John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, just last fall this House passed reauthorization legislation for HOPE VI and authorized for the first year of that $750 million. The work of HOPE VI simply is not done. That represents how much the demand is on the part of the membership of the House. Basically, what I would say here is that this work needs to continue. There is much need for affordable housing in this country. The HOPE VI program is not duplicated by anything else that I know of, and I would urge that the amendment be defeated.

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

Mr. OLVER. First of all, I want to say that this high-speed rail, the program for combined high-speed and intercity passenger rail, that is the most important transportation initiative since the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, the National Defense Highway System of 50 years ago, which took a generation, basically, to build. It's not going to happen quickly. It's going to take a period of time, there is no question, but it is the most important initiative. There is pent-up demand. There is a huge demand. The first preapplication period for this bill brought in $100 billion of applications for $8 billion that was in place there. If we do not add significantly to that, as this bill does do, by adding $4 billion to the $8 billion that is already there, then people will lose faith or wonder, Are we in this seriously? Are we going to do high-speed and intercity passenger rail, as had been proposed and put forward in the recovery bill earlier or aren't we intending to do that? I think we must keep this momentum going, for if we lose it, then that would be a very bad thing to have happen. There are applications for more than 40 States in the union totaling a hundred billion dollars. Some of those are going to be in construction later this year or early next year. The actual final applications are due for the smaller projects within a month. And within 2 months after that, they are supposed to be in awards. So they are expected to be providing jobs next year. So I think that that is a very appropriate way to keep our public momentum going toward passenger and intercity rail, high speed and intercity passenger rail. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. How much time is left now?

Mr. OLVER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. OLVER. I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. OLVER. As the gentleman understands, the $4 billion is available in this fiscal year for which we're appropriating only for high-speed rail. And I hope that it will remain there. I urge the defeat of the amendment so that we will keep the momentum up and keep the building, the development of high-speed rail moving forward as fast as possible.

Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the gentleman has found a very appropriate amendment. It takes a small amount of money from a very large program to put into a program that we have supported and I have supported strongly. I am perfectly willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed.

Mr. OLVER. In fact, I am willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OLVER. I'm happy to yield.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that has been offered prohibits the implementation of the New York airspace design which FAA has worked on now for about 10 years, and it would appear from the gentleman's language that it is on the basis of airport noise, not the overhead noise, but rather the ground noise. Well, with airplanes nowadays, each new sequence of airplanes is quieter than they were in the past, at all levels and more efficient at all levels, whether they're flying high or low or on the ground than had been previously the case. But that is only one point here. Many parts of this country have completed the redesign of the airspace in their regions over the last several years. And why is that important? Well, it is important because the national airspace is now carrying 750 million passengers per year and is expected to be increasing by 50 percent between now and 2025. Today, already, 40 percent of all flight delays in the national airspace system are part of the New York area flights, both incoming and outgoing, which then causes backups all over the country. We know we are approaching gridlock in our air traffic control system, which is based on a ground-based sight by radar system which is technologically a half century old. It is really old technology. We know we need to switch to a network satellite-based system for traffic control much more quickly than the present estimate of the year 2025. To do that, we must finish airspace redesign all over the Nation, but particularly because of the congestion, the extensive congestion in the New York area, particularly in the New York area. So the space design and modern satellite-based traffic control allows planes to fly closer together, higher up, on a direct path, save energy in the process, run quieter because they can stay higher longer and be on the ground less than previously was the case. The added capacity is absolutely necessary and will finally reduce delays in this most congested area by allowing the redesign benefits to accrue from environmental purposes, reducing emissions. Benefits are provided to the controllers because the new technology increases the flexibility in routing and helps balance their workload, and this amendment would delay the removal of congestion. It would prolong the use of outdated, inefficient technology. It would put noise reduction that is in the design process at bay, and it would delay the safe expansion of our air traffic travel capacity. We have to move on in this 21st century and develop the fully new technology. This amendment should be defeated. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) who is the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Tennessee is quite correct. I will claim that an across-the-board cut of the sort that has been proposed in this amendment is the worst possible way that one can do this sort of thing. In my opening remarks, I pointed out that this legislation has some $47 billion of appropriation for housing programs and that it's above the President's request in that area because we are trying to fill the gap for what has happened over the last 8 years of cuts in so many of the housing investment programs. And let me just give you an example of this. One of the points I made in the opening was that one of the things we were particularly trying to do in the very good housing parts of this legislation was to support vulnerable populations. And so in replacement of several years, 5 years in a row of cuts in elder housing and in disabled housing, in tenant- and project-based assistance in our PHA's major programs, we didn't always allow the cuts that the administration had applied and had requested, and we usually, in fact, didn't do that because people in here are concerned about what's going on in the matter of people's lives. However, the cuts were made. And I would like to just point out that if you go back to the year 2001 and use a 1 percent, a 1 percent per year inflationary factor to each of those housing program investments that we would make, that would bring you to a point $1.5 billion above where the present legislation proposes in this bill. So what I'm saying there is that an across-the-board cut of the sort that has been suggested by the gentlewoman from Tennessee simply cuts those places that we particularly wanted to put money into in order to fill the gap that has been growing over a period of years, and it's the wrong thing to do. It would hurt our elders. It would hurt our people who are in affordable housing in either the tenant- or the project-based systems. It would cut Hope VI. It would cut the program for housing for people with AIDS, the elder and disabled housing and CDBG. All of those were programs that were deliberately reduced year after year or recommendations made for a reduction, and, in fact, over time had been reduced substantially compared with the '01 appropriation. So this has particularly bad effects on those programs, particularly the housing programs that have been well-funded in the bill that we have before us. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. I would just reiterate that while I'm not in favor of cutting the bill that we have put forward, I think it is a good bill, that this is by far the worst way that you could possibly do that, and I would urge the defeat of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to it and I will not oppose it.

Mr. OLVER. I will yield.

Mr. OLVER. I yield back.

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

Mr. OLVER. Well, it sounds so simple, only 9\1/2\ months ago, but in fact, of course, the funding level that has been proposed here would take this bill back to the appropriated level for the fiscal year 2008. We're talking about the year 2010. We're talking about a year starting several months from now and going forward a year, and he's talking about 9\1/2\ months ago being the end of that fiscal year, the end of the 2008 fiscal year, and that was funding the year prior to that. So it is really taking a step backward 2 years in the funding level. As everybody knows, while we have had a bad economy, the inflation level has stayed relatively low--that's true--but this kind of a funding level, taking $20 billion out of this appropriation, then has the effect of cutting a huge number of programs by an average of 16 percent for the next fiscal year. It is an unsustainable number for the kinds of efforts that one needs to have in housing. As I've indicated, for housing, there is growth in this. I agree there is growth in this bill. On the transportation side, the major point of growth is in the high- speed rail program. The high-speed rail program is putting forward money that actually will extend out over a series of years. It doesn't all happen in the first year by any means at all. We all know that. It creates jobs over a period of time in the building of that infrastructure. In the case of housing, again, if one tries to cut the housing programs, it will be particularly bad for vulnerable populations, and we should not do that. I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. There is no direction in the amendment, itself. It merely says cut the total expenditure by $20 billion, which is one-sixth of the sum total of the legislation. All I can do is say, if one were to do that by one-sixth of the appropriation for affordable housing, for our tenant- and project-based systems, we would be putting out 400,000 families. Yes, it's bad, but it's those low-income families who are probably in the worst shape and in the most needy shape of all. I'm not sure that we want to do that. I certainly don't want to see that happen, and I hope the majority will not want to see that happen. Let me just close by urging a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It is a slash-and-burn kind of an amendment.

Mr. OLVER. I claim time in opposition.