NADA Act of 2012

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.

This amendment indiscriminately cuts programs in transportation and housing without any thought to the relevant merits of the programs contained in this bill. For instance, they would result in fewer air traffic controllers, fewer pipeline safety inspectors that ensure that accidents do not occur, fewer vouchers for homeless veterans. It would reduce salaries and expense accounts for all the departments. In some of the agencies, salaries and expenses are almost everything in the agency. You would do the same thing for all the capital accounts, the construction accounts, since this is basically an infrastructure bill that has a lot of capital expenditures. All of this would be done across the board.

More generally, investments in our transportation and housing infrastructure will be reduced and the associated jobs will be lost. From the amendment itself, there will be public jobs lost. Also, there will be jobs lost because of the loss in infrastructure, which is important to this country and very critical.

I want to point out that the sponsor of this legislation is again reneging on her word. She voted for last summer's Budget Control Act that set this year's spending limits. The Ryan budget broke that agreement and lowered spending levels. The sponsor's amendment breaks the agreement again by reducing discretionary funding even further.

I strongly urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, from the looks of it, the gentleman from California has quite a fight going on with the Sierra Club, with three of the four major newspapers--I don't know which ones they are exactly. I didn't know there were four major newspapers in San Francisco. Most places these days, if they have one, they're doing very well--and with the State legislature in California as well.

I strongly oppose this amendment. And, frankly, I am disappointed by what it represents. This project, I think, is a perfect--well, maybe not perfect--is a very good example of the types of infrastructure projects our major urban areas need to remain economically strong, provide job creation now, and critical access to jobs in the future.

Six of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in this country--those with a population over 1 million--exist in the State of California. California also happens to have five additional ones which have 500,000 to 1 million in population. Seven of those 11 are growing by more than 25 percent per year. And these are exactly the sort of places--all of them--they are places that need investment, continued investment, and continued assistance from the Federal Government.

They are putting a major amount of money into our authorization plans, which we extend and are still under extension. And I think most people here hope and understand that we need to have a reauthorization sometime within the next few days, probably, and that the program in California is one that is fully authorized and ready to go.

Population density in the area that is involved in this particular program is over 50,000 people per square mile. Ultimately, the project will tie together one of the fastest-growing sections of San Francisco with one of the densest neighborhoods in the Nation and will provide key regional connections with other transit systems, including commuter rail and future high-speed rail programs.

The project has been thoroughly reviewed by the FTA and the State of California. Local authorities determined that it was of high value. In addition, the chairman included $100 million in the underlying bill as an acknowledgement that this project is moving and will improve transportation and create construction jobs in the Bay Area. The Bay Area needs construction jobs as well as we need construction jobs in every part of this Nation in order to have a robust economy.

I have a press release, which arrived today, just to add to the game. The California Transportation Commission unanimously approved the commitment of $61 million in State high-speed rail connectivity funds for the Central Subway Project, this very project, this very day.

I also have here with me the editorial from the San Francisco Examiner--I'm not sure whether that's one of your major newspapers in the area or not--in support of this program.

I understand that the sponsor might not support public transportation, but when he singles out one project of many that received a high rating, it's hard not to wonder if his opposition is not based on some kind of internal politics and not on sound policy.

I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the Examiner, June 14, 2012]

Central Subway Needs Money To Fulfill Potential

It is time for everyone to get onboard with the Central

Subway project--the largest Muni project in recent years.

This week, the excavation of nearly a full block in San

Francisco began as construction workers started ripping up

the streets around Fourth and Bryant. The project is for a

launch box,'' the staging ground for next year, when two

massive hole-boring machines will ultimately serve as the

tunnel for the new Central Subway line.

If you believe the naysayers, this tunneling is the

beginning of a train to nowhere or a multimillion-dollar

project that utterly lacks funding and will result in a train

line without riders.

None of this is true.

The Central Subway is the second phase of the T-Third

Street route, a 5.1-mile light-rail line that has done much

good by connecting downtown with the southeastern

neighborhoods of The City. The entire project germinated from

the Embarcadero Freeway teardown after the 1989 Loma Prieta

earthquake. The compromise for not rebuilding the freeway was

to plan for this new transit line.

The Central Subway project will extend the T-Third Street

line 1.7 miles through the South of Market neighborhood, with

stops at Moscone Center and Union Square, and end in

Chinatown. The project will tie together one of the fastest-

growing sections of The City with one of the densest

neighborhoods in the nation. The ridership projections for

the project, which opponents say are too low to justify the

81.6 billion cost, are for the small section of line itself.

The opponents point to one number--35,000 riders in 2020. But

the true ridership number is for the entire T-Third Street

line, which is projected to be about 65,000 by 2030.

It is true that the San Francisco Municipal Transportation

Agency is moving ahead with this project without full federal

funding. The work has been going on for some time, such as

the moving of utilities that are in the way of tunneling. In

these days of tight federal funding, when the present

Congress is in the hands of tea party ideologues who want to

kill public works projects that aren't car-oriented, the only

way to prove a project is worthy of federal funding is having

it shovel ready--or in this case, bore-ready.

But since the SFMTA has done so much to prove it is fully

invested in this project, we are confident that the subway

line is going to be fully financed. The Federal Transit

Administration is expected to provide the final $942 million

by the end of the month. This funding will be enough to

complete the tunnel bore.

The SFMTA does not exactly have a proactive reputation. But

in this case, it should be applauded for continuing to push

ahead with a major construction project, even if the last bit

of money is not quite yet secured. This money has been

crawling through the pipeline for years.

The Central Subway line will be a major asset to San

Francisco, and local and federal officials need to present a

united front to finalize the funding as soon as possible.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I oppose this amendment strongly, but not because I like a VMT, particularly, and not that I do not understand that in rural areas this can be very burdensome. However, we have to have additional revenue. The reason our infrastructure is in decline is simple: We're simply not raising enough revenue.

We haven't decided how to raise revenue to fund our infrastructure needs. Yet we have report after report from the American Society of Civil Engineers with an infrastructure report card that gives us a D, estimating that more than $2 trillion in investment is needed in our system, a gap of at least $27 billion each year, from the DOT's own most recent conditions and performance report. There is a $27 billion per year gap just to maintain the current system of highways and bridges in a state of good repair.

The gas tax has not been raised since 1993. The total amount of revenue that was raised 10 years ago is only a couple of billion dollars lower than it is now 10-11 years later. We know that the vehicles that are being produced now, correctly, and we must do this, are more efficient than they were earlier and so gasoline tax doesn't bring in as much money. That's fine, but you still have to have the revenue to build a transportation infrastructure program that is going to be good that will keep the economy of the country strong. Every good and every product of this country has to move along an efficient transportation system covering all of our modes of transportation and has to be kept up, in good repair.

And for the major population growth which continues at 10 percent every decade with all these major metropolitan areas going up and up and up in population, you have to have a lot of new infrastructure built and you have to maintain the old infrastructure in the older communities or everybody is going to be behind. Even the rural areas, even though many of them, and in the gentleman's poor part of the country, there are States where more than half, several States, at least 10 States that have more than half of all of their counties losing population. But to allow the infrastructure, the highway system to fall apart in those places, means you doom those areas to an economic future which is going to be very bleak, indeed.

So the amendment, it's unfortunate because we are probably going to have to use different kinds of money-raising mechanisms in different parts of the country. This one makes it not possible for the administration to even think about using the vehicle miles tax even in the urban, major urban areas of the country.

In any case, I oppose the amendment. I know quite well what the result of my opposition is going to be, but I think ultimately, we somehow have to gain the courage and the will to raise the revenue that is necessary in order to keep our economy strong.

The transportation system in its totality represents close to 25 percent of the whole economy in this country. You cannot have a viable, robust economy with the jobs that we need if we do not figure out how to do what's needed in all parts of the country. So I oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to continue this conversation for another moment or two, and that will save me time rather than having to figure out how to get my own time, Mr. Chairman. Somewhere along the way, it will come back to me. But in the midst of the discussion, I'm not likely to come up with it very easily.

In any case, I recognize exactly what the chairman of the committee is saying. It will be interesting to see what the authorizers come up with. I hope you had some ideas as to what they are going to do because the position that I am taking of the need for the infrastructure development in this country, both state of good repair, just repairing it, keeping it going, and then the additional infrastructure that is needed because of growth of populations, that is there and we must solve the problem. And it's not just the executive's problem, it's not just our problem, it's a problem for all of us, and this takes one piece, one possible piece out of the mix that could be part of the mix, simply takes it off the table, and that I object to. As somebody that is not going to be here next year when you may have to come up with a solution, I object to that being taken off the table. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I will be brief. I wish the gentleman from Minnesota great luck in solving this one. I am so happy for the people on that side of the aisle who must be just ecstatic--ecstatic--that they have a President who will take all of these things off the table. But what are you going to do when you have to have jobs and a robust economy in this largest economy in the world?

I yield to my chairman.

Reclaiming my time, at my age, I can't remember what happened several days ago, and that is quite some time ago. But, you know, it will slowly come back. Eventually, it slowly comes back.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the European Union has implemented an emissions trading regimen as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels. They are not succeeding very much. They are putting in a fairly hard effort to do that, but the greenhouse gas emissions continue to go up. The CO2 percentage in the atmosphere is now, in the year 2012, about 50 percent higher than it has been at any time in the last 500,000 years and going up, continuing to go up. But we're not going to settle climate change issues tonight.

I understand that this amendment will be adopted, but the effort is going to have to eventually go on to deal with our climate change.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Again, I understand my very limited position here on this one, but I do rise in opposition to the amendment.

I am a strong supporter of the Sustainable Communities Program, and I am disappointed that there is no funding in this bill for sustainable communities. I have heard complaints that the Sustainable Communities Program isn't authorized. Well, neither is the CDBG program authorized, yet we include funding for that program in the bill and have for many years. It has not been individually authorized in quite some period of time.

The program actually has some good purposes. It integrates Federal, State and local investment activity in housing, land use, economic and workforce development, and transportation. At a time when we're under budget constraints, it's fairly important, if not critical, that the support for regional and local planning is available to help localities invest limited resources strategically in order to achieve the greatest short- and long-term benefits for citizens.

In the first 2 years, which is the 2 years that the program has been used--and it is a pilot program, basically, a demonstration program--it has been used in both urban and rural areas and in areas that are a little more than a city or a metropolitan area or that are a small group of counties up to a broader group that might cross State lines, where there are interests across those State lines and where the people have wanted to do it.

It was always one purely of applications from groups of people at the local level as well as from organizations at the local and regional levels that would put forward proposals to do that kind of integration and joint planning with the Federal Government, the State governments, and the local governments as to how they wanted to see their areas grow.

So I think it is an activity that we ought to have some opportunity for, but I know that that's not going to happen tonight. I simply regret that that is the way things are. I do oppose the amendment, but know that it will be adopted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I will be very brief.

I serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee for Appropriations, and I don't think that the Homeland Security authorizers have done anything along these lines, and that's where it really ought to be dealt with, I would think.

So I will agree with what you're doing.

Very briefly, I would just like to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio for being watchful of this sort of thing. This is the sort of thing that, it seems to me, ought to be really very logical. And I have supported it in the past, as he has already referenced. So I'm happy to see that it's working in your community.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The issue here seems to be--and I don't know this very well. The issue seems to be that there have been cases where discrimination has occurred, and it has been adjudicated as having occurred when there was no intent to do so in the first place.

In a recent HUD action, this impact was used to protect the rights of women who were evicted because they were victims of domestic violence. Well, there was no intent to discriminate against the victims of the domestic violence, but that's what it was that has been adjudicated in this particular case.

Cases of this sort have been brought before 11, I think, of the 13 appeals courts at this point, and the rule which HUD has put forward, the so-called disparate impact rule, comes out of their understanding of the cases before the appeals courts where discrimination was determined legally in the appeals courts to have occurred.

So the idea that the gentleman is putting forward of prohibiting the finalization of the disparate impact rule which rises out of these cases before the appeals court seems to me to be exactly the opposite thing that should be done. Unless you get to a point where the appeals court gets to a higher court, which I guess the higher court is the Supreme Court of the United States, and they overturn the positions that have been taken by these several appeals courts in rather similar cases, then HUD is doing exactly what they need to do.

So I must rise in opposition to this. All of the people in the authorizing side of this are saying--at least on my side of the authorization process, which means the ranking member of the authorizing committee here--is opposed to this amendment. Mr. Frank, the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, also opposes, I think, for roughly the reason that I have articulated here. So the gentleman is trying to stop the process.

Reclaiming my time, we have no idea whether the Supreme Court will take this case. In the meantime, until such time it is taken and they do it, and we can't assume that, then the actions of HUD are proper in reaching a disparate impact rule that adheres to the findings in the several appeals courts. My staff tells me it is 11 of the appeals courts have reached similar decisions which are adhered to by the HUD impact rule proposed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana for his solution, but I have to admit that I cannot identify what the problem is that this solution solves.

This language that you are excluding has been in the legislation for years, before I think I was--the earliest time I was in the ranking membership of the Transportation Subcommittee, and that of course was several years before I chaired the Transportation Subcommittee. I think it has been in the language all that time and never come up. So there has been no problem that we solved where it has never been used. That flexibility has never been used to transfer money from some place in order to put money into the EAS program.

So, yes, you have a solution, but I don't know what the problem is.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

In any case, I don't object to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

This is a peculiar amendment, it seems to me.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior, so there's no enforcement power in the Department of Transportation. Are there agreements by which the DOT and the Department of the Interior are bound?

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

And this was an executive order promulgated by President Clinton or by President Bush?

Well, I don't know how this amendment is going to solve the problem that you have exactly, but the chairman has agreed to adopt it. So I will state an objection because I really don't understand how this is going to solve your problem, but I will not go beyond that.

Mr. Chairman, you have hit the gavel.

I would like to ask unanimous consent to call for a recorded vote on that.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are no funds made available in this Act for high-speed rail. None. And so, since this is a 1-year bill, I don't think this amendment does very much.

The gentleman from California has a problem with a process that has been going on now for at least a decade in the development of a high- speed rail process program, and the people of California have spoken on this by referendum. They have passed the bond bill by referendum. I think bond bills usually take an extraordinary vote, two-thirds vote or something like that. Am I correct?

Would the gentleman from California confirm that it was a two-thirds vote by which the referendum was passed?

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, that can be established if they actually have a referendum that repeals what they have done. But there has been--as we know, California has received about $4 billion of moneys from the Federal Government from earlier funds in earlier bills which have already been obligated or are about to be obligated. And actions on this bill would not have anything to do with the obligation of those funds, would not be in effect at any time that could affect the obligation of those funds because they have to be obligated before the end of this fiscal year, where this bill is certainly not going to be in place in before the end of the fiscal year. But there are processes also going on. Unfortunately, we have, at the moment, no one here who is really knowledgeable precisely about what it is that's going on in California.

But let me just comment here that the proposal for the starting use of these funds has been controversial. There are people who say, well, why are we building this in the Central Valley of California? Because the first intended construction of the project has been in the Bakersfield to Fresno corridor, and then if it is extended it is then likely to be extended to the Modesto metropolitan area, or the Stockton--and/or, I think it is at Modesto that there is a bifurcation. The one link of it going then to Stockton and to Sacramento, and the other going to San Jose and San Francisco. And in either case, you have to start somewhere.

When we started to build the interstate highway system, we didn't start in the center of the cities, which would have been very complicated. We started in building those legs of the interstate highway system where it was easy to build them. And that is possible. The right of way, I think, has already been acquired by the California DOT to build the high-speed rail system in that first corridor, in the Bakersfield-Fresno and maybe on to Modesto, as I have understood the developments in the last few weeks as they go on.

So the gentleman's problem is, it seems to me, with what's already been agreed to by California and what is already going forward, moneys that have, some of them been obligated and in place to go, and some of them yet to be obligated, but about to be obligated.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Chair, I will then move to strike the last word.

I think I'm doing the correct thing there. And I'll yield, again, for the continuation of what the gentleman from California is saying.

Reclaiming my time, the language of the amendment, as I have it before me, says none of the funds made available by this Act may be used for high-speed rail in the State of California, or for the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

How does that guarantee that California's gas tax moneys will not be used for high-speed rail?

At this point, I really don't know whether your understanding is anywhere close to mine. I think this is an amendment deserving of opposition, so I am opposing the amendment. I think this amendment should not be adopted, and you can do as you wish.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I think that what the chairman has said is probably about as good as it gets.

What we have now is a slightly amended version of the proposal. My understanding is that the major long-distance trucking companies are against this language and that most of the safety advocates are against this language but that there are other trucking interests that favor this language or that are happy with this language. So you have a real controversy among people.

Of the long-distance truckers and safety advocates, I would generally think that that is something we should worry about; but as the chairman has said, this is an issue that really ought to be in the hands of the authorizers and worked out by the authorizers. That may or may not be dealt with in the authorization legislation, but in any case, the limitation on funds is effective only for this 1-year appropriations bill.

In reclaiming my time, maybe the gentleman understands and I simply do not.

Who is about to promulgate regulations in this area of mandating global positioning systems, electronic onboard recording devices and so forth? Where is the action to do that? Where is the problem here?

My very competent staff tells me that we have been requiring this in the Mexican trucking controversy over the past few years.

We've been fighting over that one back and forth for years and years now, and I can't remember whether there was or wasn't that sort of thing there. I don't remember it having come up before at any point.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, please.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her persistence and for all of her work as far as trying to get a handle on the spending.

I would just like to make a couple of points.

She mentioned that we're $2 billion below the President's request. We're actually almost $4 billion below last year's spending in this bill. We have the largest decrease, percentage-wise, of any of the appropriation bills. We have worked very hard to craft a bill that actually enacted those types of spending cuts but also funded the high- priority items that are in this bill. It's with reluctance I oppose her amendment.

I will just say that we're within the 302(b) allocations that were in the Ryan budget. That was really the debate then as to what funding levels to be at.

There are some very important infrastructure issues that would be harmed by this when we look at the highway trust fund funding that would be cut. Of course, that would also include transit programs, veterans homeless vouchers. We have done everything we could to try to have a balanced bill that actually created priorities after having many hearings and working through this bill on a line-by-line basis. I'm not sure that an across-the-board cut that cuts everything arbitrarily is the way to go.

Certainly, we're all very concerned about the budget, but with reluctance, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield some time to the gentlelady.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I would like to join with the gentleman here in support of this amendment. I would like to make a couple of points.

If you represent a rural district, this is an enormous issue. Oftentimes, on average, jobs will pay less in urban areas to begin with. On average, a lot of these folks have to drive long distances to work. We've got people in my district today that drive 50 and 60 miles one way to their job every day, and this would be an enormous hardship on these folks.

I would also add that the Secretary of Transportation and the administration, 2 years ago when we were trying to get a highway bill done, the administration took this off the table. They said, We're not going to do this. And so I don't see why the Secretary would need to do research or any kind of means of implementation if, in fact, they so strongly oppose this type of taxation.

So for several different reasons, I commend this gentleman on this amendment and rise in its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

And I appreciate what the gentleman, my good friend from Massachusetts, is talking about. I think you clearly remember the testimony from Secretary LaHood before the subcommittee.

I thank the gentleman very much. I just want to talk about the subject that the gentleman from Massachusetts brought up.

The Secretary of Transportation came before the subcommittee. We were talking about the difficulty we

were having as far as trying to write an appropriation bill with no new authorization. The Secretary on several different occasions said he would not entertain and they would strongly oppose both an increase in the gas tax and vehicle miles driven, and I'm sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts remembers that testimony very clearly.

I would just suggest that maybe someone should talk to the administration about finding sources for funding because the Secretary has taken every possibility off of the table to fund a new highway bill. And now we're apparently looking at a reauthorization that's finding other unique ways of funding rather than user fees or gas tax or miles driven or registration fees, whatever, they have taken off the table. So I would suggest the gentleman from Massachusetts would maybe visit with Mr. LaHood at the Transportation Department.

You will remember also, during the hearings with the Secretary, I asked that very question of the Secretary. You're taking gas tax, vehicle miles traveled off the table, let's find a way to do this.

He said: Well, we need to sit down at the table and discuss this.

I said: Mr. Secretary, you're at a table. I'll be glad to come around and sit with you, and we'll discuss it. You come up with some ideas. And he came up with zero ideas, if you'll remember that.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I thank the distinguished gentleman, the Chairman, for the time, and let me just rise in strong support of this amendment.

This, I think, is one of the most outrageous, offensive taxes that I've ever heard of. The idea of taxing U.S. travelers from any point in the United States just because they're traveling to a destination in Europe is simply outrageous. It's going to be devastating to U.S. carriers, and it's something that we have got to put a stop to.

Like the gentleman talked about the international community's strong opposition, I think on a bipartisan basis everyone is opposed to this. It is, again, a far overreach. It is something that is unnecessary. It is simply wrong.

I really appreciate the gentleman's work on this to have this amendment brought forward as at least a first step in stopping this very, very, I think, egregious new tax.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Obviously, we all want pipeline safety. That is the number one issue, but what you're talking about here is truly beyond the pale as far as any kind of common sense. We've got to find a balance, like you've talked about. The overreach that we're seeing in so many areas of the Federal Government causes things like this that are just simply nonsensical.

I appreciate the gentleman for bringing the issue forward and would want to work with him in the future to find a resolution to your concerns.

I rise in support of this amendment.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Florida bringing this issue to the attention of the House and, again, very strongly support his proposal to do away with this wasteful spending.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Let me just say that this has been a subject of great discussion with the ranking member and me over time. I hope the people of the House understand and the American people understand what an outright waste of money these projects have oftentimes become.

Everybody here is talking about our needing more money for infrastructure, transportation; let's get the trust fund built up; we're trying to find new ways of funding. I hope everyone understands that, 2 years ago, before we got control of this committee, they took $150 million out of the highway trust fund to pay for sustainability projects and grants.

That's rather interesting.

When it's an unauthorized program, no one even has a definition of what a ``sustainable community'' is. There is no definition of where this money could go. This is $150 million, and people talk about all their projects at home--of their highways in disrepair, of the bridges falling down--and we're spending $150 million out of that trust fund for things that aren't even defined and that are not authorized.

Mr. Chairman, it is outrageous.

I just spoke with the Secretary of HUD a few weeks ago on this issue because I have zeroed it out in this bill. There is no money for sustainable communities, whatever that is. Do you know the example the Secretary gave me of a good project? It would be to take millions of dollars from the Federal Government and give it to the area in North Dakota where they're having the expansion of the oil boom.

The State of North Dakota has billions of dollars in surplus. It has more money than it knows what to do with. Yet the Secretary says we should take sustainable community dollars from the Federal Government, of which we're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar from China, and give it to North Dakota to find out where it should put up its buildings in the oil boom area. I'm sorry, but I think they can afford to do that themselves.

So I would very strongly support the gentleman's amendment. Again, this is money that is coming out of the trust fund. Everybody here talks about roads in disrepair, bridges falling down, all that we need to do in the way of help for infrastructure, for jobs--and we're giving it to places like North Dakota. I'm sorry, but this is a waste of money, ill-defined, unauthorized. I very strongly support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support of this amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I continue on my reservation, and I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank the gentleman. Unfortunately, for consistency, we're going to have to pursue the point of order.

This issue has been brought to my attention. I've expressed concerns myself as to how information is used. Certainly, we want to make sure that we're very careful as far as privacy issues in this country, the way that these things may be used for purposes that no one quite understands or intended to have happen.

While I share your concerns, for consistency reasons here, I must insist on my point of order.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member.

I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, let me just say, in the authorization of the FAA, their specific role was air traffic concerns that they may have safety concerns, collisions with other aircraft. I agree with the gentleman, it should probably be a Homeland Security issue. I also serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations. It has not been brought up in that.

I do share your concerns. But unfortunately, I must insist on my point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties and requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

I would just like to lend my support for this amendment. It's something where clarification needs to be done, and the rules need to work for veterans for these processes. This has been one of the hang-ups for veterans being able to get into assisted living or houses. And any backlog that there has been has been basically a bureaucratic backlog, rather than a funding issue in the past. So it's a good amendment, and I would urge its passage.

Let me just stand up in support of the amendment. I think it's a good amendment. Insurance companies are not able to determine risk, and that oftentimes means much greater cost.

I think it's a good amendment going forward, and I yield back the balance of my time.

We are pleased to accept the amendment.

I understand the gentleman's concern, and I'm prepared to accept the amendment.

Is it your impression that what the gentleman is saying is that they can't take highway trust fund money and put it into high- speed rail and that they can't take transit dollars and put it into high-speed rail?

It would be my understanding, since there is no money in the bill for high-speed rail, that he is talking about other pots of money that would go to California and about just trying to wall that off from being used. That's my understanding. Maybe the gentleman has a different interpretation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

I withdraw my reservation of the point of order, and I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate very much the gentleman's concern on this amendment. I think his timing is, maybe, unfortunate. This is a major issue in the reauthorization bill that, hopefully, is going to be filed tonight. This issue will be dealt with. It truly is an authorizing issue that should not be on this bill.

So, while I may share some concerns with the gentleman, I certainly don't think it's appropriate on this bill, especially at this moment when the highway bill is being filed and when, hopefully, this issue will be resolved in that bill.

With that and with some reservation, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, unfortunately.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I understand the concerns you have, and I would look forward to working with you as we get towards conference to try and address your concerns on this very important issue, obviously, for your constituents and would be pleased to be of any kind of assistance we possibly could.

Madam Chairman, I believe we are coming to the end here, and I just want to make a couple of comments.

As far as the gentleman from Massachusetts, once again, this will be his last appropriation bill on the floor as the ranking member and a former chairman of this subcommittee. Mr. Olver has done an outstanding job over the years. We don't always agree on everything. Do we, John? But we work very, very well together. And I just want to wish you and your wife the best.

You are a great partner and someone who I admire very, very much-- your intelligence, your ability to look in detail at programs. And we kid each other--or I kid Mr. Olver a lot about maybe having debates inside his mind sometimes in committee. But he's always extraordinarily thoughtful and someone, again, that I admire very, very much.

Madam Chairman, we've been through a 2-day process here. We have gone through a lot of amendments. I believe that we are to the point where we can bring this effort to a conclusion.

And I would, again, thank Mr. Olver, thank the staff, the professional staff on both sides, on the majority and on the minority side, for doing such an outstanding job. Working together is very difficult sometimes on these bills. Also, in my office, Doug Bobbitt does such a fabulous job working on this bill for me. But I just want to say thank you to everyone.

Madam Chairwoman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

I rise today in support of my amendment, which would prohibit the utilization of funds by the Secretary of Transportation to research or implement a distance-based fee system, commonly referred to as vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, that would levy a fee on a surface transportation vehicle user based on the distance traveled.

Mr. Chair, it is no secret that our current highway trust fund system is going bankrupt. The Federal gas tax designed to support this fund finds itself increasingly unable to pay for better roads, bridges, and rail due to several factors:

People are driving less due to a weak economy and high gas prices;

The creation of more fuel-efficient cars allows people to fill up less frequently at the pump;

And let's not forget about how Congress has been raiding the gas tax proceeds for decades to fund alternative transportation activities that in no way help maintain and improve roads and bridges we drive, such as building bike paths and planting flowers.

There is an important need to come up with new, better ideas on how to appropriately fund our highway trust fund system. However, I am here to tell you today that the concept of using a vehicle miles traveled fee system is not one of those better ideas.

Requiring people to pay for the miles they travel each year is not acceptable on a number of levels:

A VMT tax would be expensive to implement because every car would need to be fitted with a device that both records the miles driven and transmits the information to a government database. This complicated system would cost millions of dollars to install these devices in new vehicles, and it would cost many millions more if older vehicles and motorcycles are expected to be retrofitted with these devices;

The cost required to administer this taxation is expensive and inefficient, especially compared to the Federal gas tax, which provides an inexpensive form of taxation that is collected directly from refineries and importers;

Further, the requirement of an electronic mileage-tracking device to be installed in all cars also poses a significant privacy concern and a severe threat to our private information should one of these systems be hacked or corrupted. The potential for privacy abuse is a hazard waiting to happen. Government databases have already been compromised in the past, and this government system would be no exception;

Finally, the VMT tax would impose a ``regressive tax'' that would hit constituents in rural districts like Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, the district that I represent, harder than any others. My constituents often have to drive many miles more than urban counterparts to perform the same daily tasks, like going to work, grocery shopping, dropping the kids off at school, and making deliveries for their small businesses. My constituents are already struggling to make ends meet with the current gas prices. Penalizing them for nothing more than living in a rural area will put them over the edge.

In sum, the VMT tax would produce a strongly negative reaction from the public--and for good reason. Americans don't like paying for the gas tax, and they are sure going to be even more unhappy about having to deal with an administrative and privacy nightmare that VMT promises. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of my amendment, which would prevent the Secretary of Transportation from using funds to research or implement this harmful fee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Sir, I can give you my commitment that I believe in a robust transportation system within the United States. We need it for economy and commerce, we understand that. But definitely, the VMT is a toxic part of this puzzle that we just can't use. I look forward to finding other alternatives to be able to fund the robust transportation system that I believe the United States needs. I thank the gentleman very much for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment.

This amendment is a simple one. It prohibits the use of taxpayer funds in furtherance of the implementation of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme.

Starting in January, the European Union began to unilaterally apply the Emissions Trading Scheme, ETS, to civil aviation operators landing or departing from one of the EU member states.

Under the Emissions Trading Scheme, EU member states will require international carriers and operators to pay emission allowances--and in some cases penalties--for carbon emissions resulting from their operations. The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme will apply to the entire length of the flight, including those flights outside the European airspace.

For instance, for a flight leaving Los Angeles for London, taxes would be levied not only for the portion of the flight over the United Kingdom, but also for portions of the flight over the United States and international waters.

Despite serious legal issues and objections by a majority of the international community, including the United States, India, Russia, China, and the International Civil Aviation Organization, the EU is pressing ahead with its plans. Russia, China, and India are taking very clear actions in opposition of EU's emission scheme. China and India have directed their air carriers not to comply with the EU's ETS requirements. China has delayed Airbus orders, India is threatening in- kind retaliation, and Russia is threatening to deny airspace access to European air carriers.

The European Union's unilateral application of the Emissions Trading Scheme onto U.S. operators without the consent of the United States Government raises significant legal concerns under international law, including violations of the Chicago Convention and the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement.

The Emissions Trading Scheme will actually harm efforts to reduce global aviation emissions. By taking money away from the airline industry that would otherwise be invested in NextGen technologies and the purchase of new aircraft--two proven methods for improving environmental performance--the EU is siphoning scarce money to be used as each member state sees fit.

A better approach to address aviation's impact on global emissions is to work with the international civil aviation community through the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, to establish consensus-driven initiatives to reduce emissions. However, because the EU has made no effort to delay or retract the illegal Emissions Trading Scheme, this amendment is necessary to ensure that American taxpayer dollars will not be used to further the Europeans' unilateral and questionable scheme.

Last October, the House passed H.R. 2954, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit U.S. carriers from participating in the Europeans' illegal scheme. A companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. It is my hope that the Senate will move

quickly towards its passage. That legislation, along with this amendment to the Transportation appropriations for fiscal year 2013, will send a very strong message to our European friends that an illegal and unilateral action to address aviation emissions is not the proper course of action to deal with this issue. This must be a consensus- driven solution, not an international mandate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that attempts to restore some sanity, fairness, and certainty to mortgage and insurance companies. My amendment would undo harmful economic actions taken by the administration that will, if carried out, continue to weaken credit availability and job creation.

You see, earlier this year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule to establish

regulatory standards regarding the use of the legal theory known as ``disparate impact.'' Disparate impact liability allows for plaintiffs and government agencies to bring suit charging discriminatory practices based solely on statistics. If statistics indicate, for instance, that disparity exists between the number of loans made in a specific area to a certain preferred minority class versus the number of preferred minorities that live in that area, a lender could be charged with discriminatory practices, even if there was no intent whatsoever.

Now, we all agree that discrimination is terrible and that when there is intent, we must prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. But under the example I laid out, the lender could even have specific anti- discriminatory practices in his company in place, but still be found liable under this legal theory. You see, accurate risk identification and classification is essential to the lending and insurance business, but the HUD rule ignores that.

Risk-based lending and insurance underwriting and pricing that unintentionally results in a statistically disparate outcome, that is not discrimination.

The proposed HUD rule would create a presumption of discriminatory disparate impact that could basically undermine the basic purposes of risk-based pricing, which ensures persons with different risk characteristics have to make payments commensurate with the risk they pose. So protected-class characteristics, including race, are actually prohibited from consideration in this assessment. State law already prohibits insurers from recording race, for example. But this HUD rule requiring race consideration would be impossible, then, under State law.

Looking specifically at homeowners insurance, commonly considered factors--including applicant's claim history, construction materials, the presence or absence of a security system, and the distance from a firehouse--could be barred if they were found to result in creating a statistical disparity for a class defined by race, ethnicity, or gender.

You see, all 50 States have anti-discrimination provisions in their housing insurance regulations already, and there is no claim that these regulations have been insufficient. So the process that HUD proposes for the disparate impact rule is, therefore, unworkable and economically impractical.

The process HUD proposes for defending against a charge of unlawful discrimination based upon disparate impact would then require a defendant to prove a ridiculously high standard, that the challenged practice is necessary to its very survival, and that its business would basically collapse if it didn't do it.

You see, the process HUD proposes would find the defendant company liable if a court could find another practice that is simply less discriminatory, not, instead, a reasonable, economical, practical, workable, state-authorized, or known practice. Simply, all they have to come up with is another practice.

Extending disparate impact analysis to facially-neutral practices exceeds HUD's authority under the FHA and it is contrary to law. Extending disparate impact analysis to facially-neutral practices therefore is arbitrary and it is capricious. Therefore, the application of this HUD rule on the insurance industry should be precluded, and it should preclude it also because of McCarran-Ferguson. Recognizing disparate impact analysis under the FHA exceeds HUD's authority under the FHA and therefore is contrary to law.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a challenge on this. I think it was just last year. Unfortunately, you may know that that case was withdrawn. Why? Because of pressure from this administration. The administration rightly, I believe, was concerned that the Court would strike down the whole theory as being unconstitutional.

Now recently a new case had been submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration on the very same issue. I hope the Court takes that case up soon. The Justice Department knows it has a weak case, and I do not believe that this administration should try to front-run the Supreme Court and attempt to push through this failed legal theory.

My amendment would prohibit HUD from finalizing this rule that harms credit availability and job creation. It is supported by the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, along with a couple other institutions as well--the American Insurance Association and the Property Casualty Insurance Association of America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

And that's just my point. I'm not trying to stop any process. What I'm trying to do is prevent this administration from doing an end-run on the process.

You set up the record almost completely straight. There were court cases on this. It was going to the Supreme Court. It was about to go to the Supreme Court and be heard, and then this administration put pressure on the city that was involved in it to stop it, and they withdrew the case. We would have had the decision by the Supreme Court in that matter, but the administration basically said no, because they wanted to go ahead with their actions here without interference of the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, though, there is now another case that's been filed, and it's from my home State of New Jersey. This will give us all exactly what we need, just what you were saying: lower court, and now it's being appealed up to the Supreme Court.

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

I want to begin by thanking the committee for its extraordinarily hard work in identifying ways to cut spending.

All of us hear from our constituents. They want us to reduce what the Federal Government spends, to be wise and proper stewards of the Federal taxpayer dollar. All too often, they look at Washington and they see a monument to waste of the American taxpayer dollar.

Mr. Chairman, for the legislation that is in front of us, the fiscal year 2013 proposed funding level is $51.6 billion, which is $1.9 billion below the President's request. I think it is admirable that we have saved nearly $2 billion below the President's request. However, we know that there is much more work that can be done, that should be done, that must be done. Therefore, my 1 percent across-the-board spending reduction amendment will save taxpayers an additional $516 million.

That is $516 million that our children and our grandchildren will not have to pay back with interest.

I'm fully aware of the strong opposition that many appropriators have for these across-the-board spending cuts. When I've offered these cuts, I have been told that ``the cuts of this magnitude, quite honestly, go too deep.'' I've also heard that these 1 percent spending reductions would be ``very damaging to our national security and to things that are important to life and property.''

However, the taxpayers are demanding that the bureaucracy do what they are doing and save a penny on a dollar. Our Governors are quite active in this arena. Of course, we have heard from former Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Rick Perry, Governor Mitch Daniels, Governor Brian Schweitzer, Governor Chris Gregoire, just to name a few of our State executives. In the chairman's home State of Iowa, former Democratic Governor Chet Culver issued a 10 percent across-the-board spending reduction.

These across-the-board spending cuts are used around our country in a bipartisan fashion, and the reason they are is because they work. They work. This is how you get results, by actually cutting into the baseline and reducing the outlays of government. They are effective because they cut spending within each agency and force each agency to do a review and find the waste and find ways to preserve those precious dollars that are coming from the taxpayers.

Admiral Mullen made the statement that ``the greatest risk to our Nation's security is our Nation's debt.'' Mr. Chairman, we all know that. The American people know this. They have grown ill and fatigued with what they see as waste of their money here in Washington because this government never satisfies its appetite for the taxpayers' dollar. Because of that, because they think they can go to the well and ask for more, because they think they can go to the presses and print those dollars, they don't do the hard work of prioritizing. That is what we're to do here in this House.

In that spirit of forcing the actions of prioritizing, forcing the actions of the bureaucracy, having to save one penny on a dollar so that our children and grandchildren are not paying that back with interest, that is the reason that I bring these amendments. It's important because right now we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend. We cannot afford this. It is incumbent upon us to make certain that we do the hard work, that we cut a little more, that we make the demands on the bureaucracy that our constituents are making on their businesses and on their family budgets. It is time for us to save just a penny on a dollar, make the cut, do it for our children and future generations.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and as I said at the beginning, I applaud the committee for the good work they have done.

I think when you're broke, though, that what we have to do is say now is the time to make further cuts. And to the ranking member, it's not indiscriminate. This is the way our Governors have found to arrive at balancing a budget. It's looking at every agency and saying get in there, do the heavy lift and find this. The result we want is to preserve the foundation of this great Nation for our children and grandchildren.

Are you saying that salaries and expenses are more important than the future of these children who are going to have to pay this debt back with interest, $16 trillion worth of debt and growing, and you've got to pay it back?

My two grandchildren, my children, is it fair to look at them and say, You're going to spend over half of what you earn? I know that it is tough.

As the gentleman inferred, I'm at it again. Yes, you're right, Mr. Chairman. I am at it again. And let me tell you something. I am going to be at it again and again and again, just as I have every single year that I have been a Member of this House because preserving the firm financial footing of this Nation is work, coming at it again and again and again until we get the job done.

It has worked for our cities. It has worked for our counties. It has worked for our States. It will work for this Nation that is so richly blessed. It means that we have to have titanium backbones to get the job done.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.