Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 669 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this point of order is not about anything other than delaying the passage of this very important bill. And I would say to my friend from Arizona, that he, himself, has probably received more amendments from the Rules Committee than the rest of Congress put together. So he certainly has had an opportunity to offer many amendments with respect to different earmarks that he feels should be removed from the bill.

So I would submit that this point of order is really about delaying the passage of what is a critically important bill, and that is the transportation appropriation bill, a bill that talks about things like funding roads so that we have safe highways for our families to travel on, things like high-speed rail so we can bring people and goods from point A to point B as quickly as possible. That's what we're here to discuss today. That's why the passage, the consideration of this rule and the passage of this rule, is so important, so we may consider this critically important bill.

I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it by virtue of a procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against the final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time, and urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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 the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today as a member of the Rules Committee and also as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in strong support of H.R. 3288, the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation HUD Appropriations Act. H. Res. 669 provides for consideration of H.R. 3288 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule makes in order a total of 23 amendments, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, housing and transportation are two areas that must be priorities for Congress, especially when the economy slows, because we get a 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. We not only put people to work, but we also get something in the long run. We get better roads. We get safer transportation. We get better housing. That is critically important.

Some of the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee would have liked to have seen a greater percentage of the funding in the Recovery Act go towards infrastructure spending and, indeed, we have seen that of all the funding included in that bill the transportation funding has resulted in saving and creating jobs faster than even we expected.

The Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill continues this investment and our commitment to utilize all of the tools available to continue this economic recovery that has already begun to take hold. Included in H.R. 3288 is $41.1 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The bill includes more than $10 billion for Federal Transit Administration, which will help transit agencies meet increased public demand for mass transit. 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 reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

This bill adds another $4 billion to develop and construct a national system of high-speed rail, building on the commitment we began with the recovery bill. This is the first major investment in transportation since the 1960s. High-speed rail moves more people at a lower cost, at a faster speed and with less impact on the environment than does 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 train system in other nations such as Germany, France and even China, they have clearly exceeded what we have done here in America.

Speaking from the experience of my own delegation, the Members that represent upstate New York, we are committed to work in a bipartisan effort to make high-speed rail a reality across upstate New York. We have done so because we realize the numerous benefits that this improvement in our transportation system will have as a result of high- speed rail, not only for upstate New York, but for the Nation as a whole.

Just as we saw over a century ago with the construction of the Erie Canal, streamlining the movement of people and goods along the corridor between the eastern seaboard and Chicago, the freight gateway to the west coast, will benefit the cities at both ends and also the cities across the country through which the line will run.

Madam Speaker, this is just a sampling of the important programs and initiatives that the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act will fund in fiscal year 2010. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, one of the new distinguished members of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

Madam Speaker, before I recognize my colleague from New York, I would just like to make a point, and that is, throughout history, we have seen vision on the part of people, and it's that vision that brought Columbus to the New World. It's that vision that built the Panama Canal. It's the vision that built the Erie Canal. It's the vision in the Eisenhower Highway System. It's the vision that brings us and moves us forward.

This bill contains that vision. It has money in it for high-speed rail. That, I would submit, is our vision for the future. That's the kind of vision that people sent us here to Congress to continue, and it's that kind of vision that this bill contains.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to one of the leaders in transportation in this country, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from New York, one of the freshmen here, Mr. Massa.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

We have no additional speakers.

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

We are at the present time reviewing that option, and we are looking at it, but I would like, if I may, in the meantime, to make one more point about this bill.

I thank my friend for his comments.

Madam Speaker, this is somewhat of a technical change that we are contemplating, but I would say this: I think what one side or what one person views as rushing a piece of legislation the other side can very well argue is necessary and that we need to do it.

One of the things that I hear from constituents at home is, you know, Congress needs to put aside the partisan bickering and move forward with the people's business. I would submit that that is exactly what we are trying to do. There is nothing more important, obviously, for Congress to do than to ensure that the funding to run the government is available. Now, obviously, both sides of the aisle have dramatic differences on how that funding should occur.

I would submit to my friend from Florida--and I mean that, my good friend and colleague from the Rules Committee--that we have a distinct difference in terms of what a ``timetable'' is. We believe that we are here to ensure that we do the people's business and that it is done and that we do the funding in appropriations bills in a timely fashion. So we are working on that, and we are considering the amendment, and we will have an answer on that very shortly.

I will gladly yield to my friend from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

With respect to the question, I do take exception to your characterization of it.

We are not ready.

Madam Speaker, first off, may I inquire as to the amount of time left on both sides?

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak just for a couple of more minutes again about the underlying importance of passing this rule and the underlying bill.

I think there is nothing more important than transportation and infrastructure for government to ensure exists. When you look back at the history of this great institution, the first standing committee was, in fact, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, although then not called by that very name, but it was critically important. The framers saw the importance of having an infrastructure, of having the ability to render our ports navigable and of having functional roads. At that time, of course, rail and airlines were not even imagined, but as we transformed our Nation, it became a critical part of our infrastructure. So it is my belief that this rule and the underlying bill are critically important.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to lay out on the record the amendment that we may be offering.

The amendment to the rule is, actually, rather minor. The amendment will strike from the rule a provision that is no longer necessary. There was some concern that the final version of the GPO print might not have the same page and line numbers as the ordered reported version. That did not occur, so the language in the rule to preserve the Members' rights to fix their amendments is no longer needed.

As I indicated earlier, it is clear that this proposed amendment-- again, we have not offered it yet--is really of a technical nature to allow for a correction in the rule that was passed yesterday out of the Rules Committee.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.

May I reclaim my time?

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank my friend for his cooperation in this.

As I indicated earlier, we are considering offering this amendment. With that, I would again just like to talk a little bit more about the underlying bill.

The bill that we are considering today, the THUD bill, is, again, important at this time. With our economy in the state that it is in, clearly, many people believe that the best thing that we can do for the economy is to spend on and to develop our infrastructure. It is that which we are supposed to do and that which we are asked to do.

One of the things in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on which we debate on a very regular basis is the surface transportation reauthorization bill, which will come up this year. We clearly believe that it is critically important, that it is important not only for our infrastructure but as a way of creating jobs. It is what we were sent to Congress to do, which is to ensure that our roads are safe, to ensure that our airports run and function the way they are supposed to and to ensure that our rail transportation infrastructure is what it should be.

Madam Speaker, I would say, at this time, we have decided that we will not be offering the amendment. Therefore, I would reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

I have no additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend from Miami for his cooperation in management of this rule and for his courtesy in that regard. I appreciate it very much.

Madam Speaker, 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 would make in our transportation system. This 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 tough economic times.

This bill includes funding to address the problem of homelessness among our veterans. All too often the men and women who sacrifice the most for our freedom are hit the hardest during times of economic crisis. 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. 3288 includes $75 million for veterans affairs housing vouchers to provide 10,000 of these vouchers for our homeless veterans.

It provides $8.7 billion to provide affordable housing to 1.3 million low-income families and individuals, two-thirds of whom are elderly or disabled. It includes another $1 billion to rehabilitate and build new housing for low-income seniors. Currently there are 10 eligible seniors on the waiting list for each unit of available housing. In America, it is unacceptable that our Greatest Generation is faced with this shortage.

H.R. 3288 also contains important investments to revitalize our local communities, including $4.6 billion for community development block grants, $25 million for brownfields redevelopment, and $250 million to fund the Hope VI competitive grants program to transform neighborhoods of extreme poverty into sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods through the demolition of severely distressed public housing.

Madam Speaker, housing and transportation are two areas that must be priorities, especially when the economy slows. The funding that H.R. 3288 provides for these programs will ensure that jobs continue to be created and that our Nation's economy continues to recover. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 669 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert

the following:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the

Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban

Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived except those

arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. Points of order against

provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of

rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may

accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in

the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed

shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and

reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that

the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final

passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and hopefully that will be less than 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege and pleasure to present the fiscal year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to the House. This bill is the product of many hours of hearings and briefings, always with bipartisan input and excellent subcommittee member participation. I especially would like to recognize the important contributions of my ranking member, Tom Latham, in putting this bill together. And as with any healthy relationship, we do not always agree, but I greatly appreciate his partnership, and his input has made the bill better.

I also want to take a moment to recognize the hard work of staff, specifically on the minority side, Dena Baron, David Gibbons, Allison Fox and Doug Bobbitt; and on the majority side, Kate Hallahan, Laura Hogshead, Dave Napoliello, Lisa Pena, Alex Gillen, Janine Scianna, Andrew Burton and Blair Anderson. They have spent many late nights putting this bill together, and we would not be here today without their dedication.

There has been close communication and coordination between the minority and the majority staffs throughout this process, and the bill is better for that input.

Recognizing that today may be long, my remarks will be brief. This is a nonpartisan bill, as bills related to transportation and housing should be. It invests in our Nation's infrastructure during a transformational period for both the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The bill provides $123.1 billion in total budgetary resources, $48 million below the President's budget request. Within Housing and Urban Development, this bill recognizes that foreclosure rates remain high and the current economic climate and weak job market have increased demand for affordable housing. To that extent, this bill provides $47.1 billion for HUD and targets most of the $1.6 billion increase over the President's budget to programs that the previous administration repeatedly attempted to reduce or zero out and thus have not kept up with the need.

In contrast, Transportation is a budget in flux, largely covering programs that are in transition with major surface and aviation authorizations pending. The authorizing committees of jurisdiction in both the House and Senate have either passed or begun marking up multi- year legislation to reform and extend these important infrastructure programs. In that regard, the bill includes $75.8 billion in transportation infrastructure investments. That is $1.66 billion below the President's request.

Last, I want to note that in supporting the transformations taking place at each Department, this bill has emphasized investments in five key areas: one, building healthy communities with environmentally sustainable solutions; two, maintaining services in rural communities; three, supporting vulnerable populations; four, investing in the national infrastructure; and, five, ensuring transportation safety.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY09.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY09.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY09.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY09.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY09.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY09.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY09.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY09.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY09.109

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for a colloquy.

I thank the Congresswoman from California, and I share her concern about the terrible accident in Los Angeles, as well as her resolve to help prevent further accidents.

It is, in fact, my intention that the funding provided for railroad research and development be available for positive train control research and demonstration projects. I believe PTC is a necessary addition to our national railroad system, and I thank the Congresswoman for her leadership on this issue and keeping it in our attention.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for a colloquy.

The gentleman is correct. Section 412 will help to ensure compliance with the Buy American Act. Because the intention is not to apply the Buy American Act to new entities, it is consistent with our international obligations.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

To finish this and to allow him to respond in some kind of way, I would give the gentleman additional time, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to say that I can remember--and probably, if you think about it a little bit, you can remember, too, because my memory is probably a lot poorer than yours--times when this bill was brought to the floor, and point of order after point of order to the level of practically stripping half the bill away were made by your committee. Well, maybe you weren't the chairman at that particular time, but a few years ago, that sort of thing did happen.

Furthermore, I would just simply say, of the $47 billion, more than $21 billion has been obligated. Those expenditures are going on. That's more than the amount that was intended to be obligated by the end of the 2009 fiscal year. We're already obligating the money into 2010, so it's getting out there pretty quickly. Though, I do have great sympathy for the position that you're taking in that it takes far too long, and I hope the authorizing will take care of that in a new event.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for a colloquy.

I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this matter to my attention. This is a good project. I support it, and I will be glad to work with the gentlewoman from California on this as it moves into the New Starts process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma is correct. Section 164 of this bill allows that.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue. I understand that the House authorizing committee is examining this in the context of their multiyear surface transportation reauthorization bill. In the meantime, I will be happy to work with the gentleman from Oklahoma to address this issue as we move forward in this process and conference this bill with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for a colloquy.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute, and would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the remarks of the two gentlemen about the effects of airport noise on local communities and agree that the FAA has a responsibility to adequately and objectively weigh the concerns of those adversely impacted by nighttime takeoff and landings.

While I can't comment as to the specifics of the Burbank and Van Nuys curfew studies, I agree that the Part 161 process must serve as a credible and objective avenue for evaluating the merits of noise and access restrictions.

Could I inquire how much time there is available?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I yield myself 1 minute. I assure the gentleman from Iowa that we will work together with the Federal Rail Administration to implement the 2008 Authorization Act.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for his kindness and for his hard work and I certainly, again, join him in thanking the very fine staff who worked together very well in crafting this legislation.

It is a good bill. I believe it is a bill that deserves the support of the vast majority of the Members of the Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that makes a handful of modest changes to the bill. It adds $250,000 for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop safety standards for the incorporation of alternative fuel technologies in vehicles.

It increases the Federal Rail Administration's Railroad Research and Development account by $3 million, which will allow the FRA to perform multiple studies that were authorized in last year's rail safety bill. It provides $1 million for the Federal Aviation Administration to support commercial space activities.

This amendment includes two provisions championed by Representative Cuellar from Texas and included in previous appropriations bills, one that requires the use of energy-efficient bulbs in Federal buildings; and the second, which precludes Federal employees from flying first class.

Last, we have included a technical change to a provision that my ranking member, Mr. Latham, has championed in order to ensure that the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program can be implemented without Federal subsidy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I inquire how much time there is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good amendment, and I would ask for its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. The HOPE VI program was launched in 1992 to allow the replacement of affordable housing that had deteriorated and was determined to be uninhabitable. The annual appropriations for about 10 years after that point were $500 million per year or thereabouts.

During that time, 25 to 30 applications were awarded each year, and some of those programs went forward very expeditiously and some of them did not move forward as expeditiously. But in at least the last 5 years, under the previous administration, each year the administration attempted to rescind the appropriation that had been made the previous year and then zero out the program for the year that we were appropriating for, attempting not just to cripple but to terminate the program.

Congress refused, because many communities still had projects for the program, so we still had five or six projects per year, because the appropriation was for several years, at least 5 years, was frozen around $100 million or thereabouts per year. Now, it is my understanding, at least, that what are--typically programs and projects that had been afforded money under the program of HOPE VI took from 3 to 7 years and that would be used to complete. Some took longer.

During the past year, we have been able to get the Department of Housing and Urban Development to spend special time, special effort, through technical assistance and working with the organizations that had the applications in, to go back and make certain that those that had been awarded in 2002 and 2003 were moving forward. They made some serious progress on that, but there is still need for this program.

At this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who is the chairman of the Authorizing Committee, because so great is the need that the Authorizing Committee has been working on that.

Mr. Chairman, just last fall this House passed reauthorization legislation for HOPE VI and authorized for the first year of that $750 million. The work of HOPE VI simply is not done. That represents how much the demand is on the part of the membership of the House.

Basically, what I would say here is that this work needs to continue. There is much need for affordable housing in this country. The HOPE VI program is not duplicated by anything else that I know of, and I would urge that the amendment be defeated.

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

First of all, I want to say that this high-speed rail, the program for combined high-speed and intercity passenger rail, that is the most important transportation initiative since the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, the National Defense Highway System of 50 years ago, which took a generation, basically, to build. It's not going to happen quickly. It's going to take a period of time, there is no question, but it is the most important initiative. There is pent-up demand. There is a huge demand.

The first preapplication period for this bill brought in $100 billion of applications for $8 billion that was in place there. If we do not add significantly to that, as this bill does do, by adding $4 billion to the $8 billion that is already there, then people will lose faith or wonder, Are we in this seriously? Are we going to do high-speed and intercity passenger rail, as had been proposed and put forward in the recovery bill earlier or aren't we intending to do that?

I think we must keep this momentum going, for if we lose it, then that would be a very bad thing to have happen. There are applications for more than 40 States in the union totaling a hundred billion dollars. Some of those are going to be in construction later this year or early next year. The actual final applications are due for the smaller projects within a month. And within 2 months after that, they are supposed to be in awards. So they are expected to be providing jobs next year.

So I think that that is a very appropriate way to keep our public momentum going toward passenger and intercity rail, high speed and intercity passenger rail.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is left now?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

As the gentleman understands, the $4 billion is available in this fiscal year for which we're appropriating only for high-speed rail. And I hope that it will remain there.

I urge the defeat of the amendment so that we will keep the momentum up and keep the building, the development of high-speed rail moving forward as fast as possible.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think the gentleman has found a very appropriate amendment. It takes a small amount of money from a very large program to put into a program that we have supported and I have supported strongly. I am perfectly willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed.

In fact, I am willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

I'm happy to yield.

I thank the chairman and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today is an important day in the House because we are considering a bill that has far-reaching impacts on the transportation infrastructure across all of our districts and on all of our constituents in one way or another.

For that reason alone, we should be considering this bill under an open rule so that our constituents have some say in how their tax dollars are being spent. Sadly, this is not the case.

Before I go any further, I want to tell the membership that I have really enjoyed working with Chairman Olver, and look forward to continuing to do so. While, like he said, we don't always agree on everything, and especially the 25 percent increase in the allocation over last year, but that fact does not take away my belief that he is truly a devoted chairman who focuses on the resource needs of the entities under the jurisdiction of this bill, and I very much want to personally thank him for his consideration and kindness and working together. It's been a real pleasure.

I also want to tell both the majority and minority staffs that I sincerely appreciate their work throughout the process and commend them for a job, I think, very well done. And I salute all of your many hours that you put into the process, your forbearance in this often dysfunctional environment. We couldn't do it without you. And again, thank you on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, the funding allocation for this bill for FY 2010 is 25 percent over the FY09 level. That is a huge increase, and one for which we ought to have a number of perfecting amendment votes as part of a serious debate, if for no other reason than to allow our constituents to have some say in how those funds are spent. At some point, it should start dawning on all of us that the reason we're hearing a lot of noise about some of the spending that's going on is that our constituents are waking up to the fact that they don't have a say in these exercises.

Mr. Chairman, as the administration has said about this bill, ``these infrastructure investments will help build a new foundation for long- term economic growth to benefit the American people for years to come.'' And I agree. If we are, indeed, making long-term infrastructure investments, then the investors, or our constituents, should have a say-so on how those investments are made.

One of my biggest concerns in this bill is that we do nothing to address the coming situation with the highway trust fund that runs out of money. At a point, we will have to bail out the fund with general fund resources. I know that's not in our jurisdiction as such, but the hour is getting late, and we should all be looking for the most expeditious ways to make any contribution we can to provide the resources that allow highway infrastructure and other transportation programs to continue with some predictability.

I had an amendment to help the trust fund situation, as I mentioned earlier today, in consideration of the rule. It would have transferred $3 billion from the Rapid Rail appropriation to the trust fund, these funds that will not be spent any time soon, while our highway trust fund screams for additional resources.

The $3 billion are also funds that were not requested by the administration for Rapid Rail, probably because the President knows they could not be spent any time soon. Right now they are ``parked funds,'' at a time when we do not need to be teeing up more resources to be spent on something such as an infrastructure bank which, at this point, is only a vague concept.

In the end, the amendment was not made in order, and I assume for political reasons, unfortunately. Had it been made in order, it would have given me some faith that the majority was serious about having a genuine debate on this bill which, in turn, might have drawn a few more supporters than might otherwise be the case.

I will offer a different amendment to strike the $3 billion, which will take the Rapid Rail funding to the President's request. Let me reiterate, that's the President's request. The $3 billion is over and above that, and I believe the President's request was a reasonable number.

It will also cancel the transfer authority to this unknown infrastructure bank that has not been authorized. Without the absence of any knowledge of where a Rapid Rail program will go or what the bank will look like, or even if any submitted rail projects are feasible, we simply do not need $3 billion of taxpayer money being set aside for simply a concept.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not say that there are some good points in this bill, absent a few billion unneeded dollars, to make it a very attractive legislative product.

With respect to HUD, I only want to say that this bill fully meets the government's obligation to renew all rental assistance, support the homeless, increase support for low-income elderly and the disabled, and provide additional rental assistance for veterans. But we cannot continue to put forth resources that cannot be deployed in the near term. We simply don't have the money.

And at this point, I thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), who has brought a lot of knowledge and insight to the committee.

I would yield to the gentleman from Ohio 2 more minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield the gentleman from Florida 2 additional minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve, please.

I have no additional speakers and, again, I want to personally thank the chairman for his consideration and again say thank you to the great staff that we have on both sides of the aisle. It's been a real pleasure working with you. I appreciate it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the time in opposition, although I will not oppose his amendment.

Let me just express my frustration in this amendment, and they're all good projects. There are five amendments, all Democrat amendments, all of substance, that we could have agreed on. But also, looking through the list here: We have another four or five amendments that we could have agreed on, of substance, and we will agree on.

Again, I go back to the fact that the Rules Committee, the process is just totally out of whack, and the fact that while I don't oppose these--actually, one of the projects that Mr. Braley referred to is something that I started several years ago and has been very, very successful as far as using soybean grease as far as lubricants on railroads. It's been in practice now for several years.

It's the frustration I have that we couldn't have substantive amendments made in order. We have five Democratic amendments put in here, of substance, while we were denied that option. I think it is extremely unfair and really brings shame upon this body and the process that should be in place for all of our constituents to have their Representatives here to decide and vote on amendments which would be of importance to their districts and to the Members' constituents.

I just, again, express my total frustration with the Rules Committee. I don't blame the chairman at all, but it's just the process has totally fallen apart.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Again, I just want to reiterate, these are good, substantive amendments. All have merit. The frustration I have is that all five are Democrat amendments, never even an opportunity. And there will be several more Republican amendments here that we'll probably agree on. I don't know why we couldn't do this. But it's frustration I have with the process, and it's very concerning to me.

I will support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the chairman very much. This really is a very simple amendment. I seek to bring the funding level for high-speed rail back down to the President's request of $1 billion and strike the transfer authority for the National Infrastructure Bank.

When the stimulus deal was announced by the President and the Democrat leadership, we were told that the plan was to provide $8 billion for high-speed rail in the stimulus and another $1 billion a year for the next 5 years. My amendment meets the President's goals and his plans. We are just now embarking on this high-speed rail initiative. The stimulus funds are still in the Treasury. They haven't been spent, and there is little reason to dump another $3 billion on top of an unspent $8 billion since the committee hasn't even had the time to do any oversight at all in this area.

I know the chairman is going to reference that there is pent-up demand for high-speed rail, and he is going to mention $100 billion in grant applications. Are we really ready to embark on a $100 billion endeavor on top of the million-, billion- and trillion-dollar endeavors already under consideration? We don't even know if those grant applications have any feasibility at all.

Second, this amendment would strike the transfer to the National Infrastructure Bank. The administration requested $5 billion for a bank in their budget requests, but it didn't include any authorizing language at all. I know there are a few bills out there that would authorize this, and those proposals should be considered in the regular authorizing process. However, there is no bank today. There is no authorized bank in which to put this money. I'm not opposed to the bank idea, but I believe we should know what the activities and programs are that we are paying for up front.

The bill before us gives authority to transfer $2 billion to the bank on October 1, 2010, should the bank ever be authorized by that date. Now, October 1, 2010, is actually in the 2011 fiscal year, and this committee will have the opportunity to consider funding that bank within the budget priorities for fiscal year 2011 under that 2011 allocation. There is absolutely no reason to do that now.

I did have an amendment to transfer the $3 billion to the highway trust fund, but the Rules Committee was probably too worried that the amendment may pass. However, without the transfer, this is still a good amendment. Cutting an extra unrequested $3 billion from this account still meets the President's request, his commitment, and would give me good reason to support this otherwise pretty good bill.

I urge the adoption of my amendment. Again, I just want to make sure people know that this is $3 billion on top of the $1 billion the President requested, $2 billion of which is set aside--people talk about this money going to high-speed rail. It's not going to go there. This is set aside in a fund basically to be held so that just in case this infrastructure bank is authorized, the money will go there. This has nothing to do with high-speed rail. It has everything to do with making this a bill that people can support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will reserve at this time.

I yield myself the remainder of the time.

I will have to say I'm a little bit confused. First they're saying that this is a cut to high-speed rail, and then the last speaker got up here and said, Well, no, that money is not for high-speed rail, it's for some program that hasn't even been authorized yet. I'm not quite sure where we are here, because we're talking about spending the same money two or three times. I would suggest to the gentlewoman from Connecticut that there is no authorized bank. And by the language in this bill, those dollars could not be transferred until the next fiscal year, which means that the whole next year's cycle, if this bank is authorized, if that money is needed, we can do that next year.

But to have this money sit in a slush fund basically and do nothing-- and everyone knows it's not going to go out the door, and the gentleman from Massachusetts knows--my chairman, who I love dearly--but he knows that I made this statement in committee. I'm not against high-speed rail. As a matter of fact, I made the statement on two different occasions that I think the $787 billion of stimulus money could have had actually been well spent and we could have a national high-speed rail system and actually accomplish something if we would have spent all of that money in the stimulus just on high-speed rail. We would have the Eisenhower Interstate Project. I'm not against it, but I'm just saying to have this money sit here and do nothing when we've got a critical issue, as far as the highway trust fund that needs funding immediately, is simply wrong.

Let's save the money, let's make the bill acceptable to a lot more people who can support it on a bipartisan basis.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I will join the chairman, and we will certainly be glad to accept the amendment.

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. Last month, in the middle of the night, the majority called an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee in order to withdraw a modified open rule which had previously been passed by the committee regarding the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill and to replace it with a draconian rule that severely limited the ability of Members from both sides of the aisle to bring amendments to the floor for debate and a vote.

That unnecessary and unfortunate procedure began the process of overturning over two centuries of precedent of open debate on appropriations bills in this House. Historically, appropriations bills, such as the one being brought to the floor today, have come to the floor under an open rule, a rule that allows any Member, from either side of the aisle, to offer amendments if the amendments are germane. Now the majority has unwisely ended that hallowed tradition and is using the Rules Committee to repress the ability of Members to offer amendments.

Each and every appropriations bill considered since that late night, or should I say early morning, meeting has restricted the prerogative of Members to offer amendments. Instead, the Speaker and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, through the majority on the Rules Committee, decide who will offer amendments, and they decide exactly who shapes the way Congress spends the taxpayers' dollars. As of the last count, that doctrine, the Pelosi-Obey doctrine, has blocked over 600 amendments. Six hundred times already Members on both sides of the aisle in this House have been denied the ability to represent their constituents on appropriations bills.

The new doctrine and process not only breaks two centuries of tradition and precedent in the House; it also runs contrary to one of the central tenets of the Democrats' election campaign. During the 2006 campaign, they claimed that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6 of that year, Speaker Pelosi reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will.'' But here we are today, with Congress for the first time in history completely shutting down the previously open appropriations process.

When the process was first closed down last month, I explained to the majority that they should be cognizant of the repercussions of overturning two centuries of precedent. They did not listen. They have continued to bring to this floor restrictive rule after restrictive rule, 10 so far. Although I feel that the majority has caused lasting damage to the traditions of the House, there's still a chance for the majority to return to the long-held tradition of fairness and openness of debate on appropriations bills. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that we can return to regular order, to restore the long- held tradition of the House of openness on appropriations bills.

I once again remind my colleagues that majorities are never eternal. The precedent being set now may be used by majorities in the future. And this is not the appropriate way to run the House. It is unnecessary. It is inappropriate. It is unfair. I think it's time, Madam Speaker, that we overturn that doctrine, the Pelosi-Obey doctrine, and restore the tradition of openness in the appropriations process.

And I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I would ask my friend if he has any additional speakers.

I thank my friend. This has been an interesting debate. Apparently, there are some discussions, Madam Speaker, going on with our friends on the other side of the aisle.

What I will do at this point is reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would simply inquire of my friend if it is the intention of the majority to try to amend the rule.

On your time.

If I may, Madam Speaker, I thank my friend. Obviously, I have great respect for him, and I know that he will continue to speak on the merits of the legislation being brought to the floor today.

As confirmed by my friend, it seems that the majority is considering amending the rule, I am told, to eliminate the provision which allows Members to modify the amendatory instructions in their amendments to account for changes in the bill that occurred during the printing process.

It is my understanding that the majority fears that the minority will exploit that provision to change our amendments even though that has not happened thus far.

If this were to take place, I think it would be another example of how the majority is rushing legislation to the floor without giving this system the necessary time to work. If we had an extra day, we wouldn't need this provision at all because the bill would be printed, and the Members could read the bill; but because the Rules Committee and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee are determined to push legislation through without sufficient time for the House to review the legislation, we need this provision in the rule to account for clerical problems. Rather than actually giving Members time to read the bill, they want to run the risk that Members' amendments might not be in order.

So, in short, Madam Speaker, if this amendment to the rule were to take place, I think it would be another example of how the Speaker and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee value their schedules over the rights of Members to be heard on the floor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we are ready to close, but my understanding is that the majority hasn't finalized its amendment to further restrict this process.

For example, with regard to this Transportation-HUD appropriations bill, the original schedule that was put out by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, before the decision was made to end two centuries of precedent and not permit open rules on appropriations bills, called for 2 days of debate, but the rule they're bringing to the floor limits it, obviously, to 1 day of debate. Now they have an amendment to the rule that, apparently, they want to bring forth to further limit debate. So I am waiting until our colleagues have finalized their amendment to further restrict this process before, obviously, I close.

Having said that, I would ask my friend and colleague if he is ready with his further restrictive amendment. I will yield for the answer.

The question is: With regard to the amendment to the rule, are you ready with your amendment to the rule?

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if the amendment is so simple, as my friend has pointed out, where is it?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my friend. He had described the amendment, and I had argued against it. Now the decision has come not to make it, not to propose the amendment further limiting this process. So I thank my friend for having obtained a decision from his side of the aisle.

At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

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

I ask my friend, he has no additional speakers?

Again, I thank him for obtaining a decision from his leadership and in effect not moving forward with an amendment to further limit, further restrict a restrictive rule.

I'm going to be asking for a ``no'' on the previous question, Madam Speaker, so that we can amend this rule so we can go back to regular order, so that we can allow for an open process of debate. There is no question that this rule that the majority has brought forth will help or contribute to cementing a dangerous precedent that the majority continued to set last month. It will further damage bipartisanship and comity in this body.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can uphold the tradition of this House, return to the tradition of this House, of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills. I think, if we do not do so, the majority will come to regret their decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills.

I think it's more unfortunate what the majority has done, and they realize overturning two centuries of precedent is a significant action, and it will inure to the detriment of each and every Member and the constituents of each and every Member of this House forever.

As I said before, majorities are never permanent. My distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee who's serving his first term, member of the majority party said, I've never seen an open rule on an appropriations process--I'm paraphrasing him--but I don't expect to be in the majority forever, and so one day I expect to see an open rule on an appropriations bill.

Well, that was an illustrative statement in many ways, one that he recognizes that the trend that has been set by the majority of restricting the debate process on appropriations bills has now been set in a fairly definitive form, but he expects that in the future majorities will act differently. And that may not be the case, because once precedents are broken, new precedent exists for future majorities, and that would be most unfortunate if forever the Members of this House are denied the ability to introduce amendments in an open process on appropriations bills.

So, Madam Speaker, I thank you for your courtesy, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you so much for the time, for the introduction and for the opportunity to speak on this important Transportation and HUD funding bill.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to compliment Mr. Olver and Mr. Latham, the two leaders of the appropriations subcommittee, on the great job that they have done and for their efforts and for the efforts of both staffs in addressing the transportation and infrastructure needs of the Nation.

This is one of the most important bills that we will pass because this job will actually put people to work. I can tell you--and my colleagues and every one of you knows the statistics--that the national unemployment is at 9.5 percent. In my State of Florida, we're at 10.5 percent. I have some counties in my district that are at 15 percent. We have a problem. One of the ways to get people working and into jobs is by building infrastructure, and we'll actually have something tangible when we get done.

I do want to raise an issue that I have with the bill, but it is not something that is the responsibility of the

authors of this legislation, Mr. Olver or Mr. Latham. They have been most cooperative. We've had a great working relationship, myself as an authorizer and the two of them as appropriators.

From time to time and in the past, there have been great battles-- I've seen some of them--about authorizing on an appropriations bill. Now, I went to the Rules Committee, and I didn't get a chance to speak on the rule, so I voted against its passage. I asked the Rules Committee to pass an amendment that would have sped up the process by which we could get these dollars out so that we could actually get people working sooner rather than later. I know people have asked me for bigger government programs and for more bailouts, but now they have asked for an opportunity to work, and nothing has been harder hit than transportation projects.

I've got one little quote here from the Secretary of Transportation in Pennsylvania, who says that the unemployment rate for construction workers there is 21 percent.

It's high all over the Nation, but we can get people to work. The Rules Committee ruled out of order my amendment that would have sped up the process for the consideration of transportation projects, both for stimulus and also for this type of funding legislation.

Actually, I had my staff go through, and they just tabbed one section of this, of legislating on appropriations bills. All of these tabs represent legislating on an appropriations measure, but I don't raise any questions about these. Some of this is probably fine. We've talked together, and we agree on it.

What I'm concerned about is that the Rules Committee took the bill as it stood, but failed to take my proposed amendment. They said I was legislating on appropriations. My measure, again, would have sped up the process. Don't think we can't do that. I stood here with Mr. Oberstar the day that the bridge collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. We rebuilt that bridge in 437 days. Normally, the process to rebuild that, if you went through all the normal hoops and red tape and Federal requirements, would take 6-7 years. We can do the same thing because we have a national emergency now, and we need to get this transportation money that this good, well-intended and very effective subcommittee is bringing forth. It's a good measure. They work together in a bipartisan fashion.

What I'm saying is we need to get that money, the stimulus money, out. We're having the same problem with our stimulus money, getting it out. There is $48 billion under the Department of Transportation's responsibility. So far, we have $771 million. Let me say the State Transportation Departments across the country are doing their level best. They're doing a great job getting that money out, but that's less than $1 billion of $48 billion out.

There is a reason it's caught up in red tape. Let me take, not what a Republican Governor said, but what, I believe, North Carolina Governor Perdue said, which is that there is so much red tape that it's discombobulating.

Now, just for the record--and I will give the Clerks the proper spelling of ``discombobulating'' for the Record of the House--he said it's irritating. That's Perdue.

Here is a little engineer in a county in Indiana. He said, ``I've got an engineer full time, and just 'bout all he's doing is red tape every day.''

Again, I want to take not just the Governor or the Secretary of Transportation in Pennsylvania or the Governor of North Carolina. Here is a county engineer in Elkhart County, Indiana who says, I've got an engineer full time, and that's just 'bout all he's doing is red tape every day, filling out forms, filling out forms.

So my proposal, had the Rules Committee accepted it, would have sped up the process. I didn't come here to say we should roll over any environmental requirements or regulations. What I said is we should condense the process because this, my fellow Members of Congress, is a national emergency. If you don't think it's a national emergency, go back to your office, and find some of those letters from folks who are pleading with Congress to help them find a job, to get people employed in their families so they can pay their mortgages, so they can build their dreams like we all want to do, but they're not able to do that, and we're not able to get the money out because of the red tape and constraints.

So, again, I regret that the Rules Committee rejected my proposal. I'll be back here again.

Yes, I will always yield to the chairman.

I know what went on in the past with my committee and its calling points of order on authorizing on an appropriations measure.

Let me say that I did not come to burn Rome. I came to help you build Rome. I have no objection to these, and I did not object on any, but I did object to my one. Here is 45 not being considered by the Rules Committee, and your committee is not the Rules Committee.

Let me say this, too: We have obligated money, but you know, I can't go back to my office and say, Mr. So-and-so or Madam So-and-so Constituent, we've obligated money. It's not out there, so there isn't that hope for a job. All I'm trying to do is get the money expedited so we can get jobs going again.

Finally, let me tell you why it's important to get that money out there now, folks. Listen to this. This is one American dollar. I can tell you that, right now, you will get the best deal ever to do infrastructure projects in the country.

My district secretary told me that bids are coming in 25 to 30 percent lower. Do you see this three-quarters of a dollar? I can get a dollar's worth of construction now for three-quarters of a dollar. We have American infrastructure on sale wholesale, and we should be getting that money out in the interest of taxpayers and building that.

Heaven forbid, you know, it's not like some of these other programs or like the bailouts. I didn't come here asking for a bailout. All I'm asking for is something tangible, and that's what your subcommittee provides so well for our Nation is something tangible--roads, bridges, highways, transit systems--all of which we need across this land from sea to shining sea. We're drowning in congestion. We don't have high- speed rail systems like the Europeans, Asians and other people around the world. So I don't mind spending it.

My dad used to say, ``It's not how much you spend, Son. It's how you spend it.''