Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT-A LEGACY FOR USERS (H.R.3550)-- (House of Representatives - April 01, 2004)

-BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT-

AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MS. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Ms. Waters:

At the end of subtitle H of title I, add the following (and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

SEC. 1819. LIMITATION ON PROJECTS AT LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

No funds may be provided for surface transportation projects that are planned or required to implement Alternative D of the Master Plan for Los Angeles International Airport or any other proposal to build a remote passenger check-in facility at Los Angeles International Airport.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 593, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

My amendment would prohibit the use of funds for surface transportation projects that are planned or required to implement Alternative D of the Master Plan for Los Angeles International Airport or any other proposal to build a remote passenger check-in facility at LAX.

Mr. Chairman, this proposed project is mired in scandal and pay-to-play contracting schemes. The FBI and the DA are now investigating all of the alleged corruption.

Los Angeles International Airport, which is located in my congressional district, is already the third largest airport in the United States, with a capacity to serve 78 million air passengers every year. Alternative D is the latest of several proposals to make LAX even bigger, not safer.

Alternative D is a $9 billion scheme that would demolish homes, disrupt the communities of Manchester Square, Inglewood, Hawthorne, El Segundo and other communities near LAX in order to construct a remote passenger check-in facility at Manchester Square, which is several blocks away from the airport terminals.

There is a broad coalition that have already agreed that we need a regional response, that this area is landlocked, and it does not make good sense to try to expand LAX this way. The regional response to growth would be a good response. This is an ill-conceived project.

The highly respected Rand Corporation evaluated this project, and they concluded that it does not make good sense, and in the event of a terrorist attack, passengers would be at great risk because they would all be concentrated in this so-called remote facility.

Alternative D would be inconvenient for airport passengers and their families. Local families could no longer drive to the central terminals in order to drop off passengers. Instead, airport employees and passengers would have to go to this so-called remote passenger check-in facility and ride an automated people mover to the airport terminals carrying their carry-on baggage with them. This would be extremely inconvenient for most passengers, and it would present special hardships for the elderly, the handicapped, and families traveling with small children.

Alternative D would displace thousands of Manchester Square residents. In order to construct this remote passenger check-in facility, the City of Los Angeles would have to acquire and demolish 38 houses, 179 apartment buildings and a 52-year-old elementary school, in addition to the 263 structures it has already acquired. It would also have to relocate about 6,200 people, some of whom have federally subsidized housing vouchers. I strongly oppose the forced relocation of any of these residents.

Alternative D would increase traffic congestion in communities near LAX. The proposal would concentrate airport traffic on the east side of the airport near the proposed remote passenger check-in facility, causing a shift in airport traffic to the I-405 freeway near the Arbor Vitae/Manchester Avenue exits. This could cause a tremendous increase in traffic congestion which already has heavily congested this area. It also would increase traffic congestion in the surrounding communities as airport passengers and other drivers seek alternative routes to get to and from and around the airport.

Mr. Chairman, these funds are intended for surface transportation projects that will benefit local communities and alleviate traffic congestion. If we permit the funding of any projects that enable the implementation of Alternative D, the results will be a tremendous inconvenience for passengers, huge increases in traffic congestion, and massive disruptions of local communities surrounding LAX. My amendment would ensure that no funds are provided for surface transportation projects that are planned or required to implement this destructive airport expansion project.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who claims the time in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) who wishes to speak on the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for yielding me the time, and I reluctantly oppose the amendment of the gentlewoman from California with whom I am in accord on most issues, and I think she makes a very good point about this remote security facility.

I raised such concerns many years ago in Paris when Charles de Gaulle Airport said, for American check-in passengers, we are going to have a separate little place called the hutch. I went over to inspect it, and I said, my goodness, this is terrific, you collect all the Americans in one place so a terrorist can throw a bomb and kill them all at once. Of course, I said it in French; and they said, oh, we had not thought about that. They backed away and said, well, we will not make Americans do that.

So the gentlewoman makes a good point, but it is the point that is part of a larger process and that is to stop the expansion of the Los Angeles Airport. The Metropolitan Planning Organization is the agency in an urbanized area with the responsibility to determine the needs for projects to be advanced to meet transportation needs for the area. We really should not be inserting ourselves into that debate, certainly not at this time; and, reluctantly, I oppose the gentlewoman's well-intentioned amendment and well-expressed amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

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

It is unfortunate that there seems to be some agreement between my friends on the opposite side of the aisle and my own caucus in opposing my project. It is very important to my district and all of the areas in the surrounding communities that has formed a coalition, and this is simply a request to say let us not use any of this money for any selfish projects.

This has nothing to do with the building of the facility itself; and, unfortunately, since there has been an agreement, I know that it will be voted down, but I am not at all happy about it.

[Time: 16:00]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman's time has expired.

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

The amendment was rejected.