[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 31434-31439]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN 
       DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 817, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for 
the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 13, 2007, at page 31047.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 3074.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 3074. 
Before I explain the contents of the conference report, however, I 
would like to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan, Joe 
Knollenberg, for his great help in crafting a well-balanced 
Transportation and Housing bill. Joe and I have put together a strong 
bipartisan bill that will help address the Nation's important 
transportation and housing needs.
  I think Joe and I have been a good team and I look forward to working 
closely with him again next year. I would also like to thank the staff 
on both sides of the aisle for all of their hard work. On the minority 
side, Dena Baron and Dave Gibbons and Jeff Goff. And on the majority 
side, Kate Hallahan, our clerk; Cheryle Tucker; David Napoliello; Laura 
Hogshead; Alex Gillen; Mark Fedor and Bob Letteney. They performed well 
under stress and trying circumstances, and without their dedication we 
would not be here today debating this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, Members can and should be proud of this bill because it 
provides critical investments in our Nation's transportation and 
housing infrastructure, and does so within a fiscally sound manner and 
within our conference allocation.
  Unlike some other issues we debate in Congress, transportation and 
housing have a long history of bipartisanship, and I hope we can 
continue in that spirit of bipartisanship today.
  At their core, both transportation and housing have a direct impact 
on the people we represent. All of us are affected by congestion on our 
roads, travel delays in our airports, and the lack of dependable public 
transportation. We also all benefit from community development 
investments and the availability of affordable housing in our 
communities. This bill in so many ways affects each and every one of 
us.
  Let me briefly explain some of the highlights of the conference 
report.
  For the first time in 13 years, our bill includes $75 million for the 
Veterans Affairs Supported Housing program, commonly known as VASH, to 
provide roughly 10,000 housing vouchers and supportive services to 
homeless veterans.
  While we do not know the exact number of homeless veterans, the 
Veterans Administration has estimated that there were as many as 
196,000 during a point-in-time count just last year. Surely we can all 
agree that 10,000 homeless veterans are 10,000 too many homeless 
veterans. Even one homeless veteran is a homeless veteran too many.
  We have also included $30 million for about 4,000 new housing 
vouchers for the disabled, the first new housing vouchers for the 
disabled in 5 years. The need for housing for the disabled has been 
well documented, with average housing rents rising much faster than a 
disabled person's monthly supplemental security income, SSI.
  Secondly, the bill provides $250 million to help with the current 
foreclosure crisis. We have included $200 million over the President's 
request for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, a recognized 
national intermediary between lenders and homeowners, to help 
individuals and families forestall foreclosure and keep their homes. A 
separate $50 million is provided for HUD's housing counseling program 
to help new potential home buyers avoid future foreclosures.

[[Page 31435]]

  According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the second quarter of 
this year saw the highest percentage of mortgages go into foreclosure 
since 1972. Many of those foreclosures and delinquencies are due to the 
proliferation of subprime and other adjustable-rate loans. With 2 
million subprime mortgages expected to reset over the next 18 months, 
the number of homeowners facing delinquency is staggering in many parts 
of the country.
  The funds included in this bill for foreclosure counseling is the 
first major Federal investment into this growing crisis. The President 
has stated on a number of occasions that he wants to help solve this 
problem. If he is serious, he would sign this bill into law and help 
many tens of thousands of families receive the help they need to manage 
their finances and the refinancing of their mortgage so they can keep 
their homes.
  In addition, the bill also makes significant investment in our 
transportation infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge tragedy put a 
national spotlight in the State, on the state of America's 
transportation infrastructure, especially with the number of lives lost 
in that tragedy. More than 20,000 out of some 100,000-plus bridges on 
the national highway system are characterized as ``structurally 
deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete.'' Traffic on these bridges is 
over 190 million trips per day.
  The conference report includes an additional billion dollars over the 
President's request for the bridge program as a downpayment to help 
States fix their long list of substandard bridges; $195 million is 
specifically included for the I-35 bridge in Minnesota, which alone 
carried 140,000 passenger vehicles per day. And that sum will make 
Minnesota whole for the full replacement of that Interstate 35 bridge 
in Minneapolis.
  Those are the new initiatives, but there are numerous other positive 
transportation and housing investments in this bill. The bill honors 
the highway guarantees which were set in the authorization bill in 
2005, the SAFETEA-LU authorizing bill which was brought forward by the 
now minority just 2 years ago. That guarantee provides a record level 
of investment in transit as well. This funding will improve the 
Nation's transportation and infrastructure and is expected to create 
close to 80,000 new jobs between highways and transit.
  The bill also provides $1.375 billion for Amtrak, plus an additional 
$75 million for a new intercity passenger rail program to create a 
faster, safer, and more reliable intercity passenger rail system. That 
$75 million was requested by the President.
  We have included $3.5 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, 
the same as last year, for critical airport safety capacity and 
security upgrades.
  We have also provided almost $3.8 billion for Community Development 
Block Grants, the extremely popular CDBG program, which is $100 million 
above fiscal year 2007 but still $400 million below the fiscal year 
2001 level. It is estimated that every dollar of community block grant 
funding leverages $3 in private investment for critical community and 
economic development priorities in over a thousand localities around 
the country.
  The bill restores housing for the elderly and disabled to last year's 
level. And finally, we have provided enough funding to ensure that no 
one that has a section 8 tenant or project-based housing voucher will 
lose that voucher in this fiscal 2008 year.
  Mr. Speaker, transportation and housing is not a Republican, not a 
Democratic issue. A broad consensus exists affirming the great needs 
for transportation and infrastructure investment and affordable housing 
nationwide. As such, this budget should be above partisan politics and 
should be passed and signed into law. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to adopt the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Chairman Olver, has already detailed many 
of the aspects of the fiscal year 2008 conference report. I am pleased 
to say that I will support the conference report. The conference report 
has much to commend. I want to thank John Olver; John and Joe I guess 
is what it amounts to. But we have worked together very hard on this, 
along with the staffs on both sides, and I commend him for working with 
us to bring this product forward.
  We meet the majority of the transportation funding guarantee as 
mandated by SAFETEA-LU, plus included some wise legislative provisions 
such as raising the airline pilot mandatory retirement age to 65 and 
prohibiting towing on Federal roads in Texas.
  We didn't go overboard on funding Amtrak and kept the reforms we put 
in place 2 years ago in hopes of bringing the railroad into the modern 
age. One unfortunate point I would like to make is one of the Transit 
New Starts Project, a project for the Chicago area's commuter rail, 
Metra, the UP West Line, was inadvertently not included in the bill. It 
was funded in the House bill, and in the negotiations all sides 
supported conference funding, and I am very hopeful we can work a 
little magic to get that included.
  In housing, we provided more than $100 million for about 11,000 new 
incremental vouchers for 3 of our most vulnerable populations: 
Veterans, including those returning from Iraq who might face 
homelessness without rental assistance; nonelderly disabled 
individuals, the so-called Frelinghuysen vouchers; and vouchers to keep 
families together when facing homelessness rather than forcing the 
children into foster homes.
  Further, the bill insists that these vouchers retain their use and 
purpose upon turnover when the current individuals and families no 
longer need them.
  The vouchers for veterans are important and will certainly be 
welcomed throughout Michigan as well as the rest of the country. I want 
to note the intent here is not just for HUD to administer these 
vouchers, but for HUD and VA to work together so that the full array of 
eligible services are coordinated and administered jointly.

                              {time}  1600

  Along that same line, I strongly support a new demonstration in the 
homeless program to avoid forcing children through the trauma of 
homeless shelters by rapidly rehousing these families in secure rental 
units and providing the care and training in that setting, rather than 
through the shelter plus care process. We need to be sure, however, 
that in doing so we do not end up subsidizing drug or other illegal 
activity.
  I want to also express my appreciation for the provision in the bill 
that waives the Medicaid cap on income and allows citizens in Michigan 
to voluntarily pay more and still receive rental assistance. This has 
made a tremendous difference in my district, and the new statewide 
provision will apply to all Michigan residents. Obviously, it is 
available for consideration in other states, too.
  As many of my colleagues know, Michigan has been facing a severe 
credit crunch due to defaults and foreclosures resulting from the 
subprime lending boom a few years ago. The resets are around the corner 
and the problem may well get worse for Michigan before it gets better. 
But no one wants to see foreclosure, not the homeowner, not the banks, 
and certainly not the Federal Government which has insured many of 
these loans.
  As a result and through extensive collaboration with my colleague, 
Chairman Olver, and our Senate counterparts, we included a provision 
that I am sure will go a long way towards stemming if not reversing the 
trend in the home mortgage market. We have included $200 million in new 
funds for intensive and extensive loan foreclosure mitigation guidance 
plus counseling and targeted funds to those areas which are facing the 
largest threat of foreclosure.
  We have ensured that the funds will be in the hands of the expert 
counselors and State housing finance agencies before the loan resets 
dates hit homeowners who will find it difficult

[[Page 31436]]

to meet the higher payments. We have not placed the funds in HUD, or 
created a financial handout for mortgage companies or homeowners. 
Instead, we are using the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which 
is in itself expert and has a network of expert loan counselors 
throughout the country. As a federally chartered corporation, they will 
be able to avoid the many delaying regulatory hurdles that would result 
if funded through HUD, but still must meet all the requirements to 
ensure the integrity of the funds provided to expert counseling 
agencies. I firmly believe that Michigan will benefit greatly from the 
one-time funding being provided in this bill to help at-risk homeowners 
get through this difficult period.
  Having said that, there are clearly areas in the bill that could and 
should be reduced in funding or for which funding should be allocated.
  All of us have heard about the shortfall that HUD now faces in 
meeting contracts with longstanding low-income assistance providers 
under the project-based section 8 program. While better than the Senate 
bill, let's face it, we did not solve the problem. We only delayed the 
date at which the crisis will occur. Yet at the same time, the voucher 
program has $300 million in excess funds based on the new methodology 
instituted by the majority as part of the 2007 continuing resolution. 
Apparently the majority does not trust their new methodology that much, 
yet those funds could have further reduced the shortfall that HUD faces 
with project owners under the project-based program, or reduced the 
cost of the bill itself.
  Furthermore, the Department continues to receive funds for a long 
list of small boutique and duplicative programs, all of which could be 
eliminated as the administration requested without harming any of the 
program.
  Finally, I want to emphasize that there are no new air-dropped 
earmarks from the House minority.
  I want to thank my colleague and chairman, Chairman Olver, for his 
work on this bill. I have to say he was most fair. This was a very 
inclusive conference and, because of his cooperation and the highlights 
of the bill, I will be voting ``yes'' on passage of the conference 
report.
  I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 3 minutes to the vice 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Pastor from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR. I thank my chairman, John Olver, for recognizing me.
  First of all, I want to congratulate Chairman Olver and Ranking 
Member Knollenberg for the fine work they have done on this bill. It is 
quite an accomplishment. If you look at last year, we were not able to 
conference the bill and here we are talking about a bill that has been 
conferenced with the Senate. Both the chairman and the ranking member 
have talked about some of the programs that have been given additional 
funding, but I would like to talk about a few that this bill starts a 
new initiative.
  One is a program that the railroad administrator spoke to us about at 
one of our hearings, and that is the ability of the Federal Railroad 
Administration being able to provide grants to have intercity 
connection by rail. And in Arizona, it is a program that we are looking 
forward to see implemented. As you may know, Arizona is growing very 
quickly, and the 2 metro areas, the Phoenix metro area and the Tucson 
metro area, in a very short time are going to be growing into each 
other, and there is a great need to connect them because the freeway 
that connects them today is no longer efficient. So by applying for 
these grants, hopefully we will be able to connect 90 percent of the 
Arizona population with a rail.
  With the possibility of that connection, then there is a possibility 
that Arizona may be connected with Amtrak. So it is an initiative that 
this conference bill brings forward that those of us in Arizona are 
very happy to see implemented, especially in this city-to-city rail 
connection.
  For those of us who were local elected officials, I am very happy to 
report that CDBG is in this bill and will receive additional money, so 
local officials can use these monies to develop the social 
infrastructure that is needed in many of our locations that do not have 
the economic development activity that other parts of the city has.
  The other initiative I want to talk about is one that you will begin 
to see cooperation with the Federal Transit Authority and HUD. As the 
transit lines are being developed, there are initiatives in this bill 
that will encourage the development of affordable housing and 
development of small businesses along the transit line. This is 
something that, again, those of us who have transit lines that are 
being developed, that with these initiatives we can develop affordable 
housing, because many of the people who will be on the transit lines 
are people that will be going to work and in many cases need to have 
the affordable housing that the transit line will bring it.
  I congratulate both the chairman and the ranking member for this fine 
bill, and I ask for its passage.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, a senior member of our subcommittee and someone who 
has been very much involved in planning for communities over the years.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman very much for the time, Chairman 
Olver and Ranking Member Knollenberg, for just a fantastic effort on 
this conference report. Let me say I rise in full support.
  There are so many programs in it, such as our community development 
block grant program which helps over 1,180 communities across this 
country. We have been able to provide $3.79 billion in this bill, which 
is still, though responsible, $400 million less than we spent as a 
country in 2001, with many of our cities finding revenues on the 
decline or stuck because of the condition of the economy. So I know 
many of our mayors will welcome this.
  I rise especially to point to the programs dealing with housing 
counseling, $250 million in this bill through the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation, dollars to be disbursed within the next 60 
days to help parts of the country that are just suffering so greatly 
because of the home mortgage foreclosure crisis.
  There is no more important form of savings that any American family 
can have than their home. What has been happening across our country is 
we not only have a negative savings rate, but now we have a $1 trillion 
housing crisis in which hundreds of thousands of people have lost their 
homes or are about to lose their homes. This $250 million that is 
included in this bill that will go through the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation for counseling will help to try to allow some 
of these families to retain their homes as these mortgages are reset.
  Frankly, I have been so disappointed in HUD's just sitting on the 
dime. As FEMA sat on the dime as people drowned in Louisiana, we've got 
people drowning all across this country because they're losing their 
homes and there's been no action. So we hope that this housing effort 
will make a big difference in helping them to be able to maintain their 
largest form of savings.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention the program for housing for 
special populations in this bill. There is a total of 7,500 vouchers 
for homeless veterans that are living in missions across this country, 
that are in our jails, that are on the streets. Surely we can do better 
than this as the American people. There are also 4,000 vouchers in the 
bill for the nonelderly disabled and another 4,000 vouchers for 
families with children, where children are separated from their 
families because the families have no housing. Ask yourself the 
question, how well will that child perform in school when their home 
situation is so uncertain that they don't even know where they're going 
to stay at night?
  I think that this bill provides some important stimulus to the 
housing sector, and the funding that we have provided is certainly not 
enough in view of what we are facing as an economy as funds are drained 
away from our communities as a result of this subprime

[[Page 31437]]

lending crisis, but at least we have done something in this bill to 
recognize that there ought to be dispatch in the subprime lending 
market, and if HUD can't do a very good job of it, then let's let the 
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation try to deal with these families 
that are dropping off the edge. I know that our mayors and those 
involved in housing for special populations will see this bill as a 
step forward.
  I compliment the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for 
moving this legislation.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who has been very helpful with thoughts and 
suggestions about how transportation and housing should fit together in 
the planning of communities.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I deeply 
appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done. This is not just 
about spending money; it's about spending money right.
  It is important that resources are being focused to being able to 
``fix it first,'' to be able to deal with the fraying of our Nation's 
infrastructure. As the gentleman pointed out, there are 100 million 
trips on tens of thousands of substandard bridges across the country.
  There is an important step in this legislation to have more robust 
funding for Amtrak. We have avoided the problems of past sessions where 
we have come through here to have an ideological battle fought about 
how somehow the United States should be the only country in the world 
without government-supported rail passenger service. Given skyrocketing 
oil prices and congestion in our highways, people understand that that 
is a prescription for disaster. I appreciate the hard work of the 
committee coming forward with a proposal to help put a floor underneath 
the rail passenger infrastructure, not making a difference just for 
Arizona but throughout the country.
  I appreciate looking at the big picture. The committee's willingness 
to look at how land use, housing, and transportation fit together to 
coax maximum advantage out of those investments is very, very 
important.

                              {time}  1615

  I hope that we can continue to work with the subcommittee, with the 
whole Appropriations Committee, with the authorizing committees to be 
able to get more out of these investments.
  Last but not least, it should be pointed out that this will be the 
last budget that we'll be able to have with the transportation funding 
at this level. The refusal of the administration to work with us to 
increase transportation investment in the last Congress resulted in a 
reauthorization level that is higher than the trust fund can support. 
We're going to be running out of money here in a couple of months. That 
means that the task of the subcommittee will be extraordinarily 
difficult, given the slow payout rate of transportation funding. It 
means you're going to have to cut probably four times the amount of the 
deficit this next year, and it's going to be even greater in subsequent 
years. So I'm hopeful that, working with the subcommittee dealing with 
appropriations and with Ways and Means, with the authorizers, we can 
come forward to make sure that we don't lose the opportunity to make 
the right investments in transportation and housing, because these are 
going to help us with greenhouse gases. These are going to help us with 
economic development, with energy efficiency. It's a tall order ahead 
of us, but I appreciate the foundation that the subcommittee has laid, 
and look forward to working with them.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I would like, at this point, to enter into 
the Record a couple of letters which we have from public organizations. 
One is Americans for Transportation Mobility. And this is an 
organization which is an umbrella of the American Public Transportation 
Association; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; 
the Associated Equipment Distributors; the Associated Equipment 
Manufacturers; Associated General Contractors; American Society of 
Civil Engineers; International Union of Operating Engineers; Laborers 
International Union of North America; the National Asphalt Pavement 
Association; National Construction Alliance; National Stone, Sand and 
Gravel Association; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who are cosigners 
on this letter of support for H.R. 3074.
  And I have, secondly, a letter from the American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials, commonly known as AASHTO. I think 
every one of us who has ever worked at the State levels of public 
funding, as well as the national levels, understands what AASHTO is. 
And this is a letter of support signed by the executive director of 
AASHTO, also in support of the conference report on H.R. 3074. And I 
offer that for inclusion in the Record.

                                                     Americans for


                                      Transportation Mobility,

                                Washington, DC, November 14, 2007.
       To The Members of The U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     Americans for Transportation Mobility (ATM) Coalition 
     strongly urges you to support the conference report for H.R. 
     3074, the ``Transportation Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008.''
       H.R. 3074 honors the commitments to capital investment in 
     highway and public transportation infrastructure made by 
     Congress in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient 
     Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 
     and will not increase the federal budget deficit. Although 
     H.R. 3074 under-funds public transportation by $81 million, 
     the ATM Coalition still feels strongly that this conference 
     report should pass as a stand alone measure in order to 
     maintain and improve the nation's highway and public 
     transportation systems in fiscal year 2008.
       America's transportation system is being stretched beyond 
     its capacity. Both public and private usage of highways, 
     transit, and aviation systems are increasing at rates far 
     outpacing infrastructure investment. A decaying surface 
     transportation system costs the U.S. economy $78 billion 
     annually in lost time and fuel while congestion adds 
     significant pollution to the air, and substandard roads claim 
     thousands of lives every year.
       As representatives of over 400 major users and providers of 
     the nation's surface transportation infrastructure network 
     including the business and labor communities, our unique 
     coalition is dedicated to ensuring the global 
     competitiveness, economic prosperity and the American way of 
     life by promoting investment in transportation 
     infrastructure. SAFETEA-LU provided record levels of 
     investment in highways and transit programs by ensuring that 
     revenues flowing into the Highway Trust Fund are only used 
     for their intended purpose: fixing and maintaining the 
     nation's transportation infrastructure. By passing the H.R. 
     3074 conference report, Congress will maintain its commitment 
     to a safe, efficient and competitive transportation system.
           Sincerely,
       Americans for Transportation Mobility.
                                  ____

         American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
           Officials,
                                Washington, DC, November 14, 2007.
     Hon. David Obey,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the House begins consideration of the 
     Conference report on the Housing and Transportation 
     Appropriations, H.R. 3074, I wish to advise you the American 
     Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
     (AASHTO) and its 50 State members strongly support and urge 
     that the legislation be passed as submitted.
       The Nation's transportation system is the foundation of our 
     economy. If investments are delayed it will impact the 
     economy and add to increased costs because States will not 
     have the full funding that would be available given the 
     guaranteed spending provisions of SAFETEA-LU. Given the 
     timing of the construction season it is also of immediate 
     importance that the bill be passed promptly.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John Horsley,
                                               Executive Director.

  At this point, I would like to yield 7 minutes to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few observations about the 
White House comments on this bill, because we are told that the White 
House intends to veto this bill.
  Let me point out some facts about this bill. This bill spends about 
$105 billion, all told. Much has been made in

[[Page 31438]]

the debate this morning or this afternoon about earmarks in this bill. 
Earmarks are about 1 percent of all of the funds that are provided in 
this bill, around $1.2 billion.
  For reference, last year, the appropriation, or rather the 
transportation authorization bill included about $20 billion in 
earmarks. I didn't see the President talking about vetoing that bill. I 
find it quaint that he now purports to be upset because this bill 
contains \1/20\ the earmark level of bills that he has previously 
signed.
  I would also note that the President objects to the elimination of 
the deep cuts which this bill contains for the Community Development 
Block Grant and for housing programs. There is no individual in this 
country who is a greater beneficiary of taxpayer-subsidized housing 
than the President of the United States. He lives in that big white 
house on Pennsylvania Avenue. He doesn't have to worry about having a 
driver's license to drive on the roads in this country because he has 
nice chauffeurs and nice limousines which are transported everywhere 
around the country. He has lots of people in the kitchen to prepare any 
meal that he wants prepared. If he wants to have a relaxing weekend, he 
can go out to Camp David, and he can take a helicopter so he doesn't 
have to worry about beating the traffic. And yet, this President 
objects to the fact that we are trying to do a mite more than his 
budget does for low-income housing in this country.
  Section 8 housing, he's very unhappy about the fact that we've 
increased funding for that. It just seems to me that this is one case 
of the pot calling the kettle black if the President objects to that 
kind of funding.
  When we first started putting together appropriation bills, Mr. 
Speaker, I asked each of the subcommittee Chairs to disregard the year-
to-year arguments that we've usually had in this place, and I asked all 
of the chairmen and chairwomen to ask themselves: What is this country 
going to look like in 5 and 10 years? And in the case of this bill, how 
many more cars are there going to be on the road? How much more 
pressure are we going to have for our rail traffic, both passenger and 
transport, or freight?
  I asked people to look at what the expanded population would mean in 
terms of added demand for housing for the elderly, as well as low-
income housing. And then I asked the Chairs to try to prepare a bill 
which would get us to where we needed to be over a 5- or 10-year period 
in order to meet those challenges. And that is essentially what this 
bill tries to do with very limited available funds.
  Now, this bill contains about $5 billion increase in funding above 
the President's level. That's about 2 weeks of what we spend in Iraq. I 
make no apology for it. I wish it were more. No country can have an 
efficient economy if it doesn't have an efficient transportation system 
and if it doesn't have modern infrastructure. This is one of the bills 
that tries to meet those demands.
  So the President, if he wants, can invent a disagreement with the 
Congress and veto the bill if he wants. But I think the American people 
will recognize, the American taxpayer will recognize, while they may 
not agree with every choice made in the bill, that this is a far more 
reasonable response to the future needs of the country than is the 
President's very pinched view of the investment needs that we have here 
at home.
  So I would urge support to this bill on both sides of the aisle. It's 
been put together on a bipartisan basis. To my knowledge, every single 
Republican on the subcommittee signed the conference report. I think 
that there is not really very much in terms of policy which would 
recommend a ``no'' vote on this bill. And I urge Members to recognize 
that we've got an obligation to deal with the needs of the least 
visible people in our society, the least powerful, and the least well 
connected. This is one of the bills that tries to do that.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote for the bill.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield as much time as he may 
wish to consume to the gentleman who is the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Lewis from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much my colleague 
yielding. And before making the remarks I have in mind, I want to 
extend my congratulations to the chairman and the ranking member for a 
very thoughtful effort to put together a very reasonable bill, while it 
is a bit over the funding levels of the President, and as a result of 
that I'll probably vote against it.
  I had not planned to speak on this bill, for I had an understanding 
from the other side that maybe neither the chairman or the ranking 
member would spend too much time speaking.
  I must say that some years ago it was my privilege to chair this 
subcommittee, and I took that responsibility very, very seriously. I 
know that the chairman of the committee has been very frustrated with 
me this year as I've suggested, more than one time, that the solution 
on the other side to every problem, it seems, is to throw more money at 
it.
  And the chairman just was wringing his hands a bit about the section 
8 funding in this bill and suggesting we certainly should be doing a 
better job.
  Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, we absolutely should be doing a better 
job.
  And back then, when I had a chance to chair this subcommittee, I 
spent some time with then-Secretary Henry, under a different 
administration than this one, and he and I went to section 8 housing 
circumstances and both wrung our hands with some frustration about the 
way many of those housing authorities are operating and the way they're 
using the money that we send out there to help the poorest of the poor 
have a chance for reasonable housing.
  We found that there were some serious questions to be raised, and 
that led to a thing called the Housing Fraud Initiative. And we gave 
extra money to the Inspector General of the Housing Authority, and the 
Inspector General went around the country, and, indeed, found serious 
problems in any number of housing authorities about the way the money 
was being spent that supposedly was designed for the poorest of the 
poor.
  It is not a fact that those housing authorities automatically respond 
in a way that would reflect the best use of our money. And if that's an 
illustration, indeed, the chairman has made my point. We don't solve 
problems by just throwing money, especially if we're not willing to 
follow the money and see if it's getting to the people we pretend to 
want to help in the first place.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I hesitate to get involved between my chairman and my big ranking 
member here, but since they've gotten into it and the ranking member 
has made the comment that every suggestion that we make is to throw 
money at the problem, I just wanted to point out that the President has 
actually indicated that he will veto this legislation. It provides $3 
billion more in budget authority than he requested in the original 
budget.
  And I'd like to remind people on both sides of the aisle that in each 
of the last 6 years, each of the last 6 years, the President, rightly, 
signed transportation and housing budgets into law that were above his 
initial request. The irony here is that in fiscal year 2003, the 
President signed into law the transportation and housing budgets that 
were over $9 billion above his request. Ours is 3, on budget authority. 
And in fiscal 2004 it was $4.2 billion above his request, and in fiscal 
2006 it was $7 billion above the President's request.

                              {time}  1630

  And he did that at times, he signed those bills, without a whimper, 
without any objection, when the deficits, the budget deficits, were 
much larger than they are today. This bill is a responsible piece of 
legislation, and I hope that it will be adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who is the authorizing Chair for the housing 
portion of this legislation.

[[Page 31439]]




                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Prior to my speaking, Mr. Speaker, I have 
a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Are we debating the Defense 
appropriations bill here?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. We are debating the conference report on 
H.R. 3074.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is the subject matter of that HUD or 
Defense?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk has reported the title of the 
bill. Would the gentleman like it to be restated?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will re-report the title of the 
bill.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I was confused, Mr. Speaker, because I had to go up to the Rules 
Committee and I came back and I heard the gentleman from California 
saying stop throwing money at the problem, that's not the way to solve 
the problem. And when I think about what we're throwing money at, I 
assumed we were talking about the Defense bill and Iraq and 
reconstruction, because so much money has been thrown at that, none of 
us can keep track of it. Then it turns out he's talking about a 
relatively small increase in CDBG. I certainly agree we should not 
solve problems by throwing money at them. That, however, led me to 
think we must be talking about the bill that spends so much more money 
than anything else and that has had more documented waste and abuse and 
fraud, the Defense bill and the Iraq spending, than all the other 
appropriations bills put together.
  As to this bill, now that I know what we're talking about, not to be 
taken for granted on the floor of this House, I want to be congratulate 
the gentleman from Massachusetts for doing an excellent job with the 
limited resources he was given, far too limited.
  There is an increase in here for the Community Development Block 
Grant program. The President apparently wanted to continue his path of 
reducing Community Development Block Grants, having them be lower than 
they were years ago when he came into office. In fact, that is a very 
important program for our municipalities, and I am very pleased to see 
that it is not being reduced.
  As to section 8, every year when the Republicans were in power, we 
would approach the point when we were running out of section 8s. And as 
a member of the committee that has the authorization role here, we 
would hear from Members, Democratic and Republican, about the 
importance of keeping this going. Now, I agree it should be improved. 
And what we have done here in this House, we began something last year 
but we finished it this year and sent it to the Senate. We passed a 
bill we called SEVRA, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act. So, yes, we 
think there should be reform. This House has passed on a bipartisan 
basis, support from everybody in the authorizing committee, a bill to 
improve it. So we are trying to make things better. And I guarantee you 
that you will not find anywhere under HUD, and I know a lot about that 
department, anything like the wanton expenditure waste that we have 
seen in Iraq and elsewhere.
  What the gentleman from Massachusetts has done in the housing area is 
sensibly to respond to important needs. I particularly want to say 
earlier this year, the Secretary of HUD, Secretary Jackson, asked me to 
meet with a group called ADAPT. These are people who represent people 
with disabilities. They were concerned about the availability of 
section 8 vouchers for people with disabilities, particularly those who 
may have been turned away from public housing projects. In response to 
that, in collaboration, the bill we have today increases that pool of 
vouchers. Now, they're not earmarked for that group, and we will have 
further conversations about how to deal with that, but there are 
additional vouchers here that the Secretary of HUD came to me and said, 
look, will you listen to this group and try to respond? And these are 
vouchers that respond to their needs.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I wish he was able to throw 
money at the problem. I wish we had a set of priorities in this country 
that were more respectful of genuine human needs. But given the limited 
resources he has, he and his subcommittee have done an excellent job.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just spoke talked about how the 
committee had done so well with such limited resources and makes it 
sound like this is positively a skinflint bill, that we're just making 
do with what we have.
  The truth is we are well over the President's budget that he 
submitted. Let me just give people a flavor for what's in this bill. 
This is just a slice of the 150 pages of earmarks, more than 1,000 
earmarks that were in this bill, 21 of them air-dropped last night that 
we had no idea were here until today, but here is just an example of 
some of them in the House-passed version:
  There is $100,000 for the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, 
Michigan; $750,000 to the Detroit Science Center in Detroit, Michigan; 
$300,000 for the Houston zoo; $200,000 for the Huntsville Museum of Art 
in Huntsville, Alabama; $100,000 for the Los Angeles Fashion District 
in Los Angeles, California; $150,000 for the Louis Armstrong House 
Museum in Flushing, New York; $50,000 for the National Mule and Packers 
Museum in Bishop, California; $150,000 to the Renaissance Art Center, 
Inc., in Rupert, Idaho; $200,000 to the Fruitvale Cultural and 
Performing Arts Center in Oakland, California; $100,000 for the 1924 
Vaudeville Theater in Plattsburgh, New York; $200,000 for the Hunting 
and Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania; $100,000 for the Lincoln Museum in 
Hodgenville, Kentucky.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just point out that every one that you have recited, and I 
have listened to probably 18 or 20 of them along the way, every one of 
them was in the legislation as it passed the House of Representatives.
  Mr. FLAKE. That is correct.
  Mr. OLVER. They were not air-dropped, as has been suggested.
  Mr. FLAKE. No. These were all in the House version, the House version 
that we had just a couple of days to digest, and we were only able to 
offer in reality few amendments in keeping with the comity of the 
House.
  This shouldn't substitute for real vetting or real scrutiny when you 
have earmarks like this. And particularly, I didn't mention and I could 
read the 21 air-dropped earmarks, the ones that were put in last night 
that because the majority has waived the rules, we have no ability to 
actually challenge. We don't know if these earmarks are meritorious or 
not because they were air-dropped in last night. I'm reading these that 
were in the House-passed version of the bill.
  Let me read through a few more and maybe this will clarify it: 
$150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia; 
$275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts; 
$400,000 to the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association in Maryland; 
$500,000 for the Los Angeles County Fire Museum in Bellflower, 
California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise Members that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from 
Michigan has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                          ____________________