THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
As many Members are aware, there is tremendous interest among the Governors in expanding Amtrak high speed rail service--Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and others have formed the Midwest Regional Rail Coalition, and there are other high speed rail corridors in California, New York, in the southeast, and in other parts of the county. To try to address the great interest in this area, the bill includes provisions to provide greater flexibility for governors, at their option, to use CMAQ and Surface Transportation Program funding to help finance these rail projects. We
[Page: H3428] GPO's PDF
This year, the committee received a tremendous number of requests from Members to help with grade crossing removal projects. To help address this need, the bill includes provisions eliminating the State and local matching requirements so that States can more quickly use the $142 million in outstanding Federal funds available, but unspent for this purpose. I would urge your support for these provisions.
Finally, I want to mention my concerns about one aspect of the bill dealing with funding for the large transit projects we call ``new starts.'' This year, the committee received more than $2.7 billion in funding requests for discretionary section 5309 New Starts projects. Even though the program is funded at an historical high of $1.058 billion, the amount available to fund new starts projects is a fraction of the current demand, and this problem will only grow worse in coming years.
The new starts pipeline is huge and growing. The Federal Transit Administration has already committed the federal government to multiyear section 5309 funding of $2.9 billion over the remaining life of TEA21 for 16 transit systems, and the costs for another 47 projects in the pipeline will reach a staggering $25 billion. Still more projects are in the planning stage. The allowable Federal share of these projects under TEA-21 is 80 percent--clearly more than we can afford in the near future. In fact, the President's proposals for this fiscal year, if the committee had adopted them, would have completely exhausted all available discretionary Federal support for new transit systems through 2003.
That is why I have advocated that we should move toward requiring communities to foot at least 50 percent of the bill for these projects, rather than the minimum 20 percent local share required under TEA21. I acknowledge that this is not a popular point of view, but I believe that it will become necessary to fairly provide Federal assistance to new start projects across the country. If we don't move in this direction, many communities with worthy transit projects simply will be left out in the cold.
This bill does not include a 50 percent cost share requirement. But, far from serving as a disincentive to build transit as some have suggested, I believe that sending a clear message that more robust local and State financial participation is expected will help to address the new starts funding logjam--and more fairly distribute new starts assistance to communities in need.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I urge its adoption.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the Appropriations Committee in general, and the chairman and members of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in particular, for their efforts on the legislation that is before us today.
As reported, H.R. 4475 is a well conceived piece of legislation. Not only does it keep faith with the principle that revenues raised for specific purposes, such as highway and airport improvements, should be devoted to those purposes, but it will be of immense benefit to the traveling public. By helping to ease the transportation bottlenecks that impede commerce and by mitigating the traffic congestion that plagues so many of our cities and suburbs, it will be of great benefit to millions of Americans who have to commute to work, drive their children to and from school, deliver shipments, shop for necessities and travel on business or in case of an emergency.
How can I be so sure of that? Because I have the privilege of representing an area that is indicative of both the problems H.R. 4475 seeks to address and remedies that it is intended to provide. As many of my colleagues know, the north and northwest suburbs of Chicago are very busy places. Not only can commuting to or from downtown Chicago by car be very time consuming at rush hour, but traveling from suburb to suburb is no easy or quick matter when traffic is heavy.
To be sure, the Chicagoland is blessed with an excellent commuter rail system and a large number of light rail and bus routes. But, it also has a population that is expected to exceed nine million by the year 2020, which means that the pressures on the area's transportation systems will only get worse unless substantial steps are taken to relieve them. Which is where H.R. 4475 comes in.
If enacted into law, this bill will facilitate the double tracking a portion of METRA's North Central line through northern Cook and central Lake counties, enabling 22 commuter trains a day to serve many of Chicago's northwest suburbs--plus Chicago's O'Hare Airport--instead of the current 10. In addition, the bill will lead to an expansion of METRA service to a number of communities west and southwest of Chicago as well. Also, H.R. 4475 will help reduce traffic congestion in the area serveral other ways. One is that it will help finance the development of intelligent transportation systems in both Lake County, north of Chicago, and DuPage County, west of the city. Another is that it will contribute to the rehabilitation of two important light rail lines--the Ravenswood Line and the Douglas line--in the city itself.
Inasmuch as the aforementioned population growth is expected to occur within the City of Chicago as well as in its suburbs, I cannot emphasize enough how important these improvements are, not just to the people of my district, but to the entire Chicago metropolitan area. In addition to giving us more ways to get around, they will ease traffic congestion and make it easier for us to drive around. Moreover, they will lay the foundation for additional commuter rail service expansions and other transportation improvements in the future. In short, they promise real relief, not just to those who live in or near Chicago, but also to the millions of people who travel to the city while on vacation or to do business.
For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank my colleagues on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee for including those items, the METRA projects and the ITS project in Lake County in particular, in the fiscal 2001 Transportation appropriations bill. You have done my constituents and their Chicagoland neighbors a considerable service, one I am sure they will appreciate every bit as much as will the residents of many other cities and suburbs who likewise stand to benefit from its provisions. Which brings to mind one last thought, it being that the projects and benefits associated with H.R. 4475 stretch far beyond the city limits of Chicago and the State of Illinois. One way or another every State in the country will profit from enactment of H.R. 4475, as will many of their communities and residents. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill today so that we can begin to realize its potential before to many tomorrows come to pass.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4475, the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation appropriations bill. This legislation contains funding for a number of important programs, including several in my own district. These projects are designed to reduce reliance on single-passenger vehicles. By encouraging alternatives to the car, such as mass transit and other commuter opportunities, we reduce air emissions and conserve other important renewable resources. We enhance the quality of life in communities by reducing congestion and preserving air quality. Both are admirable objectives.
The base bill also contains a provision that preserves the current corporate average fuel economy [CAFE] standards . An amendment to strip this provision out of the bill may be offered, and, if approved, will permit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to impose stricter standards . While I strongly support the need to reduce air emissions and promote fuel efficiency, a restrictive approach mandated by the government, unresponsive to consumer demands and production realities, is not the wisest approach.
CAFE is the result of the 1970's energy shortage. It was a proposal to diminish our reliance on foreign oil by mandating to auto manufacturers that their vehicles achieve at least minimum mileage standards . When oil prices again rose sharply in the early 1980's, smaller cars were selling well, and it was expected that manufacturers would have no difficulty complying with the standards . As oil prices began to decline during the latter part of the 1980's, small car sales began to taper. Consumers placed a lower value on fuel economy and gas prices as a factor in deciding which car to purchase. One consequence has been the rise in popularity of sport utility vehicles [SUVs]. Because SUVs rely on large cylinder engines requiring more fuel to power, they have been cited as the reason to revisit CAFE standards .
Since CAFE standards were introduced, manufacturers have increased fuel economy for passenger vehicles by 113 percent and light trucks by almost 60 percent. With new technologies, such as fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, and boosting capabilities, vehicles that were once only able to achieve 18.7 miles per gallon are now able to achieve 70 miles per gallon. Boosting technologies allow a smaller, more fuel efficient engine to be used in a SUV without compromising performance. As important, it is technology that is relatively inexpensive to incorporate into vehicle design. In short, these types of technologies achieve the same end result as the CAFE objectives without increasing vehicle cost or constraining consumer choice.
These technological improvements have resulted, not from the mandates of the CAFE standards , but from voluntary research and development efforts. Many of these technologies are adaptable right now. Others need additional time to fully develop and implement. In either scenario, the focus should be on encouraging technological innovation, development, and implementation. We can achieve this goal, not by commanding and controlling new technologies through the CAFE program, but by creating incentives to undertake expensive research projects. Incentives may include
[Page: H3429] GPO's PDF
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to support H.R. 4475.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, permit me to take this opportunity to express my thanks to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman WOLF, for his diligence and dedication in bringing this measure before the House today.
This legislation fully meets the highways, transit, rail, and aviation needs of our Nation.
Specifically, the measure allocates $30.7 billion for the Federal Highway Administration, a $1.6 billion increase; $12 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, a $2 billion increase; $6.2 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, $485 million more than last year; $689 million for the Federal Railroad Administration, a $45 million decrease from the fiscal year 2000 level; and $4.6 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard, a $594 million increase.
Furthermore, I would express my gratitude to Chairman WOLF for his cooperation in providing assistance to the rural communities of Sullivan County, NY. The degradation of the Tappan Zee Bridge, our efforts to restore service to the west shoreline, our recent privatization of Stewart International Airport, the citizens of my district, from Tappan to Wurtsboro, are continuously facing the transportation challenges of increased growth and development. This funding will play a vital role in our commitment to provide a safe and reliable transportation infrastructure for our Nation.
Once again, I thank Chairmen YOUNG and WOLF for their continued support and commitment and look forward to working with them in the future on the challenges facing to our Nation's transportation system.
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill now before the House, H.R. 4475, the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and related agencies. This bill contains $10,000,000 in Federal transit capital investment grant funding for the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Long Island Rail Road East Side Access [ESA] project. While the ESA project could obligate much more Federal new start funding this year, with construction anticipated to begin this fall, I am very grateful for the committee's support. Federal taxpayers can rest assured that the ESA project will quickly put all Federal transit appropriations to good use for the public.
I am pleased to mention that the NYS MTA's 2000-04 capital plan was just approved in the State legislature and provides the necessary local matching funds, $1,500,000,000, to enable ESA to move rapidly into heavy construction this year. Daily LIRR riders, 50,000 of whom will save nearly 3 hours a week now wasted backtracking from Penn Station on Manhattan's west side to jobs on the east side, are eager to see this project become a reality. Many of these harried commuters are hard-working mothers and fathers who should have these hours to spend with their families. Transit riders throughout the MTA system will benefit from better distribution of passengers made possible by the ESA project. Planned new entranceways into the Grand Central Station complex will enhance the station's flow of LIRR, Metro North, and subway transit passengers. In Queens, passengers also will benefit from a new station to be built in Sunnyside.
This project, which will provide major transportation benefits for the entire New York City Metropolitan region, has received Federal transit new start funding for the last three fiscal years. In addition, a major portion of its overall length was constructed throughout the 1980's with nearly $900 million in Federal dollars (plus an equal amount of State/local dollars) as part of the MTA's 63d Street tunnel and connector project. The ESA project will complete the unfinished elements of these federally aided projects by allowing LIRR commuter trains to use the already constructed lower level of the tunnel and proceed into Grand Central Station. The busy upper level of the 63d Street tunnel now carries subway trains.
In addition to maximizing passenger circulation throughout the transit system, ESA will enhance the environment by taking over 12,000 cars per day off the East River bridges that bring commuters from Queens, Brooklyn, Nassau, and Suffolk to jobs in the Nation's largest central business district. It will also allow for reverse commuters to leave the west side of Manhattan from the same location that Metro North Railroad customers now enjoy.
The ESA project, which I anticipate will be completed by 2011, is moving ahead steadily. The project is prepared for actual construction to begin during this calendar year, and to go into high gear in early fiscal year 2001.
Local and State support for ESA are strong. It is Governor Pataki's No. 1 transit priority. The mayor and the county executives of Nassau and Suffolk, as well as the business community support the project.
Nearly $192 million in State and Federal funds already have been invested in the ESA project, including $46 million in Federal new starts appropriations. With the MTA's suggested overmatch of 50 percent, similar to what it had provided for its previous new start project, the 63d Street Connector, the ESA is a solid Federal investment that will maximize the use of facilities already built with Federal dollars and awaiting use by the taxpayers.
A number of my colleagues including Congresswoman CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Congressman GREGORY MEEKS, Congressman JOSEPH CROWLEY have worked together to support including fiscal year 2001 funds for the ESA project in the Appropriations Committee's reported-bill. It has been a tough effort because there are dozens of transit new starts projects competing for a limited amount of Federal funds. This has been a difficult process for Chairman WOLF, whom I thank for all his support and leadership, and I extend my gratitude to Ranking Member SABO as well.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendments printed in House Report 106-626 are adopted.
During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Those amendments will be considered as read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
Immediate Office of the Secretary
For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the Secretary, $1,756,000.
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary
For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary, $587,000.
Office of the General Counsel
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents