John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to accept the motion. I have just one or two speakers that I would like to allow time for. Then we will go on to other things. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate versions of the Transportation- Treasury bill have substantial differences on a wide range of issues that we will have to reconcile in our conference negotiations, and some of those reconciliations will not be easy. Many of these, such as the differences in funding level for Amtrak and election reform are widely publicized and well known. The two versions of the Transportation-Treasury bill contain a number of issues that have not been as widely noted, but will have nevertheless a significant impact on people's lives. The motion to instruct that is at the desk and has been read this morning highlights just a few of those issues that I believe and we believe on this side deserve the attention of the conferees. First, the motion insists upon the Senate's funding level for Transit New Starts projects. The House bill provided $1.21 billion, more than $100 million below the Senate level of $1.32 billion, and even the Senate bill is in turn more than $200 million below the President's request. Under the House funding level, the Members on both sides of the aisle were not able to secure funding for many of the light rail projects in their districts. Several of the projects that did receive funding are well below the actual needs of the project in fiscal year 2004. The New Starts program which covers heavy and light rail, commuter rail, and rapid bus systems has helped create or extend hundreds of transit fixed guideway systems across the country. These investments in turn provided greater mobility for many millions of urban and suburban Americans. They have helped to reduce congestion and improve air quality in areas that they serve, and they have fostered the development of safer and more livable communities. Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that the President's budget request sought $1.51 billion, which is $300 million more than is provided in the House bill, and that this motion supports $100 million of that difference. President Bush's request and the Senate's funding level acknowledge the need for additional major investment in transit light rail projects. We need to pass this motion to ensure that the conferees share this priority. Second, Mr. Speaker, today's motion to instruct insists upon the Senate level of funding of $125 million for the Job Access and Reverse Commute funding. This program is designed to assist welfare reform efforts by providing better transportation services for low-income individuals, persons who often cannot afford automobiles in this society, including former welfare recipients who are traveling to jobs or training centers. The House-passed bill is $40 million below the Senate funding level and $64 million below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, which was $149 million for that program. The Senate funding is already 15 percent below last year's enacted level, but the House bill provides something more than a 40 percent cut in last year's enacted funding level for that program. Reducing funding for those trying to get to work or for those trying to get training to reenter the workforce seems to be the wrong priority under the current circumstances. Since 2001, the economy has lost over 3 million private sector jobs and 2.6 million jobs overall. The unemployment rate is hovering near 6 percent with little sign of improvement. For those who see improvement in the economy, there is a general acknowledgment that this has been thus far a ``jobless recovery.'' Given this economy, I would suggest that we should not want to reduce the funding aimed squarely at getting people back to work. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the motion insists upon the House funding levels for the National Archives electronic records archives initiative and for the National Historic Publications and Records Commission grants. These two programs, administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, are both critical for properly maintaining our Nation's history. The House bill fully funds the budget request of $35.9 million for the electronic records initiative and this funding will help build the infrastructure necessary for properly maintaining the Federal Government's electronic records. It also serves as a standard for States and municipalities as they deal with issues involving electronic records archiving. Unfortunately, the other body neglected to provide the necessary resources for these vital programs. Without funding at the House level, hundreds of thousands of electronic records and historic records will not be maintained as they should be. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support a bailout for poor preparation and bad foreign policy. The President squandered the $79 billion that Congress appropriated in April. He is now requesting an $87 billion blank check, and I will not vote to sign it. This year, America will run the largest deficit in our history--more than $475 billion, excluding the President's request for Iraq. The $87 billion would be better used to create jobs and improve health care and education for Americans. The substitute to the President's request offered by Congressman David Obey in the Appropriations Committee is a far better alternative. The Obey substitute insists on accountability and transparency for the expenditure of reconstruction dollars and encourages support from other nations thereby reducing the burden on American taxpayers. Unfortunately, the Obey substitute was rejected in the Appropriations Committee and Republican leadership has blocked it from consideration by the full House. But the Obey substitute offered the best plan for fixing the chaos in post-war Iraq. I voted against the original bill authorizing the President to use force against Iraq, but once our troops were put in harms way I, like all members of Congress, have done everything necessary to support our troops. Despite many reservations about going to war, my colleagues and I overwhelmingly supported the President's $79 billion supplemental to cover the cost of deploying and operating troops in Iraq. At that time, it was the largest supplemental bill ever considered by Congress. These funds were to cover our troops' basic necessities such as water, body armor and the correct equipment needed for a desert conflict. I thought the necessary funds had been provided to achieve victory and bring our troops home swiftly and safely, and I assumed the President had a plan. Yet, six months later, 80 percent of U.S. troops have been drinking putrid water and whole units have come down with dysentery. As many as 40,000 troops do not have the standard issue body armor and, in fact, are using outdated body armor from the Vietnam era. Our Guard and Reserve Forces are caught in a hidden draft. They are being required to serve far longer in Iraq than they had been told because the troop rotation schedule is in chaos. Sadly, this could have been avoided because the war on Iraq was a war of choice, not of necessity. The administration's two primary reasons for the war--Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and his alleged links to Al-Qaeda--were both intentionally exaggerated to build support for that war. No weapons of mass destruction have been found and the President has now downplayed the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and Al- Qaeda. If the aftermath of the war were going well, Americans would probably overlook the deliberately misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ties to Al-Qaeda. Now, as Americans are killed almost every day and it is clear that winning the peace will be a long, difficult and expensive process, people are questioning how we got to where we are today. The swell of opposition to the President's request should surprise no one. The American people are learning that the President's insistence on a unilateral war means that we will pay for a unilateral peace. Even our closest allies are reluctant to pay for the aftermath of our war. International donors scheduled to meet in Madrid next month are expected to contribute no more than $2 billion to the reconstruction effort, while most recent estimates to rebuild Iraq over the next four years call for $55 billion above the President's current request. By channeling $7 billion of reconstruction funds through the World Bank, the Obey substitute would reduce the burden on American taxpayers. This is an effective way to prevent cronyism in reconstruction contracts and to encourage international donors to contribute to the redevelopment of Iraq. The World Bank is much more likely to rely on indigenous workers and companies to carry out construction projects than is an organization that is tied to political appointees in the White House. The President's request allows for sole-source, no bid contracts to be awarded without the notification of Congress. This is a thinly disguised appropriation for Halliburton, Bechtel and the President's other fundraisers. The Obey substitute includes mechanisms that limit these contracts and directs funding to cost-effective projects, rather than the large, capital-intensive, expensive contracts the President favors. Mr. Chairman, the Obey substitute is an excellent proposal that will provide for much more effective reconstruction in Iraq. The Obey substitute also provides the body armor, adequate purified drinking water, portable jammers and 20,000 additional troops to relive Guard and Reserve Forces. It allows our troops to finish their jobs and return home quickly and safely. It prepares for the return of our Guard and Reserve Forces by extending their healthcare coverage from 60 days to 6 months. The Obey substitute will force the President to fess up to the actual long-term costs of our military action, relieve pressure on the Guard and Reserve over time and make our troops safer. Mr. Chairman, I opposed the President's war on Iraq, but I support the Obey substitute amendment. It makes better use of our limited resources to fix a horrible and dangerous situation.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute to the bill that is before us that was offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in the Committee on Appropriations. The Obey substitute was rejected then and will likely be ruled out of order tomorrow. That is unfortunate, because the Obey substitute offers a plan for fixing the chaos in post-war Iraq. Mr. Chairman, the war on Iraq was a war of choice, not of necessity. The administration's two primary reasons for this war, Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and his alleged links to al Qaeda, were both deliberately exaggerated to build support for that war. No weapons of mass destruction will be found, and the President himself has now downplayed the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. If the aftermath of the war were going well, Americans would probably overlook the deliberately misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons and its ties to al Qaeda. Now, as Americans are killed almost every day, it is clear that winning the peace will be a long, difficult, and expensive process; and people are questioning how we got where we are today. The American people are learning that the President's insistence on a unilateral war means that we will pay for a unilateral peace. There is popular opposition to the President's request for so much money for Iraq. This year America will run the largest deficit in our history, over $475 billion, without even including this $87 billion request for Iraq. The $87 billion that we are debating today is money that would have been better used to create jobs and improve health care and education for Americans here at home. The Obey substitute is an excellent proposal that provides the body armor, the equipment and adequate pure drinking water that our troops need to finish their jobs and return home quickly and safely. The Obey substitute makes our troops safer. The Obey substitute insists on accountability and transparency for the expenditure of reconstruction dollars, and it encourages support from other nations, thereby reducing the burden on American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the President's war on Iraq, but I support the Obey substitute because it makes better use of our limited resources.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is that this proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislating in an appropriation bill, and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I insist upon my point of order.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This amendment would eliminate from the present list of roughly 40 routes that Amtrak operates 16 of these routes, including such routes as Chicago to St. Louis and Chicago to Pontiac, which are two of the key routes within the Chicago hub system, routes which, interestingly enough, are part of a hub system, which has been much touted for in the long-term high-speed-rail development. In fiscal year 2003, Amtrak did not initiate additional changes in its long distance routes because the individual long distance routes would not result in any significant savings, and no savings at all in the first several years. In the interim, severance costs would be very costly expenses, estimated up to a billion in the first year for taxpayers if one were to eliminate the long-distance routes. I have not analyzed whether these routes are exactly the same routes, but there is a great deal of overlap between the routes that have been considered for long-distance elimination and to what I have said applies, that there would be no savings in the short run; and, in fact, would have considerable severance costs involved. The gentleman's amendment bans the use of States to subsidize these routes, routes like the Chicago to St. Louis and the Chicago to Pontiac or to Detroit, those represent part of a close-in system where urban areas are close to each other and which by every indication the President himself has been suggesting that these should be routes that ought to be supportable for operating purposes and for some capital purposes by the States, that they ought to be involved. This amendment, as I understand it, bans the uses of States to subsidize routes. I do not know if we should be in the business of telling States how to spend their own money. The issue of long-distance trains, and how to deal with those, really is one for the authorization committee and not for the Appropriations Committee. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers on general debate, and I yield back the balance my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been offered because this is ground that we have already been over. The bill that is before us provides $900 million for fiscal 2004 for Amtrak, and that, it turns out, is exactly what the President had recommended for Amtrak for fiscal year 2004. In fact, we are covering old ground because this was settled at an earlier point. The Transportation Subcommittee had in fact made a recommendation to full committee for the number which the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) has asked for. And it was one of those provisions that was changed in order to bring it to the full Committee on Appropriations in order to have enough votes to get that bill out of the full Committee on Appropriations to bring it back to the $900 million level that the President had asked for. In fact, I should remind Members that 220 Members of the House of Representatives had petitioned the Committee on Appropriations asking that the full funding requested by Amtrak should be provided for Amtrak and that was double what is already here. So this is replowing the old ground that we in the Committee on Appropriations had to go through to bring this bill to the floor in the first place and would be reversing that movement. I think that is distinctly a wrong thing to do. Let me also point out that in regard to the $900 million appropriation which is included in the bill before us, and I am interested in the comment that my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) stated, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has made about providing Amtrak just enough so that it would fail, when Ken Mead, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General was asked by me as to what would be the result of the appropriations of $900 million, and I intend to support the idea of increasing that appropriation farther down the road, but he sent a letter back to me, and I will quote from that letter. He sent a letter on July 10 in response to those questions about the impact of various funding levels. In regard to the $900 million level which the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) amendment would reduce substantially, he said, ``Because there would not be any funds remaining for other capital investments, operational reliability likely would suffer. None of the backlog of capital needs could be addressed at that funding level.'' So that puts us a step backward on the process of funding Amtrak at a level that would allow it to continue and continue safely as a provider of passenger rail service for this Nation. So I would urge Members to oppose this amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this Congress really should leave local decisions with local communities. We really should not try to run Houston as if we were the City Council for Houston or the Houston Metro Authority. That would put Houston in the same unenviable position that our own capital city where this body sits is in, and that would be inappropriate. The Texas Metro Board has already held the public hearings that are necessary under the law. Furthermore, the referendum required by the language of section 163 has already been scheduled for November 4. So section 163 is clearly unnecessary. The referendum is already scheduled for the entire Houston area. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the Jackson-Lee amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me start by commending the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for his leadership in presenting this amendment. I want to point out and remind Members that this amendment has been cosponsored by a bipartisan group from both sides of the aisle, including myself on the Committee on Appropriations, several members from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and several Members who have no connection with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or the Committee on Appropriations. This is truly a bipartisan amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike section 114 to preserve the enhancement program as it has been authorized and in law for the last 12 years. Make no mistake, a vote against this amendment would cripple the extremely popular enhancement program. The transportation enhancement program created in 1991 in the ISTEA bill was designed to help communities expand transportation choices. Enhancement funds are used to create alternative means of transportation such as bicycle trails and pedestrian walkways which are directly associated with roadways. Enhancements also include the renovation of streetscapes, scenic roads, beautifications, and preservation and investment in the reuse of historic transportation infrastructure that creates both jobs and community amenities. Congress in both ISTEA and the TEA-21 bill, and now the administration in its transportation reauthorization proposal, determined that a small portion, about 2 percent of our $30-plus billion every year that goes into the highway program, should be used for these kinds of projects. From 1998 to 2003, a total of $4 billion was provided to the States for these enhancements, of which almost $3 billion had been obligated by the middle of this year. But there is a more telling statistic: From 1971 to 1991, the 20 years before there was an authorized and overwhelmingly voted and agreed to set-aside for enhancements, only $40 million was spent nationwide on bike and pedestrian paths, by far the largest component of the enhancement program. Yet under the authorized ISTEA and TEA-21 legislation, in those 12 years from 1991 until now, over $2.2 billion out of a total of almost $300 billion for highway programs, only that small amount has actually been allocated and directed in this manner for such bike and pedestrian paths. This occurred largely because of the guaranteed funding designated for enhancements over those two authorization bills which, as I point out again, have been voted for, established by the Congress and voted for by overwhelming numbers. Without the guaranteed authorized set-aside, the program will perish. The fact is Congress has set-asides for many transportation activities. We have them for safety, for interstate maintenance, for bridges and many other areas. These enhancements should be no different. Enhancements are popular and a needed component of a balanced transportation policy. Hundreds of Members in this body requested money for enhancements, and a good many of those projects are included in this very bill. In fact, the list includes such things as a Hot Springs Bike Trail in Arkansas, Independence Biking Road Access in Kansas, Mountain Bay Trail in Wisconsin, Riverfront Trail in Georgia, the Salk Trail in Illinois, the Toledo Waterfront Redevelopment in Ohio, the Anacostia Riverwalk in the District of Columbia, and the list goes on and on. They include projects that have major social and economic benefits and provide jobs, like the Union Station rehabilitation project in Meridian, Mississippi, funded by enhancements that spurred $10 million of private investment in the Depot District, and the Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development has estimated that the River Heritage Museum, funded by enhancements, will bring in $20 million to the Paducah area over 5 years. We should continue more than a decade of success and bipartisan support for this very popular enhancement program. If Members support the enhancement program and believe in a balanced transportation bill, they will vote for the Petri amendment that so many other names have been associated with, including my own, and I urge an aye vote on the amendment.

Mr. OLVER. I do.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the whipping boy today seems to be Amtrak on the part of one group; and there is another group that feels that the number that is there for Amtrak is totally inadequate. I am more a part of that group. The amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) again reverses the action taken by the Committee on Appropriations in full committee to provide the level of funding that the President had asked for for Amtrak. I happen to believe that is quite inadequate. The number that has been proposed now will strangle, and, by the way, is specifically intended to strangle the very idea of a national passenger rail system for America. I hope that will not be the direction that we take here today. The proposals for increases of funding where $320 million are used, there are 6 of them, I guess, and each one has arguments that can be made in favor of it, but the cost of doing that is to reduce the funding for Amtrak to the point where it absolutely goes belly up. It is the very end, and is intended to strangle the passenger rail system. As I have pointed out before, the level of $900 million is what the President requested. And even at that level, it is clear that it is not possible to make any inroads in the years of deferred maintenance and inadequate capital investment at Amtrak. The Inspector General for Transportation had pointed that at that $900 million level, none of the backlog of capital needs could be addressed at that funding level. We have already heard that 220 Members of this House of Representatives had written the Committee on Appropriations asking for a higher number than the $900 million level. In fact, the number was $1.8 billion which Amtrak asked for, which the new president of Amtrak had asked for. I just have to point out and remind Members that over the last 5 years Amtrak has received an average of $1.1 billion each year, and at that level of funding they have not been able to keep up with capital needs. They have had to defer important capital investments. They have a backlog of $3.8 billion on infrastructure, $1.1 billion for fleet, and $900 million for stations and facilities, so such a level would make it impossible to do anything of significance in capital needs. Again, the inspector general has estimated that Amtrak would need $1.5 billion annually for capital needs alone throughout the system. The president of Amtrak, David Gunn, the new President and CEO, has cut waste, reduced expenses, increased revenues, improved Amtrak's operations, and he has said that he would need $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion each year to stabilize the system over the next 5 years. That includes the funding for upgrading track and bridges and tunnels in the northeast corridor, which is one piece of it which carries a huge number of passengers, and runs somewhere fairly close to break even, except for capital expenditures. The fact here is the amendment is intended to terminate the idea of a passenger rail system in this country. I hope we would not adopt this amendment. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Preferential Motion Offered By Mr. Obey

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) for working so hard to get this bill to the floor. I think it has been a more difficult task than many of us believe, but I also want to take a moment to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this bill. On the majority side, I want to recognize our clerk, Rich Efford, and Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, Kurt Dodd, Walter Hearne and Bill Nicholson. On the minority side, I particularly want to thank Mike Malone and Beverly Pheto from the committee staff and Bob Letteney and Rob Gatehouse from my personal staff. I want to pay a special recognition and thanks to my legislative director, Bob Letteney, who has been a member of my staff since 1997. He has handled transportation appropriations issues on my personal staff for the last several years, but Bob is one of a handful of Federal employees selected this year as a Mike Mansfield fellow, and that unique program named for the former Senate majority leader and Ambassador to Japan places Federal workers in targeted Japanese Government agencies where an exchange of knowledge would be beneficial to both countries. It is an honor to be chosen for a Mansfield fellowship, and the program directors could not have selected a better candidate than Bob Letteney. So I thank Bob for his years of hard work in my office, and I wish him the best of luck in Japan and beyond. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this has been a long road to get this bill to the floor, and I appreciate the chairman working with us to make substantial changes to the original subcommittee mark. Among other things, during full committee, money was added back for rural communities that rely on essential air service programs. In full committee we also increased funding for new starts transit projects and added some money, though not nearly enough, to the Amtrak program. The bill also obligates over $33 billion, of course this is a major nut of funding in this appropriations bill, for the Nation's highway program, and that is the largest, obviously, piece in this whole legislation. Each billion will create some 45,000 new jobs. Yet we still have a long way to go to get what I would consider a balanced Transportation Treasury bill. The bill cripples the enhancement program by eliminating the minimum authorized guarantee for enhancements that has been in effect for the 12 years of the ISTEA and TEA-21 authorizations that were established by overwhelming votes of this Congress. Enhancements include bike trails, pedestrian walkways, and money for historic preservation. They are vital components of the transportation system and enhance the fabric of our local communities. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit and Pipelines of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), along with me and a large bipartisan group of Members, will have an amendment to preserve that enhancement program. The bill only provides $900 million for Amtrak, pushing them to the brink of a shutdown, despite the fact that 220 Members of this body sent a letter to the Committee on Appropriations supporting Amtrak's request for $1.8 billion. I also will offer an amendment to restore funding for Amtrak. Transit programs are still woefully underfunded. The New Starts transit account is still $300 million below the President's request for the New Starts program. Job access and reverse commute grants are cut by $64 million from last year's enacted bill. These funds help low-income families in rural and urban areas get rides to work, school and health care appointments. For the FAA, funds are not provided as requested by the President to begin hiring additional air traffic controllers in advance of an imminent wave of retirements. And on the Treasury side of the bill, $100 million is included to implement an earned income tax credit precertification program that would subject four million working poor to additional burdens each year and drive many of them away from the program which former President Ronald Reagan called our most effective program to reduce poverty. This bill also contains no funding for Federal courthouse construction at a time when we already face a significant backlog of construction and renovation needs, and this will certainly make the situation worse. On the floor today and in conference, I hope we will be able to rectify some of these problems and have strong bipartisan support for the end product of those deliberations. I want to pay special recognition and thanks to my Legislative Director, Bob Letteney, who has been a member of my Washington staff since 1997. Bob started with me as a Staff Assistant and worked his way all the way up to Legislative Director. He has handled transportation appropriations issues on my personal staff for the last several years. Bob is one of a handful of federal employees selected this year as a Mike Mansfield fellow. This unique program, named for the former Senate Majority Leader and Ambassador to Japan, places federal workers in targeted Japanese government agencies where an exchange of knowledge would be beneficial to both countries. The federal workers selected as fellows study Japanese language and cultural intensively for the first year of a two- year program, and after that are placed in a Tokyo agency appropriate for their background and professional interests. It's an honor to be chosen for a Mansfield fellowship, and the program directors couldn't have selected a better candidate than Bob Letteney. I understand Bob wants to be placed in a rail transportation agency, and this is clearly a critical area for the U.S. over the next decade. So it will be with mixed emotions that I say ``goodbye'' to Bob on his last day in my office next week. A Pittsfield, Massachusetts native and a proud graduate of Pittsfield High School and then the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Bob has been real home-grown success story and an invaluable staffer in my organization. The opportunity presented by the Mansfield fellowship, however, is a great one, and I know Bob will represent our Nation in outstanding fashion. Bob, thank you for your years of hard work in my office, and I wish you the best of luck in Japan and beyond. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I had an amendment which I had asked the Committee on Rules to allow but was not made in order under the rule. That amendment would have added $500 million to the bill for Amtrak, bringing their total funding for fiscal year 2004 to $1.4 billion, still $400 million less than Amtrak has indicated that they need to begin to make a dent in the severe deferred maintenance and inadequate capital investments that have been plaguing them for years. The amendment would have allowed them to begin to make an inroad in those deferred maintenance and capital investment deferences that have plagued them, as I have indicated. My amendment would have done this by reducing the average tax cut for those earning $1 million or more of taxable income from an average of $88,000 to an average of $85,500 or about, on average, $2,500 per person. This amendment should have been made in order if this Congress believes in a national passenger rail system. And I would just point out that for persons who are just reaching that threshold of what sounds like a very large number of $1 million of taxable income, for persons just reaching that threshold, that would have required a reduction of less than $1,000 in their tax cut. The bill before us provides only $900 million in fiscal 2004 for Amtrak and, if enacted, will strangle passenger rail service in the United States. No large private or public intercity passenger rail system in the world has been profitable or been able to survive without substantial public subsidy. When national governments no longer want to support intercity rail service, the rail service disappears. The lesson is clear. Passenger railways cannot operate without government support. Over the last 5 years, Amtrak has received an average of $1.1 billion per year, and this reduction in that level of funding has caused Amtrak to defer important capital improvements to the point of danger to the public safety of users. Amtrak has a $3.8 billion backlog on infrastructure, $1.1 billion backlog for fleet, and $9 million backlog for stations and facilities. Without an adequate capital budget we will be playing Russian roulette with the operability of Amtrak and the safety of its passengers. We must continue to work to provide Amtrak the money it needs to run a safe and national railway system. So because my amendment to provide that necessary funding for the national rail passenger system has not been made in order, I am urging a no vote on the rule.