John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. OLVER. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. OLVER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to work with the gentlewoman from Illinois on grade separation issues which impact our transportation networks and communities across the country, all over the country. The problem you describe is exactly the type of project that should be addressed in the TIGER grant program, which works to address transportation issues of regional and national significance and particularly ones which are intermodal in nature.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for raising this issue, and I've come to realize and I appreciate how important this bridge is to you and your constituents. The committee, which looks at many critical infrastructure issues like this one across the country, stands ready to work with you on this project in the future.

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

Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OLVER. I understand that the distinguished minority leader has this amendment which will terminate the doctoral dissertation research program at HUD. Even though I believe strongly in the value of good research and what such good research can play in improving the effectiveness of government programs over time, I'm willing to accept the gentleman's amendment in the spirit of comity.

Mr. OLVER. The bill before us includes $40 million for HUD to provide technical assistance to nonprofit organizations, cities, States on how to use HUD funding efficiently and effectively. The amendment removes every penny, every penny, of this technical assistance funding from HUD. It is a meat axe amendment. Cutting funding for technical assistance does nothing but make the programs less effective, which I doubt is the gentleman's intent. In fact, technical assistance is the only way that communities can increase their capacity and improve program delivery to their vulnerable populations who need assistance. Technical assistance funding allows HUD to train communities' own staff on the issues that most affect their particular population. For example, technical assistance funds are used to enhance and inform responses to the foreclosure crisis when HUD provides funding for foreclosure counseling and renovating vacant homes. These funds are responsive to need. They address broader social and economic imperatives, such as the recent increase in the homeless population, which has been brought on by the longest and deepest recession since the Second World War. To deny communities technical assistance is to render the HUD programs less effective than they can and should be, and that, very simply, slows down the recovery. I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. OLVER. Because I recognize that while this amendment has been signed by eight or 10 Members, that there are a good many other Members who could have signed the amendment who have districts where anywhere from 20 to 30, and sometimes even higher, percentages of all the housing in those districts have either gone through foreclosure and actually foreclosed, or are in foreclosure processes, or in a third case--maybe it's a fourth case--are under water in the sense that the value of their home is less, by sometimes substantial amounts, than the remaining mortgage principle. I understand that this amendment is designed to draw attention to the national foreclosure crisis, which is still raging in too many communities, and which began more than 3 years ago--actually, probably the seeds were sown for the foreclosure crisis earlier in the decade, and some would say all the way back into the 1980s, much more than a decade ago. I agree that more needs to be done to help families who are struggling with foreclosure. I would hope that the Department of Treasury, which has been spearheading the administration's efforts thus far, would increase collaboration with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the FDIC and the newly-created Foreclosure Task Force, which the gentlewoman and the other Members who are signers are members of. I believe the Secretary of HUD is the right person to be helping us through this crisis. So I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman and the other members of the task force in order to ensure that the hardest hit areas of the country receiving funding through what are the remaining sources of potential funding: Number one, the third round of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that was funded within the financial services reform law signed just last week, and also the remainder of funds that are to be brought back from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which was first passed in 2008 in the HERA bill, which clearly gave out more money than they were able to effectively expend when that was given out later in 2008. In the end, this amendment cuts all travel, which would eliminate critical oversight and the monitoring of housing programs for low- income Americans. I know that is not the intent of the gentlewoman or of the other signers of the amendment. I am willing to accept the gentlewoman's amendment as offered at this time. Going forward, I will work with the gentlewoman and with the signers of the amendment to ensure that housing for low-income individuals is not jeopardized down the road. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time I have remaining?

Mr. OLVER. I yield my remaining 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. OLVER. I claim time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. OLVER. I appreciate the work the gentleman has done, and I accept the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. This amendment would cut $1.8 billion in areas that include important increases above the President's budget. And let me simply remind people that our budget, as brought forward, is $1.3 billion below the President's request. This amendment proposes to remove another $1.8 billion. It is the legislative branch's clearly stated constitutional responsibility to appropriate the proper allocation of resources. And that responsibility must not be ceded to the executive branch. This amendment would result in cuts to a number of programs that are critical to creating jobs, increasing transportation safety, and restoring support to programs serving vulnerable Americans across the country. It removes $400 million from the TIGER grant program, where for the $1.5 billion Recovery Act TIGER grant program, the requests coming from all of the 50 States were almost $57 billion, showing how much this kind of infrastructure was needed. This funding would have a positive impact on the economy, create thousands of jobs, and occur over a several-year period, thereby serving as a slow release remedy to keep the recovery going as it ought to do. The amendment also cuts $400 million from the high-speed rail program, which is designed to continue building a high-speed passenger rail network. This again would create jobs and help reinvigorate our manufacturing base. That again, for moneys for appropriations in the Recovery Act, received 259 applications totaling $56 billion for the $8 billion it was provided in the Recovery Act. And the additional moneys are needed to keep investments, not that we put investments in in these places and don't actually produce something, that those continue so that you can complete jobs that will allow more high-speed rail programs in this country, as others have already spoken of. The amendment would cut $178 million from the FTA's capital investment funds, the New Starts and Small Starts program, cut that back to the 2010 level. It would cut $24 million from FTA's safety activities, if those are authorized. And I need to point out that while the funds are only available to the FTA if the authorizing legislation is enacted, the need for additional transit safety oversight is immense. We have had several accidents on several of our major transit systems. And DOT needs the ability to hire safety personnel to provide oversight. The amendment would cut $456 million from the Public Housing Capital Fund. Again, that supports renovation and construction of public housing units, where there is a backlog of $25 billion in needs that have been identified in that program. It would cut $175 million from the HOME Investment Partnerships Program to restore funding to the 2010 level. The HOME is the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable for low-income households. It is a homeownership program for low-income households. We can't afford to cut these programs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. All of these are job-creating investments in our infrastructure and provide critical construction jobs in an industry that has been decimated. While they are not all fast release, they are long-term remedies, as I suggested, for the longest recession since World War II.

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

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

Mr. OLVER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Actually this is about the worst kind of amendment that you can have, because it provides no indication of priorities whatsoever. It just cuts everything in the whole government an equal percentage amount and gives no priority indication whatsoever. Let me tell you what this amendment ends up doing. In the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this amendment would mean a reduction of more than $3 billion for section 8 tenant based vouchers. Simply, that means that about 450,000 of this country's lowest income citizens would no longer be able to afford their monthly rent. In addition, the project based section 8 program would see about a $1.7 billion reduction in it, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Americans there unable to afford a roof over their head. Homelessness would be increased dramatically and more Americans would require assistance through HUD's homeless program. Unfortunately, the homeless program would itself be receiving a massive cut of nearly $400 million, making service at the current levels quite impossible, at the same time that we would be creating more homeless people. In the Department of Transportation, this amendment would eliminate more than $3 billion worth of funding from the Federal Aviation Administration. That would just about assure a part-time air traffic control system which would put us in severe safety jeopardy. Add to that the more than $2 billion which would be cut from the Federal Transit Administration, eliminating some of the best transportation options that are available to millions of Americans, and everyone here can begin to truly see the repercussions of this amendment. Fiscal prudence simply cannot mean turning hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes, eliminating almost a quarter of a million jobs, and creating real transportation safety concerns. This bill is wisely balanced to meet the needs of citizens within current fiscal constraints. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I am asking you a question if I may: Is this amendment--since I am supposed to address all comments through the Chair--is this amendment deliberately designed to prolong the great recession and send America back into a double dip recession or a great depression? Because that's what happened. In the Great Depression, we went into a double dip recession, or a depression, and ended up with that depression lasting at least twice as long as it otherwise would have. I reserve the balance of my time.