Providing For Consideration of H.R. 5025, Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5025, TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 14, 2004)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 770 and ask for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, sadly, the best that can be said of this fiscal year 2005 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill is that it represents a valiant effort to fund the important agencies it covers despite a grossly deficient budget allocation. The subcommittee's fiscal year 2005 budget allocation is $389 million less than the President's request and $2 billion than the level of budget authority provided in the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill.
So, therefore, I want to be begin by thanking the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), ranking member, for their hard work and diligence in bringing this bill forward under very difficult and trying circumstances. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, also deserves credit for helping to craft a bipartisan bill that attempts to spread the pain of this pitifully inadequate budget allocation equally.
That being said, the fact remains that this appropriations bill does not meet the very real and growing needs of our Nation in a number of areas, particularly with respect to our deteriorating transportation infrastructure. And, Mr. Speaker, that simple fact is especially hard to reconcile with this administration's reckless fiscal policies of tax cuts for the wealthy.
This fiscal year 2005 Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill provides $89.9 billion in total funding, an increase of $1 billion over the President's request and $495 million below the fiscal year 2004 level. Discretionary spending is capped at $25.4 billion, which is $2.9 billion below the fiscal year 2004 level.
Among the more glaring shortcomings of this appropriations bill is the continued, conscious and deliberate underfunding of Amtrak. This recurring game of brinksmanship with our national passenger rail system has simply got to stop. During their brief tenure, David Gunn and his management team have made significant improvements in the operational efficiency of Amtrak by cutting waste and reducing expenses while increasing ridership and raising revenues. However, despite these impressive gains, there still exists a massive $6 billion backlog of critical capital improvements, created in large part by years of deferred maintenance along the Northeast Corridor, which absolutely must be addressed.
No less than the Inspector General has stated that Amtrak needs $1.5 billion annually just for its capital needs. Mr. Speaker, this capital backlog is not imagined. It is very real and we need to provide sufficient funding to address it.
The $900 million provided for Amtrak in this appropriations bill is half of the $1.8 billion Amtrak says it needs next fiscal year to keep the system operating reliably and to begin to address its capital backlog. If this $900 million in funding is allowed to stand, Amtrak will likely cease operations in mid-2005. If my colleagues doubt that, perhaps they should update their resume and apply for Mr. Gunn's job. Otherwise, do not be surprised when the trains stop running in the spring of next year and no private rail carrier steps up and offers to operate passenger service without a public subsidy. My colleagues should consider themselves warned.
Mr. Speaker, the underfunding of Amtrak in this appropriations bill is compounded by a reduction in spending on new starts projects within the Federal Transit Administration's budget. At a time when our cities and towns are choking from congestion and the transportation reauthorization bill is mired in election year politics, we can scarcely afford to underfund projects which promote public transit. I have cities in my congressional district like Fall River in Massachusetts, which has 92,000 residents and is located only 50 miles south of Boston but has no access to commuter rail service. In these tough fiscal times, the FTA's new start program represents the only hope of expanding commuter rail to cities like Fall River. We should be increasing funding for new starts, not reducing it.
Equally as troubling to me is the dramatic decrease in funding for Federal Aviation Administration facilities and equipment. This fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill provides $392 million less for FAA facilities and equipment than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. As the commercial airline industry continues to recover from the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and consumer confidence returns, we must not jeopardize the safety and the security of America's airways by short-changing the agency's staffing equipment or facilities.
In the Committee on Rules earlier today, Mr. Speaker, several amendments were offered to the rule, motions that would have provided protections for important amendments so that they could be debated and voted on right here on the House floor today. If the Committee on Rules had approved these motions, the House would have had the opportunity to debate and to vote on these amendments today. Unfortunately, as has become kind of regular order in the Committee on Rules, the Committee on Rules, on party-line votes, denied providing the necessary protections for these amendments, and they cannot be voted on today.
The first amendment brought to the Committee on Rules by the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), would have increased funding for Amtrak by $300 million. The cost of the amendment would be paid for by a small reduction in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for any person making more than $1 million. This amendment would provide badly needed funds for Amtrak; and, as we all know, Amtrak desperately needs increased funds if it is to continue providing the services that all of our constituents rely on.
The second amendment would have protected from a point-of-order language already included in the bill that allows government jobs to be privatized only if such actions would save at least $10 million or 10 percent of the program's cost. The Office of Management and Budget has been working on a proposed rule that puts civilian employees at a competitive disadvantage to noncivilian employees. This language would ensure that the civilian employees have a level playing field when it comes to competition with noncivilian employees.
Additionally, it would provide that taxpayer funds are properly spent, which is simply not the case under the new OMB guidelines. In other words, by leaving this provision unprotected, this important language, originally adopted in the committee, can be struck from the bill, making it much easier to privatize important Federal jobs.
The third amendment offered in the Committee on Rules today would have protected a provision in the bill that provides a 3.5 percent COLA for Federal civilian employees. This is the same level the President proposed for members of the Armed Forces; and while all of us support our troops and we want to ensure that our troops and their families are paid what they deserve, we cannot and we must not forget about the jobs that civilian and Federal employees do each and every day. In fact, I strongly believe we should provide Federal employees with equal pay adjustments.
Beyond that, a fair pay adjustment is needed to keep pace with private sector salaries so the Federal Government can compete for quality employees in the future.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on a special note, I want to publicly commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for raising the very important issue of foreign truck certification in the full committee markup of this appropriations bill. As a former member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the lead sponsor of the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, I am keenly aware of the danger bigger trucks, foreign or domestic, pose to the American driving public on our interstates and highways. I would strongly encourage Members to take this issue very, very seriously and to immediately insist on stringent safety and environmental standards for foreign trucks.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say I appreciate the gentleman's response, but I would just suggest that his priorities and the priorities of his leadership are wrong. What we are suggesting here is that we do have serious needs in this country, and the gentleman admitted it, in terms of transportation and infrastructure needs, and we need to address them. The gentleman and his party think that it is more important to give millionaires tax cuts rather than take those resources and invest it in our infrastructure so our communities can become more competitive, so that we can create more jobs. I mean, this mess we are in is wholly created by those of you who run this Congress, and it is an unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in right now.
There are communities all across this country, States all across this country, Governors all across this country, Republicans and Democrats, who are frustrated that the Republican leadership cannot get their act together and get a highway and transportation bill before both the House and the Senate that we could put on the President's desk. I think when they look at the underfunding of some very important public transportation needs, that frustration is going to continue.
So you are making choices, and I am suggesting that you are making the wrong choices.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just simply respond to the gentleman that the Committee on Rules makes its own rules, as we have seen so clearly since the majority has taken over control of that committee. So one of the frustrations that Members of Congress have is that the only way for their issues to be heard, the only way to bring up these different points of view is to go before the Committee on Rules and to ask the Committee on Rules for protections or for waivers, which, to be honest with my colleagues, is something that has happened in the past. So I would simply say to the gentleman, that is all we want, is to be able to, in the people's House, have a good debate and to be able to bring up the issues that our constituents talk to us about.
With regard to this bill in particular, which many of us think is sadly underfunded because of some bad priorities of the people who are running this House, we would like to have the opportunity to correct that. When we go home, and I suspect when the gentleman goes home and he talks to his mayors and his town managers and to his Governor, they will tell him that there is a desperate need for additional transportation infrastructure funding. There are bridges that are collapsing in this country, there are road projects that are not being done; and the longer we put them on hold, the more expensive they are going to be. I would say also, it has a negative impact on economic development.
I would also suggest to the gentleman, since his party does not seem very interested in creating jobs, since they have a job-loss record that is on par with Herbert Hoover, that this is a way to create jobs. We might actually do something different and get up and actually pass a piece of legislation that will stimulate economic growth and create some jobs, and I think a lot more people would be happy in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respectfully disagree with the gentleman, that it is the job of the Committee on Rules to go through and to analyze each and every amendment and every proposal that every Member of this House, Republican and Democrat, brings before the committee. Everybody in this Chamber should have the right to be able to go to the Committee on Rules and have their amendment considered, be given fair consideration. All of us were elected. We represent the same number of people; all of us have the same right to be able to do that.
I would also say to the gentleman when he mentioned about the budget, to the best of my knowledge, Congress has not approved a budget yet, notwithstanding the fact that the Republican Party controls both the House and the Senate. So we are kind of operating under kind of imaginary budget caps that the Republican Party has decided to put into place. I would again say that to the extent that there is a shortfall here, it is because the gentleman and his leadership and his party have chosen to devote these resources to something else, namely, tax cuts for very wealthy people in this country.
I think that is the wrong choice. I think it would be better to invest some of that money in a strong infrastructure. I think it would be better for our economy, and it would create more jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me clarify to the gentleman, the point I was trying to make is your priorities are all messed up. The bottom line is there is a real need out there, all across this country, even in your State, for more transportation funding, more public transportation funding, more support. It is essential for economic growth. It is essential for job creation and you are short-changing it, and those are your priorities, and I think they are messed up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me conclude again by saying what I said at the beginning of this debate and that is that it is unfortunate that we are dealing with such an inadequate allocation. Our cities, our towns, our States deserve much better than this. This reflects poorly on the priorities of the leadership of this Congress. This has to change. Our communities cannot afford to be short-changed on important transportation dollars.
This undercuts their economic development. This undercuts job growth. We need to do much better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT