John Olver

Mr. OLVER

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. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the gentleman for that willingness to withdraw his amendment and for highlighting the issue that we have before us. We simply could not increase this amount this year because of the budget constraints. The budget proposal here is the same as the 2007 enacted budget and slightly above the budget request by the administration. And the offset, the offset is in a place where there really isn't money to take from the offset to do this. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to withdraw the amendment and will be happy to work with him to try to find money in conference.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 120, line 5, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the author of this amendment is undoubtedly trying to get at some egregious earmarks that are funded in this bill or in some other bill; however, in drafting a provision that is so broad in scope that what we have is an amendment that's careless. There are legitimate parking facilities that can be built using Federal funds, and I use an example, for instance, the parking facilities that we have with elder housing projects, built in various places around the country, but this amendment would kill that. Under current law Federal funds can be used to fund park-and-ride facilities and other activities aimed at encouraging carpooling and vanpooling. In fact, these activities are of such a high priority that they're eligible for 100 percent Federal funding and require no State or local match. Similarly, Federal funds are used to build safety rest areas along our interstates. This amendment would put an end to that. For these reasons and others, this amendment must be defeated.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, this is a vital public safety concern that we must address. I understand that the FAA has been working with the National Academy of Sciences and has factored in many of its recommendations from the Academy. The FAA is also working with Mitre algorithms, models and base assumptions. I, too, want to ensure that the skies remain safe, and I will work with the gentleman to ensure an adequate number of controllers exist in that area.

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. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. It will not be spent probably until the very end of the 2008 fiscal year, is when finally the RFPs will go out for possible granting.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if he would withdraw his amendment, and I would be happy to work with him, as I am sure the ranking member would as well, though I would lead him to comment, to work with him in conference to address this issue. Otherwise, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I believe the need, as he has indicated, for housing counseling is strong. But what his offset does in this instance is to take the funding for the Inspector General for HUD back to the level of the budget request for the year 2007, where we had increased in the supplemental budget the appropriation for the IG to $88.2 million, in the supplemental budget had been added to the IG to do its work, and have recommended in this bill a less than 2 percent increase. So that, compared with the 2007 appropriation for the IG, the amendment would represent a 5 or 6 percent decrease in the amount of funding available for the IG. We simply are not in a position to be able to increase this account because of the deep holes that the President handed to us in the HUD budget. We froze the account at the FY07 level, with the supplemental amount there, which is the best that we could do without harming other HUD programs. Now, taking the funding from the Inspector General to increase this account is counterproductive to the gentleman's amendment. Should we reduce the oversight in order to increase the housing counseling? They're both vital programs. We feel that we have struck the correct balance here for this pair of needs. I commend the gentleman's passion on the issue, and I would be happy to work with him in the future on the issue related to housing counseling. And I do recognize that we are likely to have some, in the secondary lending market, problems later this year, continuing problems, as we have been having, but I would urge the gentleman to withdraw the amendment at this time and we would try to work it out in conference.

Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to yield.

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. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. OLVER. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the adoption by voice vote of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. OLVER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. OLVER. I would just comment it should be possible to get out this kind of regulation earlier than October 1, 2009. We will see what we can do about that.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the funding provided in this bill comply with the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. Let me remind my colleagues that the Davis-Bacon law was enacted about 75 years ago by a Republican Congress and a Republican administration. The law sets minimum labor standards for workers employed in Federal contract construction and ensures that workers are paid at least the locally prevailing wage. There's no good reason for denying prevailing wage protection to workers involved in transportation. This is an issue of fairness for working men and women. Without Davis-Bacon, the transportation construction industry, which is responsible for building our highways and transit systems, might suffer from low-bid firms that aim to undercut local wages and perform construction on the cheap. Davis-Bacon encourages a higher quality of workmanship, and we should not do away with the law for transportation construction where we need the highest quality and the longest lasting workmanship. I urge a rejection of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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.