To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land to operate a visitor center for Joshua Tree National Park, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4745, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

I am pleased today to present to the House for consideration H.R. 4745, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015.

The committee has put forth a bill that conforms to our 302(b) allocation of $52 billion in budget authority and is in line with the budget cap of $1.014 trillion. Under such an allocation, we prioritized programs and spending to achieve three very important goals: to continue the ob lim level funding levels of MAP-21 contingent upon reauthorization; keep the commercial air space running smoothly; and preserve the housing option for all current HUD-assisted families.

I think this is a good bill with the allocation that was given to us. We may hear today from some who say the bill spends too much money, and I am sure we will hear from those who believe we should be spending more money. However, this bill received a fair allocation under the Ryan-Murray budget agreement with a large, bipartisan majority, and, as such, we should continue that support.

Thanks to the return of regular order, the whole House of Representatives has the opportunity for full consideration of this legislation. It is imperative that we move this bill to final passage, reflecting the amendments adopted by the House, and move this bill to conference in time for the new fiscal year.

I would like to thank my good friend and fellow future retiree, the gentleman from Arizona and the T-HUD ranking member, Mr. Pastor, for his ideas and support in drafting the bill. It has been a real pleasure to work with the gentleman, and I really do appreciate his friendship. I would also like to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, plus the members of the full committee, and especially the subcommittee, for the hours spent in hearings, markups, and meetings, working together to bring this bill to the floor and eventually have it signed into law.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. They have worked tirelessly to get this bill done to this point, and I urge the adoption of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.008

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Arizona have any more speakers?

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very well intended, but I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

The purpose of the amendment is to provide funding for Navy operations that might be affected by new and existing wind turbines. Upgrades to air traffic control to address Navy requirements resulting from the construction of wind farms are the responsibility of the Department of Defense and potentially those who are constructing the new wind farms. FAA would have a role in consulting with DOD to upgrades of air traffic control facilities, but this is typically done as a reimbursable agreement between DOD and the FAA.

Further, we cannot accept this offset. We have already reduced DOT salaries and expenses for the Office of the Secretary down to the level provided in fiscal year 2012. We have provided funds in this account to protect transportation consumers, ensure safety across DOT programs, and provide oversight of DOT programs to safeguard the taxpayer.

I would be happy to work with the gentleman to ensure the FAA has an appropriate partner to help in addressing this issue, but I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman'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, 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 directly amends existing law and is not merely perfecting to the existing text of the bill.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would shut down Amtrak.

I concede that Amtrak could be more efficient. However, it has made significant improvements in this area recently, and it is moving in the right direction.

The bill provides $340 million in operation grants to Amtrak, which fully cover Amtrak's anticipated operating losses for fiscal year 2015. This is a realistic number that we base on Amtrak's most recent operating loss projections.

The bill does not include arbitrary funding decisions. We held hearings, and we scrubbed every account. It isn't prudent to eliminate an entire transportation option.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the amendment.

The fact of the matter is the bill provides $340 billion in operating grants to Amtrak, which will fully cover their operating losses. If in fact the amendment were put in place, there could very easily be interruptions of service in the Northeast or throughout the system, and it could cause real problems as far as the operations itself, obviously, of Amtrak.

For those reasons, I would oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We will accept the amendment.

We accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think we all know in section 8 there are reforms that are needed. This amendment does nothing to those reforms, and it should be to the authorizing Financial Services Committee to initiate the reform so that, in fact, we can change it, make it work better, and do the right thing for the people in the system. But this is just not the way to approach it.

We have worked in this bill to cut all unnecessary spending in HUD's programs. We provided funds to continue assistance to the 2.2 million families while cutting administrative fees by $150 million to $1.35 billion.

It also would cut the housing assistance for homeless veterans program, which we need to give those veterans the kind of services that they desperately need.

I agree with the gentleman from Ohio that reforms need to be done to the program. This is not the place to do those reforms, nor is he even proposing any reforms to the program, rather than just slashing important programs for people. And I don't want to be the one to have to pick and choose who is going to lose their house, their place to live under this amendment.

So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have not even seen the amendment. For that reason, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill.

The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states:

``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill (unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI).''

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Objection.

There is an objection.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to introduce an amendment to strike section 165 from the underlying bill. Section 165 states that no funds ``in this or any other act'' may be available for a light or heavy rail project in Houston, Texas, if the route goes through Richmond or down Post Oak Boulevard.

This language is contrary to the will of the voters of Harris County, Texas, and should not be included in this Federal Government appropriations bill. Houstonians voted in support of new transportation options for the Houston area in a local referendum in 2003. Now some disagree with the results of that referendum, but local voters have made their decision, and I rise to support their right to make these decisions in Houston, Texas, and in local elections without the interference of Congress.

If the Federal Government has the right to overrule a local election and referendum, then what is next?

Blocking Federal funds via obscure riders in appropriations bills in order to try and steer routing decisions is wrong. It is inappropriate overreach by the Federal Government. It violates the will of the voters of Harris County, and, ultimately, it hurts the City of Houston, Texas.

For Members outside of Texas who may be unfamiliar with this debate, the precedent that this language will set, if allowed to remain in the bill, is far-reaching, and it will affect more than just Texas. The passage of this language as is means that local votes just don't matter to Congress and that local officials don't really decide transportation matters in each State and city because these decisions can be toyed with and overruled by Congress.

This language is also bad policy. It is a throwback to the old Houston when our only transportation plan was to build more highways as far as the eye could see and block attempts to do anything else.

Houston has one of the most expansive and efficient highway systems in the world, and, with the soon-to-be-completed Grand Parkway, the system will be even better, but we can only build so many roads. We can only build so many concrete monstrosities like the I-10 West corridor. Over 130,000 people moved to Harris County last year. That is as many as in Charleston, South Carolina, and another estimated 150,000 will move to Harris County next year. Houston will soon be the third largest city in the country, overtaking Chicago. With this increase in population, we need solutions for transportation, not attempts to stonewall all options from Washington.

The debate that we are having on the floor is not about whether or not METRO is doing a good job, nor is it even about METRO. We know that METRO has had its fair share of problems over the years. It must get its financial house in order, and it must become efficient. It also must get the credibility it needs from the voters once again, but it is not our job to debate that local issue in Congress. The voters in a local referendum made that decision 11 years ago. It is an inappropriate misuse of authority to divert money away from Houston because the Federal Government disagrees with the outcome of a local election. As the saying goes, we need to let Texans run Texas. These decisions should be made at the local level.

Supporters of this language may try to argue that this is an attempt at fiscal responsibility. That is nonsense. This money is already appropriated for Houston. If Houston doesn't use it, it is not going back into the coffers, and it is not going to pay down the national debt. The money is going to some other city that will take the money. The idea that we will not take available transportation money for Houston sets a bad precedent for Houston because the next time Houston wants some Federal money, which is taxpayer money, we

may not be so fortunate to get that money, because the folks up here said: Well, we offered you money once before, and you didn't take it. No more money for transportation.

Houston is a donor State. Of the funds we send up here, 91 percent is all we get back. We don't get the other 9 percent.

This is about the availability of transportation money to Houston, Texas. The underlying bill prohibits that money because of certain factors in the Houston area that don't like the outcome of this election and that don't like light rail. Debate that issue in the city. Let city officials make that decision. Let METRO make that decision. Let there be a lively debate among the citizens who are affected by light rail, but don't let Congress come in and overrule the will of the people of Houston, Texas, in an election that they had 11 years ago to accept Federal funding when it is appropriate for us to take it.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters from the North Montrose Civic Association, the Greater Houston Partnership, the Upper Kirby Management District, the Transportation Advocacy Group Houston Region, the Women in Transportation, letters from the mayor's office, the Washington Avenue Improvement Committee, Houston Tomorrow, and other letters that I have received in support of my amendment.

Greater Houston Partnership,

Houston, Texas, June 6, 2014.

Subject: Federal funding is crucial for Houston

Hon. Ted Poe,

House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC

Dear Congressman Poe: On behalf of the 2,100 members of the

Greater Houston Partnership (GHP), we thank you for your

leadership in Congress. In particular, we thank you for your

efforts to ensure that every dollar of federal funding that

is available to the greater Houston region continues to flow

to our region.

As an economic development organization we have been

successful in attracting new businesses and development to

our region since our establishment in 1989. In 2013, we

estimate that our region brought in more than 300 projects,

totaling more than $20 billion in capital investment, more

than 20,000 new employees, and more than 30 million square

feet in development. Since 2009, the businesses that GHP

attracted to our region equates to $22.9 billion in economic

development. A significant reason for our success has been

our ability to leverage federal dollars in order to guarantee

that our infrastructure is highly functional and our business

climate is attractive. When relocating, businesses are

attracted to cities that are progressing and planning for the

future.

At GHP, we continuously analyze issues of regional

significance. Importantly, we also survey the Houston

business community as well as business leaders across the

nation and around the world to gauge perceptions about how

Houston compares to other major metropolitan areas. One

challenge for our region is the need to improve the

attractiveness and quality of life aspects of Houston.

Without improvements we will not be able to attract global

talent and address local socioeconomic gaps that can hinder

our region. Houston simply cannot afford to have limitations

on federal funding or turn away money that can be utilized to

make our region a better place to live, work and build a

business. We are setting a bad precedent.

As the largest business organization in the greater Houston

region we encourage you to continue to stand up for your

constituents. We share your commitment and dedication to the

betterment of our region, and we thank you for your

leadership on this issue. We stand ready to assist.

Regards,

Bob Harvey,

President & CEO.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, two of our central responsibilities as Members of Congress are to support a strong national infrastructure and to ensure that every American has a place to call home. The funding levels provided in this legislation will make it impossible to fulfill either of those responsibilities.

There can be no question that we must put people back to work and bring our crumbling, outdated infrastructure into the 21st century. At the funding levels provided in this bill, few of those goals can be accomplished.

The bill cuts the FTA's Capital Investment Grant Program, more commonly known as New Starts, by $252 million. It includes a $500 million cut to the TIGER grant program, funding it $1.15 billion below the President's request, and it cuts $200 million from Amtrak's capital funding, while providing no funding for high-speed rail.

Beyond simply cutting critical funding, the bill places restrictions on the use of TIGER grants and high-speed rail, and it exempts three States--Wisconsin, Mississippi, and Idaho--from truck size and weight limits on Federal highways.

Congress should not preempt the comprehensive study currently being conducted by USDOT, required as part of MAP-21, the last legislation we enacted on the subject, by enacting piecemeal riders on appropriations bills.

The devastating impacts these cuts will have on our economy will only be exacerbated by the cuts to vital housing programs for hardworking families.

The HOME Investment Partnership Program is funded at its lowest level since its creation in 1992, and the Public Housing Capital Fund falls below its sequestered funding level, adding at least $1 billion to the backlog of capital needs, but perhaps most startling is the failure of this legislation to provide enough funding for every low-income senior and hardworking family to access affordable and secure housing through HUD's tenant-based rental assistance program, or section 8.

My amendment finally provides enough funding for HUD to renew every section 8 voucher, including the 70,000 vouchers lost under sequestration, and to support robust staffing at public housing agencies around the country.

Rental assistance helps 2.1 million very low-income households rent modest homes in the private market at an affordable cost. Households who use Section 8 have incomes well below the Federal poverty line, and nearly every household using a section 8 voucher includes children, seniors, or people with disabilities.

Research consistently demonstrates that this program reduces poverty, housing instability, and homelessness, and helps families live in safe, healthy communities.

Despite the success, only about one in four eligible low-income families receives Federal rental assistance. Long waiting lists remain in nearly every community, even as the number of poor families who pay more than half their monthly income for housing costs has risen 28 percent since 2007. These long wait lists are exacerbated by a lack of administrative funding for public housing agencies.

In the past, Congress consistently provided the necessary funds to ensure that no one receiving a Section 8 voucher loses access to affordable, decent, and stable housing year to year, but sequestration has had a devastating impact on section 8.

With inadequate funding for voucher renewals and extreme cuts to administrative fees, State and local housing agencies assisted an estimated 70,000 fewer families at the end of 2013 compared to a year earlier.

The increased funding that Congress provided through the FY14 budget agreement restored less than half of those vouchers, leaving 40,000 very low-income families with no access to affordable housing. This bill does nothing to help those families.

My amendment will ensure that public housing agencies can renew every current voucher and restore those lost under sequestration. The amendment funds Section 8 voucher renewals at the President's request of $18 billion and provides an additional $320 million to provide vouchers to the 40,000 families who lost access due to Congress' inability to address sequestration.

Of course, this additional funding would go a long way to ensuring that every family who qualifies for rental assistance finds a home. However, at the funding levels for administrative fees in this legislation, it would be impossible for public housing agencies to hire and maintain enough staff to process and renew vouchers.

We cannot continue to undermine our hardworking public housing agencies by failing to provide them enough money to function; yet, once again, this bill woefully underfunds administrative fees for public housing by providing only $1.35 billion, a $150 million reduction from last year's enacted level.

My amendment would finally address the undercutting at public housing agencies by providing an additional $335 million to match the President's request of $1.7 billion for administrative fees.

Mr. Chairman, our first priority must be to ensure that every working family, every senior, and every child has access to a safe, healthy, and affordable home. This amendment will guarantee that no one has to choose between paying their rent and putting food on the table.

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

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, we can all agree, I think, that this amendment is necessary.

We are talking about denying tens of thousands of families and seniors access to an efficient, cost-effective program that keeps families together and lowers the government's costs over the long term.

Without this amendment, we will see a spike in homelessness, a spike in medical costs, and a spike in hungry kids.

I understand the point of order. I understand that the rules demand an offset for any funding increase in the bill. I also appreciate the chairman's efforts to support Section 8 and public housing.

But when funding levels are this restrictive across the board, as they are in this bill, it is impossible to offset such drastic underfunding without hurting other people in need. The rules and the drastic underfunding of this bill make it impossible to meet basic human needs.

I hope that, as we go forward, we can find a way to provide these funds so that kids, working families, and seniors are not out on the street, as I guarantee you this bill at this funding level will do.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are beginning consideration of H.R. 4745, the fiscal year 2015 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

I also want to thank Chairman Latham for his work on this bill. He has been a good friend throughout the years and has been a great chairman over these last few years on this subcommittee. I really have enjoyed his friendship. I enjoy working with him, and I thank him for all the courtesies he has extended to me.

I also want to thank the staff--the staff on the majority and the staff on the minority side. They have worked well together over these last few months to bring this bill on the floor.

On paper, this bill appears to be nearly $1.2 billion higher than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. However, the sharp differences between OMB and CBO on the receipt estimates for the FHA loan program mean that this bill is actually $1.8 billion lower--lower than the FY 2014 bill.

As a result, many programs are frozen at last year's level. Deep cuts were made to Amtrak, cuts were made to grants for new transit systems, HUD's HOME program, and HUD's program to reduce the hazards of lead and other household toxins have been reduced.

On a positive note, the bill addresses many of the important safety functions of the Department of Transportation.

For example, this bill provides strong funding for the programs and activities of the Federal Aviation Administration. It will allow the FAA to continue to hire and train new controllers that were lost due to sequestration.

The bill also ensures that the FAA will be able to continue to make important investments to modernize our aging air traffic control system.

With regard to housing programs, the Community Development Block Grants program is adequately funded, and the chairman has worked to ensure that tenants in assisted housing can retain their housing.

The administration's Statement of Administration Policy makes it clear that this bill needs improvement before President Obama will sign it into law.

As we consider the bill over the next few days, I hope that we can prevent further cuts to important transportation and housing programs, and I also hope that we can defeat legislative provisions that will only weaken this bill's chances for enactment.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleagues that the Senate allocation for this bill is nearly $2.4 billion higher than this bill. I hope that we are able to consider this bill quickly, so we can go to conference with the Senate to produce a bill that we can all support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Rogers for his kind words. We have worked together for many years, and over those years, we have been able to do appropriations bills and also developed a great friendship. Thank you, Chairman Rogers.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

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

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

I agree with the chairman that DOD, Department of Defense, has the primary responsibility, and FAA would be a partner in that venture. We also agree that the reduction of salaries and expenses below the FY 2014 level--we don't know what consequences it would have, possibly RIFs or layoffs, and so for that reason, I ask opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would strike a provision that has been carried in every Transportation appropriations bill since 2009.

Section 102 simply grants the Secretary or his representatives the authority to engage in activities with States and State legislators to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. In 2012, there were nearly 5,000 motorcycle fatalities, which represented an increase of more than 7 percent over the previous year.

The research and expertise of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can be extremely helpful to State highway traffic safety agencies as they consider measures to improve motorcycle safety. We ought to provide any resource necessary to help States address this important safety issue.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would tell my colleague and friend, the Congressman from Georgia, that harsh is more than mild, in what you want to do.

I know that you and I want to continue to have constituents take the ``Midnight Train to Georgia,'' and I can't support your amendment.

I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I don't do Amtrak because we have just a few lines in Arizona, but I understand that Amtrak is very important to the Northeast and other parts of the country.

In my opinion, this is the Nation's railroad line. We need to improve it. I am for that. This amendment would not improve it. It would eliminate it.

I am in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we are also in opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

As you know, Mr. Chairman, recently they have announced that we are slowly still recovering from the Great Recession, and we still have a large number of people who are underemployed or unemployed.

The reality is that the reform that my friend from Ohio would like to bring in section 8 housing will not occur by these cuts, as pointed out by the chairman.

We believe that what this amendment would do is it would evict over 150,000 people from their homes. It would have an effect on the homeless veterans and reduce their assistance.

The reality is today that over half of the residents who live in section 8 are families with children, and so the consequences of this amendment are too dire, and we can't support it, so I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise, obviously, in great support of this bill. This is the fourth of the 12 appropriations bills that I hope to bring to the floor before August. It continues to move the ball down the field toward our goal of completing all of our appropriations work on time within the framework of the Ryan-Murray budget deal.

The bill contains a fiscally responsible level of discretionary funding--$52 billion for the important Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, agencies that support critical transportation infrastructure, safety, and housing assistance programs.

With this bill in particular, we had to make some smart but difficult decisions, as Mr. Pastor and Chairman Latham have said. Although the 302(b) allocation is $1.2 billion more than last year, when technical adjustments are taken into account, it is more than $1 billion below the current level. As Chairman Latham and Mr. Pastor have described, this is due to a considerable drop in Federal Housing Administration receipts that are used as offsets within this legislation.

As a result, this bill, by necessity, strikes a fine balance between fiscal restraint and targeted investment in programs that will boost our economy, improve our quality of life, and provide housing options to those Americans most in need.

One of our chief priorities in this bill is providing key infrastructure programs with the funding needed to keep our economy moving. The bill provides $40.26 billion from the highway trust fund for the Federal highway program for road investments, the same as the current level and contingent on the enactment of new transportation authorization legislation. It also includes funding to help communities build, maintain, and keep safe their mass transit systems.

Smooth, efficient, and safe air travel is another priority in this bill. We ensured that we provided full funding for air traffic control personnel, including controllers and safety inspectors. We are investing in the future of air travel as well, helping to ease future congestion and reduce delays by fully funding NextGen.

To protect every American who uses or lives near our roads, airways, pipelines, and waterways, we increased funding for important transportation safety programs.

Within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we ensured that all those who are currently served by critical housing programs continue to keep a roof over their heads. To do so, the bill increases funding for public and Indian housing by $6.2 million. We also fully fund the President's request for veterans' housing vouchers.

Lastly, Community Development Block Grants have been held consistent with last year's funding level.

As I said before, to balance out the important increases in the bill and to factor in the reductions in FHA receipts, cuts to lower-priority programs were necessary. For instance, the bill reduces Amtrak by $193 million below last year and places strict policy reforms on how tax dollars are spent on this service.

We also reduced TIGER grants by $500 million below last year's level and mandated that these funds address our most critical transportation needs--road, highway, and bridge construction and improvement. None of these funds under this bill will go toward nonessential purposes, like streetscaping.

Overall, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It will address our most immediate infrastructure needs and provides our most vulnerable citizens with housing.

Before I close my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about the coauthors of this bill--Chairman Latham and the ranking member, Mr. Pastor. As you know, this will be their last T-HUD bill before they leave us at the end of the year for greener pastures.

These two men have been great assets to our committee, for their expertise, their willingness to work together, and their great attitudes; and we are going to miss them greatly. Their swan song, this bill, is a fine achievement, a capstone on two accomplished careers.

I want to thank them both for their hard work on this bill and others through the years and for their contributions to the Appropriations Committee and the House and the Nation.

My friend Mr. Latham and I have labored together on this committee for a good while--18 years, Tom says--and we have been friends all along. We served together on the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee for many, many years, among others, and I have learned to respect Chairman Latham.

He is a great personal friend whom I treasure greatly. Mr. Pastor, the same way--we have worked together on this committee for a number of years as well. We have tried to serve the Nation and the Congress as best we could, and these two gentlemen have done great work on behalf of the American people.

This is a tough bill. It is a good bill, but it is a tough bill. They had to squeeze some oversized feet into some undersized shoes, given the allocation that they had to work with, but they came through with flying colors.

So I enthusiastically urge my colleagues in the House to vote for this bill because it is the best we can do,

and it is a great bill, but also, I want to say in closing, as a tribute to these two fine public servants.