John Olver

Mr. OLVER

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

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to accept this amendment on the part of Mr. Frank and Mr. Rangel.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

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

Mr. OLVER. They will be much less burdened if they have new facilities and new equipment, equipment that is modern and that can manage to handle that traffic in a much more efficient manner. I hope that the amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a colloquy to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield time to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

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

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

Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida, though I don't think I have much time.

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is going to withdraw this amendment. Is that the gentleman's intention?

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

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 claim the time in opposition.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, there are two problems with the motion to recommit, one major and one tricky. First, I will take the major one. I want to point out to the Members of the House that the adoption of the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California will derail the bill. The motion instructs the committee to report the bill back promptly rather than forthwith. Unlike a motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith, a motion with other than forthwith instructions proposes to take the bill from the floor without reaching the question of passage. Mr. Speaker, section 1002(b) of the House Manual states, ``Unlike the case of the motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith, the adoption of which occasions an immediate report to the floor, the adoption to a motion to recommit with instructions to report back other than forthwith sends the bill to committee whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately before the House.'' Mr. Speaker, a vote for this motion to recommit takes the bill off the floor. A vote against the motion will allow the bill to go forward to final passage. For that reason, I urge defeat of the motion to recommit. Secondly, the bill before us includes a rescission of $1.3 billion, which is exactly the same size that the President proposed for the 2008 budget and which is, in fact, lower than what was rescinded last year. HUD refuses to tell specifically where it will take the rescission from, but the President obviously believes that HUD can meet the rescission. The motion purports to disallow rescission from certain accounts, but HUD has traditionally not used those accounts, so the President must have believed that he could meet the rescission without rescinding funds from those three specific accounts. So again, this one is the tricky one, and I would say that given the trickiness of it, that we should defeat the motion to recommit and go on to passage of the bill. For both reasons, I urge the Members to vote against recommittal of the bill. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. OLVER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. OLVER

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

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. No, there is none. There is none. But the offset that the gentleman has used is salaries and expenses, salaries and expenses is an account which, in the tightness of this budget, in trying to do for section 8 and CDBG and the other places, we have already cut a bit, not a great deal, but a bit, and I oppose, as I said before, in good conscience, the movement of salaries and expense moneys into this where we know that it is not going to be spent with any alacrity and any expedition.