Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to yield time to Mr. Eliot Engel from New York.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me thank both Chairman Olver and Mr. Latham, the ranking member, for a good bill. We are just trying to perfect it. And let me just say to Mr. Costello, and I thank him for his leadership on these issues, I got the $53 billion through the appropriations process. And you would think that they could at least recognize the high incidence of aircraft noise over New York and New Jersey. This is a wake-up call to the FAA. We are not the only States where redesign is about to happen. I do think people on the ground have a right to let the FAA know, as they proceed with their redesign plans, that aircraft noise does affect the quality of life for Americans all around the Nation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I rise today to offer an amendment, along with my colleagues Leonard Lance and Rush Holt of New Jersey and Eliot Engel of New York, that would force the FAA to halt the implementation of its redesign of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace unless they immediately address the issue of aircraft noise over our area. While the safety of passengers, their travel time, and the needs of the airline industry's survival is paramount, so is the right of the people on the ground, not all of whom are air travelers themselves, who have a right to a quality of life with a minimum exposure to aircraft noise overhead. The FAA has never adequately addressed the issue of aircraft noise, despite repeated congressional requests and statutory requirements to do so, not only for our part of the country, but across the Nation, as we have heard from various colloquies today. There were 13 lawsuits seeking to block this redesign because of noise and other environmental concerns. Members of Congress have proposed several studies that have sought to find other solutions to improve the airspace. So, clearly, there is support for putting this redesign on hold.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for H.R. 1675, the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Act. I commend Representatives Christopher Murphy (CT) and Judy Biggert (IL) for introducing this bill and I also thank my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee for passing this bill and bringing it to the floor this week. Mr. Speaker, as you know, this legislation makes several important changes to the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program. This bill is strongly supported by a wide array of disability advocacy groups, in particular the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), a group of 100 national disability organizations which includes The Arc of the United States, United Cerebral Palsy, the National Disability Rights Network, the American Network of Community Options and Resources, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Easter Seals, United Spinal Association, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Brain Injury Association. John Chafee--the late Senator from Rhode Island and a true champion for disabled Americans--always made it clear that ``your abilities, not your disabilities, will determine your future.'' As a recipient of the John Chafee Leadership in Public Policy Award in 2002, I am always mindful of his vision. I have long advocated for public housing programs, particularly for those that would benefit those with disabilities. Disabled Americans, like all Americans, deserve equal access to fundamental resources such as housing. In particular, I worked to ensure that vouchers were not lost when disabled people moved. An estimated 50,000 non-elderly, disabled vouchers were funded by Congress between FY 1997 and FY 2001. Funding for these vouchers is estimated at $250-$275 million annually. Approximately 400 Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) administer these vouchers. These incremental vouchers for non-elderly, disabled individuals and families were intended to replace housing for non-elderly people with disabilities lost as a result of the ``elderly only'' designation of public and assisted housing since 1993. The CCD Housing Task Force estimated that the loss due to this designation has approached 500,000 units since 1992, including 100,000 public housing units and 400,000 assisted housing units. To correct HUD's misinterpretation of Congressional intent, the House of Representatives has gone on the record on numerous occasions since 2000. Congress has clarified the policy that ``turnover'' vouchers should continue to be provided to certain people with disabilities as provided by Congress. Language was included both in advisory reports for appropriations bills, and following continued inaction by HUD, actual bill language that was included in Conference reports signed by the President. It was not until February 2005 that HUD issued guidance to PHAs detailing their ongoing obligation to ensure that these vouchers remain targeted upon turnover to the disabled population Congress intended. Therefore, we've been fortunate to finally make ``real'' progress for disabled Americans. Through efforts in Congress, including my work on the House Appropriations Committee, each of the Fiscal Year 2008 and 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bills included $30 million for new incremental vouchers to be specifically targeted towards disabled and homeless veteran populations. This will insure that existing vouchers for those populations are not rolled over into ``mainstream'' voucher programs that primarily benefit older Americans. This legislation greatly reforms the Section 811 program, including new programs to remove outdated regulatory barriers and better track the status of vouchers that are currently in use. By doing so, this bill greatly expands on recent progress that the Congress has made with regard to our nation's housing programs. Again, Mr. Speaker, similar legislation was unanimously passed by the House under Suspension of the Rules in September 2008 and I am happy to see that the current Congress has made it a priority to see this legislation become law.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as a part of H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. Title I: Department of Transportation Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Priorities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Somerset County Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 3000, Somerset, New Jersey 08876-1262. Funding Level: $1,250,000 Description of Request: This project, authorized under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, would relieve current and projected traffic congestion, improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and integrate access to mass transit in one of the fastest growing regions in New Jersey. This area is currently the site of extremely dangerous accident ``hot spots,'' and this funding will greatly improve roadway and pedestrian safety. Further, it has been estimated by the county that drivers are subjected to over 100 hours of transit delays per year in Somerset County. Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: Federal Transit Administration, Buses and Bus facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: New Jersey Transit Address of Requesting Entity: One Penn Plaza, Newark, New Jersey 07105. Funding Level: $2,350,000 Description of Request: It is my understanding the funding would be used for intermodal improvements throughout Northern New Jersey. Ridership on public transportation is at all time highs and it is critical to ensure that our public transportation system operates smoothly and can handle this increased demand. Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Employment Horizons, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 10 Ridgedale Avenue, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey 07927. Funding Level: $400,000 Description of Request: It is my understanding that the funding will be used to renovate and refurbish the Employment Horizons facility to enhance self-sufficiency and increase productivity for the disabled population that has occupied the building for the past 38 years.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, as the House leadership prepares to rush to judgment on legislation that will lead to a government takeover of health care, 17 percent of our Nation's economy, it's instructive to look back a few weeks to the cap-and-trade energy debate. Just before the Fourth of July break, leadership set another deadline to pass what will amount to the largest tax hike in U.S. history. With unemployment soaring, policies that impose a national energy tax will only make things worse by increasing energy costs for all Americans, crippling small businesses, and putting more people out of their jobs. Frankly, the legislation we passed is a gift that keeps on giving to our economic rivals like China and India whose economies are already sucking away U.S. manufacturing jobs at an alarming rate. Needless to say, as we saw from Secretary Clinton's recent visit to India, these nations do not plan to impose restrictions on their emissions. Mr. Speaker, American families are struggling; there's no doubt about it. They're working to make ends meet and they are worrying about their jobs. We should not burden them with a new national energy tax, and we certainly should not allow a rushed government takeover of health care.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr Chair, I rise in support of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program. We, as Members of Congress, have one notion that binds us all together--every one of us understands that the key to the future of our great nation is the quality of the education we provide our children. We all know the story of many failing District of Columbia public schools: Low graduation rates. High drop out rates. Low math and reading scores, reflected in a city-wide adult literacy rate of 37%! And, we can all agree that the children in the District deserve a first class education! A few years back, I had the honor to Chair the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee. In that capacity, I worked to create a program to give a `hand-up' to children in DC--the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program. We built a `three-sector' approach, endorsed by former Mayor Anthony Williams and then councilman and current Mayor Adrian Fenty, and others: public schools, charter schools, and the latter, and the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides families with funds to send their children to private or parochial schools. Since 2005, some 3,000 students have been provided with Opportunity Scholarships (over 7,000 applied). Today, there is a long waiting list, but over 1,700 D.C. scholarship students are attending 49 non-public schools. The average annual income for these families is around $23,000. In April, the U.S. Department of Education released its own report-- finding that students in the scholarship program are performing at higher academic levels than their peers who are not in the program, and are better off by virtually every important measure in their chosen schools. So this is a good news story, right? Well, not any more. During the markup of this bill in Committee, I offered an amendment to make all DC children eligible for the Opportunity Scholarship Program. And an amendment to allow the younger brothers and sisters of Opportunity Scholars to be allowed to participate alongside their older siblings. Both were defeated. And likewise, I tried on behalf of Minority Leader Boehner and others before the Rules Committee, unsuccessfully, to make all children eligible. But the Rules Committee said ``no'' to the Boehner amendment and in doing so, slammed the `door of opportunity,' inexcusably, on thousands of low-income Washington families. Anticipating that there may well be a wellspring of indignation that Congress is again interfering with DC governance, may I ask where the District would be today if the Federal Government had not assumed most of the costs of the city's judicial system, and numerous city employee pension obligations--which we still pay. And, I never heard protests about intervention when I inserted funding in the D.C. Appropriations bill to rebuild many dilapidated and dangerous DC school playgrounds or money to protect the Anacostia riverfront. So why not continue to support a program that really is important: one that helps children!! by providing $14 million to give these children a better school and their parents a chance to fulfill their dreams? And may I add, the dollars that now rescue some children in failing District public schools do not come at the expense of the public system--the program offers parents a choice without hurting public schools. We need to heed the call of many city parents who want school choices for their children--a future as bright as ones in many of our states. While the theoretical debate on such scholarships may have some value in the political sphere, District children should not be the pawns in some ideological battle. Rather, we need to protect their future and keep the scholarship program alive and expand it. Finally, Mr Chair, as the Washington Post recently wrote, and I quote: ``Political ideology and partisan gamesmanship should not be allowed to blow apart the educational hopes of hundreds of DC children.'' I could not agree more!

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, though I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Washington State, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I also rise in opposition to the amendment. Certainly, I commend the gentlewoman for her hard and repeated attempts to cut the Federal budget. But I agree with the chairman that we have a good bill. It is well balanced. It has been done in a bipartisan way. I worry about indiscriminate cuts to a bill that affects the protection and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. That is important. We crafted some good things out of the energy portfolio which I think are worthy and defensible. This bill also includes funding that only begins to address a $1 billion-plus retirement pension shortfall through the individual accounts. That is something which I commend the chairman for his and staff leadership on. This across-the-board cut would take a $1.6 billion bite across each of these initiatives. And I think that would be pretty devastating. As a result, I rise with him to oppose this amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We support the gentleman from Louisiana's amendment and commend him. It's actually a perfecting amendment of what Mr. Kingston had in the full committee. So we commend you for your efforts and support it. Thank you for yielding.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my comments with Chairman Pastor. These are tight budget times, and I think we worked hard to provide the right balance for priorities on our Energy and Water bill. Many of us would have liked much more, shall we say, money spent on the safety and security of our nuclear weapons stockpile; but quite honestly, that was not to be. We all had to compromise, and this package is a fair, balanced one. A few comments about the LDRD, the Lab Directed R&D programs. These programs often allow our laboratories to skirt congressional priorities laid out in our legislation. Historically these funds have been used by labs to perform research and development on issues that at times are not at all germane to the Department of Energy. I have seen it firsthand. At the same time, these programs can be most innovative and give our researchers creative opportunities for work. So I don't oppose the amendment. But I want to make it clear that all members of the committee, I am sure, will be watching very carefully to ensure that these funds are used to support the mission of the department. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, though I am not in opposition to the amendment.