Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 817, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3074.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 3074. Before I explain the contents of the conference report, however, I would like to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan, Joe Knollenberg, for his great help in crafting a well-balanced Transportation and Housing bill. Joe and I have put together a strong bipartisan bill that will help address the Nation's important transportation and housing needs.

I think Joe and I have been a good team and I look forward to working closely with him again next year. I would also like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for all of their hard work. On the minority side, Dena Baron and Dave Gibbons and Jeff Goff. And on the majority side, Kate Hallahan, our clerk; Cheryle Tucker; David Napoliello; Laura Hogshead; Alex Gillen; Mark Fedor and Bob Letteney. They performed well under stress and trying circumstances, and without their dedication we would not be here today debating this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Members can and should be proud of this bill because it provides critical investments in our Nation's transportation and housing infrastructure, and does so within a fiscally sound manner and within our conference allocation.

Unlike some other issues we debate in Congress, transportation and housing have a long history of bipartisanship, and I hope we can continue in that spirit of bipartisanship today.

At their core, both transportation and housing have a direct impact on the people we represent. All of us are affected by congestion on our roads, travel delays in our airports, and the lack of dependable public transportation. We also all benefit from community development investments and the availability of affordable housing in our communities. This bill in so many ways affects each and every one of us.

Let me briefly explain some of the highlights of the conference report.

For the first time in 13 years, our bill includes $75 million for the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing program, commonly known as VASH, to provide roughly 10,000 housing vouchers and supportive services to homeless veterans.

While we do not know the exact number of homeless veterans, the Veterans Administration has estimated that there were as many as 196,000 during a point-in-time count just last year. Surely we can all agree that 10,000 homeless veterans are 10,000 too many homeless veterans. Even one homeless veteran is a homeless veteran too many.

We have also included $30 million for about 4,000 new housing vouchers for the disabled, the first new housing vouchers for the disabled in 5 years. The need for housing for the disabled has been well documented, with average housing rents rising much faster than a disabled person's monthly supplemental security income, SSI.

Secondly, the bill provides $250 million to help with the current foreclosure crisis. We have included $200 million over the President's request for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, a recognized national intermediary between lenders and homeowners, to help individuals and families forestall foreclosure and keep their homes. A separate $50 million is provided for HUD's housing counseling program to help new potential home buyers avoid future foreclosures.

According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the second quarter of this year saw the highest percentage of mortgages go into foreclosure since 1972. Many of those foreclosures and delinquencies are due to the proliferation of subprime and other adjustable-rate loans. With 2 million subprime mortgages expected to reset over the next 18 months, the number of homeowners facing delinquency is staggering in many parts of the country.

The funds included in this bill for foreclosure counseling is the first major Federal investment into this growing crisis. The President has stated on a number of occasions that he wants to help solve this problem. If he is serious, he would sign this bill into law and help many tens of thousands of families receive the help they need to manage their finances and the refinancing of their mortgage so they can keep their homes.

In addition, the bill also makes significant investment in our transportation infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge tragedy put a national spotlight in the State, on the state of America's transportation infrastructure, especially with the number of lives lost in that tragedy. More than 20,000 out of some 100,000-plus bridges on the national highway system are characterized as ``structurally deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete.'' Traffic on these bridges is over 190 million trips per day.

The conference report includes an additional billion dollars over the President's request for the bridge program as a downpayment to help States fix their long list of substandard bridges; $195 million is specifically included for the I-35 bridge in Minnesota, which alone carried 140,000 passenger vehicles per day. And that sum will make Minnesota whole for the full replacement of that Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis.

Those are the new initiatives, but there are numerous other positive transportation and housing investments in this bill. The bill honors the highway guarantees which were set in the authorization bill in 2005, the SAFETEA-LU authorizing bill which was brought forward by the now minority just 2 years ago. That guarantee provides a record level of investment in transit as well. This funding will improve the Nation's transportation and infrastructure and is expected to create close to 80,000 new jobs between highways and transit.

The bill also provides $1.375 billion for Amtrak, plus an additional $75 million for a new intercity passenger rail program to create a faster, safer, and more reliable intercity passenger rail system. That $75 million was requested by the President.

We have included $3.5 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, the same as last year, for critical airport safety capacity and security upgrades.

We have also provided almost $3.8 billion for Community Development Block Grants, the extremely popular CDBG program, which is $100 million above fiscal year 2007 but still $400 million below the fiscal year 2001 level. It is estimated that every dollar of community block grant funding leverages $3 in private investment for critical community and economic development priorities in over a thousand localities around the country.

The bill restores housing for the elderly and disabled to last year's level. And finally, we have provided enough funding to ensure that no one that has

a section 8 tenant or project-based housing voucher will lose that voucher in this fiscal 2008 year.

Mr. Speaker, transportation and housing is not a Republican, not a Democratic issue. A broad consensus exists affirming the great needs for transportation and infrastructure investment and affordable housing nationwide. As such, this budget should be above partisan politics and should be passed and signed into law. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt the conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 3 minutes to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Pastor from Arizona.

(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, a senior member of our subcommittee and someone who has been very much involved in planning for communities over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who has been very helpful with thoughts and suggestions about how transportation and housing should fit together in the planning of communities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, at this point, to enter into the

Record a couple of letters which we have from public organizations. One is Americans for Transportation Mobility. And this is an organization which is an umbrella of the American Public Transportation Association; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; the Associated Equipment Distributors; the Associated Equipment Manufacturers; Associated General Contractors; American Society of Civil Engineers; International Union of Operating Engineers; Laborers International Union of North America; the National Asphalt Pavement Association; National Construction Alliance; National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who are cosigners on this letter of support for H.R. 3074.

And I have, secondly, a letter from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, commonly known as AASHTO. I think every one of us who has ever worked at the State levels of public funding, as well as the national levels, understands what AASHTO is. And this is a letter of support signed by the executive director of AASHTO, also in support of the conference report on H.R. 3074. And I offer that for inclusion in the Record.

Americans for

Transportation Mobility,

Washington, DC, November 14, 2007.

To The Members of The U.S. House of Representatives: The

Americans for Transportation Mobility (ATM) Coalition

strongly urges you to support the conference report for H.R.

3074, the ``Transportation Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008.''

H.R. 3074 honors the commitments to capital investment in

highway and public transportation infrastructure made by

Congress in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

and will not increase the federal budget deficit. Although

H.R. 3074 under-funds public transportation by $81 million,

the ATM Coalition still feels strongly that this conference

report should pass as a stand alone measure in order to

maintain and improve the nation's highway and public

transportation systems in fiscal year 2008.

America's transportation system is being stretched beyond

its capacity. Both public and private usage of highways,

transit, and aviation systems are increasing at rates far

outpacing infrastructure investment. A decaying surface

transportation system costs the U.S. economy $78 billion

annually in lost time and fuel while congestion adds

significant pollution to the air, and substandard roads claim

thousands of lives every year.

As representatives of over 400 major users and providers of

the nation's surface transportation infrastructure network

including the business and labor communities, our unique

coalition is dedicated to ensuring the global

competitiveness, economic prosperity and the American way of

life by promoting investment in transportation

infrastructure. SAFETEA-LU provided record levels of

investment in highways and transit programs by ensuring that

revenues flowing into the Highway Trust Fund are only used

for their intended purpose: fixing and maintaining the

nation's transportation infrastructure. By passing the H.R.

3074 conference report, Congress will maintain its commitment

to a safe, efficient and competitive transportation system.

Sincerely,

Americans for Transportation Mobility.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I hesitate to get involved between my chairman and my big ranking member here, but since they've gotten into it and the ranking member has made the comment that every suggestion that we make is to throw money at the problem, I just wanted to point out that the President has actually indicated that he will veto this legislation. It provides $3 billion more in budget authority than he requested in the original budget.

And I'd like to remind people on both sides of the aisle that in each of the last 6 years, each of the last 6 years, the President, rightly, signed transportation and housing budgets into law that were above his initial request. The irony here is that in fiscal year 2003, the President signed into law the transportation and housing budgets that were over $9 billion above his request. Ours is 3, on budget authority. And in fiscal 2004 it was $4.2 billion above his request, and in fiscal 2006 it was $7 billion above the President's request.

And he did that at times, he signed those bills, without a whimper, without any objection, when the deficits, the budget deficits, were much larger than they are today. This bill is a responsible piece of legislation, and I hope that it will be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who is the authorizing Chair for the housing portion of this legislation.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would just point out that every one that you have recited, and I have listened to probably 18 or 20 of them along the way, every one of them was in the legislation as it passed the House of Representatives.

They were not air-dropped, as has been suggested.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 817 under section 2 of H. Res. 491 because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

I thank the Speaker.

And while the Speaker of the House is actually in the Chamber, I want to read a quote from March of this year. In March of this year, the Speaker of the House said, ``Before Members vote on a bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to read it. That should be a matter of public record. If there is an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.''

Let me just ask, if I can, the representative from the Rules Committee, don't we have a rule that says that we are not to consider a bill or a rule until 24 hours after the bill is actually out there? I would yield to the gentleman to answer.

My understanding is that this bill was posted on the Web last night at just after 7 o'clock, yet here we are at 1:35 already considering the rule. I think that is important, because when you look at the bill, we didn't just get it on the Internet where it would be searchable, where we could find things in it. We got a PDF file that is not searchable.

When you look at the bill itself, you find complete sections that have been X'd out, or little insertions with little notations here that are barely legible. You have another big insertion here of an entire page. Again, there are little insertions there within the insertion. You have within it ``3 percent'' stricken. It says ``4 percent'' now. To what?

This is really difficult to wade through. And when we don't even get 24 hours? I mean, 24 hours, frankly, is far from sufficient to consider a bill that is 531 pages long. Then when you consider the bill itself is not searchable, it was given in a PDF file, and then you also have 141 pages of earmarks that are part of the report. That is not a searchable index, either. It is just given. You can wade through it.

The earmarks that are air-dropped into the conference report are supposed to be asterisked. You can see some of those. We identified 21. But is that all there is? We're not sure. But when you look through that list of earmarks that were air-dropped in, you have to be suspicious of why in the world we waited until now to air-drop these earmarks in when nobody can challenge them.

Keep in mind, this is a point of order against consideration of the rule. Because the majority has chosen to waive the rule against points of order on the bill, we can't challenge any of the earmarks in the bill, so we have 21 earmarks air-dropped into the bill at the last minute that we have no ability to challenge.

You might think that, well, if they were air-dropped into the bill, then they certainly must be vital spending, vital projects, that we just couldn't do during the regular consideration of the bill.

I will read a couple of them and you can make your own decisions on whether or not this was vital spending, something that couldn't wait, something that was so important that you had to, at the last minute, in the last 24 hours, include it in where nobody could see it.

One is for $200,000 for the Intergenerational Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. The Intergenerational Research Center, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. This is part of the Economic Development Initiative.

Another one: Waynesburg College Center for Economic Development in Pennsylvania for a multipurpose facility. That is $300,000 there.

Tell me, please, somebody tell me, what was so vital here that we had to violate the rules that we have had in the House to insert this at the last minute, when nobody has the ability to challenge it?

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, we've waived other requirements as well here. What this point of order is about is transparency. Again, we got this bill last night, less than 24 hours ago. It has always been the understanding you would have at least 24 hours, and we are violating that even.

When you look at the bill itself, here I found another page, section 409, we're not sure what was there, because it is now gone. It is gone from the bill. It is very difficult to go through a bill that is 534 pages that is not even searchable and wade through the earmarks.

The gentleman mentioned this is vital spending we have to get done. Let me give you an example of some of what is in the bill itself. $150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia. $275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Let me get back to this list of these vital projects that we somehow have to rush through here. There is $400,000 for the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association in Bel Alton, Maryland. Again, $400,000 for the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association. Why in the world is this in the bill at all? Is it any wonder that somebody wants to move this bill through quickly and without following the rules?

$500,000 for the Los Angeles Fire Museum in Bellflower, California; two earmarks totaling $300,000 to revitalize downtown Clearwater, Florida; $150,000 for the Edmunds Arts Center in Edmunds, Washington; $100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, Alabama; $100,000 for the reuse of the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant in Romney, West Virginia; $100,000 for the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, Michigan; $750,000 to the Detroit Science Center in Detroit, Michigan; and $300,000 to the Houston, Zoo in Houston, Texas.

Again, this is just a tiny sliver of the 141 pages of earmarks in the bill, more than 1,000 of them. And again, 21 air-dropped earmarks that we have never

seen before, never had the ability to challenge on the House floor for such vital things as the Grand Teton National Park Pathway System in Wyoming. This may be a good project, but it should receive the scrutiny it deserves, not air-dropped into a report that we are given less than 24 hours to consider, that we have no ability, none, to amend out.

Or $500,000 for Park Street Streetscape Improvement in Alameda, California. Why in the world was this that vital where we had to violate our own rules to bring this to the floor and hide these earmarks where they don't see the light of day?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Campbell from California.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

How much time remains on this side?

I am glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

In my remaining 30 seconds, let me just say, in January when we passed transparency rules on earmarks, I was the first one to compliment the majority on what they had done. We put some decent rules into play. But rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce them. And we have seen a pattern over the past several months culminating in this kind of thing, breaking the rules so we can bring a bill to the floor with 21 air-dropped earmarks into it where we are simply not following our own rules.

This institution deserves better than this. I plead with my colleagues to vote to stop this bill from moving forward until we can actually see what's in it.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Chairman Olver, has already detailed many of the aspects of the fiscal year 2008 conference report. I am pleased to say that I will support the conference report. The conference report has much to commend. I want to thank John Olver; John and Joe I guess is what it amounts to. But we have worked together very hard on this, along with the staffs on both sides, and I commend him for working with us to bring this product forward.

We meet the majority of the transportation funding guarantee as mandated by SAFETEA-LU, plus included some wise legislative provisions such as raising the airline pilot mandatory retirement age to 65 and prohibiting towing on Federal roads in Texas.

We didn't go overboard on funding Amtrak and kept the reforms we put in place 2 years ago in hopes of bringing the railroad into the modern age. One unfortunate point I would like to make is one of the Transit New Starts Project, a project for the Chicago area's commuter rail, Metra, the UP West Line, was inadvertently not included in the bill. It was funded in the House bill, and in the negotiations all sides supported conference funding, and I am very hopeful we can work a little magic to get that included.

In housing, we provided more than $100 million for about 11,000 new incremental vouchers for three of our most vulnerable populations: veterans, including those returning from Iraq who might face homelessness without rental assistance; nonelderly disabled individuals, the so-called Frelinghuysen vouchers; and vouchers to keep families together when facing homelessness rather than forcing the children into foster homes.

Further, the bill insists that these vouchers retain their use and purpose upon turnover when the current individuals and families no longer need them.

The vouchers for veterans are important and will certainly be welcomed throughout Michigan as well as the rest of the country. I want to note the intent here is not just for HUD to administer these vouchers, but for HUD and VA to work together so that the full array of eligible services are coordinated and administered jointly.

Along that same line, I strongly support a new demonstration in the homeless program to avoid forcing children through the trauma of homeless shelters by rapidly rehousing these families in secure rental units and providing the care and training in that setting, rather than through the shelter plus care process. We need to be sure, however, that in doing so we do not end up subsidizing drug or other illegal activity.

I want to also express my appreciation for the provision in the bill that waives the Medicaid cap on income and allows citizens in Michigan to voluntarily pay more and still receive rental assistance. This has made a tremendous difference in my district, and the new statewide provision will apply to all Michigan residents. Obviously, it is available for consideration in other states, too.

As many of my colleagues know, Michigan has been facing a severe credit crunch due to defaults and foreclosures resulting from the subprime lending boom a few years ago. The resets are around the corner and the problem may well get worse for Michigan before it gets better. But no one wants to see foreclosure, not the homeowner, not the banks, and certainly not the Federal Government which has insured many of these loans.

As a result and through extensive collaboration with my colleague, Chairman Olver, and our Senate counterparts, we included a provision that I am sure will go a long way towards stemming if not reversing the trend in the home mortgage market. We have included $200 million in new funds for intensive and extensive loan foreclosure mitigation guidance plus counseling and targeted funds to those areas which are facing the largest threat of foreclosure.

We have ensured that the funds will be in the hands of the expert counselors and State housing finance agencies before the loan resets dates hit homeowners who will find it difficult to meet the higher payments. We have not placed the funds in HUD, or created a financial handout for mortgage companies or homeowners. Instead, we are using the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which is in itself expert and has a network of expert loan counselors throughout the country. As a federally chartered corporation, they will be able to avoid the many delaying regulatory hurdles that would result if funded through HUD, but still must meet all the requirements to ensure the integrity of the funds provided to expert counseling agencies. I firmly believe that Michigan will benefit greatly from the one-time funding being provided in this bill to help at-risk homeowners get through this difficult period.

Having said that, there are clearly areas in the bill that could and should be reduced in funding or for which funding should be allocated.

All of us have heard about the shortfall that HUD now faces in meeting contracts with longstanding low-income assistance providers under the project-based section 8 program. While better than the Senate bill, let's face it, we did not solve the problem. We only delayed the date at which the crisis will occur. Yet at the same time, the voucher program has $300 million in excess funds based on the new methodology instituted by the majority as part of the 2007 continuing resolution. Apparently the majority does not trust their new methodology that much, yet those funds could have further reduced the shortfall that HUD faces with project owners under the project-based program, or reduced the cost of the bill itself.

Furthermore, the Department continues to receive funds for a long list of small boutique and duplicative programs, all of which could be eliminated as the administration requested without harming any of the program.

Finally, I want to emphasize that there are no new air-dropped earmarks from the House minority.

I want to thank my colleague and chairman, Chairman Olver, for his work on this bill. I have to say he was most fair. This was a very inclusive conference and, because of his cooperation and the highlights of the bill, I will be voting ``yes'' on passage of the conference report.

I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield as much time as he may wish to consume to the gentleman who is the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also point out that the gentleman from Florida indicated that he had no further speakers, and he recognized the gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Additionally, I would like to point out that whenever anybody makes factually incorrect statements on the floor, I am going to yield to my colleagues to make sure that the record is made clear, and that is why I yielded to Mr. Edwards on that point.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill, like very few other things that we as a body deal with, deals and helps and touches many, many millions of Americans, whether it is CDBG money that goes to help the elderly make a senior center more accessible, or whether it is fixing our roads that thousands of commuters travel on every day, it is a bill that is critically important. All we have heard from the other side of the aisle are procedural reasons why we shouldn't go forward. That is what the American people are tired of. They are tired of the process, the procedure. They want action. They want things accomplished.

During the break, I had an opportunity to talk to my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Kagen, and he made a good point. He said, you know, while we spend billions of dollars in Iraq, and no one talks about it, we hear all kinds of complaints when we try to spend millions of dollars domestically on programs that help Americans, needy Americans, people that need it most.

Mr. Speaker, that's why we need to pass this rule. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 817 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on House Resolution 817.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 817 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3074, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member for bringing a conference report to the floor that makes critical investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure at levels guaranteed in SAFETEA-LU.

The conference report also rejects the administration's proposed funding cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program, highway programs, and critical housing and community development programs.

The conference report provides $151 million more than current funding for the FAA, $765 million more than the President's request for FAA Airport Improvement Program, which provides grants for airport planning, construction and development.

Recipients of AIP funds such as Griffiss Park Airfield in my upstate New York district have benefited greatly from this program. Over the last few years, AIP funds have helped Griffiss continue to fully develop as a regional aviation facility, become the new home for the Oneida County Airport, create long-term regional economic growth for a region seeking to attract new investment.

The conference report also maintains our commitment to keeping our airways safe by providing $7 billion for air traffic organization, including $16 million to hire more than 1,400 new air traffic controllers to replenish the work force as the rate of retiring air traffic controllers continues to grow, and provides critical funding to hire and train more safety inspectors and for other aviation safety activities.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides $3.5 billion more than current

levels for the Transportation Department. These additional funds will provide for much needed investments in our Nation's highways, road construction and repair, and transportation safety.

This conference report boosts funding for the Federal Transit Administration by providing $227 million more than the President's request for mass transit programs. Local transit authorities, such as the Central New York Regional Transit Authority and Centro in my district, will now be able to expand their hybrid bus fleet and continue to provide low-cost, convenient, clean and energy-efficient transportation services to commuters in both upstate New York and in New York City.

This conference report also increases funding for the Housing and Urban Development Department by $3.1 billion above the President's request.

The President's budget request sought to eliminate funding for the HOPE VI program, but I am so pleased that this legislation will maintain our commitment to providing affordable housing for the many disadvantaged individuals across our country, individuals that still struggle daily to meet their family's needs, even while working full- time jobs.

In 2003, the City of Utica, New York was the recipient of an $11.5 million HOPE VI grant for revitalization of a local residential community. This grant has allowed for significant improvements in safety and greater access to service and facilities for its residents. It would be a shame if similar communities around the country were unable to reap the benefits of the HOPE VI program.

The conference report restores funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, which this administration has cut since 2001 by nearly 35 percent. This conference report provides $922 million more than the President's request for CDBG grants, which allow local governments in cities such as Utica, Rome and Auburn, New York to provide critical service to revitalize neighborhoods, promote economic development and improve quality of life for those starved of financial resources.

Localities across my upstate New York district rely on CDBG funds to support vital redevelopment efforts that improve housing, assist local businesses, and offer services that promote safety and reduce crime. CDBG funds have been used by the City of Utica to prepare sites like those in the Corn Hill area for new housing construction by demolishing existing structures, replacing antiquated sewer lines, planting trees, constructing new sidewalks and curbs and paving streets, improving the quality of life for all the citizens of that city.

CDBG funds have been used in the City of Auburn to provide small business assistance loans to help new businesses make it through their first critical year of start-up, retain their employees, and grow their business. CDBG funds are also used by Auburn to support after-school programs, child care subsidies, and even counseling for children in crisis.

In the City of Rome, these funds are also used to assist new small businesses and also to assist low- to moderate-income persons make needed health and safety improvements to their homes, such as helping seniors with the installation of ramps and railings that allow them to remain living in their homes, and helping people deal with emergencies like failure and roof collapse. These are important parts of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no other speakers.