Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2299, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for offering his comment. We would be pleased to work with the gentleman as this transportation bill moves through the appropriations process, especially as the gentleman is the chairman of a very important subcommittee over there on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the amendment strikes a prohibition in this bill that was also carried in last year's bill, which prohibits the planning, design and construction of light rail in Houston. This prohibition is necessary as proponents of light rail in Houston seek to alter an existing full funding grant agreement for a bus program. Congress has fully funded that $500 million grant agreement. The last Federal payment was made this year. However, implementation of the work is still going on. Some in Houston would like to forego elements of the approved Houston regional bus plan, which are explicit components of the existing full funding grant agreement and instead replace these elements will light rail. The sponsors would defer the planned bus elements into the future. The committee cannot support the impact of this amendment. Under current law, funds provided for the existing full funding grant agreement are only for those regional bus plans outlined in the existing agreement. The Committee on Appropriations, authorizing committees, and the Department of Transportation all must approve an amendment of this nature. As we have heard here today, there is dissension among the community about this project. Members within the Houston delegation are on both sides of the issue, some supporting light rail, others opposing it in favor of buses. So until agreement can be reached, Mr. Chairman, at least locally, and some semblance of consensus occurs locally, it is premature to shift this funding, away from a completed full funding grant agreement; it is too early for that to take place. Houston has a state-of-the-art transit program, largely bus-driven. The light rail project is just one component of this larger transit program. Keeping this provision in place in our bill will not adversely impact the overall transportation system in Houston, particularly as the community has local funds that it could use to build this light rail project. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment. It would reduce funding for the Amtrak Reform Council by $335,000. This action would be consistent with the levels of funding provided by the House for the Amtrak Reform Council for the past 2 years.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the point is conceded.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The point of order is conceded.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the point of order is conceded.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I shall not take the full 5 minutes time. This is a manager's amendment and accommodates the concerns expressed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by removing in five cases authorizing language. It has been cleared with the minority as well as the authorizing committee. I believe it is noncontroversial, and I would ask for its adoption.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. ROGERS. We would concede the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we are in an unfortunate situation here. We had monies in the bill, as has been noted, for the small airports, which was stricken on a point of order. Now the amendment would seek to add monies back in, but we have no monies to add back in. The budget authority that we were given does not permit it. No one is a bigger advocate for smaller airports than I am because that is all I have in my district. But I am forced to make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations fields a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2002 on June 13, 2001. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Yes.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in that instance, I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the gentleman's amendment is intended to provide funds which the Secretary of the Department of Transportation would be able to use to establish a hotline for consumers to complain of airline delays, cancellations, problems and so forth associated with air travel?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will concede the point of order in just a minute, but it is unfortunate that the point of order is made. It would defer the beginning of an important and authorized program. These funds would help promote development of smaller airports and promote competition where there is none. As I indicated, the program is authorized, just not from this particular funding source. But we believe it is appropriate to use funds otherwise available to small airports for this new program, which only benefits small airports. But, Mr. Chairman, I concede, technically, the point.