Floor Statements

I would like to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

I want to thank her for having the vision to organize today's activities and to say to me and to our other friend Lynn Woolsey: let us not let this moment pass without reminding this country that it was 10 years ago that we were involved in the invasion of Iraq. Let us talk about the consequences of that, and let us do everything that we can to continue to be a voice for peace.

I want to thank you, Barbara Lee, not only for today, but I am reminded of the courageous action that you took when you warned us, when there was legislation authorizing the use of military force, that we should have all been against it. However, you were the lone vote in the House of Representatives who voted against that authorization. So I thank you for your work, for your guidance, and for your leadership.

You are absolutely correct. In June of 2005, I became the chair and a founding member of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, along with you, Representative Barbara Lee, and, of course, our friend Representative Lynn Woolsey. As a matter of fact, we became known as ``The Triad.'' I want you to know that a combination of actions that we took helped to galvanize this Congress and to increase attention on this very issue. I will never forget the over 441 speeches that were made on the floor by our friend Congresswoman Woolsey. She is not here today because she has retired, but we will always remember the care and concern that she gave to this issue.

On March 19, 2003, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces were ordered into service in Iraq. In the following years, nearly 4,500 of those servicemembers did not return home to the United States, and tens of thousands would come back wounded, injured--their lives changed forever.

I voted against the war authorization in the first place, and in hindsight, I know there are many Members who also wish they had voted against it. It was in that spirit that the Out of Iraq Caucus was established: to bring to the House of Representatives an ongoing debate about the war in Iraq and to urge the return of U.S. servicemembers to their families as soon as possible. The Out of Iraq Caucus provided a real voice in Congress for the individuals and groups who supported these efforts.

We had a membership of nearly 80 Representatives from diverse constituencies. As a caucus, we kept in close communication with congressional leadership and with committee chairmen to drive Congress toward our objective of ending the war in Iraq. We also worked with other congressional caucuses and national organizations to hold hearings, press conferences, and town hall meetings to educate the American people and to pressure the Bush administration to conclude the war in Iraq.

At the time, our most important legislative goal was to end the Iraq war and bring our troops home to their families. Our work helped define the national debate on how this could be accomplished.

We again organized community rallies against a war, we marched in parades, we held press conferences, we worked with the mothers of many of our young men and women who were in the war, who were serving in the war, and we worked with many of the veterans organizations.

I, too, offered a series of legislation to buttress our opposition that our troops must be safely and speedily redeployed from Iraq and that we must work to restore peace in Iraq.

I introduced bills such as H.R. 3134, Responsible Security in Iraq Act; H.R. 5488, Iraqi Displacement Coordinator; H.R. 7215, Human Costs in Iraq Act; H. Res. 1326, Honor Iraq's Sovereignty; and, of course, H. Res. 1519, Press Freedom in Iraq.

On the 1-year anniversary of the founding of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I launched a campaign to inform the public about H.J. Res. 73. Ms. Lee, you will remember John Murtha, the former Member of this House who is now deceased who introduced H.J. Res.

73, now known as The Murtha Plan, which established a reasonable timetable for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We all worked with him on that legislation, and we honor him even today for his wisdom and his foresight.

I want to do just one thing before I have to leave, and that is read a letter to President Bush that we all sent funding only for redeployment of troops, if you recall. By the following year in 2007, we as a caucus delivered a letter to President Bush signed by 92 Members of Congress, which stated our intent to only support war funding for the safe and orderly redeployment of our U.S. troops from Iraq.

In the letter, we cited the tremendous human and financial costs of the President's failed Iraq policy. And because of you, Barbara Lee, I'd like to share this letter because you were in the leadership of this. It said:

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to inform you that we

will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S.

military operations in Iraq during fiscal year 2008 and

beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our

troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq.

More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of

thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the

hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from

their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into

a sectarian civil war; and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than

$500 billion, despite assurances that you, your key advisers

gave our Nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March

2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and

would be paid from Iraq oil revenues.

Remember that?

We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American

people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military

operations in Iraq, and we believe it is unwise and

unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose the

staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently

and for generations to come.

Sincerely.

And it was signed by all 93 Members at that time.

Our efforts gained momentum; and by late 2008, President Bush signed the Status of Forces agreement, which mandated that the U.S. shall completely withdraw from Iraq no later than December 31, 2011, and all U.S. combat forces shall withdraw from Iraq cities before June 3, 2009.

As a caucus, we continue to hold hearings and briefings, as well as speaking on this very floor until President Obama, who initially opposed the war, approved an 18-month redeployment plan that would begin in September of 2009 and end in December of 2011.

Ms. Lee, I'm sorry that I'm going to have to leave the floor because I have a meeting scheduled with the members of our caucus of the Financial Services Committee. But I'd like to say before I leave, again, thank you for your leadership; thank you for your wisdom; thank you for having always been identified as a woman of peace, a woman who understood and believed and worked for peace and who has always believed that whatever our differences are in the world, that we must find ways to have the kind of diplomacy that can resolve these differences.

Some people think that this is not possible, but I know that those of us who believe this will continue to fight and to work for peace on Earth and goodwill toward all men and women.

I rise today in support of H.R. 360.

The bill posthumously honors the lives of Addie Mae Collins, Denise

McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley who were tragically lost 50 years ago in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. The horror of this senseless act of violence stunned the Nation and served as a catalyst for the civil rights movement.

I would like to thank my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, especially Congresswoman Terri Sewell and Chairman Emeritus Spencer Bachus, for their work to ensure that these girls receive our highest civilian honor as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of their deaths.

The Sixteenth Street Baptist Church was not an accidental bombing target for the perpetrators. Rather, members of the Ku Klux Klan deliberately targeted the church, designing their attack to strike fear into the hearts of those seeking equal rights. The church was a known sanctuary for civil rights leaders, including Dr. Martin Luther King, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Congress on Racial Equality which had become involved in a campaign to register African Americans to vote in Alabama.

On that fateful morning of September 13, 1963, roughly 1 month after the March on Washington, the girls went to Sunday school to hear a sermon entitled ``The Love that Forgives'' when the bomb exploded, killing them and injuring many others. The bombers had hidden under a set of cinder block steps on the side of the church, tunneled under the basement, and placed a bundle of dynamite under what turned out to be the girls restroom.

The cruelty and violence of this act shocked the Nation and drew international attention to the violent struggle for civil rights, inspiring a wave of legislative action in Congress. By 1964, Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act, a landmark achievement in the fight to outlaw discrimination. By 1965, Congress had passed the Voting Rights Act, which aimed to eliminate voting restrictions that unjustly disenfranchised qualified voters.

I thank you, Ms. Sewell, for your leadership on this issue and helping this Nation to remember what took place on that day.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am so very, very proud to be here in support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget. This is a budget with a centerpiece: Job creation. This is a budget that is balanced. This is a budget that is in opposition to the Ryan budget that would slash and burn and cut and deny our senior citizens, deny our children, do away with Head Start and many programs that the American people deserve to have.

I am a member of the Financial Services Committee, now serving as a ranking member. I created the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is a program that goes into communities that have been devastated by foreclosures based on the subprime meltdown that we had in this country, where so many people were tricked into signing onto loans and mortgages they could not afford. Thus, they went into foreclosure. These communities have been devastated with boarded-up homes, with stray animals on the property, with police and fire having to spend more money in these cities to try and upkeep them. The Ryan budget would do away with the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.

The home values must be maintained in these communities. Some people are trying to keep up their homes, but with these boarded-up properties, the value of the homes go down. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is a project that would revitalize the properties and put them back on the market as affordable homes. Instead of doing away with this program that helps to keep the value of our American citizens' homes, we protect it. The Ryan budget would do away with it.

Thank the CBC for understanding how to protect our neighborhoods, how to protect our consumers and our citizens, and how to make our neighborhoods safe, despite the fact that we almost went into a depression based on the financial services meltdown.

I want to thank Mr. Ellison and Mr. Grijalva for their leadership with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

I rise in support of the Back to Work budget. Let me just say it again--back to work. This is what this budget is all about, ladies and gentlemen--investment in our infrastructure. We have bridges that are falling apart, streets that need repair, water systems that need upgrading. We can create jobs. The Republicans and the Ryan budget talk about jobs. They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.

I tried to get an amendment on the TIGER program, which would increase the funding for jobs in transportation that we need so badly. They rejected that. They rejected that because they're focused on making sure that they give tax cuts to the richest people in this country, making sure that they keep those tax loopholes for the privileged--not investing in America's future and in America's growth.

The people are expecting us to make them their priority, to make sure that we are investing in opportunities for them, their families, their children, and their neighborhoods. No, the Ryan budget pays no attention to any of that. These privileged people on the other side of the aisle, who don't have to worry about jobs and who don't have to worry about any of that, deny the people the right to just participate.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Van Hollen for yielding me this time.

Today I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget, a budget that makes absurd claims to reducing the deficit by repealing crucial government authority to protect our economy. Lest we forget, the Lehman Brothers disorderly bankruptcy sparked the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Should a megabank fail in the future, the Dodd-Frank Act specifically authorizes regulators to dissolve the failing firm, fire its executives, wipe out shareholders, and deny the claims of creditors. The gentleman from Wisconsin calls this a bailout--erroneously-- concluding that the Dodd-Frank Act enshrines ``too big to fail'' when, in fact, it provides all of the necessary tools to end it. If Dodd- Frank actually did what the Republicans say, why does no large firm want to be designated as ``systematically significant''?

The Republican proposal also deceptively suggests that a repeal of the liquidation authority generates real savings to the American taxpayer. The Dodd-Frank legislation designed this authority to pay for itself over time, with any initial up-front costs being completely recouped by selling assets and imposing an assessment, after the resolution, on financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. The law specifically states that taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under the liquidation title.

Once again, the Republican budget is misleading and dishonest. The National Journal has called the Republican proposal a ``budget gimmick,'' and even The Wall Street Journal dismissed it as mere ``budget quirks.''

If the authority to wind down a megafirm is repealed, the American taxpayer would be called on again to bear the risk of another financial crisis like in 2008, which the GAO found cost the U.S. economy $13 trillion.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this Republican budget.

Thank you very much, Congressman Meeks.

I am so proud of the Members of this Congress from both sides of the aisle who have been real advocates--who have been on television, who have been fighting. Members on the opposite side of the aisle have criticized their own leadership for the delay.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am from California. I have witnessed earthquake disaster. I have been involved in trying to help with Katrina and in making sure that the people who were the victims of Katrina were compensated, were taken care of. This is unconscionable that this has had to take so long. I watched Congressman Meeks up in Rockaway. I watched the people who cried. I watched the people who begged for help, who begged for assistance.

This is so late in coming, so I support this bill today. I am one of the coauthors of the flood insurance reauthorization bill, along with Mrs. Biggert, who reauthorized flood insurance for another 5 years. Let's put the money in it. Let's do what is right. Let's take care of this disaster.

Thank you very much.

While it is clear that the Republican majority's H.R. 6684 is an attempt to generate votes for Speaker Boehner's Plan B, when it comes to protecting the American middle class from another taxpayer bailout, H.R. 6684 gets a failing grade:

First, the plan repeals our financial regulators' existing authority, which was created in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, to end the era of too-big-to-fail institutions;

H.R. 6684 would also tie the hands of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency we formed under Dodd-

Frank to make sure financial institutions play by the rules when it comes to mortgage and student loans, credit cards, and payday lenders. H.R. 6684 would eliminate that independent funding and, instead, tie their hands by making the Bureau basically have to go through the appropriations process;

The plan likewise eliminates the Office of Financial Research, an Agency tasked with collecting information on the health of our financial markets and conducting research on financial stability issues;

Finally, H.R. 6684 would just kill the Home Affordable Modification Program. We need to improve our ability to do loan modifications, not kill it.

It is unfortunate that, at the end of another session of Congress, the Republicans are again playing with the U.S. economy when they should be working in a bipartisan manner with the House Democrats in order to avert the fiscal cliff.

Ladies and gentlemen, I know that many of you didn't know that all of this was in this bill; but we have this plan, this orderly way, of dissolving these financial institutions when they put our economy at risk. So vote ``no'' on this particular bill.

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

I thank Chairman Lamar Smith for his support for H.R. 2800, the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization Act. This bill reauthorizes a small, but effective, program that assists local law enforcement and protects vulnerable people with Alzheimer's disease. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me and move this bill forward.

Alzheimer's disease currently affects an estimated 5.3 million Americans, and that number will multiply in the coming decades as our population grows. The Alzheimer's Association estimates that 7.7 million Americans will have Alzheimer's by the year 2030, and 11 to 16 million Americans will have the disease by the year 2050.

One great risk for Alzheimer's patients is wandering away from home. According to the Alzheimer's Association, more than 60 percent of Alzheimer's patients are likely to wander. Wanderers are vulnerable to dehydration, weather conditions, traffic hazards, and individuals who prey on vulnerable seniors. Up to 50 percent of Alzheimer's patients who wander will become seriously injured or die if they

are not found within 24 hours of their departure from home. Wanderers often cannot remember who they are or where they live and cannot assist law enforcement officials and other first responders who try to help them.

The Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program is a Department of Justice program that provides competitive grants to nonprofit organizations to assist in paying for the cost of planning, designing, establishing, and operating programs to protect and locate missing patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. These grants help local communities and public safety agencies quickly identify persons with Alzheimer's disease who wander or who are missing and reunite them with their families.

The program was originally authorized in 1996, but has been operating under an expired authorization since 1998. H.R. 2800 reauthorizes the program and authorizations $1 million per year in appropriations for fiscal years 2013 through 2017. This authorization level will allow the program to operate at the funding year 2012 funding level for the next 5 years.

This program is extremely cost effective. An annual appropriation of simply $1 million would easily result in millions more in savings for the Federal Government by allowing more Alzheimer's patients to remain at home with their families, thereby reducing nursing-home utilization and saving Medicare and Medicaid expenses.

H.R. 2800 is cosponsored by 18 Members of Congress, including Congressman Chris Smith and Congressman Ed Markey, the cochairs of the Bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. The bill is also supported by both the Alzheimer's Association and the Alzheimer's Foundation of America.

This program saves law enforcement officials valuable time and allows them to focus on other security concerns. It also reduces unintentional injuries and deaths among Alzheimer's patients, brings peace of mind to their families, and thus allows more patients to remain at home with people who love them.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the vote for H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, I voted ``yes'' for this legislation. This was not my intent. I intended to vote ``no.'' I strongly believe that the Federal Reserve should remain an independent central bank that is free from political influence; therefore, I would like the record to reflect that my vote in favor of this legislation was in error, and that I would have voted against it.

I have an amendment at the desk that is made in order under the rule.

Madam Chair, my amendment authorizes such appropriations as may be necessary to allow our financial regulators to carry out the activities required under title VI and VII of this legislation. The purpose of the amendment is that if we're having our regulators undertake new and perhaps even duplicative economic analysis functions, we should provide them with the resources to do so.

Madam Chairman, we know that the majority has tried to shortchange our Federal regulators in terms of appropriations, particularly when we contrast their funding with the new responsibility entrusted to them after the financial crisis. Let's consider the SEC, one of the cops on the beat for Wall Street.

This agency is tasked with enforcing our securities laws. They protect investors and make sure firms are held to account when they create toxic financial instruments. The fiscal year 2013 Republican budget proposal calls for funding the SEC at almost $200 million less than what the President has requested and what the Senate Appropriations Committee has provided in their funding bill. This is just another part of an onslaught of cuts to the SEC's budget that Republicans have proposed and that we've been fighting against over the last few years.

The SEC's funding has been erratic. After significant increases in the early half of the decade, the agency was forced to reduce staff. During this period of inconsistent funding, trading volume more than doubled. Since 2003, the number of investment advisers has grown by roughly 50 percent and funds that they manage have increased nearly 55 percent. The SEC's 3,800 employees currently oversee approximately 35,000 entities, including thousands of investment advisers, mutual funds, broker/dealers, and public companies.

With all this responsibility, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to spread the commission even thinner with new duplicative cost-benefit requirements that open the agency up to constant litigation, and they want to do this while at the same time refusing to devote additional resources to the agency. The result is that the SEC would be forced to divert resources away from other key functions of the commission, including, perhaps, prosecuting wrongdoers who violate our security laws.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, my amendment also addresses title VII of the bill, which relates to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC is the cop on the beat that

we tasked to regulate much of the derivatives market under the Wall Street Reform Act. And the CFTC is the agency that cracked down on Barclays when they manipulated a key interest rate benchmark, the Libor, in order to benefit their derivatives trade.

This bill also imposes new cost-benefit requirements on the CFTC. While the requirements on this agency aren't as onerous as the ones imposed on the SEC, I think it is inappropriate to spread the CFTC any thinner when Republicans have proposed to cut the CFTC's funding by 12 percent relative to last year and 40 percent relative to what the Senate provided.

As CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said last month, the result of proposed House funding cuts ``is to effectively put the interests of Wall Street ahead of those of the American public by significantly underfunding the agency Congress tasked to oversee derivatives--the same complex financial instruments that helped contribute to the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression.''

Finally, I disagree with the claim that more cost-benefit analyses can solve every regulatory question we face. In fact, I think that these economic analyses often offer a false sense of precision and fail to capture things that aren't easily quantifiable, things like avoiding the next financial crisis and protecting overall market integrity.

I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which makes compliance with the new requirements under the underlying bill contingent on them receiving sufficient appropriations to carry out these functions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, this bill adds duplicative new rules. SEC is already held to account on cost-benefit analysis. Proxy access was overturned. The bill opened CFTC up to new industry lawsuits.

I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for the time.

I rise to oppose H.R. 6079, the Republicans 31st attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

This bill is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as the previous 30 votes to repeal health care reform. It is ridiculous because this bill is going nowhere. It will not be taken up by the Senate, and even if it were to pass the Senate, the President would veto it.

Every day people die from preventable and treatable diseases. Every day almost 50 people die of HIV/AIDS, more than 1,600 people die of heart disease and more than 5,000 people are newly diagnosed with diabetes. Yet the Republicans are trying for the 31st time to deny Americans access to preventable health services and treatment for these conditions.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 6 million young adults under the age of 26 now have health insurance through their parents' plan. Many of these young people just graduated from college. They are worried about finding jobs and paying off their student loans. Yet the Republicans are trying for the 31st time to take away their right to insurance coverage.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, up to 17 million children with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied coverage by their insurers. Yet Republicans are trying for the 31st time to return to the days when these children could not get health insurance.

The bill on the floor today is a political charade. It is not going anywhere, and it is wasting our time when we should be focusing on jobs and our economy.

I urge the Republicans to stop this charade, withdraw this bill, and move on to the pressing issues facing this country. As a matter of fact, Republicans are forever talking about saving the taxpayers' money.

You are wasting the taxpayers' money. Look at the energy costs, look at all the man-hours and the personnel time that's being spent on this floor. Look at all these young people who should be home with their families. Look at the costs that you are incurring with this charade.

Stop it. It is ridiculous. It is not going anywhere. Mr. Lungren said you had made a few attempts. No, let me remind you again: 31 attempts.

It is ridiculous, it is outrageous, it's a charade and you should stop it.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that we could work in a bipartisan fashion to not only extend our expiring transportation and student loan interest rate programs, but to also reform the Federal flood insurance program.

I'd like to thank Representative Judy Biggert for her leadership and commitment to reforming flood insurance. Representative Biggert and I both worked together to meet the needs of our respective caucuses, and the result is a bill that puts the flood insurance program on a solid footing.

The flood insurance program provides insurance for over 5 million Americans. However, due to massive losses from Hurricane Katrina and an inefficient mapping system, the flood insurance program has faced challenges in serving homeowners and taxpayers.

The Biggert-Waters bill will reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years and make critical improvements to the flood insurance program. The reforms in this bill will make flood insurance more affordable, give communities more input into flood maps, and strengthen the financial position of the flood insurance program.

With that, I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in opposition to this underlying bill, the Republican Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill for the coming fiscal year, commonly referred to as THUD. This bill drastically underfunds critical transportation, infrastructure, and housing programs.

First, on transportation, the American Society of Civil Engineers' 2009 report for America's infrastructure estimated that there is a $549.5 billion shortfall in investments in roads and bridges, and an additional $190.1 billion shortfall in investments in transit. Yet this bill provides no funds for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery program, better known as TIGER.

Now, TIGER would finance a wide variety of innovative highway, bridge, and transit projects in urban and rural communities across the country, provided there is sufficient funding. One such project is the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor in Los Angeles County, a light-rail project that will run through my district. TIGER grants could be used to finance stations along this corridor in the communities of Leimert Park and Westchester, thereby ensuring that these communities have access to light-rail.

Last week, I introduced H.R. 5976, the TIGER Grants for Job Creation Act, which would provide a supplemental emergency appropriation of $1 billion over the next 2 years for the TIGER program, and 48 of my colleagues have already cosponsored the bill.

Last night, I offered an amendment to fully fund TIGER at the requested level, without cutting funding for other programs. Representatives Betty McCollum, Barbara Lee, Emanuel Cleaver, Karen Bass, Laura Richardson, Bobby Rush, and Doris Matsui joined me in offering this amendment. The Republicans objected to this amendment to their appropriations bill because it was not in order under their rule. So this bill has no funding for this critical program to create jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.

Why did we have so much support on this legislation? Why do we have so many people who are signing on to basically beg for TIGER funding? It is because TIGER funding will create millions of jobs. It's because jobs are needed so desperately in this economy. It is because not only will we create millions of jobs, our infrastructure is in great disrepair. We have bridges that have been designated as unsafe. We have roads, we have water projects, we have all kinds of infrastructure needs that are unmet. This is the least that the American public could expect.

This transportation bill has been waited on in many communities across this country. People thought when we passed this bill that we truly were going to expand job opportunities, that we truly were going to repair the infrastructure, but we find that this bill does not do this.

But in addition to the disappointment that we are all experiencing because of the objection to repair of the infrastructure and job creation, we find that the same thing is happening in housing. We bemoan the fact that our veterans are homeless and they are on the streets, and that our shelters are all full, and that when we go into many of these communities--not only in our inner cities, but in our rural areas also--we find that people are not only sleeping on the streets, but under these bridges that are in great disrepair.

This legislation cuts money from the homeless program. This will cut $231 million in homeless assistance grants compared to the President's budget request. At this level, HUD would be unable to fund all renewals of existing grants, jeopardizing assistance to approximately 25,000 of our most vulnerable citizens.

This bill provides less than $2 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund, despite a $30 million backlog of needed repairs. This is a huge cut, even when compared to funding during the Bush administration. In fact, in fiscal year

2008, the capital account received $2.4 billion in funding. This underfunding means that we will continue to lose public housing units as they fall into disrepair and long-term capital needs are neglected.

The people who are serviced by this account are vulnerable, and so I would simply ask that this be given some real consideration and yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues Betty McCollum, Barbara Lee, Emanuel Cleaver, Karen Bass, Laura Richardson, Bobby Rush, and Doris Matsui all for cosponsoring this amendment. Our amendment will provide $500 million for the TIGER program, which creates jobs through investments in transportation infrastructure.

The economy is struggling to recover from the recession. The unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent nationally for 40 straight months and is even higher in minority communities and in many areas of the country. Meanwhile, the American Society of Civil Engineers' ``2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure'' estimated that there is a $549.5 billion shortfall in investments in roads and bridges and an additional $190.1 billion shortfall in investments in transit.

TIGER, formally known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, is a nationwide competitive grant program that creates jobs by funding investments in transportation infrastructure by States, local governments, and transit agencies. TIGER funds projects that will have a significant impact on our Nation's highway and transit infrastructure.

TIGER could finance a wide variety of innovative highway, bridge, and transit projects in urban and rural communities all across this country, provided there is sufficient funding. One such project is the Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor in Los Angeles County, a light-rail project that will run through my district. TIGER grants could be used to finance stations along this corridor in the communities of Leimert Park and Westchester, thereby ensuring that these communities have access to light rail.

According to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood:

These are innovative 21st-century projects that will change

the U.S. transportation landscape by strengthening the

economy and creating jobs, reducing gridlock and providing

safe, affordable, and environmentally sustainable

transportation choices.

TIGER received an appropriation of $500 million in fiscal year 2012, and the President requested $500 million for the program in funding year 2013. Unfortunately, THUD does not include any funding for TIGER. Our amendment would create jobs by funding TIGER at the requested level without cutting funding for other programs.

Last week, I introduced H.R. 5976, the TIGER Grants for Job Creation Act, which would provide a supplemental emergency appropriation of $1 billion over the next 2 years for the TIGER program; and 44 of my colleagues have already cosponsored this bill.

So I would ask my colleagues to take a look at what is happening in our economy. I think we can all agree this economy needs stimulating. And certainly I'm not talking about stimulating just for stimulating's sake. I'm talking about stimulating for job creation and for the repair of the infrastructure of this country.

We have too many bridges that have been rated unsafe. We saw what happened in Minnesota just a couple of

years ago when the bridge fell; and I want to tell you, when the bridges start to fall and the infrastructure simply disintegrates, we're all going to sit around and scratch our heads and say how sorry we are. We're going to go to our constituents and tell them, We will never let it happen again. We have the opportunity to get in the forefront of providing this stimulus to our economy and creating jobs.

Our constituents want to work. They want jobs. So I would urge my colleagues to support the TIGER amendment, invest in our crumbling infrastructure, and create good jobs in communities across the United States.

I would yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order.

In the limited time that we have to speak on these important issues, I have tried to point out the high unemployment in this country and how we can put Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and building transit facilities across our great country. I don't see any need to have to expand on this anymore. I think the point is perfectly clear that we need to fund this TIGER grant.

With the economy still struggling to recover from the recession and millions of Americans looking for work, we should not be arguing about offsets. TIGER has always been funded through the appropriations process. TIGER was first created----

A point of order has been raised because there is no offset. And I agree there is no offset. But I make the point that we have such a critical need for jobs and investment in our infrastructure and this economy that we should not stop this from going forward simply because of the offset. We can afford to fund investment in this country.

That's my opposition to the point of order.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 10: Page 4, after line 2, insert the

following:

national infrastructure investments

For capital investments in surface transportation

infrastructure, $500,000,000, to remain available through

September 30, 2014: Provided, That the Secretary of

Transportation shall distribute funds provided under this

heading as discretionary grants to be awarded to a State,

local government, transit agency, or a collaboration among

such entities on a competitive basis for projects that will

have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area,

or a region: Provided further, That projects eligible for

funding provided under this heading shall include, but not be

limited to, highway or bridge projects eligible under title

23, United States Code; public transportation projects

eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code;

passenger and freight rail transportation projects; and port

infrastructure investments: Provided further, That the

Secretary shall give priority to projects which demonstrate

transportation benefits for existing systems or improve

interconnectivity between modes: Provided further, That the

Secretary may use up to 35 percent of the funds made

available under this heading for the purpose of paying the

subsidy and administrative costs of projects eligible for

Federal credit assistance under chapter 6 of title 23, United

States Code, if the Secretary finds that such use of the

funds would advance the purposes of this paragraph: Provided

further, That in distributing funds provided under this

heading, the Secretary shall take such measures so as to

ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds, an

appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and

rural areas, and the investment in a variety of

transportation modes: Provided further, That a grant funded

under this heading shall be not less than $10,000,000 and not

greater than $200,000,000: Provided further, That not more

than 25 percent of the funds made available under this

heading may be awarded to projects in a single State:

Provided further, That the Federal share of the costs for

which an expenditure is made under this heading shall be, at

the option of the recipient, up to 80 percent: Provided

further, That not less than $120,000,000 of the funds

provided under this heading shall be for projects located in

rural areas: Provided further, That for projects located in

rural areas, the minimum grant size shall be $1,000,000 and

the Secretary may increase the Federal share of costs above

80 percent: Provided further, That projects conducted using

funds provided under this heading must comply with the

requirements of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,

United States Code: Provided further, That the Secretary

shall conduct a new competition to select the grants and

credit assistance awarded under this heading: Provided

further, That the Secretary may retain up to $20,000,000 of

the funds provided under this heading, and may transfer

portions of those funds to the Administrators of the Federal

Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration,

the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Maritime

Administration, to fund the award and oversight of grants and

credit assistance made under the National Infrastructure

Investments program: Provided further, That the Secretary

shall give priority to projects that require a contribution

of Federal funds in order to complete an overall financing

package.

Mr. Speaker, today I stand with my Democratic colleagues and victims of domestic violence across our Nation in strong opposition to H.R. 4970, the House Republican alternative to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization bill. This bill severely undermines vital protections available to victims of violence and places those victims in danger of continued abuse.

Since its enactment in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act, known as VAWA, has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence.

Each year across the Nation, thousands of women, children, and men who fall victim to domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking no longer

have to live in fear because of important victim protections under this law.

This Republican alternative bill threatens to dismantle this progress by deliberately placing domestic violence victims from LGBT, immigrant, tribal, and other marginalized communities in harm's way.