John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

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

Mr. OLVER. I just wanted to respond to the gentleman who had just spoken. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota has mentioned twice in the comments that he has made, at least twice in the comments, that, again, the idea that this budget that we are dealing with has somehow inherent in it the largest tax increase in American history, twice he has made that comment. Well, the budget that we are dealing with has no increase in taxes whatsoever related to it. I think the gentleman understands that. In fact, even the budget resolution that guides the budgeting this year for all of our bills, all of our discretionary budget legislation, that budget resolution does not have any tax increase in it either. I think the gentleman understands that as well. We are making messages here that are really not correct. They are simply not accurate. They are simply not true. I want to make a couple of points. I want to remind the gentleman and others from the other side who have spoken that since President Bush took office, the national debt has increased by over $3 trillion, $3 trillion, over 3, it's closer to $3.3 trillion. That's 3 with 12 zeros behind it. Some people have a difficult time understanding a three with six zeros behind it. That's $1 million. But $3 trillion, with 12 zeros behind it is $1 million, million dollars. That debt increase of $3 trillion that has occurred in the 6 years that President Bush has been in power in the Presidency, that ends up costing us, the American people, us as a Nation, $100 billion each and every year in additional deficit, which is what has happened, an additional deficit, every year $100 billion each year, which is some 200 times the amount of money that is being suggested ought to be cut from this one little budget that we are talking about that provides money for a whole series of very important initiatives that serve the American people. To close, I could go on substantially on the debt, but the $500 million that has been suggested that should be cut from this budget, this one simple budget that funds housing and transportation programs of the government, this one budget, if one compares the $500 million, that two pieces of the budget, the $500 million is essentially the same money that we had to put back in the budget because Amtrak would have shut down. $500 million is about the same amount of money as was put into that. It is about one half of the money that was put back in to make certain that not a single family, low-income family, people who are living with incomes of under 30 percent of the adjusted median income in their areas, one half of the amount of money that would allow all of those people who had vouchers and who are getting rental assistance, in that very low-income category, to maintain their vouchers for the next year. It is also a sum of money which is somewhat less than the amount that we had to put back into the budget to bring it up to these levels, to the 2007 enacted level at $700 million, or the Community Development Block Grant program, which provides money to virtually every community in the country, larger cities, by direct distribution from the Federal Government through Housing and Urban Development, but also to many smaller cities and communities, even quite small communities, through the money that's distributed to the States who then give it back to those communities in order to build affordable housing and build public facilities in their communities. It is very close to the amount of money that is included in this budget and provides for the construction of elder housing, housing for the disabled and housing for distressed public housing as well. So that is what is involved in $500 million at this point. I hope the amendment is defeated.

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I just want to say to the gentlewoman from North Carolina that the absolute platinum standard for fiscal irresponsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of her party and the Presidents of her party. The national debt for this country when President Carter left office in 1981 was less than $1 trillion. The national debt 12 years later, in the case of President Carter, that represents the debt that had been reached over 180 years of American history. Twelve years later, the national debt when the first President Bush left office was $4.3 trillion, more than four times as much, more than quadrupling the total national debt. That is the gold standard of fiscal irresponsibility. And then we had 8 years of President Clinton, and the national debt went up another $1.2 trillion, about a 25 percent increase in the national debt in the 8 years that he was President. But then, under the present President Bush and the Congress of his party in control during those years, the national debt has gone up $3.3 trillion more, a total of about two-thirds more, 67 or 68 percent more in debt. That is the platinum standard in debt increase and in fiscal irresponsibility.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue the colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia on an additional subject, and I continue to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is an amendment that reduces the overall funding in this legislation by $3.2 billion, which is the amount of the budget as passed for the 2007 fiscal year by way of the continuing resolution that was passed back in February. In this process we have had a large number of holes in the legislation that had been presented to us by the President for this year, and in his budget was $2.8 billion under the bill that we had presented here this evening. In the process there are several items which are very similar and some which are quite different in reaching where we are in this legislation. In particular, the section 8 funding under HUD, we felt that we had to increase the funding for section 8, both for the Tenant- Based Housing Assistance program and for the Project-Based Housing Assistance program, by a substantial sum of money. That is done specifically because there was a change in the CR of the authorizations there for funding vouchers, and in order to make certain that every person had their vouchers and no one was going to lose rental assistance, it was necessary then to add about $1 billion into tenant- based and project-based assistance in order to meet that and fill that need. That is one of the items. We had also to very substantially increase the programs in transportation in order to reach the guarantees necessary for meeting SAFETEA-LU, which, of course, the President doesn't really care about. So those items, which I think everybody in this Congress agrees with, have had to be increased and require that we not reduce the funding under the legislation to the level that has been suggested.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for a colloquy.

Mr. OLVER. In answer, I thank the Congressman from Georgia for bringing this issue to my attention, to our attention. I am sure that the Department will consider all valid points of view in this process, and I stand committed to making certain that the Department issues its final rule as you've suggested in an expeditious manner in the very near term.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the ranking member, it seems to me, makes some very good points. I know how concerned he is about the impact that this might have, that may be unintended consequences in relation to the northern border with a prohibition of this nature. I think we need to be concerned about unintended consequences in which worthwhile activities that we might want to support might be eliminated by it. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I am going to vote against this amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program is a small program, a small account that makes a big difference in the lives of Native Hawaiians who happen to reside on Hawaiian homeland. From 2002 through 2005, when the gentleman's party was in the majority, Congress funded in each of those years an average of $9.4 million for this program. We held it to $8.7 million in the 2007 budget, and have frozen it at the same level as the 2007 budget in the recommendation in this budget for the 2008 fiscal year. So this is not an increase. We are, in fact, holding it steady for a program that has been funded at higher levels earlier when the gentleman's party was in the majority and in substantial majority control of this process. With the funding in the bill, more than 100 Native Hawaiian families will be provided with the opportunity for home ownership, including counseling, construction, and rental assistance during that process. This is one of the HUD programs. We have programs for Native Alaskans, we have programs for American Indians and so forth that are helpful in providing the hope for home ownership on the part of some of our small minorities in our population. I think it is a goal that we should support, and I strongly support the program and urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

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

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

Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, this and the previous amendment go together. Together, if these two amendments pass, our air traffic control system will be set back years in the process from which they have been going forward in trying to modernize both the air traffic design and the TRACON facilities to be used. The FAA has spent more than $50 million on airspace redesign in the New York, Philadelphia, New Jersey, western Connecticut area already. They have posted hundreds of outreach meetings to understand the needs and concerns. In addition, the design has undergone independent analysis by the inspector general throughout the process, and the FAA has adopted each of the IG's recommendations. Now, what are the benefits, what are the purposes of the airspace redesign? Well, number one, we have got this huge expected increase in traffic that I have already spoken to twice. Secondly, the air traffic region that is being described here, and this amendment only affects that region, not the whole country, only that region, but that air traffic system, that airspace system, is the system where the greatest delays, the greatest delays, are happening as we speak. The redesign of the airspace would allow for a major reduction in delays, first of all. By so doing, there would be less noise. They would be able to fly at higher altitudes, and use a gradual glide pattern in rather than stepwise glide patterns in, and use the whole airspace so that the net reduction of people who are affected by noise, by the levels of noise, is very large. In addition to that, environmentally if you are not flying around for long periods of time in the airspace and under delay and in holding patterns and sitting on the tarmac with the engines going, then you are saving a lot of fuel. There will be much less fuel burned, therefore, much better air quality control in the process. All of these taken together, along with the fact that if you've got delays in that major area where so much traffic occurs, then there are backups with delays all over the country. So the air space design issue is a critical issue in totality for our modernization of our traffic control. So, I oppose the amendment, and I hope it will not be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. OLVER. I would like to thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to our attention. Sixty-four years is a long and, it seems, quite unreasonable time to wait for the government to resolve this issue. So I pledge to work with you both on this issue as we move forward in this process and conference this bill with the Senate.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to Mr. Crowley from New York also for a colloquy.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 94, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 3074 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 558, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; An amendment by Mr. Crowley regarding a study to determine staffing needs for air traffic controllers; An amendment by Mr. Al Green of Texas regarding funding for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program; An amendment by Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Velazquez, or Mr. Terry regarding funding for lead hazard reduction grants; An amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida regarding an annual study of FHA single-family housing mortgage insurance programs; An amendment by Mr. Gary Miller of California regarding the authorization for additional Moving to Work Demonstration agreements; An amendment by Mr. Blunt regarding Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards; An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendment for deficit reduction; An amendment by Mr. DeFazio, or Mr. Hunter, or Mrs. Boyda of Kansas prohibiting use of funds for certain cross-border motor carrier demonstration projects; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the National Mule and Packers Museum in Woodlake, California; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Los Angeles Fashion District in Los Angeles, California; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association Community Development Corporation in Maryland; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Hunting and Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Houston Zoo in Texas; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Washington; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Belmont Complex in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in Wausau, Wisconsin; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Arlington Chamber of Commerce in Texas; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Strand Theatre Performing Arts Center in Plattsburgh, New York; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Huntsville Museum of Art in Alabama; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Friends of Cheat Rails to Trails program; An amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts or Mr. Rangel regarding community service requirements; An amendment by Mr. Frelinghuysen limiting funds to implement a preferred alternative for the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia airspace redesign; An amendment by Mr. Gingrey limiting funds for certain economic development activities which obtain property through eminent domain; An amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida regarding TRACON consolidation; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding noise mitigation studies; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding technology for temporary disaster housing; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas prohibiting use of funds to undermine unions and other labor organizations representing workers on federally funded transportation projects; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas prohibiting use of funds to prohibit transportation workers from having necessary communication equipment; An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio reducing funds in the bill by 6.3 percent, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting funds to implement Davis- Bacon requirements; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting funds to employ workers described in section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting funds for the Alpine Heritage Preservation in West Virginia; An amendment by Mr. Gary Miller of California, Ms. Waters, or Mr. Al Green of Texas prohibiting use of funds to take certain actions on standards for mortgagor's investment in mortgaged properties; An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave reducing funds in the bill by 0.5 percent, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Pallone or Mr. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania regarding waste processing and transferring facilities; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia reducing funds in the bill by 1 percent, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Sessions limiting the use of funds for a certain AMTRAK route; An amendment by Mr. Shuler regarding use of funds designated for North Shore Road in Swain County, North Carolina; An amendment by Mr. Upton, Ms. Harman, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina or Mr. Lipinski regarding energy efficient light bulbs; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia limiting FHA funds for the creation of an affordable housing fund; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for parking facilities; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for the Edmunds Center for the Arts in Washington; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting funds for homeownership assistance for certain individuals; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting funds for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for the Blairstown Historic Preservation Commission in Blairstown, New Jersey; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for the City of Marshall, Texas; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for the City of Muncie, Indiana; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for the I-25 North of HS 66 project in Colorado; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for the State Route 374, from State Route 149 to 77, project in Montgomery County, Tennessee; An amendment by Mr. Walberg limiting funds to promulgate regulations based on race, ethnicity or sex; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for museums; An amendment by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania limiting funds for tolling on I-80 in Pennsylvania; An amendment by Mr. Hunter limiting funds for a U.S.-Mexico freeway; An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks; and An amendment or amendments by Mr. Olver regarding funding. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.