Supreme Court is at this time, if I remember correctly, six out of the nine justices have been named by Republican conservative presidents or are supposedly from at least the Republican side. And so this is not a liberal court. This is a centrist court, if not a slightly conservative court. So here we are with a proposal. If I remember correctly, there were, in fact, two decisions, each of them taken by a five-to-four vote, and someone switched there. I do not remember exactly which person switched, so that the commentators that I saw commenting on this in columns suggested that the sum total of what had been done with those two decisions left the situation essentially what it was over the body of material that was being covered by the two decisions. So I think this is a remarkably bold suggestion that we should punish a court, a court in the situation that I have described for a decision which really makes a very minor change in the circumstances. And I would certainly oppose the gentleman's amendment.