TIGER Grants for Job Creation Act

I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chairman of the full committee, of the subcommittee, both chair and ranking member.

I do too want to take a moment to thank the ranking member for his long service to this Nation. As he has been a member of the Appropriations Committee, we can count his work inside this House. But I really think the American people, Mr. Olver, owe you a moment of gratitude for the work and commitments that you've shown in making sure that those who need help can get help, and I want to pay tribute to you this evening.

I also want to indicate that we understand that we are living in difficult times. But I raise concerns about funding, living in the fourth largest city in the Nation, where we see enormous congestion, and the importance of transit dollars; $900 million, fortunately, came to Houston after a long, long wait to build a light-rail system. Those dollars need to continue.

Housing plays a very important role. In the city of Galveston, for example, they have been the recipient of $700 million after Hurricane Ike to use for the restoration of private housing, infrastructure and, of course, public housing. To cut those lines of funding will, in essence, impact communities around the Nation that are impacted by disaster. Losing the full funding of the TIGER grant--and I support the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters' amendment to restore those dollars--they create jobs.

So it is important, as we look at this bill, that we look at it from the perspective of solving the hurt of Americans who've been impacted by disaster, of improving mobility, ensuring that we put Americans back to work with funding for transportation and the infrastructure. I cite Galveston in particular because there is a conflict going on with respect to the importance of public and private housing.

The situation in Galveston resulted from a unique impact of Hurricane Ike. Mr. Chairman, most think that the surge would come from the larger body of water, but the surge came from the bay and really impacted low-income individuals who didn't have any flood insurance or had already paid for their house, it had been in their families for years. And through the largesse of the Congress and HUD, a $700 million package was presented to restore that area and those houses and those families, many of whom I visited in tents.

We have a situation where there's a misunderstanding of the value of those Federal funds, but we do have those Federal funds; and it is in tribute to this Congress, and I want to see funds for public housing, for affordable housing continue.

With that, I would hope that we have an opportunity in the conference or have an opportunity to restore the funds that have had to be cut, because they create jobs, they provide a lifeline for those impacted by disaster, and they create the mobility and infrastructure rebuild that America needs.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, as I rise to my feet, I do want to acknowledge both the staffs of the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee for working with my office. And I again want to acknowledge the ranking member, Mr. Olver, again for his service to the Nation, but also for the times that he has worked with Members over the years and for his commitment, again, to the most vulnerable.

This is a bill that really addresses the needs of Americans in their most deepening and expanded need, as I said earlier, mobility, housing, so crucial, infrastructure, and the ability to create jobs and to do good in our municipalities and rural areas. But it is also an opportunity to build capacity, to grow jobs and to build small businesses. And I know that firsthand, working consistently throughout a number of appropriations bills and authorization bills and as a ranking member on the Subcommittee on Transportation Security. In addition to our main task is to look to the needs and help build capacity in America's small businesses.

My amendment will ensure the necessary funds that are appropriated specifically for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and the Minority Business Resource Center cannot be used by the Secretary for any other purpose.

Small businesses, women-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses represent more than the American Dream. They represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, provide three out of four new jobs in this country; and allocation reduction directly undermines the importance of small businesses, including women-owned businesses and minority-owned businesses to the success of our economy.

Mr. Chairman, many of our utilization, or the utilization of Federal funds, going to our local transit agency, for example, in the instance of Houston Metro, the structure of receiving the funds is something called ``design build.'' Many around the country are using that format, which means that the corporation or the retained contractor has overriding control over the distribution of those funds in the construction of that light rail.

I celebrate light rail. I celebrate the importance of light rail and have done so for the time that I've had the privilege of serving Houston and the 18th Congressional District. But in this instance, it's important to note that in the course of the design build for Houston Metro and HRT, they have dropped their commitment to small minority- and women-owned businesses.

What did I say?

Dropped the commitment--dropped it poorly, dropped it with a negative impact, dropped it impacting women-owned businesses and minority-owned businesses. We've got to get back in order to be able to show that the utilization of those businesses creates jobs. Small businesses have lost an estimated $13.8 billion in business opportunity because they cannot fairly compete for Federal contracts because larger companies are allowed to bundle contracts. In essence, HRT has self-performed instead of sharing those dollars.

The Department of Transportation created the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, OSDBU, as part of the Small Business Act because it recognizes the threat big businesses pose to small business success. Since the OSDBU's creation, it has been a voice for small business and disadvantaged business, ensuring these businesses are provided with the maximum ability to participate in the agency's contracting selection process for contract and subcontract jobs.

These office divisions are numerous. Each of the offices impacts America's entrepreneurs and business ventures in several key ways. For instance, the Women's Procurement Assistance Committee provides women- owned businesses with best practices of business growth and increases awareness of opportunities.

I met on the job, Mr. Chairman, a woman who had taken over the business of her husband, who had died of cancer. She had a household to lead, and she was trying to do this kind of construction work. At the time, she

had been given by HRT safety work, just holding up a sign. I'm glad because of the encouragement, the utilization of this particular office, our office pushing, that she now is more advanced in the contract that she is securing. But it has to be encouraged.

This amendment is to ensure that we don't leave out small disadvantaged, women-owned and minority-owned businesses. The office's short-term lending program is able to give qualifying small businesses loans with competitive interest rates for DOT contracts and subcontracts.

In conjunction with the OSDBU, the Minority Business Resource Center is responsible for promoting the use of small businesses. My home State of Texas was chosen as the headquarters for the OSDBU gulf region. In my home city of Houston, Texas, there are more than 60,000 women-owned businesses and more than 60,000 African American-owned businesses and thousands of other businesses--Asian and Latino.

I am asking my colleagues to support this amendment because it is an amendment that ensures that we put minority-, women-owned and disadvantaged small businesses to work under this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendments to ``the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013.'' My amendments will assure the necessary funds that are appropriated specifically for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and the Minority Business Resource Center cannot be used by the Secretary for another purpose, thereby protecting the funds for their intended use.

Small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country. An allocation reduction directly undermines the importance of small businesses including women-owned business and minority-owned business to the success of our economy.

Small businesses have lost an estimated $13.8 billion in business opportunity because they could not fairly compete for federal contracts because larger companies are allowed to bundle contracts.

The Department of Transportation created the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) as part of the Small Business Act because it recognizes the threat big businesses pose to small business success.

Since the OSDBU's creation, it has been a voice for small and disadvantaged business, ensuring these businesses are provided with the maximum ability to participate in the agency's contracting selection process for contract and subcontract jobs.

These office divisions are numerous; each of the offices impacts America's entrepreneurs and business ventures in several key ways. For instance, its Women's Procurement Assistance Committee (WPAC) provides women-owned businesses with best practices for business growth and increases awareness of the opportunities these businesses have to participate in transportation-related contracts and subcontracts.

The office's short term lending program is able to give qualifying small business loans with competitive interest rates for DOT contracts and subcontracts.

In conjunction with the OSDBU, the Minority Business Resource Center is responsible for promoting the use of small businesses in prime and subcontracting opportunities in accordance with Federal laws, regulations and policy.

Through its funding, the Center is able to offer several professional development services, including: market research, business training, counseling, technical assistance, and access to capital for transportation related projects.

My home state of Texas was chosen as the headquarters for the OSDBU gulf region program.

In my home city of Houston, Texas there are more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses.

The OSDBU supports qualifying businesses who attempt to secure contracts and subcontracts with the DOT. In addition, its women internship program sponsors 12 schools in the gulf region women's internship program.

Shifting funds for the OSDBU and the Minority Business Resource Center will hinder its ability to continue fair hiring practices, which will in turn affect small businesses' ability to secure top contracts, provide employment opportunities in their community and ultimately survive in the business world.

This will send the message that Congress is more concerned with the strength of big business, than assisting the DOT in partnering with everyday American business men and women who take pride in their companies, and only aspire to positively empower their communities and create economic stability in the nation. For these reasons and more I urge my colleagues to protect funds for the DOT's budget for the Minority Business Resource Center and the OSDBU.

Moreover, 99 percent of all independent companies and businesses in the United States are considered small businesses. They are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 years. America's 27 million small businesses continue to face a lack of credit and tight lending standards, with the number of small businesses loans down nearly 5 million since the financial crisis in 2008.

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, these small businesses account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. These small businesses also provide a continuing source of vitality for the American economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths of the economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry point into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate heavily in small businesses.

The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures by the year 2000. Small firms also tend to hire a greater number of older workers and people who prefer to work part-time.

A major strength of small businesses is their ability to respond quickly to changing economic conditions. They often know their customers personally and are especially suited to meet local needs.

There are tons of stories of start-up companies catching national attention and growing into large corporations. Just a few examples of these types of start-up businesses making big include the computer software company Microsoft; the package delivery service Federal Express; sports clothing manufacturer Nike; the computer networking firm America OnLine; and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's.

We must always ensure that we place a high level of priority on small businesses.

It is equally important that we work towards ensuring that ALL small businesses receive the tools and resources necessary for their continued growth and development.

American small businesses are the heart beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy.

Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country.

Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans and programs.

Through loans, small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services.

I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support my amendments which will ensure funding directed to entrepreneurial development offices and centers, such as the office of the Small Disadvantage Business Utilization and the Minority Business Resource Center are remained in tact. These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing. We must consider what impact changes in this appropriations bill will have on small businesses.

There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output.

Women owned businesses have increased 20% since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance.

My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 6o,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses.

According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA) set goals for small business participation in federal contracts. It encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by women, veterans, and minorities or those located in economically challenged areas and gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are specific: 23% of contracts to small business, 5% to woman-owned small businesses, and 3% to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small businesses.''

Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions

of people. They are certainly qualified to receive these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program would make women and minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to them.

FACTS: Small business are important because they:

(1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms,

(2) Employ just over half of all private sector employees,

(3) Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll,

(4) Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years,

(5) Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP),

(6) Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers),

(7) Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises,

(8) Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007,

(9) Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms and twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My good friend from Georgia knows we've had a lot of opportunities to work together on many different issues. It seems as if he is raising an issue that would have a sense of agreement, but I have to reluctantly and vigorously oppose the gentleman's amendment.

The Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Transportation losing the amount of money that he has suggested will deprive that office of viable and important staff and resources for compliance.

Frankly, this agency governs billions of dollars of Federal dollars. In addition, it governs actions that deal with accommodations, the utilization of dollars for small, minority, and disadvantaged businesses. The civil rights section has been a section that has ensured that the Federal dollars in transportation are used in a way that is not discriminatory.

I don't believe, in 2012, we need to be rising to eliminate opportunity. We need to expand opportunity. The civil rights section of the Department of Transportation has always been a consistent and efficient subsection of the agency that has been the guidepost of ensuring that our Federal dollars are used appropriately as it relates to Native Americans, used appropriately as it relates to Latinos, African Americans, Caucasians. It is a civil rights office that balances and ensures nondiscrimination, including nondiscrimination against the disabled.

And, frankly, I believe that because of the massiveness of that responsibility--particularly as we look at the needs of the disabled in transportation resources or transportation utilization--that it is crucial that we do not cut to the existing amount of dollars. This is not a lot.

So the impact is greater than what the gentleman believes he will have because he suggests that it is a small amount. It is a great impact. And I would ask the gentleman to consider this amendment as one that has a far-reaching impact and that at this point we do not want to make a statement that civil rights and the equal accommodations that are necessary and the utilization of Federal dollars is acceptable, meaning discrimination is acceptable. Nondiscrimination being, if you will, limited by the funding that has been cut through this amendment. I would ask that our colleagues oppose the amendment.

First of all, I want to congratulate the gentlelady from California for an insightful amendment, and I understand the dilemma that the chairman of the subcommittee is in. But what I would suggest is that we are in such a crisis as relates to both jobs and the needs of urban America, rural America, that the point of order should be waived. And it can be waived. We have waived points of order on a number of occasions. In this instance, I think we have a moment when you have zeroed out for whatever the purposes or reasons for zeroing out, and there's not even minimal amounts of money in the TIGER funding. None at all.

Having just left my district on this past Friday, receiving $15 million in TIGER grants, the first that the city of Houston, the fourth-largest city in the Nation, has ever received, but in that granting there were urban and rural grantees that were able to create jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And so my argument would be that because of the economic crisis, this is warranting a waiver of the point of order so the gentlelady's amendment can go forward: $500 million that will be utilized to create jobs to rebuild urban and rural America.

I would ask that the point of order be waived.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to see the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013 considered on the House floor this year. And I thank Chairman Latham, first, for his kind words, but also for maintaining an inclusive committee process as this bill was prepared. He has been a good partner for the past 4 years, and I value our relationship.

I also want to recognize the hard work of the committee staff, specifically, on the majority side: Dena Baron, Doug Disrud, Sara Peters, Mike Friedberg, Brian Barnard, and Doug Bobbitt. And on the minority side: Kate Hallahan, Joe Carlile, and Blair Anderson.

Chairman Latham and I are lucky to have such dedicated staff who work amiably and respectfully together. They have spent many late nights putting this bill together, and we would not be here today without their hard work.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership's decision to ignore last summer's Budget Control Act agreement has left this bill with an inadequate allocation to properly fund our transportation and housing investment needs. The resulting artificially low allocation forced Chairman Latham to make unnecessary and destructive trade-offs.

Specifically, I have concerns that the Ryan budget forces us to accept the administration's proposal to fund project-based section 8 contracts for less than a full year. This does not shrink the program nor reduce the deficit. It simply pushes the costs down the road and increases uncertainty for private business owners.

I'm also disappointed that this bill does not fund the sustainable communities initiative.

However, within the constraints forced upon him, I recognize that Chairman Latham has put forward a respectable bill that contains a number of bright spots, including increases for Amtrak, CDBG, the HOME program, and housing for the elderly, for which he should be commended. I hope that as the process moves forward and we receive a real allocation, that these increases will be preserved and that the holes can be addressed.

Unfortunately, I am concerned that the House Republican leadership's decision to underfund this bill is not an isolated incident, but is symptomatic of an ideology that does not understand the value of infrastructure investment.

This strategy is wrong for America.

Last year, the leaders of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL- CIO, not usually bedfellows, agreed that we must have greater investment in our Nation's infrastructure in order to create jobs and to be competitive in the global economy.

A modern, well-maintained transportation network is absolutely necessary for our economy to grow and the country to prosper.

The breadth of direct and indirect influence of our transportation networks on the economy is staggering. Our auto manufacturing industry, its enormous parts supplier base, the national network of gas stations and its complex distribution system, and the oil industry all thrive because we have an efficient highway system that people need to use.

The physical construction of roads and railroads requires aggregate materials processed locally, steel trusses and rebar made by American companies and crews manned by American workers.

Our transit system supports the domestic manufacturing of buses, streetcars, and trains, while providing businesses with cost-effective access to labor pools.

Furthermore, every good produced or consumed in the U.S. must be transported via our network of roads, rails, and ports. As a result, the efficiency with which our system operates determines whether American goods can compete in the global marketplace.

Yet, report after report indicates that we are falling behind. The American Society of Civil Engineers infrastructure report card gave us a ``D'' and estimated that more than a $2 trillion investment is needed. DOT's most recent ``Conditions and Performance Report'' indicates that there is an annual investment gap of $27 billion just to maintain our current system of highways and bridges in a state of good repair, and a much larger gap to expand the system to meet the needs of the growing population.

The United States has the largest economy in the world, yet the World Economic Forum's most recent ranking drops America's infrastructure quality to 23rd in the world.

The reason for our infrastructure decline is simple. We are not raising enough revenue to fund our infrastructure needs. In 2000, the highway and mass transit accounts raised $35 billion. By 2011, they only raised $37 billion. When you factor in inflation, we are raising 20 percent fewer dollars for our transportation infrastructure than we did 10 years ago. This is unsustainable. During the same period, the U.S. population grew 10 percent to 309 million people; 65 percent of them live in metropolitan areas having populations greater than 500,000 people.

Our largest 50 metropolitan areas have more than 1 million in population; 13 of them, all cities in the sunbelt such as Dallas, Houston, Orlando, Phoenix, and Charlotte, grew more than 25 percent in one single decade, the last decade. Such burgeoning communities need a massive, timely expansion of both highway and transit facilities in order to ensure that rapid population growth doesn't choke their economies with congestion.

In contrast, 22 of those 50 largest areas, all older mature metropolitan areas, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Pittsburgh,

Chicago and Los Angeles, are growing slower than the national average; but their built-out highway, transit, and commute rail systems are deteriorating and need a massive, timely program of rehabilitation to simply reach a state of good repair.

Our rural areas face an even worse problem. The number of counties in rural America that are losing population is rising rapidly. With that comes disinvestment in education, health care, and public infrastructure of all shades. Yet virtually the entire rural road system must be maintained in a state of good repair or our rural areas will become ever greater pockets of poverty.

If we are to meet these changing population demographics and provide a transportation system that functions as a sound foundation and not a hindrance on our economy, Congress must find the means and grow the political courage to raise revenue.

The current debate on the surface authorization does not accomplish that. In fact, the present gridlock of debate is only effective at slowing economic growth and keeping America's unemployment high. That cannot be America's goal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his kind words as well.

Now I will yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman.

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I find it a little bit difficult here where we're taking from one place and putting it into another place. I don't dispute what the chairman has said about not being certain that the money will be used for the right purpose at that point; however, the place where the offset is being made from the Financial Management Capital program under DOT, that amount leaves that account with the same amount that was in the account in 2012. That should not be a particularly onerous change on that score.

On the other hand, the issue that the gentleman from Virginia has raised, the issue of the distracted driving and how important it is, we are just losing a lot of young people to distracted driving. There seems to be no sense that being on a cell phone or an iPad or some other of the common IT programs that are now available, working with that doesn't seem to lead to any sense that their driving capacity has been impaired.

In 2010, NHTSA estimated that more than 3,000 people were killed and more than 400,000 were injured in distracted driving crashes. Secretary LaHood has made the elimination of distracted driving one of his key safety priorities and has requested funding in each of the last three budgets to do that. It seems to me, with the sense that NHTSA views this issue of 3,000 killed, as they say, in 2010, 2 years ago already, and more than 400,000 injured and the Secretary's very strong interest in the distracted driving issue, that this would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

With that, I will support the gentleman from Virginia's amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.

Reclaiming my time at this point, I strongly oppose this amendment.

I think that in this instance, we should understand that the major task of the Office of Civil Rights is to ensure that discrimination doesn't occur in the implementation of DOT programs.

The chairman of the subcommittee has already carefully weighed the needs of the office and made, I think, a responsible judgment as to the correct funding amount. I urge Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think what we have is a rather classical kind of situation. The gentleman from California, I suspect, has no Essential Air Service site in his district, but there are 100 communities, more than 100 communities around the country, some of them in very isolated circumstances. I don't know about the situation in the case of the one from Baltimore, but it must be somebody who is on the east shore and gets Essential Air Service out of Cambridge, Maryland, or some other place like that, that is of great significance to them and might be of some significance to the person who represents that eastern shore of Maryland.

He uses several times in several ways the example of Alaska. Alaska happens to be a territory with huge distances and relatively unpopulated, and they don't have any roads in much of Alaska and so the only way they can get in and out is by air, or maybe in the wintertime by dog sled. So I think it is really presumptuous of the gentleman from California to attack all of this program of essential air services covering services in a lot of the rural parts of this country.

I have none in my district. Many of the urban areas obviously do not have any in their area. But the Montanas and the much more rural States, elsewhere in the mountain States and so

on, there are numerous of them that use the Essential Air Service, and I think that the idea of simply zeroing this one out, in a petulance almost, is really quite inappropriate.

So I strongly oppose the amendment and hope that Members will not agree to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

From what I understand of this amendment, the gentleman from Georgia is now removing a little over $1 million, $1,300,000 or thereabouts, from the $100 million that is assigned by Mr. Latham's bill for the administrative expenses of the FTA.

As I pointed out in my opening statement, 65 percent of all of our population in this country--and it's going up every census--is now living in metropolitan areas with populations of greater than a half a million people. The remarkable thing about this is that, among the 50 largest metropolitan areas, there is a 25 percent increase every decade in their populations.

Georgia has one of those major population areas--the whole Atlanta area--which is also growing by more than 25 percent every decade, but the gentleman is trying to constrain the dollars of the FTA, which is the agency that provides the development of transit services for all of these major metropolitan areas around the country.

I think that this is an exceedingly modest increase that has been proposed. Virtually everybody has metropolitan areas that are in need of this enormous increase in investments for transit services, for public transportation services, whether they be by commuter rail or by light rail--any one of those programs.

I just think that this is an exceedingly short-sighted amendment to be trying to impose upon the FTA, which has increased its total services to the urban parts of the country. Year after year, the number of grants that are being given out, the amount of the administration of those grants goes up, and it must continue to go up if we're going to continue to have growth in population, which we expect is going to continue at roughly 10 percent per decade, as it has in the last decade.

I strongly oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I think that it is clearly a counterproductive thing to be doing, no matter what our economic times may look like at the present time.

We have to get back to a growth program in this country. We have to get back to building more infrastructure and to administrate through the FTA the programs by which those infrastructure improvements get made in all of the metropolitan areas that are growing around the country.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, the amendment that is offered here in this instance is really quite a curious one, it seems to me.

The gentleman offering the amendment is from New Jersey, the largest overall metropolitan system, with its commuter rails, with its expansions needed, always repairing, always upgrading, always expanding the systems that serve the whole New York metropolitan area. It serves northern New Jersey, which partly serves people in his district.

Now, the amendment that is being proposed is an amendment that affects WMATA, the Washington/Virginia/Maryland metropolitan area, which is our sixth largest metro area, with somewhat over 5 million people. I don't know exactly--although my staff here is trying to figure it out--how many riders there are on WMATA each year.

The expenditure under consideration of $150 million a year was fully authorized by the PRIIA Act in 2008, signed by President Bush at that time. And this is about the third or fourth year of the $150 million guarantee, the commitment in the authorizing bill to do the $150 million per year in the whole system, no specific place, not in a specific congressional district, though there are several congressional districts in which WMATA functions. And it's matched dollar for dollar. It's 50 percent matching moneys. Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. have to match the $150 million along the way.

We do have, occasionally, safety problems. We have had some crashes here in Washington and some people who have been injured or killed in those crashes.

And I find it really quite curious that the gentleman from New Jersey would be trying to take away the money that is fully authorized----

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, it has been the position of our subcommittee looking at, realizing that the authorization in the PRIIA Act and the commitments that had been made to this metropolitan area, which many of us and many of our staff use for transportation. We have had serious safety problems, and a serious need has been shown through those safety problems for an upgrading of the equipment and systems that we use in this area.

So I think it is certainly my position, and I think it is the chairman of the subcommittee's position, that this is a choice well made, critically made, with critical thought to why this was being done for the safety of the people using the WMATA public transportation system all over Maryland, D.C., and northern Virginia.

I'm not suggesting any such thing.

I am suggesting that this is a legislative position, that this should be done, that it has been agreed to be done.

I now have the number of riders. We had 217 million riders in the WMATA system in 2011. That's a huge number of riders, and they deserve some consideration for the safety of the WMATA system.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairwoman, I understand that since I claimed the time in opposition, I retain, then, the right to strike the last word, so I have struck the last word. Thank you very much.

Just to continue this one, New York, at the present time, is benefiting from enormous additional investments in two major projects. One reaches out into Long Island, the so-called East Side Access project, which you wouldn't know or care, perhaps, much about because it reaches to all the population out on Long Island--to the east, to that direction for you, to the east--and the Second Avenue Subway.

So that New York system has those two very large programs. Each one of them is about $2 billion. That's $2 billion going on concurrently with what this 10-year program is for the maintenance of the system here in Washington, when we have had clear evidence of safety difficulties and equipment difficulties that had not been taken into account. We were not putting enough investment into the maintenance of the Washington system.

And to add to the gentleman from Virginia's comment about this, our

constituents from every district all over the country come to Washington and deserve to have a really good public transportation system in Washington. So it is in all of our interests to make certain that that system is up to snuff on safety and the equipment is in good repair. So I have no apology whatsoever for supporting this one, and would strongly urge that we defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

What we are talking about here is pipeline safety inspectors. The increase in pipeline safety inspectors, and the agency is Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, that organization has, over the last few years, had an ever-increasing responsibility.

Just about 18 months ago, we had a Pacific Gas and Electric pipeline that ruptured in San Bruno, California. The ensuing fire and explosion leveled some 35 homes and killed eight people. The National Transportation Safety Board's investigation found that Pacific Gas and Electric's poor quality control and integrity management systems contributed to the cause of the pipeline rupture. It is a prime example of why we need strong enforcement and oversight of the Nation's ever- expanding, really already vast, but ever-expanding pipeline system.

Now, section 31 of the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization bill enacted on January 3 of this year authorized 10 additional pipeline inspection and enforcement personnel if the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration had filled all 135 of its existing positions by a certain deadline.

We need to be doing more rather than less on pipeline safety, and so I oppose this amendment very strongly.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I am inclined to support the amendment that the gentlewoman from California has proposed, recognizing that the request on the part of the administration was for $55 million, and that it's an interesting juxtaposition, because the HUD counseling programming, the request is for $55 million. The request for the National Reinvestment Corporation, that's NeighborWorks, which does also counseling, that request was for $213 million, for a total of $268 million.

The other body, in the legislation that they put forward, with a much larger allocation than we had in our budget because of the position on what the discretionary expenditure limits would be on the House side, the other body gave 55, the President's request, but also gave 215 for the National Reinvestment Corporation's account, which put them on the other body's side account, to $2 million above.

In the wisdom of the chairman, on the House side, in our bill, we have $10 million less for the HUD Department's program, but $10 million more for the National Reinvestment Corporation's program. To my view, it doesn't make much difference there, but I will support the gentlewoman from California for her passion on this one.

I think it is certainly very clear that if the economy recovers, more Americans are going to be buying homes and that it is crucial that we have programs in place in both of those locuses that ensure that homeowners and new homeowners and people who are prospective homeowners do not repeat the same mistakes that led us into the financial crisis in the first place.

So I think it's a small difference, but I'm going to support the gentlewoman's amendment; and I hope the amendment will be adopted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5972, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to present the fiscal year 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill to the House.

Before we get to the bill, I'd like to take a moment to congratulate my colleague and ranking member of this subcommittee, John Olver, for his many years of service. As many of you may know, Mr. Olver is retiring at the end of this Congress. I have to say he'll be sorely missed by all of us. This is a better bill because of his relentless quest for knowledge about its programs. I thank you, John Olver, for your service, not just to this institution, but to the Nation. Thank you very, very much. You're a great, great partner. You'll be missed.

The bill before the committee today is a balanced proposal on how to allocate $51.6 million among Federal housing and transportation programs across the Nation. Continuing our commitment to reduce government spending, our allocation is almost $4 billion below fiscal year 2012 and almost $2 billion below the President's request. The

bill also reflects the budget resolution that was passed by the House.

Mr. Chairman, we had to make some hard choices on funding levels for the agencies in this bill. We dedicated ourselves to this task while recognizing the serious fiscal constraints that the Nation faces. We also kept this bill largely free of authorizations, leaving that important work to the Transportation and Infrastructure and Financial Services Committees. We also rejected many new unauthorized programs that were proposed by the President. For transportation programs, this bill focuses on programs most critical to public safety and economic growth.

We fully fund FAA safety programs and provide $1 billion to advance the Next Generation of air traffic control. We also fund programs to support growth in commercial space and unmanned aerial systems, which will play key roles in keeping these U.S. industries on the global cutting edge. This bill rejects new fees on air passengers proposed by the President that would harm our economy at this time.

This bill funds highway and transit programs consistent with last year's levels but contingent upon reauthorization. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, it appears that there's a positive movement on the transportation bill. Again this bill funds highways and transit consistent with last year's level but, again, contingent on reauthorization.

The bill cuts the Amtrak operating subsidy by $116 million below last year and does not fund the President's request for high-speed rail. However, the bill does provide $500 million in authorized funds to fix existing infrastructure on public passenger lines. This will immediately create jobs, as the CBO has scored it with an almost 80 percent outlay rate in the first year. We believe this is a better alternative to the administration's high-speed rail proposal.

For housing programs, this bill fully funds renewals of the section 8 vouchers, serving about 2.2 million families. We also provide $75 million for 10,000 new VASH vouchers. Those are for the homeless vets. We fully fund the budget request in that item. The bill matches the President's request for $8.7 billion for Project-Based Rental Assistance. The CDBG is funded at a $3.4 billion level, and HOME is funded at $1.2 billion.

I'd like to close by saying we tried to be balanced in our approach with this bill, but we did reject broad, new, unauthorized programs requested by the President. We also do not include other authorizing provisions requested by other Members out of deference to the ongoing work of both the T&I and Financial Services Committees.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

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

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to congratulate my good friend, Mr. Olver, and second what he said. The staff on both sides does an outstanding job for this subcommittee and for the country. It's a marvel to watch them work together and to come to this bill.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we will be more than happy to accept the amendment.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it takes $5 million from the DOT's Financial Management Capital account and puts it in Operations for Vehicle Safety. Let me say that there is no guarantee that DOT will use this money as the gentleman has talked about.

There's no dedication of funds here, obviously.

First, this would eliminate half of the funds the DOT has to make sure its financial systems are current. I don't need to tell anyone here how critical it is that DOT's financial systems, which govern the accurate disbursement of many billions of dollars each year, need to be kept in a good working state.

Second, this would increase the vehicle safety portion of NHTSA's operations. We're already giving this account $12 million more than last year, after it was frozen for the last 3 years straight. We simply don't need that additional increase.

Again, with these funds, there's no way to dedicate them to distracted driving.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Before yielding to the gentleman, just let me make a quick statement here.

Just so everybody knows, the increase that's in the bill is a simple increase for inflation to pay for costs such as the GSA rent and one extra compensable workday. Transportation is important to all parts and all people in America.

I just don't think this is the right cut to make in this kind of a bill. And I think we should always keep in mind that on our allocations, we have written the total appropriation bills to the 1028 number, rather than 1047. This bill already cuts about $4 billion under last year's funding level.

So with that, I stress my opposition to the amendment, and I would gladly yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

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

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 it 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 gives affirmative direction in effect and imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The Essential Air Service program ensures that small and rural communities have access to the national air transportation system. This program plays a key role in the economic development of many rural communities by ensuring that air service continues. Does the program need reform? Absolutely. That's why last year we capped the program to existing communities and have removed the requirement that larger and more expensive planes must be used in the program.

In addition, the authorizers instituted a $1,000 per passenger subsidy cap and limited participation in the program to communities that have more than 10 enplanements per day.

This amendment would be devastating to at least 150 rural communities. In places like Iowa, it plays an essential role as far as the economic development of those communities.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill that have not been read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment does not propose to transfer funds among objects in the bill, as required by clause 2(f).

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

I object.

If the gentleman would yield, I would just say that I would hope the authorizers come back with a robust number for you, and that we'll be happy to try to work with the gentleman.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the intent of the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa. The gentleman introduced legislation that would require States to enact harsher penalties for reckless drivers who pass stopped school buses, and this amendment complements that legislation and, I think, sends a very, very important message.

The legislation named in memory of the little girl the gentleman spoke about from Iowa who was killed so tragically, this is extremely important, I think, to raise the profile. I would hope that the authorizing committee in conference on the highway bill would take this into consideration and act on this very provision.

As a cosponsor of the act, I commend the gentleman's effort and would accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. This would not allow the Federal Railroad Administration to hire additional safety inspectors and fully implement the risk reduction program.

These investments have a proven record in reducing the number of crashes on our Nation's railways.

While we appreciate the gentleman's concern over the debt, this is an arbitrary way to budget, and it negates months of work on this committee to try and determine the proper funding levels for these different functions. The bill already cuts $4 billion from 2012, which is a very fiscally responsible level, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his hard work in this area and for his efforts on the Transportation Committee.

Commuter railroads are an extremely important mode of transportation and are critical to many of our regional economies. I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman on ways to address the PTC funding issues as we go to conference and in the future.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

This is a minor 1.3 percent increase over the prior year with all of the increase going to uncontrollable costs, such as additional compensable workday, rent and IT maintenance costs. Further, we've already rejected $66 million of funds for new activities requested in the President's budget.

This is also one mode where we shouldn't cut funds. The FTA staffing has increased only 19.7 percent over the last 20 years, yet FTA funding has increased by 129 percent, and the number of grants that FTA administers and oversees has increased 118 percent. I'm not sure cutting S&E funding is the right thing to do in an agency that oversees this much of the Federal funds. We're talking about 0.0005 percent, the full-time equivalent for every thousand dollars that the grants are doled out.

I thank the gentleman for his interest in reducing spending. I would say we've already cut $66 million, and I will oppose any effort to reduce FDA's oversightability.

Again, I would ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I would just accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

This program was authorized just last year. The funds that are being cut here are for safety inspectors, and we've had explosions in Iowa.

The gentleman referred to very tragic pipeline explosions elsewhere around the country. We have seen a number of these explosion incidents. We simply cannot compromise safety in this regard. It's a small increase and consistent with the authorization that was just passed by this Congress.

I can tell you from personal experience, in a little town of Alexander, about 5 miles outside of town, it's been several years ago, but a pipeline exploded, and basically we had to evacuate about a 15- mile area, and it was a huge issue. Fortunately, no one was killed in that explosion.

But I'll just say that this is a very important function and that we need to have these inspectors. We need to have a focus on pipeline safety. And so again, I would recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, again, I oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

This bill provides $45 million for housing counseling--the same as last year and $45 million more than in fiscal year 2011.

HUD just reorganized into the new Office of Housing Counseling. I would say that before we give additional resources to HUD's Housing Counseling, we need to make sure HUD has the capability to effectively implement this program. I think they ought to be able to walk before they run here.

Housing Counseling agencies are still complaining of the painstaking bureaucracy involved in applying and receiving these funds. On the other hand, people could get housing counseling from many government sources, including NeighborWorks.

NeighborWorks gets funding out the door quickly, has extensive metrics ensuring the proper use of the funds. We increased NeighborWorks by $10 million over last year.

We need HUD to do this thing right. So until they can prove to us they could, taking funding from HUD's salaries and expenses would not be an effective use of government resources.

Again, Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I'm very pleased that you've read our comments about HUD and the management problems that they've had down there. Obviously, they've got a long way to go. They are making some real strides and improvement. We worked closely with the Secretary to try and have some management involved finally.

But this amendment arbitrarily cuts S&E budgets to the 2008 levels. Just so everybody knows, we have already reduced funding by over $14 million from last year in this account. We've met the budget resolution levels and cut overall in the bill almost $4 billion from last year's appropriated levels.

While, again, we really appreciate the concern over the debt, this is really an arbitrary way to budget, unfortunately, and negates the months of work the committee has done in determining proper levels as far as funding.

But, again, I would love to have you read, again, the committee's comments because it has been an extraordinary problem at the Department. Again, they are making progress, not fast enough for any of us, and we have already, in the bill, cut $14 million from last year.

So with that, Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Due to the hour of the evening, we will accept the amendment. We don't need a lot of discussion. We want to get on with the series of votes, so we will gladly accept the amendment.

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

I move to strike the last word.

The amendment that has been offered removes a 3 percent increase in the administrative account for the Office of Public and Indian Housing. I rise to oppose the amendment.

In this instance, the cuts in the Office of Public and Indian Housing cover a number of things, including the VASH program. We're adding $75 million for additional VASH vouchers--veterans' homelessness vouchers-- and that has to be administered. The arbitrary $6.5 million simply does not help with that effort. It hurts that effort.

The Office also implements the operating and capital funds for public housing and the Native American housing grants. All of these require either layoffs, removal of people, because the salaries and expenses of the Office are subject to normal increases, small increases year by year for salaries for people in those places, and they are clearly going to end up having to reduce the number of personnel while they're administering more, and particularly the housing and the homeless program for veterans.

So on that basis, I think this is an unwise reduction and one that is unjustified as well as unwise, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment again, as the gentleman has said, is an amendment that would freeze at the level of the 2012 funding here for salaries and expenses of the Office of Community Planning and Development.

Now, this office, it turns out, administers and implements the CDBG program, which in the bill, as presented by my chairman, is increased substantially--several hundred million dollars in the CDBG program--and increases the funding for the HOME program, which had been held at a much lower level in last year's program. In both of those cases, they were considerably lower.

And just last night, we added an amendment to increase the funding for HPWA, Helping Persons With AIDS, one of those vulnerable populations that we have, and our housing programs--as with veterans who are homeless, others who are homeless, those who are vulnerable such as those living with AIDS--have proven to be rather strong programs that have strong support.

Furthermore, already, across the board in HUD, there has been a reduction in personnel services and in the salaries and expenses of $20 million already compared with last year's overall within HUD. So this is a duplicate and hitting at vulnerable populations that we do not want to or should not want to be reducing. The reduction again requires that there be some reduction in personnel because people's salaries go up. They go up because people get a COLA, or a cost-of-living increase, of some sort with their salaries, or they move up in their category because of

longevity. So it ends up putting people who have jobs out of work and reducing the personnel to provide service to the American people and slows down the work of the offices in all these places where I think we all have a stake in making certain that they are efficiently implemented.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

In this instance, it is again a case of freezing a salaries and expenses account at the previous year's level. But this one has an interesting sidelight in that, in the legislation that we have before us, we have adopted a Presidential recommendation for a partial-year funding for project-based section 8 vouchers, which is going to cause considerable additional administration than the usual program of doing full-year continuation of those voucher programs. There is going to be much uncertainty if this goes on all the way to adoption. There would be much uncertainty for the people who are the owners and providers of that housing, and probably some loss in actual affordable housing available under the project-based section 8 program. So this is a case where they need that assistance. This is where we administer the housing programs for the elderly and disabled, the so- called 202 programs and 811, chapters 202 and chapter 811 for elderly and disabled people, as well as housing counseling assistance.

In addition, we have the Federal Housing Administration, which is having a much larger level of activity as we are trying to dig out of the foreclosure crisis from the past, and that agency needs to have personnel that are qualified and able to do the right job.

So again here--and by the way, I made an error in my previous comments when I said there was a reduction across the board for HUD. What I should have indicated was that it was a reduction in the salaries and expenses account over a period of time going back to 2010 of $20 million across the programs of salaries and expenses within HUD over that time.

So I made a mistake saying it was a $20 million reduction in 1 year. But for all those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairperson, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman from Georgia just wants to freeze everything. But our personnel, in an agency like this, they are subject to the civil service laws, to the personnel laws under OPM, and they are assigned in grades and then steps. They add several steps as they gain seniority and go from step 1 to step 7, and then they may sit for a while. But you end up with people--unless you're really trying to put people out of work. Unless you're trying to put people out of work--and there's no reason to do that for this kind of an agency at all--then there has to be a slow, small increase for those people who move from step to step along the salary scale.

So this is an amendment that would essentially cause disruption in the processing and in the personnel system for the agency, which has lots of work to do. We should be worrying about how to get productivity in the processing rather than about trying to jigger and freeze a step system's pay scale for the people who do the work at these agencies.

I again urge that this amendment not be adopted, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition.

Madam Chair, now at this point we have--I think this is the last of this group of amendments that have been proposed in this area, in essence. And when you put them together, because one was for $6.5 million, one was for about $5 million, then there were a couple that were a little--there was one that was a little over $1 million and then a couple that were smaller--the sum total of people who will be taken out of the--who this would require, the freeze, in that way, would require that some number around 200-or-so employees would be put out of positions.

Now, the gentleman from Georgia thinks that, well, they're Federal bureaucrats; but they're providing a service. In this instance, it is the service in the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, which has a budget, total budget, of $70-million-or-so. And this 300,000 is only a couple of percent out of it.

Most of the salaries and expenses, most of these agencies that he has been affecting are mostly done in salaries and expenses of the operation of the office. But they all provide a public service to people. In this instance, it's the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Well, it ensures that Americans have the same right, that all Americans have the same right to housing and investigates instances where those rights have been violated. So we are, in every instance of them, and we dealt with a couple of similar ones last night before in the other department under this bill--they only serve to slow down the effective operation of those offices to provide services across the whole gamut of things which have been given to them to do, whether it be public housing, whether it be the Veterans Administration program, here the Fair Housing Administration program, the FHA, the housing for elders, housing for disabled people. All of them are the same ilk. There's no reason to do anything other than the same thing that we have done in the past. And so I'm urging, again, a ``no'' vote on this.

I yield back the balance of my time;

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

My amendment would reduce the proposed funding for salaries and expenses of the Office of Public and Indian Housing by $6.5 million. This is one of 13 offices which would receive increases for administrative expenses in the underlying bill.

Madam Chairman, we're in an economic emergency as a Nation. We're broke. We absolutely must stop spending money that we don't have. We're borrowing 40 cents or more on every dollar that the Federal Government expends. Raising the funding for the Office of Public and Indian Housing by $6.5 million while we're broke makes no fiscal sense to me.

This particular increase is among the highest for all the offices funded under this legislation. My amendment would simply freeze funding for this office for this next year. Passage of my amendment would bring this account back to this year's FY 2012 levels.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

My amendment would reduce the proposed funding for salaries and expenses for the Office of Community Planning and Development by $3.5 million.

This amendment, like the ones I presented last night and the one I just presented, would freeze the funding for these offices. I've heard my good friend from Iowa and my good friends on the other side talk about how the underlying bill has cut expenses for this whole underlying bill, but here in the House of Representatives, we've reduced our expenses by over 11 percent. It seems to me that it just makes fiscal sense to freeze funding for these offices in the underlying bill and not raise them.

We're in an economic emergency as a Nation. We are spending money that we simply do not have. We've got to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in Washington, and I'm just asking a simple thing: let's freeze all of these offices at the current year's levels for 1 more year. Hopefully, next year we'll have policy put in place that will increase our economy and start creating jobs here in this Nation, but we're not doing that this year with this administration and the policies that we see in the other body on the other side of the Hill.

So let's just freeze the expenses of this office, and I'm proposing to freeze the expenses of virtually all the offices in this bill--most of them, anyway--and my amendment would bring the spending level that's proposed back to the current spending level of 2012.

When families and businesses get overextended, they don't continue to raise their spending levels, and we should not be raising this one either. My amendment would just freeze it at the current spending levels.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, my amendment would reduce the proposed funding for salaries and expenses of bureaucrats here in Washington at the Office of Housing by $5 million. That's absolutely correct.

This amendment, as well as all of my amendments, will not cut the programs. It will not cut the programs one iota. What this does is it reduces the salaries.

I just heard my good friend from Massachusetts talking about Federal bureaucrats getting raises. I have frozen the salaries of people who work for me, and I know many Members of Congress have, for the last 2 years. Why should we be giving Federal bureaucrats more money when the American people are not getting raises? It makes no sense to me, particularly as we are in an economic emergency. We are spending money we don't have. We have to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in Washington. Enough is enough. And raising this office, as well as all these offices, above the 2012 makes no economic sense to me whatsoever. Let's be fiscally responsible.

My good friend from Iowa, who I have the utmost respect for, has done a tremendous job in this bill, and I do appreciate the tremendous hard work that he and his committee has done. And I appreciate the $4 million that they've cut. But why raise the salaries of Federal bureaucrats?

My amendment would simply reduce the proposed funding back to the 2012 levels. I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, again I rise to propose an amendment just to freeze the salaries of this Office of Policy Development and Research by a mere $115,000.

Madam Chairman, I hear colleagues around here talking as if millions of dollars, tens of millions--hundreds of millions of dollars is nothing. Well,

most of my constituents at home in Georgia, most Americans think that $1 million is a lot of money, and I certainly think $1 million is a lot of money. But we have proposed, in this underlying bill, to raise the administrative expenses and salaries.

My good friend from Massachusetts, in the previous amendment, said we need to increase the salaries of the bureaucrats. I hope my good friend from Iowa (Mr. Latham), when he stood up on the last amendment saying that we weren't going to increase salaries of Federal bureaucrats, is factual. I hope that that goes in the Record and it becomes true that we're not going to raise the salaries of Federal bureaucrats.

But they're proposing raising the administrative expenses and salaries in all of these offices, so I'm proposing just to freeze these expenses for 1 more year. Let's bring this account back down to this current year's levels of spending.

We cannot continue on this road.

Madam Chairman, I'm a medical doctor. As a medical doctor, part of my medical practice for many years has been involved in treating addictions, drug and alcohol addictions. In addiction medicine, we have a saying: When there's no denial, there's no addiction.

Congress and government have a spending addiction. It's a spending addiction, and there's a tremendous amount of denial here in this city--in all branches of government, actually. We need to face the fact: We're broke as a Nation. We've got to stop the outrageous spending.

I'm proposing just a mere $115,000 to freeze the expenses for this office and salaries for this office for 1 more year. I don't think that's too much for me to ask. I don't think that's too much for the American taxpayer, the hardworking American taxpayer to ask for us to freeze the salaries of these bureaucrats here in Washington and freeze their expenses for 1 more year--not only for this amendment, but for the amendments that I've already presented and the ones that I will present. Let's freeze this spending for 1 more year, keep it at the FY 2012 levels.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again I rise just to freeze the funding for salaries and office expenses for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity by a meager $304,000. If we cannot cut out $115,000 or $304,000, what are we going to cut?

And as my friend from Massachusetts already said, actually, on two of my amendments, that it's to increase salaries of Federal bureaucrats. We've got to freeze the salaries of these bureaucrats. We've got to be fiscally responsible.

My amendment doesn't cut any program, doesn't cut any service, doesn't cut out any part of the necessary aspects of the Federal Government. All it does is it freezes the salaries and the expenses of this office, as the other amendments would do. It freezes it at this year's levels. Doesn't even go backwards, freezes it at this year's levels.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.