Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5850) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege and pleasure to present the fiscal year 2011 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriations bill to the House.

I want to thank all of the subcommittee members for their input and help with writing this bill. In particular, I would like to recognize my ranking member, Tom Latham, for his valuable insights during the 13 hearings the subcommittee held covering the budgets and the challenges facing transportation and housing. We do not always agree, but I greatly appreciate his partnership, and his input has made the bill better.

I also want to recognize the hard work of our staff, specifically on the minority side, Dena Baron--who I notice is soon to multiply--Matt McCardle and Doug Bobbitt, and on the majority side, Kate Hallahan, David Napoliello, Laura Hogshead, Sylvia Garcia, Patrick Hatch, Eve Goldsher, Kristin Palmer, and Blair Anderson. My ranking member and I are lucky to have such a dedicated staff who work amicably and respectfully together. They have spent many late nights putting this bill together, and we would not be here today without their hard work.

The committee-reported bill provides $67.4 billion in discretionary resources, a decrease of $500 million below the FY 2010 enacted level and more than $1.3 billion below the President's request. Within an allocation that is 2 percent below the President's request, we have still been able to develop a bill that creates jobs through investments in infrastructure and supports families that have been hit the hardest by the foreclosure crisis. These targeted increases are possible because the bill makes a number of significant reductions from the budget request by not funding $4.8 billion in new, unauthorized initiatives that were proposed by the administration, including the National Infrastructure Bank, the Choice Neighborhoods program, and a major program to transform how our 3,200 public housing authorities function.

Specifically within transportation, investments are targeted to areas that will create skilled jobs immediately and build the infrastructure that underpins future economic growth. The fact remains that our transportation network has great investment needs with aging highways, bridges, and transit systems, and an air traffic control system in desperate need of modernization. It is my belief that we can no longer defer investments in our transportation systems, which provide the foundation for our Nation's economy.

Specifically, the bill provides: $45.2 billion for the Federal Highway Administration, which is an increase of $3.9 billion above the President's request, that will allow States to complete additional infrastructure projects, spur the economy, and create approximately 142,000 new jobs.

It provides $11.3 billion for public transportation programs, an increase in total budgetary resources of $508 million above the President's request, in order to help address the nearly $80 billion maintenance backlog needed to meet a state of good repair on the Nation's fixed guideway and bus systems.

It provides a total of $3.2 billion for Amtrak, the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program, and investments in Positive Train Control. This includes a $127.5 million increase for the first year of Amtrak's fleet plan that will support the development of a domestic manufacturing base for locomotives and railcars, and it provides $1.16 billion for NextGen, to modernize our outdated air traffic control system, which will reduce operational costs and allow airlines to utilize our airspace more efficiently.

Within housing, we were able to use a portion of the savings, which I mentioned above, to fill holes where the President eliminated or deeply cut vital programs, including:

Restoring funding to construct housing units for the elderly and disabled to their fiscal 2010 levels;

Restoring $75 million for 10,000 new VASH housing vouchers, which continues Congress' commitment to homeless veterans;

Providing $200 million for HOPE VI to rehabilitate the most severely distressed public housing communities in the Nation; and

Restoring $455 million to the Public Housing Capital Fund to help Public Housing Authorities make critical repairs and improvements to public housing units. Every dollar invested in this program returns over $2 to the local economies and to the construction industry.

This bill also recognizes that, as the foreclosure crisis continues and with experts estimating that a record 1 million households will lose homes in 2010, access to supportive services is critical.

To that extent, the bill continues the National Reinvestment Corporation's Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling program, because homeowners who receive such counseling through this program are 60 percent more likely to avoid foreclosure than those who do not use such aid. It provides $2.2 billion for homeless assistance grants to shelter families forced from their homes, and it takes a strong step forward in our commitment to reducing chronic homelessness.

Overall, HUD programs are maintained at levels that will ensure affordable housing opportunities are available as families recover from the economic downturn.

More broadly, this bill recognizes that the current paradigm in which affordable housing is connected to unaffordable commutes is unsustainable for families' budgets. As such, the bill provides $677 million to coordinate transportation and infrastructure investments with the availability of housing and community services in order to decrease transportation costs, improve access to jobs and services, promote healthy communities, and enhance community connectivity.

Finally, I expect many Members to come before this body today to talk about reducing spending and the moral imperative of not leaving a deficit for future generations. Let me remind everyone that the investments in this bill address another looming deficit, specifically our transportation and housing infrastructure deficit.

The Department of Transportation's most recent Conditions and Performance Report indicates there is an annual investment gap of $26.9 billion to maintain our current system of highways and bridges and an annual gap of $95.9 billion to improve the system. Every dollar deferred today will catch up to the next generation in the form of falling bridges, broken roads, deteriorating housing, and an economy choked by congestion.

In conclusion, we worked hard to balance many competing needs to produce a bill that reflects the bipartisan needs of transportation and housing and that puts Americans back to work. I am pleased with the product, and I urge Members to support it.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.009

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a very valued member of the Appropriations subcommittee.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), who is a member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to work with the gentlewoman from Illinois on grade separation issues which impact our transportation networks and communities across the country, all over the country. The problem you describe is exactly the type of project that should be addressed in the TIGER grant program, which works to address transportation issues of regional and national significance and particularly ones which are intermodal in nature.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for raising this issue, and I've come to realize and I appreciate how important this bridge is to you and your constituents.

The committee, which looks at many critical infrastructure issues like this one across the country, stands ready to work with you on this project in the future.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I understand that the distinguished minority leader has this amendment which will terminate the doctoral dissertation research program at HUD. Even though I believe strongly in the value of good research and what such good research can play in improving the effectiveness of government programs over time, I'm willing to accept the gentleman's amendment in the spirit of comity.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished minority leader.

The bill before us includes $40 million for HUD to provide technical assistance to nonprofit organizations, cities, States on how to use HUD funding efficiently and effectively.

The amendment removes every penny, every penny, of this technical

assistance funding from HUD. It is a meat axe amendment.

Cutting funding for technical assistance does nothing but make the programs less effective, which I doubt is the gentleman's intent. In fact, technical assistance is the only way that communities can increase their capacity and improve program delivery to their vulnerable populations who need assistance.

Technical assistance funding allows HUD to train communities' own staff on the issues that most affect their particular population. For example, technical assistance funds are used to enhance and inform responses to the foreclosure crisis when HUD provides funding for foreclosure counseling and renovating vacant homes.

These funds are responsive to need. They address broader social and economic imperatives, such as the recent increase in the homeless population, which has been brought on by the longest and deepest recession since the Second World War.

To deny communities technical assistance is to render the HUD programs less effective than they can and should be, and that, very simply, slows down the recovery.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

The amendment by the distinguished minority leader would cut the DOT budget office to below last year's funding level. Even though I believe that these funds are needed at the department and that we have added much new work to the load in the Department of Transportation through the recovery legislation, with some misgiving, I will, again, in an effort at comity and bipartisanship, accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, but I don't plan to oppose it.

Because I recognize that while this amendment has been signed by eight or 10 Members, that there are a good many other Members who could have signed the amendment who have districts where anywhere from 20 to 30, and sometimes even higher, percentages of all the housing in those districts have either gone through foreclosure and actually foreclosed, or are in foreclosure processes, or in a third case--maybe it's a fourth case--are under water in the sense that the value of their home is less, by sometimes substantial amounts, than the remaining mortgage principle.

I understand that this amendment is designed to draw attention to the national foreclosure crisis, which is still raging in too many communities, and which began more than 3 years ago--actually, probably the seeds were sown for the foreclosure crisis earlier in the decade, and some would say all the way back into the 1980s, much more than a decade ago.

I agree that more needs to be done to help families who are struggling with foreclosure. I would hope that the Department of Treasury, which has been spearheading the administration's efforts thus far, would increase collaboration with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the FDIC and the newly-created Foreclosure Task Force, which the gentlewoman and the other Members who are signers are members of.

I believe the Secretary of HUD is the right person to be helping us through this crisis. So I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman and the other members of the task force in order to ensure that the hardest hit areas of the country receiving funding through what are the remaining sources of potential funding: Number one, the third round of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that was funded within the financial services reform law signed just last week, and also the remainder of funds that are to be brought back from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which was first passed in 2008 in the HERA bill, which clearly gave out more money than they were able to effectively expend when that was given out later in 2008.

In the end, this amendment cuts all travel, which would eliminate critical oversight and the monitoring of housing programs for low- income Americans. I know that is not the intent of the gentlewoman or of the other signers of the amendment. I am willing to accept the gentlewoman's amendment as offered at this time. Going forward, I will work with the gentlewoman and with the signers of the amendment to ensure that housing for low-income individuals is not jeopardized down the road.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time I have remaining?

I yield my remaining 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

I understand that this amendment will reduce funding for policy development and research staff at HUD by $2,978,450. Even though, as I've said earlier in comments to the distinguished minority leader, that I believe strongly in the role of research, I will, with some misgiving, accept the gentleman's amendment.

I claim time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the work the gentleman has done, and I accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment would cut $1.8 billion in areas that include important increases above the President's budget. And let me simply remind people that our budget, as brought forward, is $1.3 billion below the President's request. This amendment proposes to remove another $1.8 billion. It is the legislative branch's clearly stated constitutional responsibility to appropriate the proper allocation of resources. And that responsibility must not be ceded to the executive branch.

This amendment would result in cuts to a number of programs that are critical to creating jobs, increasing transportation safety, and restoring support to programs serving vulnerable Americans across the country. It removes $400 million from the TIGER grant program, where for the $1.5 billion Recovery Act TIGER grant program, the requests coming from all of the 50 States were almost $57 billion, showing how much this kind of infrastructure was needed. This funding would have a positive impact on the economy, create thousands of jobs, and occur over a several-year period, thereby serving as a slow release remedy to keep the recovery going as it ought to do.

The amendment also cuts $400 million from the high-speed rail program, which is designed to continue building a high-speed passenger rail network. This again would create jobs and help reinvigorate our manufacturing base. That again, for moneys for appropriations in the Recovery Act, received 259 applications totaling $56 billion for the $8 billion it was provided in the Recovery Act. And the additional moneys are needed to keep investments, not that we put investments in in these places and don't actually produce something, that those continue so that you can complete jobs that will allow more high-speed rail programs in this country, as others have already spoken of.

The amendment would cut $178 million from the FTA's capital investment funds, the New Starts and Small Starts program, cut that back to the 2010 level. It would cut $24 million from FTA's safety activities, if those are authorized. And I need to point out that while the funds are only available to the FTA if the authorizing legislation is enacted, the need for additional transit safety oversight is immense. We have had several accidents on several of our major transit systems. And DOT needs the ability to hire safety personnel to provide oversight.

The amendment would cut $456 million from the Public Housing Capital Fund. Again, that supports renovation and construction of public housing units, where there is a backlog of $25 billion in needs that have been identified in that program.

It would cut $175 million from the HOME Investment Partnerships Program to restore funding to the 2010 level. The HOME is the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable for low-income households.

It is a homeownership program for low-income households. We can't afford to cut these programs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. All of these are job-creating investments in our infrastructure and provide critical construction jobs in an industry that has been decimated.

While they are not all fast release, they are long-term remedies, as I suggested, for the longest recession since World War II.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

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

That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Actually this is about the worst kind of amendment that you can have, because it provides no indication of priorities whatsoever. It just cuts everything in the whole government an equal percentage amount and gives no priority indication whatsoever.

Let me tell you what this amendment ends up doing. In the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this amendment would mean a reduction of more than $3 billion for section 8 tenant based vouchers. Simply, that means that about 450,000 of this country's lowest income citizens would no longer be able to afford their monthly rent.

In addition, the project based section 8 program would see about a $1.7 billion reduction in it, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Americans there unable to afford a roof over their head. Homelessness would be increased dramatically and more Americans would require assistance through HUD's homeless program. Unfortunately, the homeless program would itself be receiving a massive cut of nearly $400 million, making service at the current levels quite impossible, at the same time that we would be creating more homeless people.

In the Department of Transportation, this amendment would eliminate more than $3 billion worth of funding from the Federal Aviation Administration. That would just about assure a part-time air traffic control system which would put us in severe safety jeopardy. Add to that the more than $2 billion which would be cut from the Federal Transit Administration, eliminating some of the best transportation options that are available to millions of Americans, and everyone here can begin to truly see the repercussions of this amendment.

Fiscal prudence simply cannot mean turning hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes, eliminating almost a quarter of a million jobs, and creating real transportation safety concerns.

This bill is wisely balanced to meet the needs of citizens within current fiscal constraints. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I am asking you a question if I may: Is this amendment--since I am supposed to address all comments through the Chair--is this amendment deliberately designed to prolong the great recession and send America back into a double dip recession or a great depression? Because that's what happened. In the Great Depression, we went into a double dip recession, or a depression, and ended up with that depression lasting at least twice as long as it otherwise would have.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made some comments. He is entitled to his opinions, but he cannot create his own history.

He has said that history shows that you cannot raise taxes and have a growing economy. That is completely belied by President Clinton's economic program in the early nineties when taxes were raised, with Republicans--the gentleman's party--claiming that that would destroy the economy. And yet the economy grew the fastest that it has done. We created 20 million jobs during the rest of the Clinton administration. That compares with the puny number of jobs, about one-quarter of that number, that were created during the time that Mr. Bush was in the White House the same number of years. With that, I just must point out that the gentleman is trying to re-create and create his own history.

We should defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for comments.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my ranking member that I had exactly the same reaction to this and was all prepared to get very excited and oppose this one adamantly, but we were assured that a re- look at the HECM situation and the needs there indicated that it could yield this $10 million offset.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1569 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that this point of order has nothing to do with unfunded mandates. Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying bill. In reality, it is about preventing the bill from moving forward without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, itself. It is about slamming the door on the legislative process.

I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so that we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Let's stop wasting time on parliamentary roadblocks and get to the debate on this legislation, itself. It is a very important piece of legislation that has critical funding pieces in there for transportation and for housing. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage, but we must consider this rule, and we must pass the bill today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's clear that this point of order has nothing to do with unfunded mandates. My friend from Arizona talks about the inability to make any amendments, and yet he talked about four amendments that he would be offering today. So, clearly, he will have an opportunity to make his points.

Again, I would just say that this point of order has nothing whatsoever to do with unfunded mandates. And I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1569.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1569 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5850, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 2011. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, not to exceed four amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee.

All points of order against the amendments except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived. The rule provides that for those amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, the question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the question.

The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The rule provides that after disposition of amendments, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the proponent. The Chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee. Finally, the rule provides the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise as a member of the Rules Committee and also as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in strong support of H.R. 5850, the fiscal year 2011 Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act, because housing and transportation are two areas that must be priorities, especially in tough economic times such as we are in, because we get the double return on our investment. As we have seen with the recovery bill, investment in infrastructure not only generates economic recovery by putting people back to work, but those construction jobs strengthen our transportation system and improve our housing stock. They make our roads safer, our bridges safer for our families and our friends and our constituents to travel on.

The Transportation-HUD appropriations bill continues this investment and our commitment to using all the tools available to continue the economic recovery that has taken hold. It is also important to note that the legislation continues these important programs, but in a fiscally responsible way. Overall, the bill spends $500 million less than was appropriated during the current fiscal year. The amount provided overall is $1.3 billion below the President's request.

I commend the committee for its work in crafting a bill that spends less overall and still manages to increase the funds available for key programs that are at the heart of our Nation's economic recovery. The committee has done so by scaling back spending on other programs, which is never popular or easy, but is the right thing to do.

Included in H.R. 5850 is $45.2 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The bill includes more than $11.3 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, which will support bus and rail projects, and an estimated 20,000 additional jobs for transit workers nationwide. This not only provides more transportation options to Americans during tough economic times, it also decreases traffic congestion, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions, and makes our roads safer for commuters.

This bill adds another $1.4 billion to continue developing and building a national system of high speed rail. High speed rail moves more people at a lower cost, at a faster speed, and with less impact on our environment than road transportation. We have developed the most advanced highway and aviation systems in the world over the last 60 years, but in comparison to the rail systems in other nations such as Germany, France, and even China, we have clearly fallen behind. This bill continues our commitment to correcting that situation and developing a robust national intercity rail network.

Related to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, H.R. 5850 makes critical investments to help communities continue to address the fallout from the housing and foreclosure crisis that we see nationwide. The bill provides communities with the tools they need to build, purchase, or rent affordable housing. It provides rental assistance to low-income families, homeless veterans, and other at-risk groups, and supplies funding for repairs and renovation of affordable housing across America.

The bill provides $4 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program, which sends funding directly to local governments for projects that address housing, social services, and other economic challenges in their communities.

Madam Speaker, this is just a sample of the important programs and initiatives that the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act will fund in fiscal year 2011. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say thank you to the gentleman from Florida for his handling of this rule. It is always a pleasure to participate in a debate on a rule on the floor with you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Madam Speaker, we heard a lot today. And I think it was very interesting to listen to the debate go back and forth, and certainly from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who talked a great deal about spending. Clearly, spending is one of the most important issues that we are dealing with here in Congress.

In particular, my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Foxx, talked about the fact that it is--I think she said--``the most important issue that faces Congress.''

I would say that it clearly is one of the most important issues that faces Congress, but when you talk to people, when you talk to Americans, they think that the most significant issue that we in Congress need to deal with is the economy--it is jobs; it is putting people back to work, and equally important, it is making sure that the people who do have jobs continue to have jobs.

I think this bill really is indicative of what the Democrats are trying to do. We recognize the fact that it is necessary to begin to make cuts. That is why this bill has cut $500 million from the amount that we spent last year. On the other hand, when you listen to economists, they are very clear in saying that we have to be careful in how quickly and how drastically we make cuts because we are starting to see the economy turn around. If we make draconian cuts and if we make cuts too quickly, it will stand to jeopardize the recovery that is beginning to take hold, that is beginning to take foot.

So I think this bill takes exactly the right approach in terms of beginning to cut but not doing it in such a drastic way that we will affect or detrimentally hurt the recovery that is beginning to take effect. The Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act funds some of the most important initiatives that pay for everything from roads, bridges, and railroads to housing for veterans and low-income families.

In my opening remarks, I discussed the critical investments that this bill makes in our transportation system. The bill also invests in housing programs for vulnerable populations, including retirees, people with disabilities, veterans, and even children.

The funding is even more essential during these very tough economic times. The bill includes funding to address the problem of homelessness among our veterans. All too often, men and women who sacrifice the most for our freedoms are hit the hardest in tough economic times. We owe our veterans the utmost respect and gratitude for their service, and we must honor the commitment made to them. They should not have to return home to be confronted by the possibility of poverty or homelessness.

To address this, H.R. 5850 includes funding for an additional 10,000 vouchers through the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, administrated by HUD, in conjunction with the Veterans Administration.

H.R. 5850 includes another $825 million to rehabilitate and to build new housing for low-income seniors. Currently, there are 10 eligible seniors on waiting lists for each unit of available housing. In America, it is unacceptable that our Greatest Generation is faced with this shortage. HUD's section 202 program is the largest housing program specifically dedicated to serving the elderly, with over 268,000 units for seniors.

Madam Speaker, housing and transportation are two areas that absolutely must be priorities and that are essential during a recovery. The funding that H.R. 5850 provides for these programs will ensure that our economy continues to rebound and that out-of-work Americans are able to find jobs and to afford housing.

Again, I want to stress that the committee has produced a bill that makes critical investments, which I have highlighted, and that it manages to do so while, at the same time, spending $500 million less overall on these agencies during the current fiscal year. During these tough economic times, American families have been forced to cut back and tighten their belts. We need to ensure that the Federal Government and agencies are following their example and doing so well. H.R. 5850 holds the Federal Government to that standard.

I urge my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief as Mr. Olver has told us an awful lot about H.R. 5850, the fiscal year 2011 Transportation and Housing, or THUD, bill.

I just want to say, on a personal level, thank you to Chairman Olver for his ability to work together on this bill. He has been a true gentleman and very, very cooperative. He has reached out and has really made this a pleasure to go through the entire hearing process this year.

I also want to thank the staff for all of their hard work. Mr. Olver has already named the staff members, but I also want to make sure that they know how much we appreciate all of their hard work.

I really believe, this year, that we did have an opportunity to adhere to a normal appropriations process. We have a closed or a modified open rule here today, and it hasn't always been easy throughout the whole process. We did have a very entertaining and, I think, a very productive hearing season, and I appreciate all of the efforts to bring some of the housing and transportation concerns to light, especially when the chairman and I don't always agree on the best solutions to tackle these complicated issues of spending, housing, and transportation.

The result of those hearings is the bill before us, totaling $67.4 billion, which is a mere $500 million below the fiscal year 2010 levels. Before we celebrate this reduction, we need to remember that the fiscal year 2010 bill was a whopping 23 percent over the year before. I want to say that again. The bill last year was 23 percent higher than the year before that. So, really, the $500 million reduction in this bill is a drop in the bucket of where we need to go to bring us back to some sanity and a reasonable state.

While Mr. Olver is a most accommodating chairman, I do have some disagreements with some of the funding decisions he has made in the bill before us. I know the administration has come to Chairman Olver and has complained that he didn't fund each and every new idea in the bill--and I commend him for that. However, in light of the drastic deficit situation that is facing this country, I would prefer a little more critique and restraint on some of the new, untested, and expensive programs before proposing funding at or above the President's request.

Livability? Sustainability? Have we defined these concepts? Obviously not, since this bill gives the Department of Transportation $4 million to figure out how to measure livability.

Should we be asking the American taxpayers to give us $4 million for the Department of Transportation to go and figure out what they want to do in your local communities when families are trying to keep their homes and invest in their businesses? I would say no.

Another example, really, is high-speed rail. The President got $8 billion in the stimulus bill for high-speed rail back in 2009, and only a very small fraction of that $8 billion has gone out the door as the Federal Railroad Administration is still working with recipients of those funds to nail down a grant agreement. The only industry that has been stimulated by the high-speed rail funds are the planners and the lobbyists. Yet this bill gives another $400 million on top of the President's request of $1 billion and on top of the whopping $2.5 billion they got in fiscal year 2010.

So if this bill becomes law, the taxpayers will have given--or more appropriately, borrowed--almost $12 billion for high-speed rail, and we still don't have one single operating high-speed rail line on the horizon.

Is this a horrible bill? No, it's not. Does it spend too much? Certainly, it does.

I would encourage Members to give careful consideration to the few amendments that are made in order today. There are some very thoughtful amendments that would reduce the cost of this bill, which would still fund the core programs under THUD at a respectable level.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Obey, Chairman Olver, Ranking Member Lewis, and all of the members of the subcommittee for getting this bill to the House floor. Again, I would like to thank the staff, both the committee staff and personal office staff, for all of their hard work in putting together this legislative package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the ranking member.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I yield myself 1 minute.

I just want to tell the gentleman--and I don't want to get into a partisan fight here, but there was not one person on the other side of the aisle who

voted to double infrastructure spending in the stimulus bill, spend half as much money overall, and by the President's own top economic adviser, would have created twice as many jobs as what did the stimulus bill that was actually passed and signed into law.

Our motion to recommit was to double the funding for infrastructure, if anybody's forgotten that. That was exactly what it was so that we could have actually created jobs here in the United States. The gentleman apparently forgets that he voted against that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

While I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that since we've done very well in accepting these amendments this would be one that the chairman would accept also. I know how supportive he is of this. But I really would hope that we could find some consensus and common ground on cutting spending in this House.

My amendment would reduce or eliminate funding for programs-- President Obama, again, this is what President Obama has said and has signaled--that have adequate funding, or there is funding in this bill that's duplicative of other Federal programs. And again, we are just going to what the President asked for, or cutting programs that were not requested, and certainly are not even authorized.

This amendment would save the taxpayer $1.8 billion, without going under the President's budget on any of the accounts targeted for the reduction. The reduction of $1.8 billion would make this bill simply just 3.4 percent lower than the fiscal year 2010 level. And you remember that bill was 23 percent higher than the year before that. And it would send an important message, I think, to the American people that Congress can take care of the Nation's housing and transportation needs without further jeopardizing our Nation's fiscal health.

I would hope that my colleagues would join me in cutting this mere three cents on the dollar out of this bill, with an attempt to put this bill back on the path towards fiscal responsibility.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman's concern for spending. I just wanted to see if we could just step back for a second.

We're going to have a $1.47 trillion deficit this year. Forty-three cents on every dollar that we're spending is borrowed money, and our kids, our grandchildren are going to have to pay for it--or our great- great-grandchildren, the way we're going--and it simply is not sustainable.

This is an extraordinarily modest amendment, and the gentleman says this is critical funding, absolutely necessary, that we have to fund these things. Maybe you should tell your President, the President of your own party, that he should have asked for these things. These are not my reductions. This is what the President says is needed for these programs, the high-speed rail. There's a billion dollars in this bill-- would be after the cut. He's got $1.4.

We're taking $400 million out of it. The President asked for a billion dollars. He's had $12 billion, in total, with $8 billion in the stimulus package, $2.5 billion last year, another billion dollars this year. And the money hasn't been spent yet, hasn't even been allotted or a contract signed. There is no need for this spending here to have current contracts go on. It just goes beyond rationale, as far as I'm concerned.

When we are digging ourselves in a financial hole like we are and we continue to keep digging, why don't we say, Stop, let's cut some spending.

This is a very modest cut that the President didn't request, and several of these programs are not even authorized or requested by the President. I mean, I guess it's great if we just go ahead as the Appropriations Committee, say, the heck, we don't need to have authorization for anything. Actually, this whole bill, there's very little that actually is authorized in this bill.

Does anybody go home and listen anymore? Listen to your constituents and hear what they're saying. Can we afford this kind of spending? No, we cannot. If we'll listen and do what the people are telling us to, and that's to modestly reduce spending, cut spending. And if we can't do it here on this very small amendment on this huge

bill, we're never going to save our fiscal future for our kids and our grandchildren.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman very much and for claiming time in opposition while I'm supporting the amendment.

I rise in support of the DeFazio amendment for two reasons:

First, with the stresses on the Highway Trust Fund and the dependence of our States on the moneys from that fund, we're violating our fiduciary responsibilities by granting authority to take $200 million, much-needed dollars, out of the trust fund for a program that has yet to be defined legislatively or otherwise.

Second, as noted in the minority views of the report accompanying this bill, the concept of livable communities is just that. It's a concept. I've never seen the definition of a livable community. There's nothing defined of what a ``livable community'' is.

The initiatives that would be funded under this concept with the $200 million involve activities that are rightly part of the jurisdictions of State and local governments and metropolitan planning commissions.

And again, I would rise in strong support of this amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Actually, I do oppose this. I agree with the idea of putting more money into where you would like to have the money go. My concern is that this is taking money out of reverse mortgages for seniors, and while the President requested $250 million in his budget, it is funded at $150 million. This would take another 10 out of that. The problem is that if there is increased demand, if more seniors want to have reverse mortgages, then it simply cannot happen without the funding that's there.

So I would just oppose it, not because of the purpose where you would like to have the money go, but we're taking money away from seniors here who may, in fact, want to have a reverse mortgage on their home.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, when we start getting phone calls, I'll refer them to your office. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and again, I think the purpose has merit, where the money is going, but I'm just concerned about the limitation here. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1569 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of section 426(a).

Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order today not to debate a point of unfunded mandates, although there are probably some in the legislation. It is simply the only opportunity that members of the minority have to stand up and talk about this process. We are only given a minimal amount of time on the rule, itself, and, on the bill, just an hour of debate and then amendment debate. Unfortunately, although we have had an open process in terms of amendments on appropriation bills for as long as any of us can remember--for decades and decades and decades--for the last couple of years, we have had structured rules come to the floor where members of the minority and the majority aren't allowed to offer the amendments that they would like.

Traditionally, Members could offer any amendment as long as it was germane and as long as it struck spending from the legislation and it was legislated on an appropriation bill. Yet this year and last year, for the first time, Members can't bring amendments to the floor. They have to submit them to the Rules Committee. Then the Rules Committee decides which ones they want to allow on the floor and which ones they don't or they will decide, Oh, you've offered 12 amendments, but you can only offer four. This limits the ability of the minority, in particular, to actually stand up and try to save money in the legislation.

We have to remember that every bill we consider this year, every appropriation bill--and unfortunately, probably, we are only going to consider two until after the election. Of the ones we consider, 42 cents of every dollar we spend we are borrowing. We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we are spending for whatever we spend it on.

Now, I think it is perfectly right and proper to ask: Is this right to spend, for example, money on, well, in this case, 461 earmarks in this piece of legislation alone? Some of them are for bike paths and street beautification. These are all good things, but they have no Federal nexus. They shouldn't be paid for by the Federal taxpayer. Yet, when we try to bring these amendments to the floor to debate them, only a few are allowed. Why is that?

I would ask if the gentleman representing the Rules Committee can explain why this is happening, why in the world we are so hard-pressed for time now, apparently, that we can only consider a couple of amendments, 22 percent of those that were offered.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, slamming the door on the legislative process. My taking 10 minutes to talk about this rule is slamming the door on the legislative process.

How is that?

What I am here to talk about is how the door has been slammed on the legislative process. The inability of Members to come and offer amendments to appropriation bills to try and save money is what is slamming the door on the legislative process. It has nothing to do with somebody's standing up and claiming time to speak against the rule.

So that is just baffling to me and to anybody out there, listening, when they learn that I offered 11 amendments. There were 461 earmarks which

were costing nearly $330 million. I should note, this year, Republicans have taken a moratorium. So, of those 461 earmarks, only six were sponsored by Republican Members--six out of 431. I commend my Republican colleagues for the position that has been taken this year.

Let me just read a list of the ones that I will be challenging today:

I was allowed to choose four out of the 11 I submitted. Now, I could have submitted a lot more and could have tried to have been dilatory about this, but I said, I'll offer just as many as I would if that were the number that I could actually offer coming to the floor. But I was only allowed four.

I should mention many of my Republican colleagues who offered earmark amendments were not given any, not any. Some of them had a great case to make here. They would have asked, for example, why it is that certain Members requested, say, $4 million for an earmark and got more than that, actually, given to them.

Why is it, if you take the position that some Members take, that, hey, I know my district better than anybody else, better than those faceless bureaucrats we always hear about in the bureaucracy, so I need $4 million for this bike path or whatever, and you get $5 million, how is that? That's a good question to ask. It would have been nice to get the answer for that, but we won't be able to because those Members were denied the ability to come down and offer their amendments.

I'll be offering amendments to strike funding, for example, for the Blackstone River Bikeway in Rhode Island. It might be a good bikeway. They might need it there. But I can tell you, the Federal Government doesn't need to pay for it. The Federal taxpayer doesn't need to pay for it, especially when we're spending 42 cents of every dollar--we're borrowing, I'm sorry, 42 cents for every dollar we spend.

I would challenge any Member who will vote against my amendment to strike funding from the Blackstone River Bikeway in Rhode Island to go home and say, with a straight face to their constituents, yes, I think it's proper that we borrow 42 cents from either the Chinese or from your kids or grandkids because we can't pay for it now, for the Federal Government to pay for a bikeway in Rhode Island.

Or for downtown Tacoma streetscapes, a downtown Tacoma streetscape improvement project in Washington. Why in the world should, in this case, a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee be able to get an earmark to pay for downtown Tacoma streetscapes?

Again, we're borrowing 42 cents for every dollar we spend there. Go home to your constituents, I dare you, and say, yes, I voted to uphold, to keep that earmark in there. It was so important that we got the downtown Tacoma streetscape project that we're borrowing 42 cents from your kids and grandkids to pay for, just so I can go home to my constituents and say, hey, I bring home the bacon.

Or the restoration and improvements to the historic Darwin Martin House Home and Complex. Now, it might be good. Why is the taxpayer paying, through the Federal Government, and borrowing 42 cents on every dollar to do that?

Or the construction of a children's playground. It might be a good playground, the children might need it somewhere, but it's not the Federal Government's responsibility. And go home to your constituents, I dare you today, anybody who votes to strike my amendment or votes my amendment down to strike that funding, go home and explain why in the world we need construction of a children's playground and borrow, those kids who are going to be playing on it, borrow their money because we can't pay for it now. But it's so important for us to go home and say I brought home the bacon that we're going to approve that earmark.

Let me tell you another reason why we can't reform this process very easily. This chart will show you the appropriations process this year. And it looks, people have said, like a PAC-MAN chart. But the red there is the percentage of earmark dollars that are associated with powerful Members of Congress. Those are either appropriators, or those who chair committees, or those who are in leadership positions. That makes up about 13 percent of the body.

In this bill today, and this is one of the lower ones, 42 percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of the Members of this body.

Now, for those who say, hey, we're here to earmark because we know our constituents better. We know our district better than those faceless bureaucrats, apparently you only know your district if you're a powerful Member or you're a member of the Appropriations Committee. That seems to be the determiner of whether or not you know your district. And I just don't think that's right.

I said earlier in a 1-minute something, and I was wrong and I want to confess that. I said that it takes 10 minutes to debate a suspension bill. And in that same 10 minutes of debating a suspension bill we could debate an amendment, an amendment takes 10 minutes.

I was wrong. It takes 40 minutes; 40 minutes are allotted to debate suspension bills. So we could actually debate four amendments for the time that it takes to debate one suspension bill.

And let me remind those who are watching what a suspension bill is. It's a bill that doesn't go through the regular process. It's brought to the floor because it's typically noncontroversial.

This year we've done a lot of suspension bills. We have recognized the important role of pollinators, as I mentioned, H.R. 1460.

We spent 40 minutes supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement Day.

We spent 40 minutes supporting the goals of National Dairy Month. Those might be good things, but we don't need to spend 40 minutes debating on the floor the goals and ideals of National Dairy Day, or supporting the goals and ideals of American Craft Beer week, or congratulating the Chicago Blackhawks, spending 40 minutes there, when every 40 minutes you spend apparently is 10 minutes, or 10 times 4, that we don't do amendments here on appropriation bills.

So the notion that we're running out of time, somehow, and we don't have time to do appropriation bills, typically, the months of June and July are reserved mostly to do appropriation bills. This is only the second appropriations bill we've done. We've done the last one yesterday. We're going to start and finish this one today.

In years past, we've taken sometimes 3 or 4 days to do one appropriation bill. That's perhaps as it should be because this is important. We're spending a lot of money here. That's what Congress does. But we ought to take care, and we ought to allow Members who have amendments to try to save the taxpayer money to actually offer them.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to take a minute first to thank Cesar Gonzalez. He is my rules associate, general counsel, legislative director. This is the last rule we are going to be working on together. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who is aware of Cesar's talent, has made what I consider a very wise decision in hiring Cesar as his chief of staff. So we are not going to be working on rules together, but we will always be friends. And I am deeply grateful for his friendship and for the extraordinary assistance that he has given to me and our office and our constituents during all of the time that he has honored us by working with us. So Cesar, thank you.

Madam Speaker, yesterday the majority brought to this floor the first fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill. I know it's almost August, but that's the case. The first appropriations bill was brought to the floor yesterday by the majority. And they brought it forth under a restrictive process that blocks Members on both sides of the aisle from introducing amendments. And today the majority continues that process, that unfortunate process, with yet another restrictive rule, this time on the second appropriations bill that they are bringing to the floor, the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. And they bring it forth with a rule that allows 24 of the 108 amendments that were submitted to be debated. That's 22 percent of the amendments submitted.

As you know, Madam Speaker, that used to not be the case. Always throughout the history of the Republic, appropriations bills have been brought forth under open rules. And you know, Madam Speaker, we have been here for some years now, sometimes the process of debate on appropriations bills got unruly and long and frustrating. But that's the way democracy's supposed to work.

So the way that for centuries we've worked out that process, Congress has worked out that process, is that, you know, the chairman and the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on the floor, after a while, after days, they come together with a unanimous consent agreement and they limit debate. The Congress, we limit debate by unanimous consent. That's the way it's worked out. You know, you don't close the process at the beginning--at least we didn't before. Starting last year, this majority decided to, however. And that's unfortunate.

Now, under the traditional process that was followed since the beginning

of the Republic, no one from the majority leadership or the Rules Committee got to pick and choose what amendments the House could debate on appropriations bills as long as they were germane. In other words, as long as they were connected, the issue was connected to the bill at hand.

Now, that's what an open rule is, an open process. And as I say, it's been the tradition of the Congress of the United States to debate appropriations bills under an open process, under open rules. I outline what an open rule is because it's been so long since the House has considered an open rule. And I am sorry for our new Members, because they have never experienced an open rule. But that's why I outlined what an open rule process is.

The last time we saw one on an appropriations bill was July 31, 2007, almost exactly 3 years ago to the day. Even on that bill the majority then came back and closed the process. But at least they initially came to the floor with an open rule 3 years ago on an appropriations bill.

For a nonappropriations bill, February 8, 2007, the month after they took the majority. That was their last open rule, the last open rule that this majority permitted to the Membership in this Congress. You know, that's sad. But especially it's unnecessary. But there is extraordinary power in the majority, obviously, and our friends on the majority side are showing us every day. They exercise that power. You know, it's a record that no one should be proud of, but it is the legacy of this majority.

Now, what is the reason for the majority to use such a restrictive process? Last year they told us that it was to curb the consideration of amendments in order to move the process forward in a timely manner because they wanted to avoid an omnibus appropriations bill, but they didn't. We still had an omnibus appropriations bill and it was 2 weeks before Christmas.

As I said last year, as I said yesterday, as I say now, this process is unjust and it's unnecessary. It was a mistake last year. It was a mistake yesterday. It's a mistake today. It's a colossal mistake that the majority will come to regret.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Georgia, my classmate--it's amazing how the years have passed--John Linder.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the great leader from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the Republican whip.

It's my privilege, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Herger).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the great leader from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Rules Committee, the leader from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my dear friend from California, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

I thank my friend from New York once again for his courtesy. I think this has been a good debate.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report titled ``Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis.'' The report sounded an alarm on the Federal Government's out- of-control debt and the consequences if we fail to address the debt. It said, ``Growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.'' And we are seeing in other countries in the world that this is not a theoretical problem. I mean, this is a very serious, practical problem that can devastate countries and truly hurt people. And so we have to realize that as a Nation we have to change course. I know that is going to require bipartisanship, and I hope that we see it soon, but we're not seeing it yet, and it's very worrisome. On the contrary, the path we are on is, as the Congressional Budget Office has said, not supportable.

So one way to help reign in Federal spending--and of course none of this is going to be pleasant, but it's necessary, and I know that action that's required is approaching because it is necessary--but one way is to cut spending that is not absolutely necessary, that can be considered wasteful.

Over the last week, participants in Minority Whip Cantor's YouCut initiative voted on programs for us to bring to this floor for cutting. To date, participants in that program have voted to cut $120 billion in spending. This week, the participants in that program voted to cut the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit program. That program allows eligible taxpayers to receive a portion of their earned income tax throughout the year in their paychecks. There was a recent audit of the program that found that 80 percent of the recipients did not comply with at least one program requirement, another 20 percent had invalid Social Security numbers and thus may not have been eligible for the credit, and 40 percent failed to file the annual tax return required to reconcile the credit. Suffice it to say that, as a result, the program is susceptible to waste and abuse, and cutting it would save more than $1 billion.

So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on that issue, on cutting the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit program. I would like to remind the membership that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation before us today, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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