Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 250th anniversary of the town of Athol, Massachusetts. On March 4, 1762 the colonial Governor of Massachusetts, Sir Francis Bernard, officially incorporated the Town of Athol, Massachusetts into the commonwealth. The town was named in honor of the Scottish heritage of an influential settler, John Murray, who had ancestral ties to Blair Atholl in Scotland.

As with many colonial towns and villages in western Massachusetts, agriculture was an important and prosperous industry. In Athol, that industry grew to include milling lumber, grains, and other agricultural products. The advent of the locomotive and the expansion of railroads to Athol contributed greatly to the economic growth of the town and to increasing trade with Springfield and Vermont.

As the market for goods produced in Athol expanded, new industries, such as cotton processing, tanning, production of textiles, and metal working, flourished. Athol earned the nickname of ``Tool Town'' because of the Athol Machine Company and the L. S. Starrett Company, which produced machinists' hand tools and precision tools and were both established in the 19th century. Athol's booming economy turned the town into a destination for travelers from all across Massachusetts and New England. Trolley lines from Athol to Orange shuttled visitors to and from their destinations.

Today, Athol is again on the rise; its population is increasing and the spirit of resilience and determination present in the days of the lumber mills and metal works factories remains strong. On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Athol, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their dedication and perseverance throughout the town's history. It has been an honor to represent this great community, and I wish the people of Athol a healthy and prosperous future.

Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 1762, Sir Francis Bernard, colonial Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, approved the incorporation of the town of Sandisfield. The town was named for Samuel Sandys, the First Lord of Trade from 1761 to 1763. Beginning around 1750, settlers from Connecticut Colony, drawn in by the abundance of land, arrived in what had been called ``Housatonic Plantation Number Three.''

Today, Sandisfield boasts 53 square miles of land, the largest in Berkshire County, covered with flourishing forests and countless brooks, streams, and ponds. Sandisfield's natural beauty, highlighted in the Sandisfield State Forest, Knox Trail, and York Lake, provides many opportunities to explore hidden trails, undisturbed woods, and shimmering lakes.

Sandisfield's golden age, filled with the buzz and vibrancy of sawmills, tanneries, and numerous dairy farms, is not forgotten today; more than one hundred buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries remain. Three are included on the National Register of Historic Places, including the Baptist Meeting House from 1842. The building now houses the Sandisfield Arts Center, which exemplifies the centrality of community, so important to many cities and towns in western Massachusetts.

On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Sandisfield, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their civic dedication and perseverance throughout the town's history. It has been an honor to represent this great community, and I wish the people of Sandisfield a healthy and prosperous future.

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 Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The amendment that the gentleman from Georgia has now offered has to do with the Public Housing Capital Fund.

The public housing infrastructure currently has an estimated $26 billion of maintenance backlog. In fact, capital repairs accumulate at the rate of something over $3 billion a year, which is considerably higher than $1.9 billion that is contained in this--$1.985 billion that's contained in this bill. So what we are doing is, year by year, continuing to provide maintenance funding: the replacement of utilities, the replacement of appliances, as well as such simple maintenance as painting if it's needed, and so on.

In our more than a million housing units, in the 3,500 or so of our total housing authorities around the country, we are steadily putting these in a situation where we're building a further capital maintenance backlog gap year by year by year.

This is never a wise thing to do when it's at the extent that we are presently doing it. But the $110 million at least is a little bit better than not having the $110 million, which would be an even greater increase in the backlog gap that we have for maintenance, repair, and upgrading of our housing units.

All of those housing units are intended to last for many years and be used long into the future. If we don't maintain them properly in a reasonable way, then eventually we will lose those units. It is much more expensive to replace the units with new units than it is to maintain them in a proper way.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment so that we do not continue to dig our hole deeper on the maintenance needs for the stock of housing that we have in our 3,500 public housing authorities around the country.

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

I move to strike the last word.

I'm not sure I have anything much to add to what my chairman has said, other than to just point out, if you look back at the number of dollars that were assigned for the fiscal year '11 bill, that was over $4.6 billion. So in 2012, the amount of money brought that down to under $4 billion. The $500-plus million that the gentleman from Iowa had pointed out was part of the reserves that were taken from those housing authorities around the country that had substantial reserves. So that has been done. That was a one-shot kind of a deal. And now the funding has to go back to something that is in line with the yearly fundings, going back to a period of time of well into a decade ago, that were on a different guide path. So this is just returning to that.

It is at the President's request. It's below the amount that has been granted in the other body's allocation. They had a larger allocation in their numbers for it. This particular account is well below ours. It's $70 million or so below what has been provided by the chairman in the mark for this year.

So I think this is entirely appropriate, given the size of the maintenance gaps and the need to keep maintaining your facilities, your housing quality so that you don't end up losing that or ending up with much higher expense for replacement. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this is an amendment that would take a huge chunk out of the CDBG program. This is one of the areas in which I have been particularly, I thought, most commendable about what the chairman's mark is in the bill for the CDBG.

The CDBG is a hugely popular program in communities around the country. We have, as I have mentioned in my opening remarks at the beginning of this bill, 65 percent of our population living in communities in metropolitan areas with over half a million people, and close to 90 percent of our people live in communities with over 50,000 people. It's roughly around 50,000 people that are entitlement communities and get an amount of money that they may use in a flexible kind of a way in their cities and towns of large size, and can directly get that money to use for things that they need in their cities. Their cities and towns have suffered greatly in the Great Recession that we have had before us, and they have housing needs which are very substantial.

Now I would point out to the gentleman from Utah that the amount for the CDBG program as proposed by Chairman Latham I am commending him for and strongly support his allocation for this. The amount that he has provided in this bill within the allocation and with the $4 billion reduction that the bill entails is below the number that CDBG was given all the way back in 2008. It has varied up and down, depending upon the allocations and depending upon what has gone on. But this one still is below. And I strongly support it and would urge that it be maintained.

And by the way, about 20 percent of the whole amount goes directly to States, which then can use it in a discretionary way in groups of smaller communities. So it actually gets into rural areas and small communities--in communities like those of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, whose district has no community larger than about 15,000 people. But his district manages to get a considerable amount of money through the State of Kentucky for the congressional district.

So it is something that goes to everybody in their districts in a flexible way for things that are eligible under the law.

But when it is being used for the development of housing, then it ends up clearly directly providing for jobs. If it's used in the way of social services through nonprofit organizations, again it is providing jobs for people who are doing great service for our population. So I'm a strong supporter of this.

I certainly urge that the amendment be defeated, and I will stop there because other people wish to speak, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, here we have kind of the yang that went with the yin. The gentleman's amendment here a few minutes ago, the last one that he offered, was $3.5 billion, and taking that out of this allocation.

In this case, it's a $6 million amount. That's about 5,000 times as much as the six. The first was 5,000 times as much as this one. Maybe I'm off by an order of magnitude. I'm not quite sure.

The gentleman from California has pointed out that the President did not want to do this at all. Well, actually, the President had asked the committee to create a user fee to pay for this rather than the mechanism by which this really very small program--this $6 million program of loan guarantees--has been functioning, which was to pay for any risk involved. The gentleman is claiming, if there were any serious risk, that it should be paid for out of the subsequent years' allocations under CDBG.

It turns out, for those places that would use this program, the loan guarantee program, there has never been a penny lost of the Federal taxpayers on any of the section 108 projects that we have issued in this program, and there have been a number of them. It actually is one of the most flexible. The Community Development loan guarantee program is exceedingly flexible and very creative. It has been used to create larger projects, projects that create jobs and that may be part of the revitalization of a whole target area, and it always ends up bringing in substantial additional private investment into the neighborhood.

So it's creating jobs. It is used often for the reuse of old factory buildings that are no longer viable in the forms that they were. Particularly in my part of the country, it has been used in that kind of a way--and successfully--to make a project that may turn out to be housing, that may turn out to be a business incubator or whatever. This is a very flexible program and one that the Federal taxpayer has never lost money on.

The creation of jobs and the development of new businesses that come into a place that may be part of a development of this sort is what gives us a robust economy. A robust economy is the best way we have of reducing the deficit because you can end up cutting and cutting and cutting programs, and if you do not end up creating jobs in the long run, you're simply not going to return to a robust economy. I think we know that.

So I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think it is a counterproductive thing to do. It's very small. It has never lost any money. It operates quite well. The chairman, with my assent--though he didn't need my assent--certainly left it in there. I support his position very strongly, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that is ostensibly before us.

Mr. Chairman, we were talking about the amendment that the gentleman from Arizona has offered, and he has offered an amendment that would take $200 million out of the HOME Investment Partnership program as recommended by Chairman Latham and the subcommittee and through the procedures of the subcommittee and the full committee actions before coming to the floor.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There have been some controversies with the HOME Investment Partnership program; but there were statutory changes last year, and HUD is now in the process of finishing the rule to go along with those statutory changes. So those reforms are now basically in place.

To my understanding, at least, there has been no instance of our actual loss of money from the HOME Partnership program at any time, but there have been projects that have been stalled. This is one of the few programs that we have in this bill that actually results in the construction of housing. Most affordable housing projects use multiple sources to complete a development, and occasionally it is possible that the private development monies don't materialize to a project that has been approved for the HOME Partnership program. If that happens, then HUD takes the money back and uses it someplace else. It doesn't in any way end up resulting in a loss to the taxpayers of the country.

The HOME program is, as I say, one of the few programs that actually funds newly constructed housing under this legislation. These funds are used. They provide needed jobs in our communities; they ease the unemployment in the construction sector; they produce housing; and they don't end up costing the taxpayers any money.

To the degree that that is followed and we can produce housing, then I am certainly in favor of it and strongly support Chairman Latham's assignment of the additional money. I would point out that the level of the funding at the level that has been recommended by the Appropriations Committee and by the subcommittee that Mr. Latham chairs, that the amount of money that has been assigned is below the amount that was assigned 5 years ago for the 2008 budget.

We have been through ups and downs on this one over time, and I certainly would urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

I will be very brief.

I merely want to concur in the position of the chairman of the subcommittee, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This is one of those cases in which we've gone back and forth here today with the gentleman from California. This must be the eighth or ninth of these, and it's hard to find ways of being very creative or original about what you're saying.

The interesting thing here is that, for some of the time, the gentleman has been going back to whatever we had done several years ago, going back arbitrarily to some point in the past. Here, of course, he is supporting the President's position. I was not aware that the gentleman from California supported the President's position in much of anything.

Excuse me. Thank you very much.

Please forgive me. You don't even look alike. I think I was mistaking you for a different member of the California delegation.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for correcting me.

In any case, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentleman's amendment would take the position of this subcommittee down by $12.3 million. Basically, the position of the subcommittee has been that we are providing a little bit more for the NeighborWorks program than the President requested and that we are providing a little bit less for the HUD Counseling program than the President requested. Together, though, they would be about the same.

NeighborWorks, which is what the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation's common name is, is a major nonprofit organization that operates all over the country. It has affiliates in 50 States, and I'm sure it has an affiliate somewhere in the gentleman's district. The NeighborWorks program is a group that we relied on very heavily to do counseling during the very height of the foreclosure crisis 3 or 4 years ago. We relied on it to go out there and actually contract with and manage the process of providing counseling to hundreds of thousands of people who were engaged in or who were subject to foreclosure.

So we on our side, on this side--in this branch at least--have felt that NeighborWorks has been a very good organization, which is in large part why we have given them a little bit more and why we have given a little bit less to the HUD program.

We argued the HUD program last night. They leverage something close to $4 billion in direct investments to serve low- and moderate-income families through all of their affiliates in all the work that they do. It's a very, very good and reliable organization that we've come to value very highly.

They also administered this Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling program, which gives targeted assistance to families at risk of losing their homes. The gentleman seems to cut this account because it is above the President's request, but I think I have explained that we're slightly above on this one and slightly below on the other one.

Again, I would say I was not aware that the gentleman from Georgia--I went to California again, didn't I?--was such a fan of the President's request numbers, that he valued them so highly. I believe--and I think that my chairman believes--that NeighborWorks is deserving of this small increase, and I believe that Chairman Latham has thoughtfully targeted resources in this area. I hope the amendment will be defeated, and I urge the Members to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From the Examiner, June 14, 2012]

Central Subway Needs Money To Fulfill Potential

It is time for everyone to get onboard with the Central

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

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

Francisco began as construction workers started ripping up

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

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

massive hole-boring machines will ultimately serve as the

tunnel for the new Central Subway line.

If you believe the naysayers, this tunneling is the

beginning of a train to nowhere or a multimillion-dollar

project that utterly lacks funding and will result in a train

line without riders.

None of this is true.

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

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

good by connecting downtown with the southeastern

neighborhoods of The City. The entire project germinated from

the Embarcadero Freeway teardown after the 1989 Loma Prieta

earthquake. The compromise for not rebuilding the freeway was

to plan for this new transit line.

The Central Subway project will extend the T-Third Street

line 1.7 miles through the South of Market neighborhood, with

stops at Moscone Center and Union Square, and end in

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

growing sections of The City with one of the densest

neighborhoods in the nation. The ridership projections for

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

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

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

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

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

It is true that the San Francisco Municipal Transportation

Agency is moving ahead with this project without full federal

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

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

these days of tight federal funding, when the present

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

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

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

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

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

invested in this project, we are confident that the subway

line is going to be fully financed. The Federal Transit

Administration is expected to provide the final $942 million

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

complete the tunnel bore.

The SFMTA does not exactly have a proactive reputation. But

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

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

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

crawling through the pipeline for years.

The Central Subway line will be a major asset to San

Francisco, and local and federal officials need to present a

united front to finalize the funding as soon as possible.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

I yield to my chairman.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I will be very brief.

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

So I will agree with what you're doing.

I move to strike the last word.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

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

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

This is a peculiar amendment, it seems to me.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, you have hit the gavel.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairwoman, I demand a recorded vote.

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 rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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 rise today to recognize the 250th anniversary of the town of Oakham, Massachusetts. Beginning in 1742, Scotch-Irish Presbyterians began to buy land in what was then called ``Rutland West Wing'' in the hopes of incorporating their own town under a Presbyterian form of government. After two failed attempts, Oakham was finally incorporated on June 7, 1762.

In early colonial times, the present town of Oakham was a virgin forest occupied by bands of Nipmuk Indians who made seasonal camps in the area for hunting, fishing, and agricultural purposes. During King Philip's War (1675 1676) a 150 square mile area known as Naquag, which includes the land presently known as Oakham, became a stronghold for Native Americans. The Native Americans were on the losing end of the conflict and many of them then left central Massachusetts looking for new homes. Those who remained were forced to live in four ``Indian Towns'' under close supervision by the colonists. This left the entire area of Naquag open for colonial expansion.

In 1686, five Nashaway Indians, who claimed ownership of Naquag, sold the territory to a group of land speculators from Lancaster, Massachusetts for ``25 pounds hard cash.'' By 1722, Scotch-Irish immigrants began to buy lots in the area and the town of Rutland was soon incorporated with a Congregational minister. Oakham's founding would be another 40 years in coming.

By the beginning of the Revolutionary War, Oakham's population had grown to nearly 600 people. The town was strongly pro-revolution so loyalists in town were forced to leave their property behind and flee to British strongholds in Boston and Canada. The town raised a company of Grenadier to prevent a British attack on Boston during the War of 1812 and also sent nearly 100 volunteers to serve during the Civil War. Nearly one fifth of these soldiers would not live to see Oakham again.

The sixth Massachusetts Turnpike was built between Pelham and Shrewsbury in 1799. This 43 miles toll road followed Old Turnpike Road in Oakham and remained in service until 1828, making travel to and from Oakham much easier and faster. In 1877, The Central Massachusetts Railroad opened providing quick transportation for both people and goods throughout the northeast. A depot in town helped Oakham grow and prosper, but by the early 20th century population began to decline as people began to leave farms and move to industrial centers.

Today, Oakham has settled into a quiet bedroom community. Recreation has become Oakham's economic focal point with two campgrounds and an 18-hole golf course. An abundance of state land in town provides open space that can be enjoyed by residents and visitors all year long.

From ice fishing, cross country skiing, and snowmobiling in the winters to hiking, biking, horseback riding, and hunting in the warmer months, Oakham is a relaxing retreat for many.

On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Oakham, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their dedication and perseverance throughout the town's history. It has been an honor to represent this great community and I wish the people of Oakham a healthy and prosperous future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, America's whole economy depends upon the efficient movement of people and goods. A modern, well-maintained transportation network is absolutely necessary for our economy to grow and the country to prosper, and its influence on the economy is staggering.

Our auto manufacturing industry and its enormous parts-supplier base, the national network of gas stations and its complex distribution system, and the oil industry itself 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 the labor pool.

Furthermore, every good product 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.

Unfortunately, the 60-day extension Republicans offer on the floor today keeps our transportation system bogged down in a state of uncertainty. It slows down ongoing projects by only providing partial funding; it jeopardizes a major part of this construction season in northern States by hindering and delaying their ability to determine how many projects can be funded; and it shuts down the planning and design pipeline for future projects because they don't know what resources will be available.

Consequently, this being the ninth extension since 2009, State transportation programs are being forced to move forward only with projects that meet the lowest common denominator.

Mr. Speaker, if the Republican goal is to slow economic growth and keep unemployment high into the fall, this 60-day extension will accomplish that spectacularly.

I can think of nothing that would be more effective at slowing economic growth and keeping unemployment high.

Mr. Speaker, there is a better option. Bring it to the floor and let us vote on the Senate's multiyear bipartisan bill that was passed by a vote of 74 22, with majority support from both parties.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life's work of Robert M. O'Neil, a lifelong resident of Pittsfield, Massachusetts who has served his community in many capacities, including service Pittsfield residents as a teacher at Taconic High School since 1996. He and his beloved wife, Betty O'Neil, raised one daughter, Angela, and enjoyed the company of 22 nephews and nieces.

Mr. O'Neil started a long career as a girls' basketball coach at the Catholic Youth Center, Pittsfield Boys and Girls Club and with AAU teams. He also refereed countless games since 1987 and was Assistant Girls Basketball Coach at Pittsfield High School from 1995 until 2005. At various times his Pittsfield teams won the City Championship, League Championship, Berkshire County Championship, Western Massachusetts Championship, and appeared in the Massachusetts State Championship Final. He then became Head Girls Basketball Coach at Taconic High School in 2005 and served in that capacity until 2011. During his career, he was named the recipient of the Berkshire County Sportsman of the Year and radio station WBEC's Girls Coach of the Year, and on two different occasions was named Girls Basketball Coach of the Year by his peers.

Robert M. O'Neil has unselfishly devoted his life to improving the lives of students and basketball players and their families. On February 21, 2012, his life will be celebrated, and he will be given a Certificate of Recognition and the Key to the City of Pittsfield in deep appreciation for his distinguished service, and that date will be known forever as Robert M. O'Neil Day in Pittsfield. Mr. Speaker, I join my friends, colleagues and neighbors in commemorating his life and wonderful accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the invaluable work that Amherst Ballet has done to advance the culture and education of communities in Massachusetts. Amherst Ballet was founded in 1971 by Therese Brady Donohue to give ballet lessons to 30 students in the old Amherst Junior High School building. In 1977 Donohue relocated her dance school to within walking distance of three Amherst public schools, appended two studios to it, gathered a board of directors and incorporated the Amherst Ballet Theatre Company as a non-profit corporation. In the ensuing years hundreds of children have been trained in ballet, modem and jazz dance and thousands of audience members have delighted in their performances. In 2000 the Theatre Company bought the dance school and became a non-profit entity known as Amherst Ballet. 2004 saw the retirement of Donohue and in the following year Amherst Ballet purchased the building in which it had been housed to firmly establish its permanent home. Catherine Fair joined Amherst Ballet's staff as a teacher in 1997, became its director upon Donohue's retirement and has steadily grown the annual enrollment to more than 200 students.

The Amherst area is rich in cultural institutions, artists and musicians and Amherst Ballet has enjoyed collaborations with a wide variety of them including performances with Layaali Arabic Music Ensemble, Springfield Symphony Orchestra, Pioneer Valley Symphony Orchestra, Smith College Orchestra, Da Camera Singers, Hampshire Choral Society Young People's Chorus as well as with local authors Jane Yolen and Heidi Stemple. Amherst Ballet has worked with composers Karen Tarlow, Ted Trobaugh and John Cooper, visual artist Rebecca Guay and media artist Carlos Fontes. Director Fair collaborated on the libretto for the original ballet Emily of Amherst with Jane Wald, historian and executive director of the Emily Dickinson Museum. Amherst Ballet participates in ballets created by Picture Book Theatre which performs at the Eric Carle Museum of Picture Book Art.

Amherst Ballet has been the recipient of Amherst Cultural Council grants for many years and in 2011 received the Massachusetts Cultural Council's Gold Star Award, one of only 6 in the commonwealth, in recognition of its success integrating arts into the community. Amherst Ballet has given special performances upon invitation including excerpts from The Nutcracker and Chopiniana with the Pioneer Valley Symphony, Peter and the Wolf with the Smith College Orchestra and Bob McGrath from Sesame Street, The Arctic at American International College in Springfield, The Firebird with the Springfield Symphony Orchestra, The Nutcracker with the Moscow Ballet and Emily of Amherst at the New York Botanical Garden.

Amherst Ballet has produced dancers who have joined professional companies including Pacific Northwest Ballet, New York City Ballet, Merce Cunningham, Omaha Ballet, Greater Houston Civic Ballet, Charleston Ballet Theatre, Hoechster Ballet (Germany), Ballet Contemporain de Bruxelles, Delia Stewart Jazz Company, Luis Fuente's Ballet Company (Spain), Rachel Lampert Company and Mixed Company (New York City). Amherst Ballet students who audition for residential and summer programs are routinely accepted to them including programs at Alvin Ailey, American Academy of Ballet, American Ballet Theatre Company, Boston Ballet, Joffrey Ballet School, Kaatsbaan International Dance Center, Kirov Academy, North Carolina School for the Arts, Nutmeg Conservatory, Richmond Ballet and Walnut Hill School.

On this day it is my honor to recognize their hard work and to present them to this body as an institution that truly serves and benefits our Union.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2767, a bill that would designate the United States Post Office at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, as the William T. Trant Post Office Building.

William Trant was an exemplary citizen, a soldier, a father, a public servant, and a pillar of his community.

Born and raised in Westfield, he enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1943, and participated in five of the great campaigns of World War II, including the invasion of Normandy. He was decorated with several military honors, including the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with five Bronze Stars, the Good Conduct Medal, and the Purple Heart with an oak leaf cluster for wounds sustained at Normandy and at Rhineland.

After being honorably discharged at the end of the war, Mr. Trant returned home and worked for the U.S. Post Office in Westfield, leaving briefly to pitch for a minor league baseball team affiliated with the New York Giants.

He served on Westfield's City Council for nearly 20 years, served as acting mayor in 1962 following the death of Westfield's incumbent mayor. Through his service, he became friends with many Massachusetts political figures from both parties, including President John Kennedy, Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressman Silvio Conte, and House Speaker Tip O'Neill.

In 1967, Mr. Trant was appointed postmaster at the Westfield Post Office, a title which he proudly held while serving for many years.

Mr. Trant was actively involved in sports programs for the young people of Westfield, including the Westfield Little League, Westfield Babe Ruth and Westfield American Legion Baseball.

He and his wife, Mary, were devoted parents to nine children.

He passed away in 2002, having lived a life that is an example and an inspiration for all who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 2767 and ask my colleagues to join me in honoring William Trant's service to his country and his community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the invaluable contributions that the Community Adolescent and Education, Care, Center, Inc. of Holyoke, Massachusetts makes to the community by improving the lives of teen mothers and their children.

Among the Care Center's core beliefs is that people living in poverty should be exposed to the same intellectual stimulus as those who are financially well off and that they will thrive if they receive it. The Center, therefore, works extremely hard to provide young mothers with high level programming in education, the arts and humanities, and athletics. These programs have been incredibly effective with up to 85 percent of graduates going on to college and many launching careers in social services, government and medicine.

On November 2, 2011, First Lady Michelle Obama presented the Care Center with the prestigious National Arts and Humanities Youth Program Award for its innovative humanities courses. I have been a proud supporter of the Center and its vital work, and I cannot think of a more deserving institution in my district.

Over 500 organizations from across the country were nominated for the award which, administered by the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, is considered to be the highest honor for such programs in the nation. The Care Center is one of 12 after-school and out-of-school programs to receive the award and it was, in particular, recognized for its exceptional humanities programming. This included the Clemente Course in the Humanities, a free college course focusing on moral philosophy, art history, literature, writing, and American history; Introduction to Humanities, a college course offered in partnership with Greenfield Community College; and Nautilus II, an annual anthology of poetry and art by Center teen mothers.

The Care Center is dedicated to helping young parents with low incomes obtain access to an excellent education. Center Executive Director Anne Teschner and her dedicated staff, through their revolutionary programming, have opened doors leading to successful futures for hundreds of teens and their children. I commend the Care Center on these efforts and am confident that this national recognition can be a catalyst that allows it to help hundreds more in years to come.

I thank the ranking member for yielding time.

I rise in support of this conference report. As ranking member on the Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, I first would like to thank Chairman Tom Latham for working openly with me throughout the process, and I congratulate him on bringing his first conference report to the floor. Also, I would like to thank staff--for the majority, the subcommittee clerk, Dena Baron, and her excellent staff; and for the minority, Kate Hallahan, Joe Carlile, and Blair Anderson--all for their diligence and hard work in making this a better bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains elements with which I disagree. In particular, I wish CDBG funding was closer to last year's level, and I am disappointed that the bill does not provide funding for the High- Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Program. Both of these programs are in high demand and would contribute significant value to our communities if funded properly. However, this bill is a reasonable compromise that has improved significantly the Transportation-HUD portion that was marked up in subcommittee.

The agreement ensures that funding for our transportation infrastructure programs is kept stable, allowing the Federal Aviation Administration to continue modernization of our air traffic control system, providing the Federal Highway Administration with funds needed to maintain our highway network, and providing the Federal Transit Administration with sufficient funding to continue investments to expand our regional transit systems.

I am particularly pleased that the bill provides $1.4 billion for Amtrak and removes destructive language that would have halted service along 26 routes in 19 States. Annual ridership on those routes has increased, and a congressionally authorized process is already under way to reduce the operating costs of these services.

In addition, the bill provides $1.66 billion for the Highway Administration's Emergency Relief Program in order to eliminate the of repairs needed as a result of hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters, as well as $400 million for emergency CDBG funds. I believe we have a responsibility to provide assistance to States that have endured unanticipated natural disasters without conditioning that assistance on cuts to other programs.

Lastly, I am pleased that this bill reinstates HUD's Housing Counseling Program by providing $45 million. With foreclosure rates remaining high, the counseling services provided by this program continue to be vital for families who are struggling in the current economy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good product of a bipartisan process, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. This motion would instruct the conferees to provide adequate funding to the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief program in order to eliminate the backlog of repairs needed as a result of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters.

Since the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934, Congress has repeatedly recognized the need to provide assistance to States when unanticipated disasters occur without conditioning the support on cuts to other programs.

Currently, there is roughly $1.75 billion in emergency relief backlog covering disasters in 37 States. The 2012 year has been an unusually active one for natural disasters, and 33 States have experienced declared disasters totaling $1.4 billion since the beginning of this year alone.

This includes $50 million in repairs that are needed in my State, Massachusetts, due to tornadoes in the spring and damage from Hurricane Irene; $42 million needed by Iowa to repair damage from Missouri River spring floods; and $100 million in Ohio due to severe rainfalls in the early spring.

Mr. Speaker, as we have done 20 times since 1989 during both Republican and Democratic Congresses, we have a responsibility to our neighbors to provide them funding needed to address their emergency relief needs.

Mr. Speaker, the chart I have in my hand references those 20 acts of Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, today we face an unnecessary crisis. The debt limit has never before been held hostage by any political party, because it is in every American's best interest to protect the credit of the United States; but now ideologues in Congress have hijacked this issue, and have pushed our Nation to the brink of default in rejecting all offers of compromise.

Calls for massive spending cuts, and spending cuts alone, without raising any revenues whatsoever are irresponsible at least and deliberately destructive at worst. They would default on our debt, causing a global financial crisis, rather than see hedge fund managers, corporate jet owners or phenomenally profitable oil companies pay higher taxes. Their call for fiscal responsibility rings hollow, and the fiscal history of the last three decades shows that.

This chart shows the growth of America's national debt since 1980.

At the end of the Carter administration, the national debt was less than $1 trillion. Twelve years later, with President Reagan's 8 years and the first President Bush's 4 years, the national debt had grown by more than 300 percent--it had quadrupled--and we were mired in debt. The Reagan-Bush economic policies greatly increased the debt and led to soaring deficits and rising interest rates. It ended in a recession.

In 1993, President Clinton was under severe pressure from the very Republicans who had meekly followed the two Republican Presidents as they raised the national debt by over 300 percent. President Clinton championed a balanced austerity program with, roughly, equal spending cuts and revenue increases--the Clinton years. Republicans in both the House and Senate voted unanimously against that program, arguing it would cost jobs and cause a recession, but the exact opposite occurred. More than 20 million jobs were created under the Clinton administration, and each of the last three budgets of the Clinton Presidency produced a surplus. Those three budgets were the only budgets and surplus in the last 40 years, and Clinton's balanced program is considered highly successful by economists. President Clinton raised taxes on those who could afford it and reduced spending to shrink our deficit, and the economy grew by leaps and bounds.

The fiscal record of the second President Bush is a record of utter irresponsibility. It began with massive tax cuts, skewed sharply toward the wealthy, and with trillions of dollars spent on two long, unpopular wars--all of that paid for by borrowing. It ended in the Great Recession, caused by the collapse of an unregulated housing market which was fueled by Wall Street greed. President Bush turned President Clinton's surplus into more than 5 trillion additional dollars added to our national debt--all the way up to here--almost doubling the debt again.

President Obama was inaugurated during the worst month of job losses in the Great Recession and cannot be blamed for what happened before, but the recovery has stalled, and we're short 12 million jobs.

History has shown us what works and what doesn't. The Reagan-Bush economics led to hugely increased debt. The Clinton economics eliminated the deficit and accelerated economic growth, but it required some sacrifice by all Americans to fix the national problem.

Now Republicans want to slash social programs, gut Medicare and Social Security benefits, and further reduce taxes for the wealthiest few. The Republicans threaten default on our debt. The only plan they offer would add hundreds of thousands of people to the unemployment lines by eliminating jobs in the public sector. They would protect the wealthiest few at the expense of the entire country. They offer no plan to create jobs and no long-term solution. Yet America needs a long-term solution, and that must include spending reduction and revenue increase in balanced proportion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the invaluable service of Beverly Armstrong to the United States of America. Like many military spouses, Beverly has devoted her life to the United States Army as the wife of Retired Sergeant First Class John P. Armstrong and as a Department of the Army Civilian. After twenty-one years of loyal and dedicated service to the U.S. Army as a civilian employee, Beverly retired from Fort Devens, Massachusetts on June 30, 2011.

Beverly Armstrong was born in Fredericksburg, Virginia on October 11, 1947. Beverly met SFC Armstrong when he returned to Virginia in 1967 from his first tour of duty in Vietnam and they married two months later. Shortly after, SFC Armstrong was deployed to Fort Wainwright, Alaska and Fort Leonardwood, Missouri with Beverly by his side. SFC Armstrong was deployed to a second tour of duty in Vietnam two years later where he was wounded by gunfire. SFC Armstrong returned to active duty in Korea and Germany while Beverly remained in the United States. Their last active duty posting was at Fort Devens, Massachusetts where SFC Armstrong retired in 1986.

Beverly and SFC Armstrong both returned to the U.S. Army in 1989 as civilian employees. Beverly continued serving her country and its military as a Military Pay Clerk, Statistician at the U.S. Army Hospital, and a Procurement Clerk and Purchasing Agent, all at Fort Devens. Later, as a Contract Specialist within the Fort Devens Contracting Office, Beverly honored her country by processing contracts for soldiers involved in Operations Desert Storm, Desert Shield, and Enduring Freedom. During her tenure as a federal employee with the U.S. Army, Beverly served with pride and valor just as she has served her country throughout her life.

Beverly Armstrong contributed twenty-one years of civilian service in addition to over forty years as a military spouse. Beverly stood by SFC Armstrong through six deployments including three overseas and one in a combat zone. Military families sacrifice much in the support of our troops. It is only fitting that all Americans recognize their considerable service for our country. On the occasion of her retirement, I commend Beverly for an extensive and auspicious civilian career with the U.S. Army and express my sincere gratitude for her distinguished service to the United States of America.