[Pages H5101-H5145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

General Leave

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 2610.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 312 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2610.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1505

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2610) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Messer in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Pastor) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I present H.R. 2610, a bill providing fiscal year
2014 appropriations for the Department of Transportation, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies.
The T-HUD bill conforms with the 302(b) allocation of $44.1 billion
in budget authority, and is in line with the House budget of $967
billion. Under such an allocation, we prioritized programs and spending
and were able to achieve three very important funding goals: first,
meet the ``ob lim'' funding levels for the MAP-21, the highway
authorization bill; keep the commercial airspace running smoothly; and
preserve and renew the housing option for all HUD-assisted families
under lease in fiscal year 2014.
Mr. Chairman, I imagine today we're going to hear a lot about the
budget and the sequester, and I'll tell you, I agree. We need a deal.
We need a deal that resolves the irresponsible meat-ax approach to the
sequester and provides a top-line budget number that addresses concerns
about taxes and spending.
But the Budget Control Act is the law, and no matter what number we'd
like to write this to, the law gives us $967 billion to fund the
government. You get there either by across-the-board cuts or by
prioritizing the funds available. I think we all agree that continuing
across-the-board cuts is not the answer. We've seen examples why.
Earlier this year, across-the-board cuts caused air traffic
controllers to be furloughed, consumer convenience to be sacrificed,
and air safety to be endangered. In April, the House voted on a
strongly bipartisan basis 361-41 to tap unspent FAA funds and put these
air traffic controllers back to work.
Mr. Chairman, we know that across-the-board cutting is no way to run
a government. Considering there still isn't an agreement on the
sequester or a top-line budget number, it's imperative that we realign
the funds we have available to ensure DOT and HUD have the resources
they need to care for the population and infrastructure of this Nation.
This is a chance to make sure the ``must-do'' priorities are addressed.
I assume we're going to hear a lot about infrastructure investment,
and I will tell you we fund the authorized programs at the authorized
program levels.
I assume we're going to hear a lot about housing needs, and I will
tell you, we retain the housing option for HUD families currently
receiving assistance, protecting the most vulnerable.
We are operating under an open rule, and I hope we can keep the
debate and amendment process moving along today. We will be taking
points of order against amendments that would increase our allocations
or authorize on an appropriations act. Let me reemphasize to people who
are going to be offering amendments that we will enforce points of
order.
I'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor),
the T-HUD ranking member, for his comity and willingness to discuss
what would be possible under a $44.1 billion allocation.
I'd also like to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, plus
the members of the committee, and especially the subcommittee, for
their hard work and commitment to this bill.
And speaking of subcommittee members, I'd like to give a special word
of congratulations to a new and valued member of the Appropriations
Committee. The gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Jamie Herrera Beutler,
and her husband, Daniel, recently welcomed their first child, a
beautiful baby girl, into their family. This sweet girl is a miracle
and a testament to the faith and hope that her parents have carried
over recent months. We offer our continued praise for their strength,
the wisdom of their doctors, and the joy of this new family.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5102]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.001

[[Page H5103]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.002

[[Page H5104]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.003

[[Page H5105]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.004

[[Page H5106]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.005

[[Page H5107]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.006

[[Page H5108]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.007

[[Page H5109]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.008

[[Page H5110]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.009

[[Page H5111]]

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. The devastating impacts of the Ryan budget are
on full display in the fiscal year 2014 Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies bill.
My good friend, Chairman Tom Latham, was given an impossible
allocation of $44.1 billion. This is $4.4 billion below the fiscal year
2013 sequestration level and $10 billion below the level included in
the Senate bill. As a result, the FY 2014 bill makes deep cuts to a
number of critical transportation and housing programs.
Within the Department of Transportation, the bill cuts the programs
and activities of the Federal Aviation Administration by $756 million
below the FY 2013 CR level. While the bill provides enough funds to
avoid additional furloughs, it is unclear whether FAA will be able to
completely lift the hiring freeze that has been in place during this
fiscal year.
The FAA's NextGen program will also be impacted by delaying the
important developmental work on many of the program's emerging
technologies.
Amtrak's capital program is cut by more than $350 million, which will
jeopardize long distance service and some short haul routes. At these
funding levels, Amtrak will have to suspend mechanical overhauls on
equipment, which will result in slow orders and furloughs of hundreds
of mechanical employees and engineers.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development sustained even deeper
cuts. The bill reduces funding for the CDBG, the Community Development
Block Grant, program to $1.6 billion, which is the lowest level since
the program was created in 1975. The HOME program is funded at $700
million, which is the lowest level since the program began in 1992.
The bill funds the Public Housing Capital Fund at its lowest level
since 1987, adding more than $1 billion in deferred capital maintenance
to an existing $26 billion maintenance backlog.
In closing, I do want to commend the chairman, Tom Latham, for
funding the critical safety missions of the Department of
Transportation and for honoring the obligation limitations in the
surface and aviation bills. The chairman has also included sufficient
funding to move 10,000 more homeless veterans off the street and into
housing.
Despite the chairman's efforts, I have great concerns with the bill
as it is currently written. I remain hopeful that we can achieve a more
realistic allocation as the appropriations process moves forward this
year.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1515

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a great member of the committee.
Mr. COLE. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2014
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act. I
want to commend my good friend, Chairman Latham, for making some tough
choices, but making those choices in a manner that was fair,
transparent, and rational. I also want to thank my good friend, Mr.
Pastor, the ranking member on the other side of the aisle. He's always
a pleasure to work with. He's always a delightful Member and he always
contributes. I know while this bill may not be everything that he would
like, he certainly added a great deal in the course of our
deliberations.
The reality is that because of sequestration, the allocation this
subcommittee was given is meager. The bill provides $44.1 billion in
discretionary spending--a reduction of many billions below the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level. But let's be clear: that reduction is due to
the Budget Control Act and the mechanism of sequestration, not the Ryan
budget, which simply recognizes the realities that have been agreed
upon and passed into law. It's worth noting that our friend, the
President of the United States, recommended the sequester, which we're
trying to enact in this budget.
At the same time, even with these cuts, the bill has maintained
funding for the FAA Contract Tower Program, a program which is vitally
important to maintaining safe national airspace.
The bill also provides funding to continue assistance to all families
anticipated to hold section 8 and public housing vouchers at the
beginning of fiscal year 2014. I know that was a tough mark to make,
Mr. Chairman, and one that I appreciate that you did make because you
put people first.
Additionally, this bill fully funds the President's request for
veterans housing vouchers at $75 million, a point that my friend, Mr.
Pastor, made.
Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Latham and every member of this committee
would like to spend more money on infrastructure; but because of our
$17 trillion crushing debt and because of unrestrained growth and
entitlement spending, this is where we are and this is where we will be
until we confront out-of-control entitlement spending.
Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to reject this
hard reality. Some believe we will never have to balance our budget.
Some believe that trillions of dollars in additional tax increases are
the solution. And some think that we don't need to make any changes in
our entitlement programs. That approach, in my view, simply won't work.
The deficit we have is far too high, but it is less than half of what
it was when Republicans retook the House in 2010. That's progress. But
more progress will need to be made until America actually balances its
books. And that, I believe, will set the stage for faster, more robust
economic growth.
I pledge to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle to find a
compromise that will allow us to make vitally important investments
while still lowering the deficit, but that compromise must involve
entitlement reform. Until then, we frequently will continue to see
important programs, such as the ones in this bill, starved for
investments that they need.
So we need to get on to that bigger deal that my friend, Mr. Latham,
talked about. I think the product of that deal will be much more robust
appropriations for this particular subcommittee.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding.
I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their
hard work on this bill. But no amount of hard work could redeem this
bill, and I am rising in strong opposition. We call it the THUD bill.
Well, the bill makes about the same sound as it spells--thud.
The majority's bill says of our transportation and infrastructure
commitments, We don't care if the wheels fall off. It says of our
housing and development commitments, We don't care if the roof caves
in. Thud.
While I appreciate the hard work of the members of this subcommittee
and of the dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle, the funding
levels included in this bill are just unacceptable. They're impossible.
The 302(b) allocation received by this subcommittee is 15 percent lower
than it was last year. And that was already low. It's 19 percent below
the Budget Control Act. It's nearly $10 billion below the level that
the Senate is considering in the same bill.
This funding level reflects the reckless discretionary spending caps
adopted by the House majority in the Ryan budget resolution, which not
only locked in sequestration; it doubled down on sequestration in order
to shelter defense and homeland security bills from some of the cuts.
This made allocations for our domestic investments even worse--far, far
beyond the usual zone of political disagreement. The Transportation and
Housing bill we're considering today is a prime example of this
impossible tradeoff.
On the transportation side, the bill makes deep cuts to the capital
programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, Amtrak, and the
Federal Transit Administration's New Starts program. It zeroes out
funding for the TIGER program, which has been enormously successful at
advancing critical

[[Page H5112]]

surface transportation projects in communities across the country, and
yet has had to leave thousands of meritorious proposals unfunded. Once
again, the bill includes no funding for the development of high speed
rail.
Funding for our housing needs is even worse. The bill reduces funding
for the Community Development Block Grant program, a program that over
the years has been known for its bipartisan support, to $1.6 billion.
That's the lowest level since this program was created in 1975. The
HOME program is funded at $700 million, the lowest level since that
program began in 1992. And the bill rescinds funding for the Choice
Neighborhoods program, the successor program of Hope VI. That means the
bill lacks funding for any comprehensive revitalization program
whatsoever.
During the Appropriations Committee markup of this bill, Democrats
offered a series of amendments to restore these damaging cuts and
produce a bill that more adequately meets our Nation's critical housing
and infrastructure needs. All of those amendments were rejected on
party-line votes.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most tragic and disappointing fact about
this bill is that the cuts it imposes could be avoided if the
Republican leadership would only appoint budget conferees to go
negotiate, with their Senate counterparts, a long-term deficit
reduction deal that would lift sequestration and preserve vital
investments in our future.
Alternatively, Republican leaders could reconsider their refusal to
talk with the President. That offer from December still stands. They
should work with him to address the real drivers of the deficit--tax
expenditures and entitlements--thus, lifting sequestration, along with
the drag it represents on our economy and the mockery it makes of the
appropriations process.
The bill before us is exhibit A of this travesty. I urge my
colleagues to raise their voices and their votes against it.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my
distinguished friend from Chicago (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I became a member of the Appropriations
Committee this Congress to make the tough funding choices that
determine our national priorities, but this year's budget allocations
have taken those choices away from us.
This bill is being touted as a budgetary tradeoff, but there are no
tradeoffs in this bill. There are only cuts. Investments in our
infrastructure are needed more than ever. Yet this bill makes some of
the most significant cuts to vital transportation programs in decades.
We all remember the Recovery Act. An interesting fact about the
Recovery Act is about 6 or 7 percent of that bill dealt with
infrastructure, but that 6 or 7 percent of that bill created about two-
thirds of the jobs that the act created.
Unfortunately, in this bill there's no funding for TIGER grants,
which fund infrastructure projects like the Elgin-O'Hare Western Access
Project in my district, and no funding for Core Capacity Grants to fund
desperately needed improvements to transit systems like the Chicago
Transit Authority. Instead of increasing safety and capacity in air
travel, we're slashing funding to the FAA's air traffic control
modernization program. Instead of expanding rail service, we're cutting
Amtrak's capital program by 37 percent.
The housing numbers are even worse. This bill cuts funding to housing
programs that not only work but have a proven track record of saving
the taxpayer money. There's no funding for the Choice Neighborhoods
program, which helps communities revitalize distressed neighborhoods.
There are significant cuts to the Housing Opportunities for Persons
with AIDS program, which is used to house some of the most vulnerable
among us, and also another program which saves money. Community
Development Block Grants, used by communities across the country, have
been cut in half and are at their lowest levels since the Ford
administration.
We're cutting investments in our future and essential services to
those in need to pay for bloated defense spending the Pentagon often
itself says it doesn't need. In the final analysis, countries that
succeed invest in research, education, and infrastructure. Mr.
Chairman, we're cutting all three.
I joined this committee to make the smart funding choices that will
propel our Nation forward, but this bill does just the opposite. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. LATHAM. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I, first of all, want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, the ranking member, and all of the members of the
subcommittee for their very good work. Given the allocation they have,
they have done their very best.
I would follow up on a number of remarks by my colleagues, including
the chairman, and that is we need a deal. And my plea to the membership
is we cannot continue to go on like this.
This process no longer is on time. Our year starts October 1. In
2007, we finished in February. In 2008, we finished in December. In
2009, we finished in March. In 2010, we finished in December. In fiscal
year 2011, we finished in April. In 2012, we finished in December. This
year, we finished on March 26.
Since 2007, we should have enacted 84 individual appropriation bills.
We have enacted nine individually--about 10 percent of our work.
Unfortunately, the body has made the work of this subcommittee, the
full committee, and the other 11 subcommittees very difficult.
For fiscal year 2013, our committee was given a target in the summer
of 2011, under the Budget Control Act. The target was changed under a
resolution passed by the House for the budget in the spring of 2012.
The target was changed again on January 1, 2013. Subsequently, we have
sequestration. My plea to the general membership is, please, just give
this exceptional committee one target and let us do our work.
I also am fearful because we are operating most agencies, including
the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, under a continuing resolution that, for the vast
majority of my colleagues, makes no difference. You wouldn't run your
house or your business exactly the way you did last year.

{time} 1530

We made these agencies wait 7 months to tell them they can keep doing
the same thing for another 5 months, and on October 1 of this year
we're going to do it again.
Some people say we're spending too much money. I agree, which is why
I have actually brought a chart to the floor. We balanced a budget
under President Nixon in 1969 for 1 year. We balanced a budget for 4
years under President Clinton. During those years, Federal spending was
about 18.9 percent of GDP. For fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013, it was
about 22.7. The response of this body is: we will do the Budget Control
Act, and we will have mindless sequestration and treat all
discretionary accounts the same.
Some people say we don't have enough revenue. They're absolutely
right. When President Nixon and President Clinton balanced a budget for
those 5 years, revenue was 20.1 percent of GDP. Today, it is 16.2.
We had a bill passed on January 1 that effectively now has limited us
as far as any future revenue. I would point out 204 Members of this
body voted for that bill in a bipartisan fashion, and 219 Members of
this body today, in a bipartisan fashion, voted for the Budget Control
Act, even though most of them complain about sequestration.
Today, we have the allocations this great subcommittee is faced with,
and we are pounding our discretionary accounts. The fact is, in 1963
over 67 percent of what we spent as a national government was an
investment in the future, in our children's future. In fiscal year
2012, that was down to 26 percent.
For those who want to continue this madness of going after
discretionary spending, and particularly domestic discretionary
spending--Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development--
I would point out that

[[Page H5113]]

year, if we had eliminated the Government of the United States,
eliminated the Congress and the Presidency and every agency except the
Department of Defense and the entitlement programs, and did nothing on
taxes, our deficit last year was $472 billion. It is estimated this
year, if we got rid of the Department of Transportation--which I think
some people are trying to do with this allocation--if we got rid of
HUD, if we got rid of the government, except for defense, except for
entitlements, and did nothing on taxes, this year's deficit would be
$153 billion.
The American Society of Civil Engineers this year gave our country--
the United States of America, the greatest country on Earth--a D-plus
for our infrastructure. I have a bridge that was blown up in my
district next to ArcelorMittal and BP. That's not helping create jobs.
They claim we are about $1.6 trillion short between now and 2020
investing in infrastructure. That's what this bill is about, investing
in the future.
We do need a deal; and the chairman mentioned it, the ranking member
mentioned it. We do have to talk about entitlements for the sake of our
children. What about our children when Social Security is insolvent in
2033? What about our children when Medicare is insolvent in 2024? We
need to address those issues; and we need to address the issue of
revenue to make sure we have enough to invest in those highways, in
those classrooms, in those research institutes so that we can have a
full and vibrant economy going forward.
For those who want to balance the budget and are about this madness
of sequestration and crushing domestic discretionary spending, hurting
defense discretionary spending, I would also point out that the
Congressional Budget Office indicated in October of 2011 that for
fiscal year 2012, one-third of the deficit would have gone away if we
simply were at full employment.
So it is time to talk to each other. It is time to put everything on
the table. It is time to invest in this country. And I would hope we do
that sooner rather than later.
I appreciate very much the gentleman yielding me time.
Mr. LATHAM. I would inquire of the gentleman from Arizona if he has
any more speakers.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, we're waiting for the ranking
member of the full committee. She is on her way. So I will fill in the
best I can.
Mr. LATHAM. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I want to thank my colleague,
Mr. Visclosky, who is the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations,
for his excellent presentation. Also, I join him in making that request
to our leadership, both the majority and the minority, that we begin
the conversation. We only have a few days before September 30 rolls
around. So I would hope that we take his comments seriously and get to
work and continue the process of the appropriation and lift the
sequestration.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished
ranking member of the full committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, what a difference a year makes. Last year,
Chairman Latham put forward a responsible bill that invested in our
Nation's infrastructure and the housing needs of our most vulnerable
citizens. The bill we consider today, which is $7.7 billion below the
FY 2013 CR level and $13.9 billion below the President's request, is a
stark contrast. For example, last year's bill funded Amtrak's capital
program at the highest level ever. This year's bill funds Amtrak at the
lowest level in a decade, which will likely cause furloughs of
mechanical employees and slower service.
Last year, the chairman spoke out against an amendment offered by Mr.
Chaffetz to cut the CDBG program to $2.95 billion--still $1.3 billion
higher than the level in this bill. Member after Member on the majority
side spoke out against the cut, noting how important CDBG was to
economic development in cities and States across the country. In fact,
17 Republican appropriators, including Chairman Rogers and Chairman
Latham, helped to defeat this wrong-headed cut by a vote of 157-267.
What changed? Have these programs become ineffective? Have local
infrastructure needs and homelessness disappeared? Or do House
Republicans simply support raising local taxes to fund affordable
housing and infrastructure investments? Because that will be the
result.
Unfortunately, what has changed is that the reckless Republican Ryan
budget guts investments in domestic priorities that increase American
prosperity. In fact, this bill alone would mean the loss of between
125,000 and 140,000 Tenant-Based Rental Vouchers, cause 146,000 people
who are now housed to become homeless, and result in 7,110 fewer jobs
created, and $1.4 billion in lost economic output due to the $237
million recision to the TIGER program.
Instead of investing in affordable housing to help people make the
transition from dependency to independence and investing in
infrastructure to fix deficient transportation systems and create jobs,
Republicans would rather defund the Affordable Care Act, block-grant
Medicaid, privatize Medicare, while protecting subsidies for Big Oil
and tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans.
The Senate is currently marking up bills at the level to which
Democrats and Republicans agreed in the bipartisan Budget Control Act.
The Senate T-HUD bill provides a more responsible path that invests in
job creation and assistance to families suffering in this economy. For
example, the Senate provides nearly $10 billion more than the bill we
consider today for infrastructure investments that have received strong
bipartisan support and would create jobs, including $1.45 billion to
fund Amtrak, more than $3 billion for the Community Development Block
Grant program, $550 million for the TIGER grant program, and $1 billion
for the HOME program.
If we are to avert a developing crisis and make progress on long-term
fiscal challenges, Senate Democrats need a partner in the House
majority to conference the budget. The American people, local
governments, and small business owners want this budget standoff to end
so that we can avoid shutting down the government in October and help
them build a stronger economy.
When will Republicans stop holding their livelihoods hostage to the
Ryan budget? House Democrats are ready to work with our Republican
colleagues to responsibly address our fiscal challenges. However, if
they continue to move farther away from consensus by turning once
bipartisan bills like this one, T-HUD, into red meat messaging bills
for their base, Congress will have a difficult time reaching a balanced
agreement before the CR expires in 2 months.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, as
we start this amendment process, I want to thank and commend the staff
of the subcommittee. These are the individuals who worked very hard to
bring this bill forward. They worked many hours and put in a lot of
time and effort, so before we start the amendment process I want to
recognize their hard work.
So I'd like to thank, from the minority staff, Kate Hallahan and Joe
Carlile; from the majority staff, Dena Baron, Doug Disrud, Carl
Barrick, Cheryle Tucker, and Brian Bernard because they spent countless
hours bringing this bill to us.
Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Latham for doing what he could with
this bad allocation, and I look forward to the amendment process
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. I intend to yield back here, but let me associate myself
with the comments of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) about
commending the staff. He named everyone. I just wanted to, again,
associate myself with that and thank him for being such a great partner
through all this. It has been difficult, but the product we have is, I
think, as good as we could possibly have with our allocation this year.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, the base bill contains divisive policy riders
that would pointlessly prohibit federal investment in high-speed rail
in California.

[[Page H5114]]

Rail has a long history in CA going back to 1869. Prior to ``the last
spike'' joining Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads, CA was
isolated from the rest of the country.
Once the transcontinental railroad was completed, CA started to
develop into! the urbanized, industrialized economic and political
powerhouse that it is today--the 12th largest economy in the world.
What we're talking about here is jobs. Connecting LA and San
Francisco will generate 66,000 jobs annually for 15 years and 2,900
permanent operations jobs for Phase 1. In the Central Valley, initial
construction will produce 20,000 jobs annually for five years.
If you want to talk about Return on Investment, the initial state
investment of $2.6 billion from state bond funds will produce a net
economic impact of $8.3 to $8.8 billion--a 3 to 1 return.
Every year, auto congestion drains $18.7 billion in lost time and
wasteful fuel from the state's economy.
Our auto congestion is not something we can build ourselves out of .
. . travel on CA's interstate system is increasing at a rate 5 times
faster than capacity is added.
Now is the time to invest in High Speed Rail in CA. This bill
prohibits federal investment in high-speed rail in California, and
fails to make other critically needed investments in our nation's
failing infrastructure: a 37% cut in Amtrak capital funds which will
result in deferred maintenance; and a $139 million cut to Federal Trust
Transit Administration capital investment grants that will cancel
scheduled projects in California and other states.
American's sense of itself as an exceptional nation was true when we
were investing in our national infrastructure, whether it was:
electrification of our rural communities, building our interstate
highway system, or connecting the East Coast to the West Coast by rail.
We need to dream big again and not be afraid to make those same kinds
of investments in our national infrastructure, like high speed rail,
and NextGen for a 21st century air traffic control system.
The American Society of Civil Engineers recently issued their report
card for our nation's infrastructure and the United States got a grade
of D+.
This bill should be increasing our grade from a D+ to an A+.
We just need the political will.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, to build a vibrant economy, we must invest
in building our nation's infrastructure in a strategic and cost-
effective way. Our businesses and communities need efficient
transportation and goods movement; our aging neighborhoods need help to
eliminate blight and to encourage additional private investment and
business growth; and, our country needs to invest in job creation.
H.R. 2610 does not meet any of these needs. The uncompromising
austerity of this bill strips our economy of its footing and imparts
damage that will be felt for generations.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) programs--critical
investments in our infrastructure--will be cut in half by H.R. 2610.
These grants are used to stabilize low income neighborhoods with tools
that support and stimulate economic vitality. For every federal dollar
spent in CDBG funds another $3 in private and public investment is
leveraged.
In Long Beach, CA last year, these grants provided services for 384
new and existing small businesses, creating many new jobs; provided
comprehensive services to 18,000 Long Beach community members,
promoting progress towards permanent housing and self-sufficiency--
lifting people out of poverty and off government assistance; and,
completed exterior repairs and upgrades at 115 business sites
revitalizing Long Beach neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2610 eliminates TIGER (Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery Program) grants and it eliminates all
funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative--both are models of
collaborative and efficient government. These two models support
sustainable regional transportation systems and land use planning to
promote economic health and workable communities, respectively.
America cannot afford to divest in its infrastructure. I ask for a
``no'' vote on H.R. 2610.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong
opposition to the Fiscal Year 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, THUD, appropriations bill being considered before the
House. This bill fails in almost every regard to prioritize our
Nation's crumbling infrastructure, expand affordable housing
opportunities for low- and moderate-income Americans, and strengthen
local economies through direct investment and job creation.
The House bill cuts $7.7 billion from the enacted level for FY2013,
slashing funds for vital community development programs, TIGER grants
and high-speed rail projects, and even key assistance grants for our
most vulnerable segment of the population: homeless individuals and
families. This bill already cuts more than $4 billion below the post-
sequester amounts for FY2013, consistent with the terrible assumptions
included in the Ryan Budget that the Defense Department will be spared
from this shared sacrifice. Simply put, this bill will place the burden
of these cuts squarely on the backs of low- and moderate-income
Americans.
The FY2014 THUD appropriations bill is just another example of House
Republicans' refusal to work across the aisle to develop a sensible and
bipartisan budget agreement that does not threaten our economic growth
and competitiveness. Instead, my Republican colleagues have
deliberately chosen to ignore the demands of the American people by
developing a budget that makes drastic cuts to public programs without
any deliberation on the basis of need or the public good.
Mr. Chair, the FY2014 THUD appropriations bill is simply unworkable
in its current form. The drastic and indiscriminate cuts found in this
bill will undermine critical investments in our Nation's
infrastructure, hollow out vital housing programs, and destroy jobs.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2610

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2014, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary,
$102,481,000, of which not to exceed $2,618,000 shall be
available for the Immediate Office of the Secretary; not to
exceed $984,000 shall be available for the Immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $19,867,000 shall be
available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to
exceed $10,107,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed
$11,572,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed
$2,500,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $23,376,000
shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Administration; not to exceed $2,020,000 shall be
available for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed
$1,595,000 shall be available for the Office of the Executive
Secretariat; not to exceed $1,369,000 shall be available for
the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization;
not to exceed $10,778,000 for the Office of Intelligence,
Security, and Emergency Response; and not to exceed
$15,695,000 shall be available for the Office of the Chief
Information Officer: Provided, That the Secretary of
Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated
for any office of the Office of the Secretary to any other
office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided further, That
no appropriation for any office shall be increased or
decreased by more than 5 percent by all such transfers:
Provided further, That notice of any change in funding
greater than 5 percent shall be submitted for approval to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That not to exceed $60,000 shall be for allocation
within the Department for official reception and
representation expenses as the Secretary may determine:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, excluding fees authorized in Public Law 107-71, there
may be credited to this appropriation up to $2,500,000 in
funds received in user fees: Provided further, That none of
the funds provided in this Act shall be available for the
position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Today's bill is part of the House majority's
irresponsible charade of a budget process. The sequester cuts affecting
2013 spending levels are having a tangible impact on American families
and hurting our economy: 70,000 children losing access to Head Start; 4
million fewer Meals on Wheels delivered; $1.5 billion in cuts to the
National Institutes of Health's lifesaving medical research and jobs;
degraded military readiness; furloughs and reduced paychecks for
hundreds of thousands of Federal employees; and delayed safety
modernization at airports.

{time} 1545

My friends on the other side of the aisle want it both ways. They
adopted

[[Page H5115]]

a budget resolution that endorses the sequester levels for next year,
locking in a top-line figure $92 billion below the Senate's and the
President's budget levels, while they pretend they fixed the sequester
for defense. They cut more than required on the domestic side and did
nothing to shield defense programs from legally mandated cuts under
sequestration. If the House bills are enacted, defense will be cut $48
billion in January as a result of the sequester because the majority
has not enacted legislation to stop it--$48 billion when General
Dempsey has made it very clear to those of us who have had recent talks
with him that our readiness is at stake.
The Republicans allocated more adequate funding to the initial bills
to fund military construction, veterans affairs, defense, and homeland
security. The remaining bills have quickly revealed the Republicans'
thoroughly inadequate investments to sustain job creation and invest in
America's future prosperity.
Perhaps no other bill's programs mean as much to the communities in
our districts as the bill we are considering today, yet it guts
affordable housing and community development and underfunds rail, air,
and road transportation networks.
The same majority wrote a very different bill last year that
reflected an understanding of the impact these programs have on our
economy and Americans' livelihoods.
Compare the House bill to the Senate version, which is almost $10
billion higher. Seventy-three Senators, including 19 Republicans, voted
to proceed to floor debate. The House bill, on the other hand, was
reported from committee on a straight party-line vote.
I would be hard-pressed to find a better example of fiddling while
Rome burns than the House majority's budget and appropriations process
this year. They continue to trot out bills despite White House veto
threats and despite even worse sequestration cuts right around the
corner.
I have asked at our committee to suspend our markup until we
conference a budget resolution with the Senate so that we can negotiate
a reasonable top line for the appropriations process. There is no sense
in the House proceeding alone with levels totally unacceptable to the
White House and the Senate, yet we will be here late into the evening
again considering amendments to a bill that is going nowhere.
When the House returns after the August recess, we will have only 9
legislative days until the end of the fiscal year: 9 days to negotiate
a path forward, 9 days to avert a government shutdown, 9 days to do the
jobs we were sent here to do--work together to invest in America and
build up our economy.
I genuinely hope our majority will be prepared in the fall for the
necessary compromise these negotiations require, because this bill
shows they are not prepared for responsible governance today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the report for this year's
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill, the ``THUD'' bill,
as I noted earlier, states:

The Nation is in desperate need for infrastructure and
investment.

I am glad we can agree on that. We are indeed in desperate need, yet
the bill before us hardly reflects that. It chooses to prioritize
spending cuts over putting Americans back to work. It is part of a
budget process that places antitax ideology above all and refuses to
address the main drivers of the deficit. Instead, it simply doubles
down on sequestration, making sequestration even worse with respect to
the domestic bills so as to give some measure of protection to defense.
It is an atrocious process, and this bill is Exhibit A for this
travesty.
We all know America's surface transportation network is essential for
moving goods and services, as well as people, in an efficient manner.
Unfortunately, that transportation system is becoming increasingly
outdated and ineffective. The American Society of Civil Engineers
recently gave America's infrastructure a cumulative grade of ``D.''
Congestion, aging trains and roads, and thousands of structurally
deficient bridges are imposing real costs on the American people and on
the American economy. It is estimated that Americans spend 4.2 billion
hours a year stuck in traffic. I can testify to sharing that experience
last Sunday. This costs the economy $78.2 billion annually. The poor
condition of our roads costs motorists another $67 billion a year in
repairs and operating expenses.
The civil engineers stated that ``current spending amounts to only
about half of the needed investment.'' Instead, similar to the proposed
Ryan budget, this Republican fiscal year 2014 THUD bill would underfund
programs that provide critical investments in transportation
alternatives and smart growth, providing about $2 billion in total for
transit programs, which is about a 17 percent cut from last year.
The bill would completely eliminate funding for the overwhelmingly
popular and successful TIGER grant program, which invests in multimodal
projects, including roads and bridges, transit, high-speed and
intercity passenger rail, freight rail, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and ports--these things that promise to achieve critical
national objectives and make our communities more livable and
sustainable. On top of that, the bill would even rescind funding for
the fiscal year 2013 TIGER grant process that is already under way.
The bill also decreases funding for the Federal Transit
Administration's New Starts and Small Starts program, which is the
primary source of Federal support for major transit capital projects
that are locally planned, implemented, and operated. They are critical
for leveraging local investment to implement transit alternatives.
And then for yet another year, the bill provides zero dollars for
development of high-speed rail corridor development. I speak as a
representative of a State where high-speed rail development between
Raleigh and Charlotte is well under way and holds great promise. Yet
this bill denies further resources, denies that kind of support for
other parts of the country. Our Nation has a major competitiveness gap
in this area. These investments make sense. Sometimes you have to spend
some money to make some money, and high-speed rail investments have a
synergistic impact. They upgrade our rail infrastructure, they improve
the mobility of goods and people, and they create jobs.
Finally, Amtrak. This bill is pathetic with respect to Amtrak--only
$950 million total. Of this, only $600 million goes to the capital
account. That is a 37 percent reduction from last year and more than $1
billion less than the administration's request for capital.
You can figure out how this is going to work. You subtract from that
amount Amtrak's required mandatory debt service, that is $200 million;
safety-critical work and inspections and maintenance mandated by
Federal law, that is another $200 million; and new equipment expected
to be delivered this year that will add capacity and improve returns on
long-distance trains, that is $100 million. So you see where that money
is going. It leaves almost nothing for capital investment in the
national system, including improving accessibility for passengers with
disabilities.
When you are cutting things this closely, it means the work you are
going to do is going to be done less efficiently. Amtrak will have to
fix problems only as they occur. It will defer major work. That is bad
policy. It is bad economics. If Amtrak deteriorates, service will
suffer, revenue will suffer, Amtrak's costs will go up, and that will
eventually be reflected in higher appropriations needs in the future.
Mr. Chairman, transportation investments help improve the mobility of
millions of Americans and provide alternatives to congested roadways.
They foster the development of more livable communities and are proven
job-creators. It is absolutely penny wise and pound foolish to
shortchange these investments. I urge defeat of this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, by gutting investments in transportation

[[Page H5116]]

and housing, the majority is proposing to bring our Nation backward at
a time when we must be building the infrastructure needed to compete
and win in a competitive global economy.
For example, with today's legislation, the majority is proposing to
slash the Community Development Block Grant program by almost half.
These cuts would be devastating to the working poor in communities like
Rochester, New York, which I represent, where block grants provide
housing assistance and investments in neighborhoods that are woefully
underserved.
Furthermore, the majority is proposing to gut investments in
infrastructure projects, and particularly passenger rail. They do so at
a time when rail ridership continues to grow across the country.
In Rochester, the Amtrak ridership has been increased by 89 percent
since 2008, despite the fact that decades of underinvestment have
resulted in aging rails, delayed trains we have to sidetrack to let the
freight go by, and a crumbling train station.
I want to say something about this train station. It was built over
45 years ago as a temporary train station. It has not, in all these
years, been ADA compliant. You cannot imagine what it is like to get
somebody in a wheelchair from the station up onto the train, or to
watch a mother with a stroller struggle to get up there because it is
impossible to do. 144,000 people went through that railroad station
last year, and they deserve something more like the 21st century.
I have fought years to improve train travel; and we are finally
getting to build, with a TIGER grant, a new intermodal station in the
heart of the city. Like countless other cities and towns, our work has
been supported by Federal TIGER grants, which have provided vital
support in modernizing our city's infrastructure. The funding is
allowing Rochester and countless other communities to build the roads,
rails, and runways we need to compete for the jobs of the future. But
we cannot allow that to happen if we cut out the very means by which we
fund them.
Ridership, as I have said, on Amtrak's high-speed Acela, which I wish
we had--we only have one sort-of-high-speed rail in New York--continues
to reach record highs, and States like California and Illinois and
North Carolina are already building high-speed rail lines. That is
terribly important.
As cochair of the bicameral Congressional High-Speed Passenger Rail
Caucus, I will soon be joined today by fellow members who realize the
incredible value of Amtrak and nationwide passenger rail to our
country.
The truth is that our rail system reaches throughout our economy and
supports tens of thousands of jobs. The bill before us today endangers
these jobs, including the jobs of 20,000 Amtrak employees and the
private businesses who sold $1.3 billion worth of domestic goods and
services to Amtrak last year.
As my colleagues will tell you, endangering jobs today and our
economy is a recipe for failure, especially at a time when our
infrastructure really needs to be upgraded. As we rebuild places like
Afghanistan, it always makes me so angry. If they are going to be
building high-speed rail there, I want to build it in New York, in
America somewhere.
Let me tell you this story, which I think will bring it home to all
of you.
In 1893, the president of New York Central Railroad, for reasons I'm
not really clear, lived way out in upstate New York. He had to commute
to New York City every day during the week and spent the weekends at
home. In 1893, they decided they would have a race with steam engines,
so they raced the few miles between Buffalo and Rochester to see which
one of those engines were the fastest. Mr. Chair, they set a world
record by traveling at 112\1/2\ miles an hour between Rochester and
Buffalo.
Today, we are on the same track. It hasn't been improved any, but we
can't go anywhere near like that. There is no way we can get even close
to 80 miles an hour. We can't do that. Mostly it is about 40. It takes
a lot longer now to travel from Rochester to Buffalo than it did in
1893.

{time} 1600

Crumbling infrastructure like this is not only harmful to our economy
but is an embarrassment to a Nation that has never been scared to dream
big, and while it is true that our Nation has faced challenges over the
past few years, we need big answers.
The proposed bill fails our country now and into the future. Now is
not the moment to stop investing in our country nor is it the time to
resign ourselves to a future of diminished success. Instead, it is a
time to roll up our sleeves and to put our country back to work.
We can answer the call of a generation by investing in the future,
and we can build a better, more prosperous America one road, one
runway, and one rail line at a time. So I urge my colleagues to reject
the cynical and backwards-looking legislation that is before us.
I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the New York Times, May 12, 1893]

Great Speed on the Central

EMPIRE STATE EXPRESS ENGINE TRAVELS AT THE RATE OF 112\1/2\ MILES AN
HOUR

Buffalo, NY, May 11.--If the New-York Central officials
wanted a record for their new engine, No. 999, preparatory to
exhibiting her at the World's Fair, they have got one now
that beats the world. It is 112\1/2\ miles an hour.
On Tuesday the Empire State Express, drawn by this
marvelous machine, made 102 miles an hour, a great record in
itself, but Engineer Charles Hogan said she was not feeling
well that day and could do better. She was given a night's
rest here, and yesterday morning was brought out, looking
ponderous, trim, and stately, and sent down to Syracuse for
another trial.
The Empire State Express arrived in Syracuse on time, and
Hogan and No. 999 were ready to take her. The engine was
coupled on and the train left Syracuse on time. Hogan let her
out a few times on the way to Rochester, just to see if she
was feeling good, and finding that she responded to every
touch of the throttle he contentedly bided his time. He did
not want to get ahead of his schedule and he brought her into
the Rochester depot at just the right moment. The test of
speed was to come between Rochester and this city. Soon after
leaving Rochester Hogan slowed her down a little, for he
intended to make up the time at the western end of the trip.
Passing Batavia, the train was rushing along at an easy gait
of a mile a minute. Then Hogan let her out. The speed
increased as the engine flew along, and just before reaching
Crittenden the record of Tuesday of a mile in thirty-five
seconds was equaled. But this was exceeded just this side of
that station, when the new world's record of a mile in
thirty-two seconds was made.
This is equivalent to 112\1/2\ miles an hour. A speed
nearly as great was kept up until Forks Station was reached,
and then Hogan slowed her down and allowed her to enter
Buffalo at her customary speed, arriving on time.
The passengers on board said that the train flew along with
the same steadiness that would have accompanied a slower rate
of speed. There was no unusual swaying or jolting, and only
persons who were looking out for manifestations of
extraordinary speed would have noticed that the clickety-
click of the rails sounded like the roar of musketry, and the
telegraph poles along the track seemed like pickets in a
fence.
At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the New-York
Central Railraod yesterday the determination was reached to
begin the running of the twenty-hour train to Chicago on the
28th inst. The train will be know as the ``Exposition
Flier.'' The question of fare has not yet been definitely
settled. Doubtless the action of the Trunk Line Presidents
to-day will have some effect on the rate. An advance of from
$5 to $10 on the regular fare will probably be charged. The
speed of this fast train will be about fifty miles an hour.

Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the FY14
Transportation-HUD appropriations bill.
This bill is the perfect illustration of the majority's cruel and
misguided priorities. We hear a lot from the other side about how we
need to cut the budget, reduce the deficit and rein in spending, but,
clearly, that's just rhetoric. Last week, the majority put a bill on
the floor that increased defense spending substantially, including
extra funding for programs the administration and the military didn't
want and have no intention of using. The reality is that the majority
in this House is perfectly willing to increase spending for things they
care about, like military contracts, but not for ensuring adequate
housing, investing in economic and community development or even in
transportation infrastructure.
The bill before us today is so bad that it's hard to imagine how it
can be fixed. The House bill is fully $10 billion less than the Senate
bill, and it's virtually impossible to find offsets for amendments to
improve the bill, but

[[Page H5117]]

it's important for us to highlight some of the egregious cuts, such as
the drastic cuts to the Amtrak capital and operating budget. Just a few
years ago, Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act, PRIIA, which authorized a total of $9.8 billion for
Amtrak for the fiscal years 2009 through 2013, but the actual
appropriations for Amtrak over this time period was $2.5 billion below
the authorized amount.
There is no question we need to invest more in our railroads. A
working group for the National Surface Transportation Policy and
Revenue Study Commission reported that the total capital cost estimate
of establishing a national intercity passenger rail network between now
and 2050 would be about $357 billion, or a little over $8 billion
annually. We are nowhere near that, and the bill before us today takes
us in exactly the wrong direction. This bill slashes Amtrak's capital
program by 37 percent and Amtrak's operations by 25 percent from last
year's enacted level.
These funding levels would have a drastic impact on Amtrak's ability
to maintain service. Once you take into account Amtrak's financial
obligations, such as contract payments and federally mandated safety
work, Amtrak would have only $100 million to cover the investment needs
of the entire system. The Northeast corridor alone requires about $780
million per year to address longstanding state of good repair needs,
and Amtrak will have to defer maintenance, which will cause service
delays and interruptions, and increased costs in the long run.
This is idiotic. I know some people are Amtrak haters no matter the
facts, but here are a few more facts that are noteworthy.
Commuter lines on the Northeast corridor carry 235 million passengers
every year. These are mostly business travelers who rely on the
reliability of Amtrak's rail in order for them to get to work and
foster economic growth. If Amtrak cannot maintain the rails adequately,
all of these commuter rail systems around all of our major cities will
stop being efficient, will stop being able to transport their people.
Amtrak employs nearly 20,000 people in 46 States. Amtrak employees
paid more than $64 million in State and local taxes last year. Amtrak
did business for suppliers equaling about $1.3 billion last year.
Cutting funding for Amtrak jeopardizes all of this economic activity
and all of the good-paying jobs associated with it. It will ultimately
cost taxpayers a lot of money in the long run.
Amtrak provides a vital service for communities all around the
country. We should be increasing investments in Amtrak and developing
intercity and high-speed rail. This bill includes no funds whatsoever
for the TIGER grant program. In fact, it rescinds $237 million in
previous TIGER funds. The bill also includes no funding for the
Projects of National and Regional Significance account, which is
authorized under the MAP-21 bill that we passed last year but that is
now subject to general fund appropriations. The New Starts program will
fund some new transit programs, but that account is cut as well, and
there is only enough funding to maintain commitments to projects
currently in the pipeline. So there are, essentially, no programs to
fund any new construction of major transportation projects.
The majority has offered no solutions for how to invest in future
economic growth, to facilitate interstate commerce and to maintain our
global competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to reject these disastrous
cuts to Amtrak, these disastrous cuts to TIGER and to general
infrastructure, and to support moving us back toward an intelligent
transportation policy. I have to urge a ``no'' vote on the FY14
Transportation-HUD appropriations bill.
Later in this debate, I will discuss the equally disastrous cuts in
Community Development Block Grants. It's just another example of how
this bill is dismantling the United States.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of New York). The gentleman from
Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I come to address the House, the Congress
of the United States.
We are the wealthiest country in the world. We are the most powerful
country in the world. We have one program that focuses on improving the
lives and life chances of people in our lower-income communities across
our country. It's called the Community Development Block Grant. It was
created under Republican President Richard Nixon in 1974.
Since its inception, we have invested about $132 billion in some
1,209 communities across our country. Over the life of this program, we
have invested about the same amount as we took to build the
International Space Station. In 1 year, we spent approximately the same
amount in Afghanistan. This year, we are spending $3.3 billion on the
Community Development Block Grant, which is the lowest amount in the
history of our Nation.
What the majority, my friends on the other side, are proposing in
this appropriations bill is to spend the least amount ever on this
effort. They want to slash it from $3.3 billion to $1.6 billion. Now,
it's not that they are mean-spirited. It is because the allocation for
this bill is fatally deficient. It is too low to meet the needs of the
greatest country on Earth in so many respects that we could be here all
day in pointing out the deficiencies, but I want to focus on just this
one program.
Because it was created by a Republican President, it operates in the
most, I think, approving way for those on the other team. That is to
say that these are grants for which all of the decisions are made at
the local level by Republican and Democratic Governors, by Republican
and Democratic local officials. They decide what the priorities are
going to be to help uplift these communities. So it's unfortunate that
they would single out this particular program--the only program that we
have to help the neediest communities across our country. I've seen it.
It has worked in local business districts, encouraging small business
development. I've seen its work in helping seniors put in major systems
repair and heating and windows or roofing so that they can be protected
in the winter.
This is a great program, even though it was developed by a President
of the other party. It operates through local decisionmaking. It's
already at the lowest level ever, and if you added up what we've
invested in it in all of these years, it wouldn't add up to what we've
spent in building the International Space Station. If we added up all
that we've spent on it in all of these years, it barely gets to the
number we spend in 1 year in Afghanistan, but we still think somehow we
should cut it in half.
It's a wrongheaded decision. I would ask that we reconsider it. I
know the allocation is tough, but it's going to be a lot tougher on so
many more Americans who live in communities, in being reminded of what
Jay-Z said, that have their shades on and are just waiting on the Sun
to shine their way. I would ask my colleagues to think about that as we
go forward. Think about the wrongheadedness of this and how unworthy it
is for the greatest country on Earth to say to its citizens who need
our help that somehow we can spend money in Afghanistan--in some far
off place--or that we can build a great International Space Station,
which I support, but that we can't do anything about the challenges in
these neighborhoods. I ask the entire House to live up to our
responsibilities in a much different way than we are doing now.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Griffin of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 56, line 25, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, on March 29, 2013, the
ExxonMobil Pegasus pipeline in Mayflower, Arkansas, spilled thousands
of gallons of oil into the homes and onto the properties surrounding
the ruptured pipelines. I am committed to making things right for the
people of Mayflower by ensuring that another spill like this doesn't
occur again in Arkansas.

[[Page H5118]]

The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, is responsible for regulating
and ensuring the safe and secure movement of oil and petroleum products
to industry and consumers through our Nation's interstate pipelines. As
an interstate pipeline, the inspection of the Pegasus pipeline was
PHMSA's responsibility.
Pipelines move nearly two-thirds of the oil and petroleum products
transported annually. Interstate pipelines deliver over 11.3 billion
barrels of petroleum each year. The cost to transport a barrel of
petroleum products from Houston to the New York Harbor is about a
dollar. American pipelines are indisputably the safest way to move oil,
and I remain supportive of the pipeline infrastructure as it will
provide important jobs and energy to Americans, but we've got to make
sure these pipelines are safe. Every year, pipelines transport more
than 11 billion barrels of oil, and last year, less than five ten-
thousandths of 1 percent of it was lost to spills.
We've got to do what we can to make sure spills that did occur don't
happen again. Although the number of spills is a minimal fraction of
what we safely transport throughout the country, I know that we can
still make more certain the safety of our Nation's pipelines. I
continue to support the safe transport of our Nation's oil and
petroleum products, and I have introduced my amendment to increase the
budget for PHMSA's operational expenses by $500,000 to further ensure
the safety of our Nation's pipelines.
This appropriation finances the operational support costs for PHMSA,
including agency-wide functions of administration, management, policy
development, legal counsel, budget, financial management, civil rights,
human resources, acquisition services, information technology, and
governmental and public affairs.
I ask that the House support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. I think it is very well thought out. The gentleman does
have it offset, so the committee position on this side would be to
support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. McGOVERN. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who talked
about the underfunding of so many important programs in this bill but,
in particular, of the Community Development Block Grant program.
When we talk about our national security, it means more than the
number of missiles that we possess, and it means more than the number
of military bases we have overseas. It means as well--and just as
importantly--many of the priorities that are contained in the
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.
That is why it pains me to come to the floor today to lament about
how woefully underfunded key transportation, infrastructure and housing
programs are in this bill--programs that revitalize our communities,
help our neighbors secure affordable housing, and support smart
economic development.

{time} 1615

The bill, as it is before us today, simply put, is unfixable at its
current allocation level. There are programs like the HOME program,
which is at its lowest funding level in its history. Just so my
colleagues understand, the HOME program is a critical Federal
investment utilized by States and localities to provide affordable
rental and homeownership opportunities for low-income households. As we
recover from a damaging recession, these cuts in this program will put
further strain on affordable housing opportunities.
This bill also severely underfunds tenant-based rental assistance,
project-based rental assistance, and the Public Housing Capital Fund. I
continue to hear from housing advocates in my home State of
Massachusetts, and their message is consistent and clear: we need more
funding in these accounts to ensure that all families have access to
affordable, comfortable, and stable housing.
The families that we're talking about aren't losing sleep overnight
wondering whether they're going to be attacked from some country
overseas. They're losing sleep overnight because they don't know
whether they're going to have shelter to protect their own families.
They're worried about their own security in this country, and yet we
are underfunding these programs so significantly.
I'm especially concerned, as my colleague from Pennsylvania stated,
about the proposed reduction in Community Development Block Grant
funding. This bill cuts CDBG formula grants by nearly 50 percent and
funds this program at its lowest level since its creation in the 1970s.
In April, I joined with 143 bipartisan Members on a programmatic
request letter to appropriators in support of $3.3 billion for this
program. In July, after the subcommittee's legislation was released,
101 bipartisan Members wrote to the Appropriations Committee again
expressing support for effective funding levels. There is demonstrated
bipartisan support for Community Development Block Grants, Mr.
Chairman, because these dollars are at work in communities in each of
our districts.
Last week, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts announced that 38
communities in Massachusetts will receive over $31 million in CDBG
funding. These dollars will fund housing rehabilitation, child care
centers, cityscape improvements, and social services, just to name a
few. I also want to point out that every $1 in Community Development
Block Grants leverages an additional $3.55 in funding to revitalize our
communities. Investing these Federal dollars in our cities and in our
towns spurs redevelopment efforts and provides a high return on our
investment. These funds also create and save jobs. Since fiscal year
2005, these funds have created or retained over 300,000 jobs. If my
friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about job creation,
CDBG is not the place to cut.
Realizing the need for effective funding, the Senate appropriations
bill funds the program at $3.15 billion. So, should this bill go to
conference, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to reject these cuts in the House bill and support robust
funding for Community Development Block Grants, a program with a proven
record of supporting community development efforts across our country.
Let's stop these reckless and harmful cuts to our communities. We
ought to be on the floor today fixing sequestration. My colleagues on
the other side of the aisle should be on the floor today appointing
conferees on the budget so that we can negotiate more reasonable
allocations on these appropriations bills.
I would remind my colleagues that this is not some abstract debate
that we're having here today on the floor. These cuts will hurt real
people. They will pave the way for more deterioration of our cities and
towns. They will cost jobs and they will hurt our economy. Enough is
enough. We're supposed to be helping people, not hurting people. It's
time for Congress to get its priorities straight.
I urge my colleagues to support the CDBG program, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my
colleague, Mr. Latham, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. LATHAM. I would be happy to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I know that you know that our Nation
suffers from a spending-driven debt crisis and the only real remedy is
to quit spending money that we don't have. But because the President
would not

[[Page H5119]]

work with us to enact meaningful, targeted spending discipline, his
sequester has been enacted.
Mr. Chairman, we are stewards of the taxpayers' dollars; and with the
President's sequester in place, I believe that it's more critical than
ever that our Nation's transportation funding be spent wisely,
including funding for the FAA's Contract Tower Program because, Mr.
Chairman, in Washington, it's not always how much money you spend that
counts; it's how you spend the money.
I would ask the distinguished chairman to work with me and other
Members to ensure that this critical funding is allocated to the
facilities that represent the greatest cost benefit to the taxpayer.
Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue. I
look forward to working with him and the FAA to ensure that our limited
Federal dollars go to towers that provide the greatest benefit to the
taxpayer.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the chairman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
2610. This bill, which was crafted to conform to the strangling and
senseless limits of the Ryan budget, would cut the total discretionary
funding for the Transportation-HUD appropriations measure by $7.7
billion below the enacted fiscal year 2013 appropriation and by more
than $4 billion below the level of funding provided after sequestration
took effect.
These cuts would devastate programs like the Community Development
Block Grant program and the HOME program, which are essential to
supporting development in cities throughout our Nation and to providing
housing and other services to our most vulnerable citizens.
This bill would also be devastating to our national passenger rail
service, Amtrak; and that is the specific issue I will address today.
The bill before us would cut the capital grant provided to Amtrak by
some $352 million and cut the operating grant by $119 million below the
enacted fiscal year 2013 levels. Such cuts would likely force Amtrak to
reduce its maintenance levels and furlough maintenance personnel. Such
cuts may even lead to reduced service on the Northeast corridor, the
critical link on the eastern seaboard among Washington, D.C.,
Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
In their views on the Transportation-HUD appropriations measure, the
minority noted that this bill is out of touch with reality and that it
is nowhere more evident than in the proposed funding level for Amtrak.
While the House majority has undertaken a relentless effort to
destroy Amtrak, the traveling public has made it clear they consider
Amtrak to be an essential part of our Nation's transportation network.
Amtrak finished fiscal year 2012 having carried more than 31 million
passengers--the highest number of passengers in any year since Amtrak
was created. This total included more than 11 million passengers who
traveled on the Northeast corridor. Together, the long-distance routes
had their highest passenger volumes in 19 years and Amtrak set 12
consecutive monthly ridership records in fiscal year 2012. To put this
number in perspective, if Amtrak were an airline, it would be the sixth
largest in the country.
Americans have voted with their ticket purchases, and they are
choosing to ride Amtrak in greater numbers. In fact, record ridership
growth is continuing in fiscal year 2013. Rather than seeking to
destroy a service critical to our Nation's mobility, we should be
investing in this system to ensure it can continue to meet increased
passenger demand with increased speed and efficiency.
Significant infrastructure improvements are needed all along the
Northeast corridor to create truly high-speed rail service. In
Maryland, for example, the B&P tunnel, which carries every train
traveling into Washington, D.C., from all points north of the city,
must be replaced. This tunnel was opened in 1873 and its design limits
train speeds to 30 miles per hour. We would not think of relying on
technology from the 1870s in other aspects of our lives. We wouldn't
want medical technology or communications technology from the 1870s.
And we should not be content to rely on transportation infrastructure
from the 1870s.
The President has rightly threatened to veto this bill; and rather
than waste the House's time on legislation like this that threatens to
degrade our transportation networks and delay passengers and commerce,
we should be considering bills that will make long overdue investments
to expand our mobility and support our economic growth. Rather than
cutting investments in Amtrak, we should be investing in the
development of truly high-speed rail on the Northeast corridor and
throughout the northeastern United States.
And before we consider this or any other appropriations measures, the
House and Senate should follow regular order by appointing conferees
who can resolve a budget that can be adopted by both bodies and that
can then guide the development of appropriations measures for fiscal
year 2014.
I urge Members to oppose this misguided legislation, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this Transportation-Housing and Urban
Development bill before us today is the latest in a long series of
appropriations bills from the House majority that grossly underfunds
the fundamental priorities of American families. Every time we see a
new appropriations bill come from this majority, the vital national
needs that are meant to be covered in that legislation have been cut to
the bone.
In this case, this bill makes deep cuts in everything from the upkeep
of the traffic control system to Amtrak to Community Development Block
Grants and HOME grants. This bill endangers our infrastructure, our
public safety, and our communities. It is yet another example of the
problems created by the majority's obsessive fixation on slashing all
nondefense spending programs to the detriment of the priorities we were
elected to uphold.
Let's step back for a moment and look at the big picture. The Budget
Control Act of 2011 placed strict limits on appropriations--defense as
well as domestic--that are scheduled to remain in place through 2021.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that these
caps will reduce spending by a total of $840 billion over 10 years,
compared to the policies previously in place.
Now, on top of these Budget Control Act caps, we also have the deep
and indiscriminate across-the-board cuts caused by sequestration.
Despite claims to the contrary by this majority, the effects of the
sequester cuts are real. They're real and they are damaging. We are
talking about children losing access to Head Start and the
opportunities for their growth and development that early childhood
education provides. Low-income women will lose access to the cancer
screenings that could say their lives. Seniors will be hungry because
Meals on Wheels distribution has been pared back.
When the new school year starts in September, school districts
already struggling to make ends meet will face an additional across-
the-board 5 percent cut in Federal aid. And in terms of medical
research, the National Institutes of Health will be supporting the
smallest number of research project grants this year in more than a
decade.
These cuts will have profound and lasting consequences for families,
for students, for the pace of scientific research. But despite that,
the majority apparently thinks that the problem with sequestration, at
least when it comes to domestic spending, is that the cuts were too
small. They have been assembling a series of bills for 2014 that cut
the resources for nondefense programs by a total of almost $47 billion
below the 2013 postsequester level.

[[Page H5120]]

That is not the right direction for this country. That's not what we
ought to be doing.
In total, the majority's 2014 budget bills will bring funding for
nondefense appropriations to their lowest level on record as a share of
GDP, with records on this basis going back to 1976. In other words, the
majority proposes to spend less, relative to the economy, on things
like infrastructure, scientific research, education, environmental
protection--the key investments that grow our economy--than at any time
in nearly the last 40 years.
Within the total, some bills are targeted for larger cuts than
others. Sequestration already cuts the transportation, housing, and
infrastructure programs covered in today's bill by more than $3
billion, and this legislation would slash another $4.4 billion.

{time} 1630

That's bad enough, but the largest cuts of all come in the Labor-
Health and Human Services-Education bill, which the majority seems to
consider the very lowest priority. The allocation to that bill starts
with this year's $7 billion in sequestration cuts, and then cuts $28
billion more. Think about it for a moment. For programs like education,
medical research, job training, public health, the majority does not
just want to double down on sequestration; they want to quadruple down.
This is not about saving money or reducing the deficit. This is about
ideology, pure and simple. The majority's approach is not required by
the Budget Control Act. On the contrary, in total, their bills are
$47.7 billion below the Budget Control Act cap on non-defense spending,
and that is the cap with sequestration in place.
Because this bill is already far leaner than even the BCA and
sequestration require, there are no offsets to be had to ameliorate the
deep and dangerous cuts to Community Development Block Grants, housing,
Amtrak, or mass transit. The bottom line is the majority is very
explicitly trying to underfund the priorities in this legislation. They
have put forward a budget that sets our government and our Nation up to
fail.
This is not the right choice for America, for our kids or our future.
Responsible budgeting means making key investments that grow the
economy and improve American families' quality of life. This is just
not a responsible budget. I urge defeat of this grossly inadequate
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my
colleagues in strong support of the Community Development Block Grant
program and the tremendous benefits that this program has afforded
millions of low- and moderate-income Americans since its inception in
1974 under Republican leadership. The Community Development Block Grant
is a vital tool that the Department of Housing and Urban Development
uses to provide for new developments and affordable housing in local
communities all across the country.
The fiscal year 2014 House Transportation-Housing and Urban
Development appropriations bill indiscriminately slashes the grants by
almost half, or $1.6 billion less than the current $3.3 billion for
fiscal year 2013. These cuts do not reflect a change in need or have
any basis in reality, and they would do incredible harm to local
communities across the entire Nation.
The House version of this bill is simply unworkable in its current
form, and it plainly ignores many of the benefits that the CDBG program
provides for the 1,209 State and local governments that receive these
grants. Since 1974, CDBG has invested over $135 billion in local
economies. Every dollar that has been invested leverages an additional
$3.55 in non-CDBG funding, which can go toward improving existing
infrastructure, new jobs, and housing repairs, as well as homeownership
assistance. By slashing CDBG funding, the House majority will
invariably bring harm to countless low- and moderate-income Americans.
I'm not prepared to do that, and neither are many of us, even many
Republican colleagues.
Cuts from years prior have already had devastating consequences. The
city of Dallas, for example, is considering another round of cuts or
eliminating certain programs entirely in light of projected budget
reductions. For Dallas, this could mean eliminating grants for
affordable housing developers, shrinking the Mortgage Assistance
Program, and decimating new home construction in areas targeted by CDBG
revitalization.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2014 Transportation-Housing and Urban
Development appropriations bill will bring considerable harm, and
considering it this week is just another example of the misguided
policies of the current Republican majority. As long as the current
majority Republicans refuse to work together with House Democrats to
develop a sensible budget framework, the American people will continue
to suffer the consequences of draconian cuts to invaluable social
programs.
When we shut down everything, it does not help us economically. It
shuts us down. It moves us backwards. There is a right way and a wrong
way, and we cannot continue to do it the way this current Republican
majority is pushing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my colleagues today
in advocating for critical investments to rebuild our Nation's
transportation infrastructure. The bill we are considering this week
makes devastating cuts that will have serious consequences on our
ability to compete in the global economy and ensure the stability and
well-being of local communities.
The fact of the matter is that our infrastructure is crumbling, with
the American Society of Civil Engineers grading the United States with
a D-plus on their annual report card assessing the condition of
America's infrastructure. In my home State of Rhode Island, 21 percent
of our 757 bridges are structurally deficient and in need of repairs.
In the short-term, supporting our Nation's roads, rails, and airports
will generate job growth in a construction sector that remains hard hit
from the recession--employing the talented, capable men and women of
the building trades to rebuild America.
In a rapidly changing global economy, the ability to quickly and
safely transport goods, services, and information is a real advantage.
To compete successfully, every American business, from energy companies
and manufacturers to technology companies and farmers, must have access
to a world-class connected transportation system. transportation
system.

But to maintain this edge, virtually every expert has said we must
continue to invest in rebuilding America. If you don't believe me, look
at the strategic decisions being made by competing nations. Just last
week, China's Ministry of Rails announced plans to invest another $32
billion to upgrade their rail system. In June, President Putin proposed
investing $43 billion to build a new superhighway in Moscow, modernize
the Trans-Siberian Railway, and construct a brand-new 500-mile high-
speed rail line.
While Russia and China are betting on their economic future, my
friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a bill that would
unquestionably set us back. This bill guts investments in our
railroads, cutting more than $468 million in funding for Amtrak
compared to fiscal year 2013 enacted levels and eliminates all funding
for high-speed rail.
This bill cuts intercity passenger rail despite recent reports
demonstrating how rail has been an area of growth. According to a
report from the Brookings Institution last year, Amtrak was our
Nation's fastest growing mode of transportation in the last 15 years.
My local train station in Providence, Rhode Island, has seen
ridership totals increase by more than 137 percent, and Amtrak is not
just used by tourists.
So, demand for intercity passenger rail service has grown
exponentially in the last decade and our competitors abroad have
noticed, investing billions in their rail systems. But here, some of my
colleagues have decided to slash

[[Page H5121]]

funding and put our rail system at risk. This is clearly the wrong
approach.
Of course, this legislation does not only jeopardize our Nation's
rail system; it also slashes funding for municipal and State
governments hoping to invest in critical local projects.
This bill eliminates all funding for the TIGER grant program in
fiscal year 2014, and it rescinds $237 million of the $500 million
appropriated for the current fiscal year.
The TIGER program invests in innovative, multimodal transportation
projects, providing for upgrades of bridges, roads, ports, and other
transportation infrastructure that are critical to regional economies.
But perhaps most importantly, this is a program that encourages local
stakeholders to plan for their future and think about innovations to
local transportation infrastructure that will spur growth and create
jobs. This is exactly how Federal investments are supposed to work.
Unfortunately, this bill once again leaves our State and local
partners without the resources needed to help strengthen local
communities. Sadly, it gets worse. This bill also jeopardizes the
still-fragile recovery of our housing market and communities at risk.
For example, this bill decimates funding for the Community
Development Block Grant program, which was signed into law by a
Republican President who recognized the importance of assisting
communities by providing flexibility to invest in everything from
wastewater treatment facilities to housing and economic development.
This critical program is a lifeline for families facing difficult
economic challenges and provides critical resources to promote economic
development and improve quality of life.
Today, this bill cuts CDBG funding levels almost in half compared to
current enacted levels, the lowest level of funding since it began, and
a billion dollars less than President Ford requested for the program in
1975. Let that sink in. This bill cuts our investments in local
projects so drastically that we have reduced programs to less than 60
percent of what they were nearly four decades ago.
Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly does not reflect our values and
priorities as a Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject this reckless
and shortsighted bill, and to work together on a plan to respond to our
urgent transportation and infrastructure needs and a plan that
dedicates resources to strengthening local communities. Our ability to
promote growth, create jobs, and compete in a global economy depends on
it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong opposition of the underlying
bill, as it makes damaging cuts to Community Development Block Grants.
A cut of $1.6 billion--a nearly 50 percent reduction from the previous
year--is not smart policymaking. These draconian cuts will no doubt
have lasting harmful effects on our communities throughout the country.
Since 1974, over 1,200 communities relied on CDBG funds to support
development projects and make other important improvements. These funds
are used in providing social services for the poor and senior citizens,
improving dilapidated housing facilities, supporting local food banks,
and maintaining local parks. CDBG funds are critical investments made
by the Federal Government to bring important benefits to local
communities.
My district, for example, stands to lose almost $2.2 million next
year if these cuts go into effect. That's nearly half of what they got
last year. And it's on top of hundreds of thousands cities in my
district have already lost due to the poorly designed automatic cuts
known as sequestration. The city of Pasadena will see their funding
drop from $1.7 million to under $1 million. The city of Alhambra will
see their funding drop from around $800,000 down to only $430,000.
These cuts are more than lines on a piece of paper. They will have
real impacts on my neighbors and my community. Take People for People,
a food bank run by the West San Gabriel Valley Church Council for the
last 25 years. People for People provides the homeless and needy
families with clothes and boxes of food. During the recession, they saw
a 20 percent spike in the numbers of families who came to them for
help. Last year, they were able to support hundreds of families that
are suffering right now. Hundreds of families stay afloat with local
donations and a $27,000 grant through CDBG. But this year, because of
Federal Government cuts, they will receive 75 percent less, merely
$7,000.
But People for People isn't the only program that will get hit.
Countless other nonprofit service organizations around the San Gabriel
Valley will be forced to serve fewer low-income residents at a time
when they need it the most. CDBG funds have helped fund tutoring,
health services, small business assistance, senior services, food
assistance, and fair housing services. Cities will have to cut back on
home rehabilitation programs that improve blighted neighborhoods and
public facilities, improvements that make cities safer and more
accessible. And fewer construction projects mean fewer construction
jobs, too.
During this time of economic recovery, we cannot pull out the rug
from programs that are vital to helping our constituents. Our cities,
our communities, and our constituents cannot afford these drastic cuts
to CDBG funding. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1645

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise today because our
Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act is insufficient to maintain our
national transportation infrastructure and invest properly in community
development and safe, affordable housing.
This Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act really guts investments
critical to strong, sustainable communities. And, in particular, it
decimates the Community Development Block Grants program, slashing it
in half to the lowest level since the program began in 1975.
This isn't just something that hurts Democrats. It hurts Republicans,
it hurts everybody. It's across the board. And so, for the Community
Development Block Grant program to work and ensure access to decent,
affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our
communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of
businesses, we've got to reject this proposal before us.
Communities across the country rely on the Community Development
Block Grant to provide critical services for low-income people and
their families, as well as economic development assistance to small
businesses and infrastructure improvements.
To this day, the Community Development Block Grant remains the
principal source of revenue for localities to use in devising flexible
solutions to prevent economic and social deterioration in lower-income
neighborhoods and communities throughout the Nation.
These grants are an important tool for helping local governments
tackle serious challenges facing their communities, making a difference
in the lives of millions of people and their communities across the
Nation.
Now, Detroit is a longstanding Community Development Block Grant
grantee, receiving an average of $33 million in annual funding, while
Wayne County, which Detroit is in, receives an additional $5.3 million.
Yet, this proposal in the appropriations bill would drastically cut
these funds.
The CDBG program in Detroit and Wayne County, includes preserving
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, offering a range of housing
choices, constructing urban infrastructure, improving the appearance of
urban and rural communities, increasing the quality of neighborhood-
based living, and decreasing negative environmental impacts.
For my conservative friends to continue to focus solely on reducing
the deficit, in particular doing so on the backs of the most vulnerable
Americans, is unnecessary and not appreciated. Although deficit
reduction is an important task, Congress can't balance

[[Page H5122]]

the budget on the backs of working families. And sharply reducing
programs like the Community Development Block Grant and HOME is going
the wrong direction.
I would say, this is the second major cut for the Community
Development Block Grant funding since the Great Recession. The CDBG
Coalition, consisting of national organizations representing local
elected officials, State and local government practitioners,
development organizations, and nonprofit organizations, all strongly
oppose these cuts.
These are individuals working daily in their communities, with the
most acute awareness of what their communities need. So, in support of
them and our constituents, we must fund CDBG formula grants at no less
than the $3.3 billion in FY14.
So, Mr. Chairman, once again I ask the Congress to stop trying to
balance the budget on the backs of working families.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Mr. Chairman, during the appropriation process,
over 100 Members and I expressed our concern about the low funding
level for Community Development Block Grants.
These grants are one of the most successful, cost-effective Federal
programs that encourage economic growth in our cities and communities
across the country. According to the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, every $1 of CDBG investment leads to an
additional $3.55 of investment from outside sources.
In California's 35th Congressional District, the cities of Pomona,
Chino, Ontario, Fontana, and Rialto, where people of all parties
reside, currently receive Community Development Block Grant funding.
This funding is used to build affordable housing, construct sidewalks,
and invest in energy efficiency, water conservation, gang prevention,
and after-school programs.
These programs maintain strong neighborhoods and promote a higher
quality of life for residents in the district. With the proposed cuts
in this bill, it is estimated that they will lose 50 percent of funding
for next year.
I strongly oppose these devastating cuts. I ask that other Members
consider their communities and oppose these cuts too.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Let me start with the fact that I choose to believe that
Mr. Latham does not like this bill. Mr. Latham's not listening to me.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say that I start my debate, that I choose to
believe that you do not like this bill. I know you. I've worked with
you over a long period of time.
This bill is insufficient to meet the obligations of this
subcommittee. It is unworthy of the support of this House.
Mr. Chairman, there are many things wrong with the 2014
Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriation bill, but
perhaps none more egregious than its severely painful cuts to the
Community Development Block Grants.
Now, let me start with this observation. This is not about a poor
people's program. It helps some poor people, but it helps communities--
rich, moderate, and poor.
This is not about the 47 percent. This is about the 100 percent.
The Community Development Block Grant program was enacted on a
bipartisan basis in 1974 and signed into law by the President, Gerald
Ford, former minority leader of this House, President of the United
States. From its beginning, it has served as a model of how bipartisan
compromise in Congress can help tackle important challenges on the
local level.
For nearly 40 years, these grants have been awarded on a formula
basis to State and local governments for infrastructure development,
the creation and maintenance of affordable housing units, anti-poverty
initiatives.
It makes communities better. It empowers Members of Congress to be
able to help their local communities who elect them. These grants save
lives in our largest cities and in our smallest towns, in Alaska, in
Hawaii, and in Maryland.
The cuts in this bill would reduce Community Development Block Grants
by more than half. America is not bankrupt. America need not claim
defeat and retreat. America has the resources, if it has the will, to
grow our economies, to grow our communities, and to make them better.
We appropriated around $3.8 billion for these grants in fiscal year
2012, while this bill would cut that figure to just $1.6 billion. To
put this into perspective, in 2001 we spent $4.7 billion under George
Bush II on Community Development Block Grants.
After years of whittling away at those critical grants which empower
our States, counties, and cities to help the most vulnerable have a
chance at finding jobs and putting roofs over their heads, it would be
devastating to communities whose budgets are already pushed to the
limit and rely on these grants to serve all of their residents.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk a great deal about
fiscal responsibility. But what about social responsibility?
Now I'm a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility. But if fiscal
responsibility is not coupled with social responsibility, it is not
worthy of this House or this country.

Community Development Block Grants are an instrument of our common
citizenship and, yes, our common humanity. In this case, however, they
are a poignant example of the Republican strategy of disinvestment in
America and abandonment of our communities and their people. Surely
we're better than that, Mr. Chairman.
When we considered the Veterans Affairs, military construction, and
Defense appropriations bills that included robust funding, we knew
those funds had to come from somewhere. Here it comes.
Like our Republican friends, we believe we must invest in a strong,
national defense, as Chairwoman Mikulski has been doing on the Senate
Appropriations Committee. But we do not share the Republican majority's
view that we ought to abandon our domestic priorities in the process.
We're better than that.
None of us are surprised that their strategy to deal with the
sequester is to ignore its consequences and impose cuts even deeper,
even deeper, even deeper than the sequester calls for. In fact, I know
of a number of our colleagues on the Republican side who see the folly
in such strategy but cannot or will not speak up, for fear of the
political consequences from the radical right. This bill is proof that
such a strategy is underway.
It's not only an abdication of responsible leadership, it is a recipe
for gridlock, as Democrats in the House and Senate could never agree to
it. Reject this bill. We can and must do better.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, this is a slash-and-burn budget. I don't know
why we bother.
Whether you're looking at the community block grant or the section
I'm going to say a few words about, the Amtrak section, you can see
what we're about--we're supposed to reauthorize a highway bill this
year and a railway bill this year. That certainly won't matter if the
Transportation and HUD appropriations bill simply ignores authorized
infrastructure spending and building.
The federal government has Amtrak because the private sector insisted
that we take it. They showed, they proved that you can't run a railroad
without public subsidy.
Amtrak has done an amazing job considering how little public subsidy
it has gotten. The private sector gave it to us because they couldn't
handle the operating expenses, and they couldn't handle the capital
costs.
Now, Amtrak, by the ticket, is basically handling the operating
expenses. Shame on us that we will not come forward to do our part with
the capital expenses. With a 37 percent cut in capital expenses, that
is the way, Mr. Chairman, to run a railroad into the ground

[[Page H5123]]

that otherwise is doing very well on its own dime.
There is a thirty-five percent difference between the House and
Senate bills. The Republican bill is bipartisan. Yet, we're about to
pass a bill here that nobody would consider in the Senate, and that the
President would have to veto.
Why are we going through these appropriations exercises that amount
to nothing?

{time} 1700

Amtrak is more than sustaining itself. Virtually each month this
year, it has had record ridership. Amtrak actually recovers almost 80
percent of its operating costs out of ticket revenue. That's amazing.
It seems to me Amtrak ought to be rewarded rather than, as this bill
does, be punished.
Amtrak carries 31 million passengers every year, and it keeps
increasing. Travellers are preferring rail and 20,000 people across 47
States work for Amtrak. Yes, we know about it best here in the East,
where Amtrak also has 1 million daily commuters.
This is our national railroad. It's unbelievable that we would be
content to see every single nation in the world that considers itself
an advanced nation be generations ahead of us on railroad development.
We are two generations behind, for example, on high-speed rail. Yet
there are zero dollars in this bill for high-speed rail.
Amtrak is very well managed. In the committee we have heard what they
have done and how they have done it. But they can't manage without at
least some recognition from the Congress that we, too, have a role to
play in the railroad. No railroad in the world is unsubsidized. This
one is subsidized very little. It is still able to run most of its
trains over 100 miles an hour.
We ought to understand who we're talking about. We're not just
talking about the Acela from the District of Columbia to New York.
Among the 25 busiest Amtrak stations are Seattle, Harrisburg, and
Bakersfield, California.
At a time when the airlines are in trouble and have reduced their
operations, Amtrak keeps growing in ridership each month. I have a
winning operation here. But this bill sends it back into losing for us.
We don't need to do that. We have a railroad that offers middle class
jobs to 20,000 people, 200 of them in the District of Columbia. Let's
do what we need to do in the T-HUD bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 5, strike ``not to exceed''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment.
It simply strikes three words, ``not to exceed,'' with respect to the
budget of an office that I consider to be pretty important, and that is
the Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.
As you look through the bill, every single part of the Office of the
Secretary has a separate line item, and in looking at the bill, I
noticed, for example, that for emergency response and security we have
budgeted a little over $10 million. On the other hand, we have budgeted
about twice as much for the lawyers for the Office of General Counsel.
The lawyers somehow get twice as much as emergency response and
security. Frankly, as I look at the list and how the money is divided,
we spend $24 million roughly, which is nearly more than two times as
much for the Assistant Secretary for Policy--all of that being more
important than security.
For me, as a Member of Congress who represents some 59,000 square
miles, including five ports of entry and 800 miles of the Texas border
with Mexico, an area, frankly, where we have seen emergencies and
emergency response before, frankly, where the Congress is consistently
and rightfully concerned about security, it seems to me that we would
give the Department of Transportation some additional flexibility.
This doesn't raise per se the amount of money that's available to
them. What it does is give them additional flexibility so that in the
event they don't spend the line items from the other items like the
Office of Public Affairs or the Office of General Counsel, it gives
them the flexibility to spend more money for intelligence, security,
and emergency response.
I think if you ask every single individual Member of Congress what is
more important, the lawyers or the Department of Transportation Office
of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response; what is more
important, the lawyers at the Department of Transportation or the
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, all of these
kinds of things, especially for a Member from the border, I think
security is more important.
Again, it doesn't cost more money. It doesn't appropriate any more
money, per se. What it does is gives the agency the ability to move
money around and the flexibility to provide additional money, should it
become necessary. Frankly, one never knows what kind of emergency is
going to come up. One never knows what is going to happen, whether it's
going to be a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. It always pays to
have the emergency response folks have the level of flexibility that
they need in order to understand that regardless of what happens, they
have the opportunity to do their jobs and to do their jobs well.
Additional budget flexibility in times of limited dollars and limited
budgets, I think, is very key. So what this amendment would propose to
do is simply strike those three words, ``not to exceed,'' so that there
would potentially be an opportunity for the Department of
Transportation to spend more money on emergency response and security
than the little over $10 million that's allotted to them for the whole
year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I am not opposed to the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's
amendment. It ensures that the Office of Intelligence, Security, and
Emergency Response would receive no less than $10.778 million. This
office performs important security functions of the Department of
Transportation.
I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the draconian cuts to the Community Development Block
Grant, or CDBG, program in this legislation.
The CDBG program has a proven record of success in stabilizing and
revitalizing communities across the country by directly providing funds
to local communities and giving them the flexibility to decide where
the funding will have the greatest impact. In the last 7 years, CDBG
has assisted over a million low- and moderate-income homeowners to
rehabilitate their homes, keeping neighborhoods and communities safe
and stable.
More than 30 million people have benefited from CDBG-funded public
improvement programs, including senior and child care centers, homes
for persons with disabilities, safe streets, and shelters for victims
of domestic violence. Funds have also been used to provide public
services to millions of low- and moderate-income households, including
employment training, meals to seniors, and services for abused
children.
But the real impact of CDBG is not seen on the national scale. It is
seen on the streets and in the neighborhoods of

[[Page H5124]]

the communities that receive these funds. In my district, CDBG funds
have established adult literacy programs, legal support for immigrant
victims of domestic violence, and youth summer employment
opportunities. It has preserved public housing and addressed vacant
housing and lots in at-risk neighborhoods, providing support and
guidance for small, locally owned businesses.
Because of the flexibility CDBG provides, the city government has
been able to identify the most pressing needs and the most at-risk
communities and allocate funds as they are needed. When we invest CDBG
funds in our cities, we see an immediate impact in the neighborhoods as
nonprofit and private entities follow, bringing new development and
opportunities for residents.
Mr. Chairman, CDBG was a change from the old way in which specific
programs were specifically funded. People in this House--mostly
Republicans, I must say--said, Give more flexibility to local
governments; instead of giving to 20 categorical-specific programs,
fund them into one or two Community Development Block Grants so they
can be used more efficiently. We have done that. We have combined a lot
of categorical programs into CDBG, and now we want to tear it to
pieces.
Despite the success that CDBG has had, the bill we are debating on
the floor today would cut funding to $1.6 billion, which is a 50
percent cut from this year, and the lowest funding level in the 40-year
history of the program--lower than when President Ford supported it,
even without inflation adjustments.
In New York, CDBG funding would fall from $164 million to $82
million. These funding levels will leave hundreds of thousands of New
Yorkers and millions of Americans without access to the vital services
and support that CDBG provides.
How did we get here? Why are we voting to gut this proven, efficient,
flexible program? Why are we voting for a 50 percent cut in an already
much too small allotment? The answer is simple: the slash-and-burn
Republican budget. The same budget that provides tax breaks for the
wealthy and large corporations and unneeded increases in defense
spending while slashing funding for Medicaid, food stamps, and WIC has
left appropriators with such small funding allocations that this bill
was unworkable and unrealistic from the start.
So here we are, slashing programs that serve and protect the most
vulnerable among us--programs that are proven to save us money in the
long run and programs that support flexibility and accountability in
our communities.
We may disagree, Mr. Chairman, on how to keep our economy strong, but
we should all agree that we must stop piling these cuts on the backs of
seniors and the working poor, women, kids, and the middle class. Stop
these cuts to our communities. We should reject this bill unless it's
grossly increased in the aggregate, which it won't be, as we know. So
we should reject this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague from New York.
This bill has too many cuts, and I will oppose final passage. But it
does have comparable funding levels between the House and Senate for
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which administers
distracted driving prevention grants to the States. This is an area
where we need to do more.
Every year thousands of accidents, many fatal, result from people
texting or talking on their phones while driving. I'm not just talking
about using a hands-free device. I'm talking about someone driving with
one hand while talking on a cell phone or texting with the other hand.
In 2011, 3,331 people in the U.S. were killed in crashes involving a
distracted driver--up from 3,267 in 2010. And in 2011, more than
387,000 people were injured in an accident involving a distracted
driver, and 416,000 were injured in 2010. In 2012, the last year of
updated data, 10 percent of injury crashes resulted from distracted
driving. It's clear that we must use every opportunity available to
push for strong distracted driving laws, much the same as we did for
drunk driving, which worked.
So I encourage my colleagues to renew their commitment to address the
deadly issue of distracted driving. My Districted Driving Prevention
Act, H.R. 1664, withholds funding from States that do not make both
texting and talking on a phone while driving a primary offense, and
goes further than the U.S. Department of Transportation's efforts to
raise awareness and provide grants. These are important efforts, and
they should be funded adequately; but they don't go far enough.
To date, only nine States make both texting and talking on a phone
while driving a primary offense: my home State of New York, followed by
California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Nevada,
New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia. That's a start, but it falls
short of establishing a national highway safety baseline that saves
lives.

{time} 1715

In conclusion, let me say, when study after study shows us that
distracted driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving, Congress
cannot continue to ignore the problem when only nine States have taken
action that meets a reasonable standard of safety. Anything less leaves
our roads unsafe, our constituents in danger, and more unnecessary
deaths as a result.
I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

research and technology

For necessary expenses related to the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, $14,220,000,
of which $8,218,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2016: Provided, That there may be credited to this
appropriation, to be available until expended, funds received
from States, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for
training: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the powers and duties, functions,
authorities and personnel of the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration are hereby transferred to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
in the Office of the Secretary, including the authority to
accept funding from modal administrations for support of
Global Positioning System activities pursuant to reimbursable
agreements with the Assistant Secretary for Research and
Technology in the Office of the Secretary; Provided further,
That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 102 and 5 U.S.C. 5315, there
shall be an Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
within the Office of the Secretary, appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, to lead
such office; Provided further, That any reference in law,
regulation, judicial proceedings, or elsewhere to the
Research and Innovative Technology Administration shall be
deemed to be a reference to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology of the Department of
Transportation.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Latham

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 19.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 4, beginning on line 4, strike all through page 5,
line 6 and insert the following:
For necessary expenses of the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, $14,220,000, of which $8,218,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided,
That there may be credited to this appropriation, to be
available until expended, funds received from States,
counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and
private sources for expenses incurred for training.

Mr. LATHAM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that provides
the existing $14.7 million in DOT funding to the Research and
Innovative Technology Administration, rather than a new Assistant
Secretary.
This amendment is noncontroversial and addresses concerns of the
Science and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. It does
not affect the scoring of the bill.

[[Page H5125]]

I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

national infrastructure investments

(rescission)

Of the funds made available under this heading in division
F of Public Law 113-6, $237,000,000 are permanently
rescinded.

financial management capital

For necessary expenses for upgrading and enhancing the
Department of Transportation's financial systems and re-
engineering business processes, $4,990,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2015.

cyber security initiatives

For necessary expenses for cyber security initiatives,
including necessary upgrades to wide area network and
information technology infrastructure, improvement of network
perimeter controls and identity management, testing and
assessment of information technology against business,
security, and other requirements, implementation of Federal
cyber security initiatives and information infrastructure
enhancements, implementation of enhanced security controls on
network devices, and enhancement of cyber security workforce
training tools, $2,000,000, to remain available through
September 30, 2015.

office of civil rights

For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$9,384,000.

transportation planning, research, and development

(including rescissions of funds)

For necessary expenses for conducting transportation
planning and research, $6,000,000, to remain available
through September 30, 2015: Provided, That of the unobligated
balances made available by Public Law 111-117 and designated
for a single project in the accompanying conference report,
$750,000 are hereby permanently rescinded: Provided further,
That of the unobligated balances made available by Section
195 of Public Law 111-117, $2,000,000 are hereby permanently
rescinded.

working capital fund

For necessary expenses for operating costs and capital
outlays of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed
$172,000,000 shall be paid from appropriations made available
to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That such
services shall be provided on a competitive basis to entities
within the Department of Transportation: Provided further,
That the above limitation on operating expenses shall not
apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That no funds
appropriated in this Act to an agency of the Department shall
be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without majority
approval of the Working Capital Fund Steering Committee and
approval of the Secretary: Provided further, That no
assessments may be levied against any program, budget
activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless
notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are
presented to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

minority business resource center program

For the cost of guaranteed loans, $333,000, as authorized
by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $18,367,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan program, $589,000.

minority business outreach

For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center
outreach activities, $3,068,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2015: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C.
332, these funds may be used for business opportunities
related to any mode of transportation.

payments to air carriers

(airport and airway trust fund)

In addition to funds made available from any other source
to carry out the essential air service program under 49
U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, $100,000,000, to be derived from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That in determining between or among
carriers competing to provide service to a community, the
Secretary may consider the relative subsidy requirements of
the carriers: Provided further, That no funds made available
under section 41742 of title 49, United States Code, and no
funds made available in this Act or any other Act in any
fiscal year, shall be available to carry out the essential
air service program under sections 41731 through 41742 of
such title 49 in communities in the 48 contiguous States
unless the community received subsidized essential air
service or received a 90-day notice of intent to terminate
service and the Secretary required the air carrier to
continue to provide service to the community at any time
between September 30, 2010, and September 30, 2011,
inclusive: Provided further, That basic essential air service
minimum requirements shall not include the 15-passenger
capacity requirement under subsection 41732(b)(3) of title
49, United States Code: Provided further, That none of the
funds in this Act or any other Act shall be used to provide
essential air service to communities that require a rate of
subsidy per passenger in excess of $500.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 9, line 6, after ``communities'' insert ``in the 48
contiguous States''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to thank Chairman Latham for his
leadership on this bill. It's difficult times.
This is a very simple amendment. In 1978, when Congress deregulated
the airline industry, it also provided a means to protect rural
communities. The Essential Air Service program ensures the continuation
of service to communities that would have lost all air service through
deregulation. While this is a vital program, I respect the efforts of
the chairman to find cost savings.
The bill excludes communities from participating in the program if
they receive a per-passenger subsidy of greater than $500. Current law
excludes communities if they receive over $1,000 per passenger, with
the exception of communities in Alaska and Hawaii. This recognizes that
communities in Alaska and Hawaii are completely dependent on air
travel.
Alaska has limited road infrastructure. Eighty-two percent of Alaskan
communities do not have a road system. In many of these communities,
everything has to come in by air. My amendment clarifies that the
proposed reforms will not alter the longstanding recognition of the
realities in Alaska and Hawaii--no roads, no alternatives, complete
dependence on aviation.
My amendment has no score per CBO and does not impact funding levels
of the program. My amendment provides a no-cost solution to ensure the
most remote areas of our Nation are not excluded from participating in
this program. I'd just like to remind my colleagues if you take all the
land east of the Mississippi River to the Atlantic Ocean, from Maine to
Florida, that's Alaska. And you think about it, in that area, there's
253 Congressmen and 52 Senators. That's really different. Hawaii has
the same problem--not quite as large, but we have only one way to
communicate, and that's with air service.
I urge the passage of this amendment. It is a very simple amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. I just will stand up in favor of the amendment and I will
be calling a recorded vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Young
amendment. This amendment will continue the administration of the
Essential Air Service program, recognizing the unique characteristics
of both Hawaii and Alaska.
The Essential Air Service program was put into place to guarantee
that small communities, like the communities in our States, will
continue to maintain a minimal level of scheduled air service with
access to the national air transportation system. Especially in times
of medical emergencies or natural disasters, this literally is the
difference between life and death for the people in our communities.
In a State like Hawaii, where I'm from, where island communities are
separated by the Pacific Ocean, access to air service is oftentimes the
only transportation option available if service needs to be provided
with any regularity or within specific time constraints.

[[Page H5126]]

One example is Kalaupapa, a community on an isolated peninsula on the
north shore of Molokai. When Hansen's disease was first introduced to
the Hawaiian Islands, all people afflicted with this disease were sent
to this rural community, Kalaupapa. Today, it is a refuge for the
remaining residents and patients who, now cured, would still like to
live there. If not for the assistance of the Essential Air Service
program, the only way to get in and out of that community is a 3.5 mile
trail down a 1,700-foot sea cliff used by mule riders and hikers. This
trail is extremely steep and challenging and has been made impassable
in the past because of heavy rains. This is just one example of why
this continued air service is critical to the people who continue to
live in this community.
Hawaii and Alaska, as illustrated, have unique geographical
limitations and challenges. Whereas other communities are generally
accessible by vehicle, that's not always the case in the noncontiguous
States; 3\1/2\ miles doesn't sound very far until you're looking up the
side of a steep cliff from the back of a mule.
The amendment being offered by Representative Young would continue
this program's recognition of our exceptional geographic challenges.
This amendment maintains the current practice of Alaska and Hawaii
being exempt from restrictions on what communities are eligible for the
Essential Air Service program.
Currently, only two communities in Hawaii qualify--Kalaupapa and
Kamuela--but maintaining this air service is critically important for
all people who live in these areas.
I would also just like to take a moment to recognize my colleague
from Hawaii, Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa. She has worked very
closely with Congressman Young on this amendment and would have liked
to have been here to speak in strong support of it today were it not
for Tropical Storm Flossie, where she is stuck in Hawaii, across the
Pacific Ocean away.
I would like to thank Representative Young for offering this
amendment and for his leadership, and strongly urge my colleagues to
support the Young amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment. I want to make sure that my friends who live far, far away
from where I live do understand that many of us understand the dynamics
that they've presented. Arguably, their argument is unassailable, and I
rise in support of their amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 9, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $250)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, the Essential Air Service program is an
expensive government handout. It is, in effect, welfare for airplanes.
Page 9 of the bill expressly states that the per passenger subsidy
extended to rural communities--and by the way, we're not talking about
Hawaii and Alaska here; we're talking about places like Muscle Shoals--
for a flight that would not otherwise exist is capped at $500. I think
that's too high. I don't know why we should be, in effect, paying
people $500 to fly to Muscle Shoals. I don't see the sense of that at a
time when we're cutting food stamps and cutting block grants to
communities. I think it's a poor way to spend taxpayer funds. My
amendment would reduce this subsidy to a still-very-high $250 per
passenger because $500 per passenger is simply outrageous.
If passengers don't want to pay for aviation routes, then they simply
shouldn't exist. For 500 bucks per passenger, we could literally rent a
limousine for every single person aboard each flight and drive them to
the single nearest commercial airport.
I understand the need for rural services in necessary aspects of
life, like Postal Services, telephones, and even the Internet; but I
cannot understand the need to subsidize regular airline flights that
would otherwise not exist to the tune of $500 per passenger.
The bill before us today would cut community development funds in
half--to the lowest level since the program began in 1975. It would cut
HOME Investment Partnerships to the lowest level since that program
began in 1992. And it would drastically reduce the amount of section 8
rental assistance and increase homelessness. Under these circumstances,
I cannot stand by in good conscience and allow a subsidy like this to
continue.
I offer this amendment today because it's more important to put a
roof over the heads of the poor than it is to hand out corporate
welfare to United Airlines and to support aviation routes that simply
should not exist.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
We have, in the bill, restrained the growth of this program, keeping
the total amount at $216 million--$116 million of which is from fees
and $100 million provided in discretionary appropriation for the fiscal
year 2012 program level. So it's at the same level as it was before; we
don't have any increase.
Mr. Chairman, I really urge the administration, the authorizers, if
they want to reform this program, to actually get to work, do it--not
on an appropriation bill where we have had no discussion, no debate. It
is an issue that should be handled by the authorizers rather than on
this appropriation bill.
We need the comprehensive reform so that isolated communities can be
served while restraining growth in this program. But I do urge a ``no''
vote, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with Chairman
Latham that this reform needs to come about, and it shouldn't be in an
appropriation bill. Hopefully, the T&I authorizing committee will look
at this issue and come to a decision.
It was interesting that the amendment before this amendment, we
basically waived Hawaii and Alaska. And here we are now limiting the
Essential Air Service to $250. I would tell you, as we tried to explain
to my colleague from Florida, that this would probably cause 100--maybe
a little more--smaller communities not to be able to link to the
national air service. So this is not the time to do it.
So I would rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 8, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $100,000,000)''.
Page 150, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 1730

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply continues the

[[Page H5127]]

good work started by the amendment of the gentleman from Florida and
pulls the plug on this tired old program.
Recently, the much-maligned sequester required a 4 percent cut in the
FAA budget, which its leadership then immediately translated into a 40
percent flight delay until the public rebelled.
The total sequester cut to the FAA was roughly $636 million, and they
took that out on the traveling public; yet they had $243 million to pay
for empty and near-empty flights from selected airports in tiny
communities under this program that is laughingly called ``Essential
Air Service.'' It is, in fact, the least essential air service
imaginable.
Since we last visited this issue, the FAA reauthorization bill made
some minor reforms to the program. For example, we are no longer
subsidizing air travel from communities that are within a 90-mile
radius of a major airport, and the per passenger subsidy has been
capped at $1,000 per passenger.
These minor reforms mean that one airport in Ely, Nevada, has been
dropped from the program and two more are about to be. That's a start.
But still, it is no excuse for shoveling, as this appropriation does, a
total of $216 million at this program between direct taxpayer subsidies
and fees into next year.
In other words, in this austere age of sequestration, when the White
House is shuttered to the public and soldiers are being told to pay for
their own Internet access, the House of Representatives proposes at
best a token reduction in this wasteful, unfair, and outdated program
while cutting real essential air services like air traffic control.
With all due respect, what in the world are we thinking?
Remember, this was supposed to be a temporary program when we
deregulated commercial aviation. It was supposed to last for just a few
years to give rural communities a chance to adjust. That was 35 years
ago.
It is true there are over a few tiny communities in Alaska--like
Kake's 700 hearty souls--who have no highway connections to hub
airports, but they have plenty of alternatives. In the case of Kake,
they enjoy year-round ferry service to Juneau. In addition, Alaska is
well served by a thriving general aviation market and the ubiquitous
bush pilot. Rural life has great advantages and great disadvantages,
and it is not the job of hardworking taxpayers who choose to live
elsewhere to level out these differences.
Apologists for this wasteful spending tell us it is an important
economic driver for these small towns, and I'm sure that's so. Whenever
you give away money, the folks you are giving it to are always going to
be better off. But the folks you are taking it from are always going to
be worse off to exactly the same extent. Indeed, it is economic drivers
like this that have driven Europe's economy right off a cliff.
Last year, one Member rushed to the microphones to suggest this was
essential for emergency medical evacuations. We heard an echo of that a
moment ago. It has nothing to do with medical evacuations. This program
subsidizes regular, scheduled, commercial service that practically
nobody uses. If it actually had a passenger base, we wouldn't need, in
effect, to hand out $1,000 bills to the few passengers who use it,
would we? An airline so reckless with its funds would quickly bankrupt
itself. The same principle holds true for governments.
The Washington Post is not known as a bastion of fiscal conservatism,
but I cannot improve upon the Post's recent editorial when it said:

Ideally, Essential Air Service would be zeroed out, and the
$200 million we waste on it devoted to a truly national
purpose: perhaps deficit reduction, military readiness, or
the social safety net. Alas, if Congress and the White House
were capable of making such choices, we probably never would
have had sequestration in the first place.

There are many tough calls in setting fiscal priorities, but this
isn't one of them. If the House of Representatives--where all
appropriations begin, with a Republican majority pledged to stop
wasting money--cannot even agree to cut this useless program off from
the trough, how does it expect to be taken seriously on the much
tougher choices that lie ahead?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
The Essential Air Service program ensures that small and rural
communities have access to the national air transportation system. The
program plays a key role in the economic development of many rural
communities by ensuring that air service continues.
Does the program need reform? Absolutely, it does, yes. That is why
we cap the per passenger subsidy at $500, which is down from the
current $1,000 cap per passenger.
We have also cut the discretionary funding in this bill by $46
million, leaving a total program level of $216 million--$100 million in
discretionary funding and $116 million from fees. This is an 18 percent
reduction. We already have imposed a significant cut to this program.
We will continue to push the administration to reform the program and
work with the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, but an outright
elimination of the funding in this bill is a hit to rural communities
that I cannot support.
I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
to speak in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. The Essential Air Service program was designed
to continue air service for small communities that had scheduled air
service prior to airline deregulation. It is funded through annual
appropriations and overflight fees that are collected when foreign air
carriers traverse through U.S. airspace.
This amendment cuts the overall program in half. Many small
communities would lose their air service, including, we believe, four
communities in the State of California: Crescent City, El Centro,
Merced, and Visalia.
This is not the way to reform this program. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this amendment, I rise to
speak in support of eliminating the Essential Air Service program.
I thank my colleague from California (Mr. McClintock) for his work on
this amendment.
Another Californian once said, ``There's nothing more permanent than
a temporary government program.'' Mr. Chairman, I'm sure all my
colleagues recognize that famous line from former President Ronald
Reagan. His statement was accurate then, just as it is accurate now,
regarding the Essential Air Service program.

This program was intended to be temporary. It was created as a
transition program in the seventies after airline deregulation to help
rural airports adjust to a free market system. We are now more than 25
years after the intended end date of 1988, and the taxpayers are still
footing the bill.
This is yet another example of Washington's spending problem, Mr.
Chairman. It has to stop.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment. I certainly understand all Federal programs should be
prepared and subjected to cost-saving measures, and Essential Air
Service is actually no different. That is why we passed reforms during
the FAA reauthorization last year to improve efficiency and save
taxpayer dollars.
Additionally, the underlying bill today already includes a reduction
in funding for the EAS program. While there is room for savings in all
programs, totally eliminating EAS outright would be counterproductive.
The Essential Air Service program serves an important purpose in
rural and remote areas. Businesses in rural America actually compete
more effectively with even the limited air service that might be
available.

[[Page H5128]]

Last year, the House rejected this amendment, and I encourage my
colleagues to do so once again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Transportation may be obligated for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve
assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds
appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except
for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act,
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the
normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Sec. 102. The Secretary or his designee may engage in
activities with States and State legislators to consider
proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities.
Sec. 103. Notwithstanding section 3324 of title 31, United
States Code, in addition to authority provided by section 327
of title 49, United States Code, the Department's Working
Capital Fund is hereby authorized to provide payments in
advance to vendors that are necessary to carry out the
Federal transit pass transportation fringe benefit program
under Executive Order 13150 and section 3049 of Public Law
109-59: Provided, That the Department shall include adequate
safeguards in the contract with the vendors to ensure timely
and high-quality performance under the contract.
Sec. 104. The Secretary shall post on the Web site of the
Department of Transportation a schedule of all meetings of
the Credit Council, including the agenda for each meeting,
and require the Credit Council to record the decisions and
actions of each meeting.

Federal Aviation Administration

operations

(airport and airway trust fund)

For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation
Administration, not otherwise provided for, including
operations and research activities related to commercial
space transportation, administrative expenses for research
and development, establishment of air navigation facilities,
the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of
aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and
maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made
available by Public Law 108-176, $9,521,784,000, of which
$6,484,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $7,182,664,000 shall be
available for air traffic organization activities; not to
exceed $1,199,777,000 shall be available for aviation safety
activities; not to exceed $14,160,000 shall be available for
commercial space transportation activities; not to exceed
$777,198,000 shall be available for finance and management
activities; not to exceed $56,637,000 shall be available for
NextGen and operations planning activities; and not to exceed
$291,348,000 shall be available for staff offices: Provided,
That not to exceed 2 percent of any budget activity, except
for aviation safety budget activity, may be transferred to
any budget activity under this heading: Provided further,
That no transfer may increase or decrease any appropriation
by more than 2 percent: Provided further, That any transfer
in excess of 2 percent shall be treated as a reprogramming of
funds under section 404 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section: Provided
further, That not later than March 31 of each fiscal year
hereafter, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall transmit to Congress an annual update to
the report submitted to Congress in December 2004 pursuant to
section 221 of Public Law 108-176: Provided further, That the
amount herein appropriated shall be reduced by $100,000 for
each day after March 31 that such report has not been
submitted to the Congress: Provided further, That not later
than March 31 of each fiscal year hereafter, the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a companion report
that describes a comprehensive strategy for staffing, hiring,
and training flight standards and aircraft certification
staff in a format similar to the one utilized for the
controller staffing plan, including stated attrition
estimates and numerical hiring goals by fiscal year: Provided
further, That the amount herein appropriated shall be reduced
by $100,000 per day for each day after March 31 that such
report has not been submitted to Congress: Provided further,
That funds may be used to enter into a grant agreement with a
nonprofit standard-setting organization to assist in the
development of aviation safety standards: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for new
applicants for the second career training program: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the Federal Aviation Administration to finalize
or implement any regulation that would promulgate new
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after
the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That
there may be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, foreign authorities, other public
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred in the
provision of agency services, including receipts for the
maintenance and operation of air navigation facilities, and
for issuance, renewal or modification of certificates,
including airman, aircraft, and repair station certificates,
or for tests related thereto, or for processing major repair
or alteration forms: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, not less than $140,000,000
shall be for the contract tower program, of which $10,350,000
is for the contract tower cost share program: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act for aeronautical
charting and cartography are available for activities
conducted by, or coordinated through, the Working Capital
Fund.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 11, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.
Page 11, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000)''.

Ms. SPEIER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, on July 6 of this year, Asiana Airlines
Flight 214 from Incheon, South Korea, crashed on its final approach to
San Francisco International Airport, which is in my district. Initial
reports made clear that low airspeed was a crucial factor in that
crash. It was a horrible accident. Three Chinese 16-year-old girls on
their way to a summer camp in southern California lost their lives. It
could have been an absolute catastrophe, because there were over 300
people, including crew, that survived that horrific day.
Low airspeed has been a concern for air safety for almost 20 years.
In 1996, the FAA's Human Factors Team concluded that flight crews
needed better warnings that the aircraft was reaching low airspeeds. In
2003, following the crash that killed our congressional colleague
Senator Paul Wellstone, the National Transportation Safety Board
recommended the FAA study whether to require installation of low
airspeed audible and visual alert systems. Following the Colgan Air
crash in Buffalo, New York, a recommendation was reissued in 2010 on
installation of redundant audible and visual warnings of impending
hazardous low speed conditions.
Now, after almost two decades since the initial recommendation and
over 3 years since the recommendation after Colgan, the FAA has not
addressed this question of whether existing commercial aircraft should
be required to install low airspeed warning systems. I fear that
without direction from Congress, the FAA could take years to complete
this study. That is why I am offering this amendment, which provides
the FAA $500,000 to conduct and complete a study on this important
question within 1 year.
Low airspeed alert systems that cry out ``airspeed low'' are
available and require a simple software change. These differ from the
tonal alerts that sound similar to other pilot alerts. The FAA should
investigate whether existing low airspeed tonal warnings, such as those
in a Boeing 777, provide a sufficient level of pilot warning or if,
instead, a verbal warning, such as those in the newer 737s, provides a
higher level of safety.
When the alert signals to a pilot that they are traveling at too low
of an airspeed, they have at best a few seconds to react. It is vital
that planes have alerts that are instantly recognizable, clear, and
unambiguous.
Airline safety advocates argue that verbal alerts are more effective
at

[[Page H5129]]

alerting a pilot that they are flying at too low of an airspeed because
they are instantly recognizable to a pilot. If a verbal warning is
found to be more effective, the FAA should take expedient action to
require both new aircraft and existing aircraft to incorporate a verbal
warning.
Mr. Chairman, I had the pleasure just last week to talk to Sully
Sullenberger, the pilot of the ``Miracle of Hudson River,'' and he said
something very compelling to me. He said that when a pilot is in a
position of reacting during a crash, they need every one of their
senses being alert: the senses when you are holding the throttle, the
senses when you hear low speed alert, and the senses when you see
``stall.'' I thought that was very compelling.
We have a number of cases that suggest now that low airspeed alerts
that are verbal should be incorporated. The FAA has dragged its feet. I
believe that this particular amendment would be very helpful and save
many lives in the future.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the committee accepts the amendment. It is a
good amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, we believe that these moneys
would expedite the study to see if better warnings could be given at
low speeds, so we approve the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1745

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 11, line 9, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $3,497,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, to echo the words of my
colleagues, Ranking Members Nita Lowey and Ed Pastor, my good friend,
the allocation provided for T-HUD appropriations under the Ryan budget,
which was ``deemed passed'' by my Republican colleagues, is simply
unworkable.
From funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, TIGER grants,
public transit programs, Amtrak, high-speed rail, Community Development
Block Grants, and the HOME affordable housing program, House
Republicans are offering a bill that not only makes devastating cuts to
our Nation's transportation infrastructure but to vital programs in
housing, health care, education, labor, and other services that
millions of Americans rely on, in order to spare defense spending from
sequestration.
In particular, this bill makes detrimental cuts to aviation programs
and investments in our national air system. It cuts FAA operations by
$185 million below the President's budget request. It slashes $575
million, 21 percent, from the FAA's Facilities and Equipment account,
and it casts doubt on the future hiring of air traffic controllers and
inspectors.
NextGen is a full, multiyear effort to modernize our Nation's air
traffic control system by transitioning from a ground-based navigation
system to a satellite-based navigation system. As it is implemented,
NextGen will help reduce delays, expand air traffic system capacity,
and mitigate aviation's impact on the environment while ensuring the
highest levels of safety. Currently, the FAA is moving from NextGen
program development into baseline and operational programs, and
passengers and operators are beginning to experience the benefits of
these investments. However, while the bill preserves funding for the
NextGen programs currently under deployment, it forces the FAA to
greatly slow down its NextGen modernization of the air traffic control
system.
My amendment restores funding for NextGen programs to the fiscal year
2013 level within the Operations Planning account. It really does
represent a small amount, approximately $3.5 million, over the FY 2014
House funding level of $56.6 million for a total of $60.1 million. The
increased funding would help ensure that the FAA remains on schedule
with regard to NextGen implementation while giving it the flexibility
to decide how best to move forward in this challenging budget
environment.
I do recognize that the chairman and ranking member were given a
difficult task, and I respect that, but we cannot fail to recognize the
future of our NextGen implementation, so I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The committee shares the gentleman's support of NextGen programs.
However, this amendment increases one activity in the operations
account and makes no other further adjustments. The result is
individual program levels that exceed the account level, which one
cannot do.
To meet our allocation, the subcommittee looked closely at all
accounts and at all programs. The subcommittee placed a high priority
on FAA operations with just a 2 percent cut below the budget request.
Within the operations account, the subcommittee balanced the number of
high priority areas, including NextGen, aviation safety and air traffic
control. This amendment throws this account off balance. The programs
within the account would no longer add up to the top line, and the FAA
could simply ignore the subcommittee's direction on other program
levels in the account. So, therefore, we urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. The amendment increases funding for the FAA's
NextGen office by $3.5 million. As stated by my colleague from Florida
(Mr. Hastings), it is for future development. I would agree with him
that it is something that we need to invest in and that this would
accelerate the implementation of NextGen, which is greatly needed. Our
air traffic control system is aging and needs modernization. Yet, as
Mr. Wolf has pointed out, the allocation is so tight that moving money
in the account will cause some problems.
My hope would be that if there is a reconciliation with the Senate
that this would be given a higher priority in the funding levels as we
work in conference with the Senate.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

facilities and equipment

(airport and airway trust fund)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
acquisition, establishment, technical support services,
improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of national
airspace systems and experimental facilities and equipment,
as authorized under part A of subtitle VII of title 49,
United States Code, including initial acquisition of
necessary sites by lease or grant; engineering and service
testing, including construction of test facilities and
acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant;
construction and furnishing of quarters and related
accommodations for officers and employees of the Federal
Aviation Administration stationed at remote localities where
such accommodations are not available; and the purchase,
lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds available under
this heading, including aircraft for aviation regulation and
certification; to be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, $2,155,000,000, of which $458,000,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2014; $1,697,000,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided,
That there may be credited to this appropriation funds
received from States, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources,

[[Page H5130]]

for expenses incurred in the establishment, improvement, and
modernization of national air space systems: Provided
further, That upon initial submission to the Congress of the
fiscal year 2015 President's budget, the Secretary of
Transportation shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive
capital investment plan for the Federal Aviation
Administration which includes funding for each budget line
item for fiscal years 2015 through 2019, with total funding
for each year of the plan constrained to the funding targets
for those years as estimated and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 14, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $870,031,000) (increased by
$870,031,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to point out that
the bill before us today makes deep cuts to FAA facilities and
equipment. Make no mistake that these reductions will directly impact
and delay the implementation of NextGen. I've spoken to this issue.
This particular amendment makes available approximately $870 million
for NextGen capital programs, which is at the FY 2013 enacted level.
This increased funding would help ensure that the FAA remains on
schedule with regard to NextGen implementation.
Let me make it very clear. I fought very hard, along with my
colleagues, both current and former--Republican and Democrat--to bring
the NextGen facilities to the West Palm Beach airport. We were very
successful in that regard, but I am troubled that we might not get to
full implementation if we continue the reductions that I see that are
set forth.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise once again to offer an additional amendment to
H.R. 2610, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies (T-HUD) Appropriations Act for FY 2014.
According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by the end of
the NextGen mid-term in 2020, NextGen improvements will:
Reduce delays by 41 percent;
Cumulatively save 1.6 billion gallons of fuel and reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by 16 million metric tons; and
Provide $38 billion in cumulative benefits to aircraft operators, the
traveling public, and the FAA through delay reduction, fuel savings,
and other efficiency improvements.
However, the bill before us today makes deep cuts to the FAA's
Facilities and Equipment account in the amount of $575 million, or 21
percent.
Make no mistake. These reductions will directly impact and delay the
implementation of NextGen.
Certain NextGen activities currently underway face significant
reductions in this bill.
One example is the Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the
Metroplex (OAPM) program, which is the FAA's fast-track initiative to
implement new navigation procedures and airspace improvements to reduce
fuel consumption and aircraft emissions in some of the United States'
busiest airspace.
This could delay the completion of their designs and the beginning of
the implementation phase.
My amendment makes available approximately $870 million for NextGen
capital programs, which is the FY 2013 enacted level.
This increased funding would help ensure that the FAA remains on
schedule with regard to NextGen implementation, while giving it the
flexibility to decide how best to move forward in this challenging
budget environment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

research, engineering, and development

(airport and airway trust fund)

(including rescission)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
research, engineering, and development, as authorized under
part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code,
including construction of experimental facilities and
acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant,
$145,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2016:
Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation as
offsetting collections, funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private
sources, which shall be available for expenses incurred for
research, engineering, and development: Provided further,
That, of the unobligated balances from prior year
appropriations available under this heading, $26,183,998 are
rescinded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 15, line 16, strike ``That,'' and insert ``That
$61,960,000 shall be available for NextGen research and
development, as authorized by section 48102(a) of title 49,
United States Code: Provided further,''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in Switzerland yesterday,
there was a collision of trains--one moving north and the other moving
south. A good friend of Mr. Wolf's and of Mr. Pastor's and mine served
as chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, James Oberstar. In addition to the many things that Jim
suggested during his tenure here, I think back to some of the things
that would have put us in a better position than we are today,
particularly with regard to overall infrastructure, roads and rail.
I can't understand--and I was saying to the young staffer working
with me--what it is that causes the rail industry, both abroad and
here, to not have the necessary equipment that would allow one train on
the same track to let the other train coming from the opposite
direction, and vice versa, know that they are both on the same track.
There just seems to be something wrong with that when we have the kind
of sophisticated equipment that we do.
NextGen, in the air area of the world, allows for us to avoid those
kinds of problems and to increase efficiency and safety. It ultimately
reduces delays and saves fuel, particularly if we get on with what I'm
asking for, which is $62 million for NextGen research and development
activities from the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development
account.
Again, I am not asking for anything that I think would do anything
less than help all of us. We don't just live in these places. We fly
there. The aviation industry contributes nearly $1.3 trillion to the
United States economy. Furthermore, the FAA's air traffic controllers
manage nearly 70,000 flights per day, which, on an annual basis, carry
more than 730 million passengers.
With such a vital role in our economy, now is not the time to
underfund our Nation's air traffic control system. I urge my colleagues
to make a real investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure
by supporting this NextGen amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we share the gentleman's support of the NextGen
programs. However, fencing off this amount for NextGen could have the
unintended consequences of forcing cuts to other priorities, such as to
aviation safety research and programs to improve air traffic control in
the near term, including programs to reduce noise and carbon emissions.
I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H5131]]

grants-in-aid for airports

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(airport and airway trust fund)

For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid
for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility
planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of
chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49,
United States Code, and under other law authorizing such
obligations; for procurement, installation, and commissioning
of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at
airports of such title; for grants authorized under section
41743 of title 49, United States Code; and for inspection
activities and administration of airport safety programs,
including those related to airport operating certificates
under section 44706 of title 49, United States Code,
$3,200,000,000 to be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided,
That none of the funds under this heading shall be available
for the planning or execution of programs the obligations for
which are in excess of $3,350,000,000 in fiscal year 2014,
notwithstanding section 47117(g) of title 49, United States
Code: Provided further, That none of the funds under this
heading shall be available for the replacement of baggage
conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas,
or other airport improvements that are necessary to install
bulk explosive detection systems: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, of funds limited
under this heading, not more than $106,600,000 shall be
obligated for administration, not less than $15,000,000 shall
be available for the Airport Cooperative Research Program,
and not less than $29,500,000 shall be available for Airport
Technology Research.

administrative provisions--federal aviation administration

Sec. 110. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
compensate in excess of 600 technical staff-years under the
federally funded research and development center contract
between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center
for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year
2014.
Sec. 111. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport
sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration
without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for
services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or
weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in
this section does not apply to negotiations between the
agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the
FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Sec. 112. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration may reimburse amounts made available to
satisfy 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) from fees credited under 49
U.S.C. 45303, and any amount remaining in such account at the
close of that fiscal year may be made available to satisfy
section 41742(a)(1) for the subsequent fiscal year.
Sec. 113. Amounts collected under section 40113(e) of
title 49, United States Code, shall be credited to the
appropriation current at the time of collection, to be merged
with and available for the same purposes of such
appropriation.
Sec. 114. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for paying premium pay under subsection 5546(a) of title 5,
United States Code, to any Federal Aviation Administration
employee unless such employee actually performed work during
the time corresponding to such premium pay.
Sec. 115. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated
or expended for an employee of the Federal Aviation
Administration to purchase a store gift card or gift
certificate through use of a Government-issued credit card.
Sec. 116. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated
or expended for retention bonuses for an employee of the
Federal Aviation Administration without the prior written
approval of the Assistant Secretary for Administration of the
Department of Transportation.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available under this Act or any prior Act
may be used to implement or to continue to implement any
limitation on the ability of any owner or operator of a
private aircraft to obtain, upon a request to the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, a
blocking of that owner's or operator's aircraft registration
number from any display of the Federal Aviation
Administration's Aircraft Situational Display to Industry
data that is made available to the public, except data made
available to a Government agency, for the noncommercial
flights of that owner or operator.
Sec. 118. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 7 political and
Presidential appointees in the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Sec. 119. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to increase fees pursuant to section 44721 of
title 49, United States Code, until the FAA conducts a public
outreach that is designed to elicit feedback from aviation
stakeholders, and until the FAA has reported the
justification of its fees on paper and digital products to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 119A. None of the funds appropriated or limited by
this Act may be used to change weight restrictions or prior
permission rules at Teterboro airport in Teterboro, New
Jersey.

Federal Highway Administration

limitation on administrative expenses

(highway trust fund)

(including transfer of funds)

Not to exceed $417,000,000, together with advances and
reimbursements received by the Federal Highway
Administration, shall be paid in accordance with law from
appropriations made available by this Act to the Federal
Highway Administration for necessary expenses for
administration and operation. In addition, not to exceed
$3,248,000 shall be paid from appropriations made available
by this Act and transferred to the Appalachian Regional
Commission in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 104.

federal-aid highways

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

Funds available for the implementation or execution of
programs of Federal-aid highways and highway safety
construction programs authorized under titles 23 and 49,
United States Code, and the provisions of Public Law 112-141
shall not exceed total obligations of $40,256,000,000 for
fiscal year 2014: Provided, That the Secretary may collect
and spend fees, as authorized by title 23, United States
Code, to cover the costs of services of expert firms,
including counsel, in the field of municipal and project
finance to assist in the underwriting and servicing of
Federal credit instruments and all or a portion of the costs
to the Federal Government of servicing such credit
instruments: Provided further, That such fees are available
until expended to pay for such costs: Provided further, That
such amounts are in addition to administrative expenses that
are also available for such purpose, and are not subject to
any obligation limitation or the limitation on administrative
expenses under 23 U.S.C. 608.

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(highway trust fund)

For the payment of obligations incurred in carrying out
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
authorized under title 23, United States Code,
$40,995,000,000 derived from the Highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), to
remain available until expended.

administrative provisions--federal highway administration

Sec. 120. (a) For fiscal year 2014, the Secretary of
Transportation shall--
(1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid highways--
(A) amounts authorized for administrative expenses and
programs by section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code;
and
(B) amounts authorized for the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics;
(2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation
for Federal-aid highways that is equal to the unobligated
balance of amounts--
(A) made available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid highway and highway
safety construction programs for previous fiscal years the
funds for which are allocated by the Secretary (or
apportioned by the Secretary under sections 202 or 204 of
title 23, United States Code); and
(B) for which obligation limitation was provided in a
previous fiscal year;
(3) determine the proportion that--
(A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways,
less the aggregate of amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2), bears to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
(other than sums authorized to be appropriated for provisions
of law described in paragraphs (1) through (11) of subsection
(b) and sums authorized to be appropriated for section 119 of
title 23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to
in subsection (b)(12) for such fiscal year), less the
aggregate of the amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1)
and (2) of this subsection;
(4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
highways, less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2), for each of the programs (other than
programs to which paragraph (1) applies) that are allocated
by the Secretary under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act and title 23, United States Code, or
apportioned by the Secretary under sections 202 or 204 of
that title, by multiplying--
(A) the proportion determined under paragraph (3); by
(B) the amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such
program for such fiscal year; and
(5) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
highways, less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2) and the amounts distributed under
paragraph (4), for Federal-aid highway and highway safety
construction programs that are apportioned by the Secretary
under title 23, United States Code (other than the amounts
apportioned for the national highway performance program in
section 119 of

[[Page H5132]]

title 23, United States Code, that are exempt from the
limitation under subsection (b)(12) and the amounts
apportioned under sections 202 and 204 of that title) in the
proportion that--
(A) amounts authorized to be appropriated for the programs
that are apportioned under title 23, United States Code, to
each State for such fiscal year; bears to
(B) the total of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
for the programs that are apportioned under title 23, United
States Code, to all States for such fiscal year.
(b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation
limitation for Federal-aid highways shall not apply to
obligations under or for--
(1) section 125 of title 23, United States Code;
(2) section 147 of the Surface Transportation Assistance
Act of 1978 (23 U.S.C. 144 note; 92 Stat. 2714);
(3) section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 (95
Stat. 1701);
(4) subsections (b) and (j) of section 131 of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2119);
(5) subsections (b) and (c) of section 149 of the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987
(101 Stat. 198);
(6) sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2027);
(7) section 157 of title 23, United States Code (as in
effect on June 8, 1998);
(8) section 105 of title 23, United States Code (as in
effect for fiscal years 1998 through 2004, but only in an
amount equal to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years);
(9) Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation
authority was made available under the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107) or subsequent Acts
for multiple years or to remain available until expended, but
only to the extent that the obligation authority has not
lapsed or been used;
(10) section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, for
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2012, only in an amount
equal to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years);
(11) section 1603 of SAFETEA-LU (23 U.S.C. 118 note; 119
Stat. 1248), to the extent that funds obligated in accordance
with that section were not subject to a limitation on
obligations at the time at which the funds were initially
made available for obligation;
(12) section 119 of title 23, United States Code (but, for
each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014, only in an amount equal
to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years).
(c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall, after
August 1 of such fiscal year--
(1) revise a distribution of the obligation limitation made
available under subsection (a) if an amount distributed
cannot be obligated during that fiscal year; and
(2) redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to
obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed
during that fiscal year, giving priority to those States
having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under
sections 144 (as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act) and 104 of title 23, United States Code.
(d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to
Transportation Research Programs.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways shall apply to
contract authority for transportation research programs
carried out under--
(A) chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code; and
(B) division E of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act.
(2) Exception.--Obligation authority made available under
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) remain available for a period of 4 fiscal years; and
(B) be in addition to the amount of any limitation imposed
on obligations for Federal aid highway and highway safety
construction programs for future fiscal years.
(e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the distribution of obligation limitation under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds
(excluding funds authorized for the program under section 202
of title 23, United States Code) that--
(A) are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year
for Federal-aid highway programs; and
(B) the Secretary determines will not be allocated to the
States (or will not be apportioned to the States under
section 204 of title 23, United States Code), and will not be
available for obligation, in such fiscal year due to the
imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year.
(2) Ratio.--Funds shall be distributed under paragraph (1)
in the same ratio as the distribution of obligation authority
under subsection (a)(5).
(3) Availability.--Funds distributed to each State under
paragraph (1) shall be available for any purpose described in
section 133(b) of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 121. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received
by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of
data products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to
chapter 63 of title 49, United States Code, may be credited
to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of
reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses: Provided, That such
funds shall be subject to the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction
programs.
Sec. 122. Not less than 15 days prior to waiving, under
his statutory authority, any Buy America requirement for
Federal-aid highway projects, the Secretary of Transportation
shall make an informal public notice and comment opportunity
on the intent to issue such waiver and the reasons therefor:
Provided, That the Secretary shall provide an annual report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on any
waivers granted under the Buy America requirements.
Sec. 123. From the unobligated balances of funds
apportioned among the States prior to October 1, 2012, under
sections 104(b) and 144 of title 23, United States Code (as
in effect on the day before the date of enactment of Public
Law 112-141), the amount of $13,248,000 shall be made
available in fiscal year 2014 for the administrative expenses
of the Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That this
provision shall not apply to funds distributed in accordance
with section 104(b)(5) of title 23, United States Code (as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of Public Law
112-141); section 133(d)(1) of such title (as in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of Public Law 109-59);
and the first sentence of section 133(d)(3)(A) of such title
(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of
Public Law 112-141): Provided further, That such amount shall
be derived on a proportional basis from the unobligated
balances of apportioned funds to which this provision
applies: Provided further, That the amount made available by
this provision in fiscal year 2014 for the administrative
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration shall be in
addition to the amount made available in fiscal year 2014 for
such purposes under section 104(a) of title 23, United States
Code: Provided further, That the amount made available by
this provision in fiscal year 2014 for the administrative
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration shall have the
same period of availability and characteristics of the
contract authority made available under section 104(a) of
title 23, United States Code.

{time} 1800

amendment offered by mr. wolf

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 29, beginning on line 23, strike section 123.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Per an agreement with the authorizing committee, this
amendment strikes section 123 under the administrative provision of the
Federal Highway Administration. This section made certain unobligated
balances of contract authority available in 2014.
This amendment is noncontroversial and will have no budgetary scoring
effect.
I respectfully ask for a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. The amendment strikes $13.25 million in
additional funds for the administrative expenses for the Federal
Highway Administration.
While I will not object to my friend's amendment, I do have concerns
that the more we cut on the administrative expenses, the agency's
ability to do proper oversight will suffer.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 124. (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), none of the funds made available, limited, or otherwise
affected by this Act shall be used to approve or otherwise
authorize the imposition of any toll on any segment of
highway located on the Federal-aid system in the State of
Texas that--(1) as of the date of enactment of this Act, is
not tolled; (2) is constructed with Federal assistance
provided under title 23, United States Code; and (3) is in
actual operation as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) Number of toll lanes.--Subsection (a) shall not apply
to any segment of highway on the Federal-aid system described
in that subsection that, as of the date on which a toll is
imposed on the segment, will have the same number of nontoll
lanes as were in existence prior to that date.
(2) High-occupancy vehicle lanes.--A high-occupancy vehicle
lane that is converted to a toll lane shall not be subject to

[[Page H5133]]

this section, and shall not be considered to be a nontoll
lane for purposes of determining whether a highway will have
fewer nontoll lanes than prior to the date of imposition of
the toll, if--(A) high-occupancy vehicles occupied by the
number of passengers specified by the entity operating the
toll lane may use the toll lane without paying a toll, unless
otherwise specified by the appropriate county, town,
municipal or other local government entity, or public toll
road or transit authority; or (B) each high-occupancy vehicle
lane that was converted to a toll lane was constructed as a
temporary lane to be replaced by a toll lane under a plan
approved by the appropriate county, town, municipal or other
local government entity, or public toll road or transit
authority.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

motor carrier safety operations and programs

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

For payment of obligations incurred in the implementation,
execution and administration of motor carrier safety
operations and programs pursuant to section 31104(i) of title
49, United States Code, and sections 4127 and 4134 of Public
Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, $259,000,000,
to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the
Mass Transit Account) together with advances and
reimbursements received by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, the sum of which shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That funds available for implementation,
execution, or administration of motor carrier safety
operations and programs authorized under title 49, United
States Code, shall not exceed total obligations of
$259,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations and
Programs'' for fiscal year 2014, of which $9,000,000, to
remain available for obligation until September 30, 2016, is
for the Research and Technology program, and of which
$1,000,000 shall be available for commercial motor vehicle
operator's grants to carry out section 4134 of Public Law
109-59: Provided further, That notwithstanding section
4127(e) of Public Law 109-59, none of the funds under this
heading for outreach and education shall be available for
transfer.

motor carrier safety grants

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

(including rescission of funds)

For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out
sections 31102, 31104(a), 31106, 31107, 31109, 31309, 31313
of title 49, United States Code, and sections 4126 and 4128
of Public Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-41,
$313,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) and to remain available
until expended: Provided, That funds available for the
implementation or execution of motor carrier safety programs
shall not exceed total obligations of $313,000,000 in fiscal
year 2014 for ``Motor Carrier Safety Grants''; of which
$218,000,000 shall be available for the motor carrier safety
assistance program, $30,000,000 shall be available for the
commercial driver's license improvements program, $32,000,000
shall be available for border enforcement grants, $5,000,000
shall be available for the performance and registration
information system management program, $25,000,000 shall be
available for the commercial vehicle information systems and
networks deployment program, and $3,000,000 shall be
available for the safety data improvement program: Provided
further, That, of the funds made available herein for the
motor carrier safety assistance program, $32,000,000 shall be
available for audits of new entrant motor carriers: Provided
further, That $95,956,883 in unobligated balances are
permanently rescinded.

administrative provision--federal motor carrier safety administration

Sec. 130. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall
be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section
350 of Public Law 107-87 and section 6901 of Public Law 110-
28.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

operations and research

For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety
authorized under chapter 301 and part C of subtitle VI of
title 49, United States Code, $117,000,000, of which
$20,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2015.

operations and research

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, and chapter 303 of title 49,
United States Code, $139,175,088, to be derived from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and
to remain available until expended: Provided, That none of
the funds in this Act shall be available for the planning or
execution of programs the total obligations for which, in
fiscal year 2014, are in excess of $139,175,088, of which
$133,801,093 shall be for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C.
403, and of which $5,373,995 shall be for the National Driver
Register authorized under chapter 303 of title 49, United
States Code: Provided further, That within the $133,801,093
obligation limitation for operations and research,
$20,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2015
and shall be in addition to the amount of any limitation
imposed on obligations for future years: Provided further,
That $20,675,088 of the total obligation limitation for
operations and research in fiscal year 2014 shall be applied
toward unobligated balances of contract authority provided in
prior Acts for carrying out the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403,
and chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code.

highway traffic safety grants

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

(including rescission of funds)

For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405, section 2009 of Public
Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, and section
31101(a)(6) of Public Law 112-141, to remain available until
expended, $561,500,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account): Provided, That
none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
planning or execution of programs the total obligations for
which, in fiscal year 2014, are in excess of $561,500,000 for
programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405, section 2009
of Public Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, and
section 31101(a)(6) of Public Law 112-141, of which
$235,000,000 shall be for ``Highway Safety Programs'' under
23 U.S.C. 402; $272,000,000 shall be for ``National Priority
Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 405; $29,000,000 shall be
for ``High Visibility Enforcement Program'' under section
2009 of Public Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141;
$25,500,000 shall be for ``Administrative Expenses'' under
section 31101(a)(6) of Public Law 112-141: Provided further,
That none of these funds shall be used for construction,
rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, or for office
furnishings and fixtures for State, local or private
buildings or structures: Provided further, That not to exceed
$500,000 of the funds made available for ``National Priority
Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 405 for ``Impaired Driving
Countermeasures'' (as described in subsection (d) of that
section) shall be available for technical assistance to the
States: Provided further, That with respect to the
``Transfers'' provision under 23 U.S.C. 405(a)(1)(G), any
amounts remaining available to carry out any activities
described in subsection (b) through (g) to increase the
amount made available under section 402, shall include the
obligational authority for such amounts: Provided further,
That of the prior year unobligated balances of contract
authority for ``Highway Traffic Safety Grants'', $152,281,282
is rescinded.

administrative provisions--national highway traffic safety
administration

Sec. 140. An additional $130,000 shall be made available
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, out of
the amount limited for section 402 of title 23, United States
Code, to pay for travel and related expenses for State
management reviews and to pay for core competency development
training and related expenses for highway safety staff.
Sec. 141. The limitations on obligations for the programs
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set in
this Act shall not apply to obligations for which obligation
authority was made available in previous public laws but only
to the extent that the obligation authority has not lapsed or
been used.
Sec. 142. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.

Federal Railroad Administration

safety and operations

For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad
Administration, not otherwise provided for, $184,500,000, of
which $12,400,000 shall remain available until expended.

railroad research and development

For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $35,250,000, to remain available until expended.

railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program

The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue
direct loans and loan guarantees pursuant to sections 502
through 504 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as amended, such
authority to exist as long as any such direct loan or loan
guarantee is outstanding: Provided, That, pursuant to section
502 of such Act, as amended, no new direct loans or loan
guarantee commitments shall be made using Federal funds for
the credit risk premium during fiscal year 2014.

operating grants to the national railroad passenger corporation

To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly
grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for the
operation of intercity passenger rail, as authorized by
section 101 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008 (division B of Public Law 110-432), $350,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
amounts available under this paragraph shall be available for
the Secretary to approve funding to cover operating losses
for the Corporation only after receiving and reviewing a
grant request for each specific train route: Provided
further, That each such

[[Page H5134]]

grant request shall be accompanied by a detailed financial
analysis, revenue projection, and capital expenditure
projection justifying the Federal support to the Secretary's
satisfaction: Provided further, That not later than 60 days
after enactment of this Act, the Corporation shall transmit,
in electronic format, to the Secretary, the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation the annual budget and
business plan and the 5-Year Financial Plan for fiscal year
2014 required under section 204 of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008: Provided further,
That the budget, business plan, monthly performance reports,
and the 5-Year Financial Plan shall also include a separate
accounting of ridership, revenues, and capital and operating
expenses for the Northeast Corridor; commuter service; long-
distance Amtrak service; State-supported service; each
intercity train route, including Autotrain; and commercial
activities including contract operations: Provided further,
That the budget, business plan and the 5-Year Financial Plan
shall include a description of work to be funded, along with
cost estimates and an estimated timetable for completion of
the projects covered by these plans: Provided further, That
the budget, business plan and the 5-Year Financial Plan shall
include annual information on the maintenance, refurbishment,
replacement, and expansion for all Amtrak rolling stock
consistent with the comprehensive fleet plan: Provided
further, That the Corporation shall provide semiannual
reports in electronic format regarding the pending business
plan, which shall describe the work completed to date, any
changes to the business plan, and the reasons for such
changes, and shall identify all sole-source contract awards
which shall be accompanied by a justification as to why said
contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, as well as
progress against the milestones and target dates of the 2012
performance improvement plan: Provided further, That the
Corporation's budget, business plan, 5-Year Financial Plan,
semiannual reports, and all subsequent supplemental plans
shall be displayed on the Corporation's Web site within a
reasonable timeframe following their submission to the
appropriate entities: Provided further, That these plans
shall be accompanied by a comprehensive fleet plan for all
Amtrak rolling stock which shall address the Corporation's
detailed plans and timeframes for the maintenance,
refurbishment, replacement, and expansion of the Amtrak
fleet: Provided further, That said fleet plan shall establish
year-specific goals and milestones and discuss potential,
current, and preferred financing options for all such
activities: Provided further, That none of the funds under
this heading may be obligated or expended until the
Corporation agrees to continue abiding by the provisions of
paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 9, and 11 of the summary of conditions
for the direct loan agreement of June 28, 2002, in the same
manner as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act
may be used to support any route on which Amtrak offers a
discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal peak
fare: Provided further, That the preceding proviso does not
apply to routes where the operating loss as a result of the
discount is covered by a State and the State participates in
the setting of fares: Provided further, That the Corporation
shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations a budget request for fiscal year 2015 in
similar format and substance to those submitted by executive
agencies of the Federal Government.

capital and debt service grants to the national railroad passenger
corporation

To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for capital
investments as authorized by section 101(c), 102, and 219(b)
of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
(division B of Public Law 110-432), $600,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That after an initial
distribution of up to $50,000,000, which shall be used by the
Corporation as a working capital account, all remaining funds
shall be provided to the Corporation only on a reimbursable
basis: Provided further, That the Secretary may retain up to
one-half of 1 percent of the funds provided under this
heading to fund the costs of project management oversight of
capital projects funded by grants provided under this
heading, as authorized by subsection 101(d) of division B of
Public Law 110-432: Provided further, That the Secretary
shall approve funding for capital expenditures, including
advance purchase orders of materials, for the Corporation
only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for each
specific capital project justifying the Federal support to
the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided further, That except
as otherwise provided herein, none of the funds under this
heading may be used to subsidize operating losses of the
Corporation: Provided further, That none of the funds under
this heading may be used for capital projects not approved by
the Secretary of Transportation or on the Corporation's
fiscal year 2014 business plan: Provided further, That in
addition to the project management oversight funds authorized
under section 101(d) of division B of Public Law 110-432, the
Secretary may retain up to an additional $3,000,000 of the
funds provided under this heading to fund expenses associated
with implementing section 212 of division B of Public Law
110-432, including the amendments made by section 212 to
section 24905 of title 49, United States Code.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 43, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $600,000,000)''.
Page 150, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $600,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the
appropriations for Amtrak's capital and debt service grants by $600
million and increase the spending reduction amount by the same amount.
It would have the effect of entirely defunding this account.
Amtrak was created by Congress in 1970 to provide nationwide
passenger rail service. It currently operates more than 40 routes
across the United States. Unfortunately, the majority of these routes
operate at a huge loss to taxpayers. The committee report for the
underlying bill details just how big that loss is. In fiscal year 2011,
Amtrak's long-distance routes ran a deficit of $554 million. By next
year, that amount is projected to grow to $610 million in losses.
Mr. Chairman, the committee also takes note of Amtrak's troubled food
and beverage service, which has lost a total of $313 million just over
the last 3 years. This year alone, Amtrak is projected to lose nearly
$75 million on its food and beverage service, reflecting just a return
of only 64 percent on its expenses. Despite these losses, Amtrak pays
the attendants who serve on board food and beverages between $24 and
$27 per hour. The committee itself points out that this wage is more
than 20 percent higher than that of flight attendants, and these
employees' current labor agreement calls for another 3 percent increase
each year for the next 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, this isn't the first time I've come to the floor to
talk about Amtrak, and I can say with some confidence that this
probably won't be the last.
We as a country are broke; yet we continue to offer hundreds of
millions of taxpayers' dollars each year to a passenger rail line which
refuses to make meaningful reforms. The waste here is rampant, and we
just cannot afford it anywhere. Our Nation is broke. We've got to stop
spending money we don't have. We have to live within our means.
I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment as it
would shut down Amtrak.
I can see that Amtrak could be more efficient. There is no doubt
about that. However, it has made significant improvements in this area
recently, and it is moving in the right direction.
The bill does not include arbitrary funding decisions. We held
hearings and scrubbed each. This committee worked very hard to achieve
a balanced bill within our limited funding.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. This amendment is just another example of how the
Republican majority is limiting transportation options for the American
people.
Last year, more than 31 million Americans chose Amtrak as the means
of transportation to get to business meetings, family gatherings, and
vacations. They chose Amtrak to avoid crowded airplanes, congested
highways, and for the opportunity to view the wonderful and majestic
scenery of this great Nation. Americans deserve a passenger rail system
that is safe and reliable.
This amendment also demonstrates how many Members on the other side
of the aisle will blindly cut funding without any idea of the real
ramifications. For instance, I sincerely doubt

[[Page H5135]]

that the gentlelady from Tennessee understands that in addition to
handing out 20,000 pink slips, her amendment would cost the government
$4.5 billion over the next 5 years due to the violation of labor
agreements.
This is a shortsighted amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

next generation high-speed rail

(rescission)

Of the funds made available for Next Generation High Speed
Rail, as authorized by sections 1103 and 7201 of Public Law
105-178, $1,973,000 are hereby permanently rescinded:
Provided, That no amounts may be cancelled from amounts that
were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.

northeast corridor improvement program

(rescission)

Of the funds made available for the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Program, as authorized by Public Law 94-210,
$4,419,000 are hereby permanently rescinded: Provided, That
no amounts may be cancelled from amounts that were designated
by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

administrative provisions--federal railroad administration

Sec. 150. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds provided in this Act for the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation shall immediately cease to be available
to said Corporation in the event that the Corporation
contracts to have services provided at or from any location
outside the United States. For purposes of this section, the
word ``services'' shall mean any service that was, as of July
1, 2006, performed by a full-time or part-time Amtrak
employee whose base of employment is located within the
United States.
Sec. 151. The Secretary of Transportation may receive and
expend cash, or receive and utilize spare parts and similar
items, from non-United States Government sources to repair
damages to or replace United States Government owned
automated track inspection cars and equipment as a result of
third-party liability for such damages, and any amounts
collected under this section shall be credited directly to
the Safety and Operations account of the Federal Railroad
Administration, and shall remain available until expended for
the repair, operation and maintenance of automated track
inspection cars and equipment in connection with the
automated track inspection program.
Sec. 152. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law,
rule or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is
authorized to allow the issuer of any preferred stock
heretofore sold to the Department to redeem or repurchase
such stock upon the payment to the Department of an amount
determined by the Secretary.
Sec. 153. None of the funds provided to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation may be used to fund any
overtime costs in excess of $35,000 for any individual
employee: Provided, That the president of Amtrak may waive
the cap set in the previous proviso for specific employees
when the president of Amtrak determines such a cap poses a
risk to the safety and operational efficiency of the system:
Provided further, That Amtrak shall notify House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of granting
waivers and delineate the reasons for granting such waiver in
the Corporation's monthly report: Provided further, That
Amtrak shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on November 1, 2013, a summary of the total
number of employees that received such waivers, the total
overtime payments the Corporation paid to employees receiving
waivers, the total the Corporation paid in overtime payments
in the prior three fiscal years, and a description of the
factors that contributed to an increase or decrease from the
prior year.

Federal Transit Administration

administrative expenses

For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal
Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of
title 49, United States Code, $102,713,000, of which up to
$3,000,000 shall be available to carry out the provisions of
49 U.S.C. 5329 and not less than $1,000,000 shall be
available to carry out the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5326:
Provided, That none of the funds provided or limited in this
Act may be used to create a permanent office of transit
security under this heading: Provided further, That upon
submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2015
President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall
transmit to Congress the annual report on New Starts,
including proposed allocations for fiscal year 2015.

transit formula grants

(liquidation of contract authority)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

For payment of obligations incurred in the Federal Public
Transportation Assistance Program in this account, and for
payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5310, 5311, 5318,
5322(d), 5329(e)(6), 5335, 5337, 5339, and 5340, as amended
by Public Law 112-141; and section 20005(b) of Public Law
112-141, $9,500,000,000, to be derived from the Mass Transit
Account of the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available
until expended: Provided, That funds available for the
implementation or execution of programs authorized under 49
U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5310, 5311, 5318, 5322(d), 5329(e)(6),
5335, 5337, 5339, and 5340, as amended by Public Law 112-141,
and section 20005(b) of Public Law 112-141, shall not exceed
total obligations of $8,595,000,000 in fiscal year 2014.

research, development, demonstration, and deployment program

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5312,
$20,000,000, to remain available until expended.

transit cooperative research program

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5313,
$4,000,000, to remain available until expended.

technical assistance and standards development

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5314,
$4,000,000, to remain available until expended.

human resources and training

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5322(a), (b),
and (e), $2,000,000, to remain available until expended.

capital investment grants

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5309,
$1,815,655,000, to remain available until expended.

{time} 1815

Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 49, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $127,283,000)''.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to
increase transit funding for Capital Investment Grants, also known as
the New Starts program, by $127 million, which would bring it to the
same level as the bill currently being considered in the Senate.
Earlier this year, almost 100 Members joined me in sending a letter
to the Appropriations Committee requesting funding for transit, at a
minimum, at the levels authorized in MAP-21 and in the President's
request. In one of the few bright spots in this bill, transit formula
grants are funded at the MAP-21 authorized level, in large part because
the formula grants are funded out of the mass transit account of the
highway trust fund. Unfortunately, the New Starts and Small Starts
program, which comes out of general revenue and funds the construction
of new fixed guideway systems, such as new subway lines, bus rapid
transit, and light rail is cut 7 percent below the enacted level and 8
percent below the President's request. This shows how important it is
that the provision in last year's Republican bill that would have cut
regular mass transit funds out of the highway trust fund and subject it
to appropriations was defeated because otherwise we would have a
drastic cut there, too.
This bill is out of step with the demands of the American people.
According to the American Public Transportation Association, a record
10.5 billion trips were taken last year, the second highest annual
ridership since 1957. This increase in ridership is occurring all over
the country, in places like Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas,
Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, and Utah, to name just a few. Despite the
increase in ridership, Federal transportation funding is not keeping up
with demand. Public transportation agencies all across the country are
facing possible job cuts, maintenance backlogs, service reductions, and
fare hikes.
The funding levels in this bill provide barely enough to meet our
existing commitments to projects currently under construction, and
there is a small amount of money for only a few new Small Starts. The
funding level is too low to adequately finance planning and development
of additional transit projects. The policy framework in this bill is
one of attrition and contraction:

[[Page H5136]]

to provide just enough money to close out the old projects, with no
plans to invest in major new transit systems in any meaningful way in
the future. We are not adequately investing in building new capacity
and expanding transit service around this country, but I suppose that
is the point--to slowly starve these programs to the point that they
cease to be effective and then argue that they are not necessary.
But I am optimistic that we will ultimately provide greater funding
for transit. This is an issue that historically has had bipartisan
support. Many of my Republican friends joined me in protecting the
transit funding guarantees during consideration of surface
transportation legislation last year and in defeating the leadership's
attempt to eliminate it. The business community and the real estate
industry support funding for public transportation, along with a wide
range of labor, civil rights, environmental, and civic organizations.
Public transportation has broad support all over the country because
people understand that investing in transit is one of the smartest
things we can do to create jobs right here in America, reduce
congestion and dependence on foreign oil, and spur economic growth.
My amendment would increase the New Starts program by $127 million,
which is a modest amount considering how much we should be investing in
our infrastructure, but at least it would put the House bill on equal
footing with the Senate. Unfortunately, there is no account to use as
an offset that wouldn't cause significant harm to other important
programs, and, therefore, I have offered none. I understand the
chairman may insist upon raising a point of order, and this just shows
the limitations under which we are working in this impossible bill in
which there is grossly inadequate funding all around so that you can't
responsibly ask for an offset without destroying mass transit or
something else that is of great import in order to support adequate
expenditures.
I urge my colleagues to support increasing transit funding in
whatever final product for FY14 appropriations becomes law.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget
authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order in order under
section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states:
It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in the budget authority in
the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority
pursuant to clause 2 (f) of rule XXI.
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section. It would increase budget authority by
$127,383,000.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York violates section 3(d)(3) of
House Resolution 5.
Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Iowa, the amendment
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

grants to the washington metropolitan area transit authority

For grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority as authorized under section 601 of division B of
Public Law 110-432, $125,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall approve grants
for capital and preventive maintenance expenditures for the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority only after
receiving and reviewing a request for each specific project:
Provided further, That prior to approving such grants, the
Secretary shall determine that the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority has placed the highest priority on
those investments that will improve the safety of the system:
Provided further, That the Secretary, in order to ensure
safety throughout the rail system, may waive the requirements
of section 601(e)(1) of title VI of Public Law 110-432 (112
Stat. 4968).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 49, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert (reduced
by $125,000,000).
Page 150, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
(increased by $125,000,000).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, it was my impression that this House had
put an end to earmarks, and yet the Transportation-HUD appropriations
bill contains $125 million solely for the benefit of the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, also known as WMATA.
This is just a fraction, mind you, of the $1.5 billion that Congress
intends to give the D.C. Metro system over a 10-year period. This is
not just your everyday average earmark. The Heritage Foundation has
dubbed this subsidy ``the largest earmark in American history.''
So I have an amendment here at the desk, and it is very simple. It
simply eliminates this earmark that has received subsidies since 2008.
At a time of record budget deficits and debt, the American people
cannot afford to provide yet again another earmark, another special
subsidy, especially when you take into consideration the fact that the
D.C. Metro already receives funds from a variety of other Federal
sources, from other Federal Transit Administration grants and programs.
Also, you add to that, given the performance of this agency, I find
it absolutely astounding that the American people should want to give
even more of their hard-earned cash to this agency. In addition to
daily service interruptions, lax management, and poor general
performance, Metro has a significant record of wasting money. Right
here in The Washington Post, it was reported that Metro spent $382
million to rebuild cars, only to have them break down even more often
than the cars that they didn't overhaul. The Post also pointed out that
when senior agency attorneys wanted new offices for themselves, they
spent over a quarter of a million dollars to accommodate them. And why
not? It's simply our money, taxpayer money being used.
Last year, it was reported that the Office of Inspector General
uncovered several personal and unwarranted expenses on Metro's credit
cards, such as $2,000 worth of gift cards, things like camcorders
valued at $730, and even $180 for headphones. So even when they spend
this money on things it should be spending on, the facts are really
disturbing. The Federal Government pays, mind you, over half--
specifically, 56 percent--of their capital costs already.
Now, I understand that we'll hear others who say, D.C., the Nation's
Capital, it's a tourist destination and it has a large population that
utilizes it as transportation to get to work, but this is nothing
unique. The same can be said for cities back in my neck of the woods
like New York City or over in Chicago or Philadelphia, Boston, and Los
Angeles. Should they get the same earmarks as well? What is it that is
unique about Washington, D.C., that they are the only ones that get
this type of earmark?
Congress should not be forced to make the taxpayers use their hard-
earned money to subsidize a transportation system that has failed over
the years to get its fiscal house in order. We owe it to the American
people to be better than that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I understand our friend from New Jersey

[[Page H5137]]

apparently doesn't like Metro or the clientele it serves. So much of
what he said I think is, in fact, distorted.
The Metro system in metropolitan Washington is one of the great
success stories of regional cooperation in the United States of
America. In less than 40 years, this system has created the second
highest transit utilization in the United States. New York's is well
over 120 years old; we're less than 40.
In addition, my friend talked about taxpayer money. Not a dime of
Federal money sustains or subsidizes Metro's operating costs. That's a
problem because 40 percent of the Federal workforce uses Metro every
day; and it is subsidized not by the Federal Government, I say to my
friend from New Jersey, but by local governments in the metropolitan
area. And I know because I was chairman of one of them, and I had to
write that check every year for the subsidy for Metro--not the Federal
Government, the government of Fairfax County. And we were happy to
write the check because we saw the value in Metro.
Metro also has the highest fare box recovery rate in the United
States of any transit system. Subsidies, we recover 80 percent through
the fare box. It's the most efficient recovery in the United States. It
lacks a dedicated source of revenue. It's the only major transit system
in the United States that lacks a dedicated source of revenue.
That's why I say to my friend from New Jersey, my Republican
predecessor introduced this legislation you want to cut. Tom Davis was
the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He was a
Republican Congressman from Virginia, from the 11th District of
Virginia I now am privileged to represent, and he and I saw eye to eye
on this subject. We needed Federal help, and the Federal Government has
a special responsibility because this is the Nation's Capital.
Twelve million visitors use that Metro system at some point or
another during the course of a year, unsubsidized by the Federal
Government. In fact, the only subsidy we ever get is every 4 years when
there's an inauguration, there's some consideration made. Other than
that, we're kind of on our own.
And so Tom Davis, my Republican predecessor felt, as did all of us in
the region, that there was a special obligation to at least help on
capital improvements because it's an aging system. And with that aging
system, elevators need to be replaced, escalators need to be improved,
canopies need to be replaced.

{time} 1830

And so we came up with a capital improvement idea. The deal was this:
in a Republican Congress, that if the local governments would come up
with a match, dollar for dollar, we, the Federal Government, would
provide $150 million a year for that capital improvement, to get new
cars that are safer so we can avoid the kind of tragedy that occurred a
few years ago in the system, because we have original cars still in the
system from almost 40 years ago.
So the local governments came up with that match, $150 million, 50
for Maryland, 50 for D.C., 50 for Virginia, and we amended the compact,
the contract that created Metro, to put Federal representatives on the
board for the first time with voting privileges.
If we adopt this amendment today, we turn our back on that Republican
idea, that Republican legislation, and we turn our back on the faith
that the local jurisdictions have expressed in keeping their commitment
as part of this bargain.
Metro is a very important part of our Nation's Capital, and it is
wrong to disinvest in it, and it's even wronger to break a contract, a
commitment we made several years ago when my Republican predecessor
introduced this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman first begins his comments by
attacking my motives in this matter, saying that--what did he say? I do
not care about lines such as Metro or the people it serves.
I would ask the gentleman, who's not paying any attention to me,
exactly what is it in my statement would say that I do not care about
the people that it serves? Because I do care about them, as much as I
care about the subway system or the metro system in my metro area, such
as New York City or in my metro area, such as down in Newark, New
Jersey. I care about them as well.
But you know, when I go back and I talk to those people who use those
services, whether they be residents of New Jersey or residents of New
York, or maybe they're residents from Virginia, from your neck of the
woods up here, who come to visit the financial capital of the world,
New York City, or the Garden State of New Jersey, who want to use our
metro systems, they ask me why it is that D.C. gets a special deal, why
D.C. gets $1.5 billion over 10 years for their system.
Let's get the facts straight as far as the subsidy for the capital
cost of 65 percent, and why our cities in our area, what is it that's
so unique and special about this area and not about Chicago or
Philadelphia or the other areas.
So I go to my first question. What is it in my statement that you
said, you could slander me, sir, by saying that I do not care about the
people who ride on these systems?
Mr. CONNOLLY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I would say to my friend from New Jersey, I do not
question his motivation; I question his action. His action suggests,
just as he just said, we're no different than any other transit system.
Well, we are different. This is the Nation's Capital, and we bear the
full responsibility of moving the Federal workforce, the bulk of the
Federal workforce to work every single day. That is not a
responsibility the New York subway system bears. It's not the
responsibility Boston bears, or the BART system in San Francisco bears.
It is unique.
And we bear the responsibility in this region of welcoming 10 to 12
million fellow Americans every year to visit the Nation's Capital, many
of whom use that Metro system, again, something that is subsidized on
an operating basis, by the local taxpayer. That is unique to this area.
Mr. GARRETT. If I had some of the charts showing where some of the
wealthiest districts are in the Nation, where, despite the turmoil of
'08 and the financial crisis, where prices of real estate continue to
rise, where revenues continue to go up, it would be in this section of
the country, not in Boston, not in Philly, not in New York or Newark.
But this is one of the wealthiest portions of the country.
And you're right, sir. If this is an area that should look for
subsidies, it should look for subsidies from some of the wealthiest
people in America that live right here, not under the underlying bill.
It's not asking for people from your district to pay their fair
share, or the people from Maryland or Virginia to pay their fair share.
It's asking for people from all across the country to chip in to pay
for here, when you're not allowing the people from New York, Newark,
Philadelphia, Chicago, out in California--those other areas have subway
systems and metro systems. You're not willing to help them out.
But, Mr. Speaker, you want everyone else in America to help the
residents who live here and subsidize their costs, but you're not
willing to help out the people who live in my neck of the woods.
And that, sir, is unfair to my constituents. That's unfair to all the
constituents in all those cities that are looking for a fair deal and
for efficiency and economy from our government, and not for special
deals.
I'll end where I began. I thought Washington had done away with
earmarks but, obviously, with this legislation and the special
interests that are being catered to here, we have not done so.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on

[[Page H5138]]

which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Gallego of Texas.
Amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska.
Amendment by Mr. Grayson of Florida.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. McClintock of California.
Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gallego) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 317,
noes 92, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 419]

AYES--317

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gowdy
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Hahn
Hanna
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hunter
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Williams
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--92

Amash
Bachmann
Barr
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Cantor
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Conaway
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kingston
LaMalfa
Latta
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McClintock
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Olson
Palazzo
Perry
Pittenger
Radel
Ribble
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Royce
Runyan
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Smith (MO)
Southerland
Stockman
Stutzman
Wagner
Weber (TX)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Woodall

NOT VOTING--24

Campbell
Clarke
Cramer
Dingell
Farr
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Labrador
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Rangel
Schrader
Wilson (FL)
Young (FL)

{time} 1901

Messrs. COFFMAN, AMASH, ROKITA, SMITH of Missouri, STOCKMAN, FRANKS
of Arizona, BURGESS, and HALL changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. CICILLINE, McKINLEY, RYAN of Wisconsin, BENTIVOLIO, LEVIN,
SHUSTER, RICE of South Carolina, VALADAO, TERRY, MAFFEI, RUSH and
RUPPERSBERGER, and Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mrs. ROBY changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 175, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 420]

AYES--239

Aderholt
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Langevin

[[Page H5139]]

Larsen (WA)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stewart
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--175

Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Camp
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cotton
Crawford
Cuellar
Cummings
Daines
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Harris
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Kingston
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Maffei
Marchant
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meehan
Messer
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Petri
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruiz
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Smith (MO)
Southerland
Speier
Stivers
Stutzman
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Walorski
Walz
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--19

Campbell
Dingell
Gohmert
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Labrador
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Rangel
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1905

Mr. COLE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Grayson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 421]

AYES--191

Amash
Bachmann
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Camp
Cantor
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cleaver
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cooper
Cotton
Crawford
Cummings
DeGette
DeSantis
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kind
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Lee (CA)
Lofgren
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McHenry
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Payne
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruiz
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schiff
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Titus
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (IN)

NOES--224

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellmers
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Green, Al
Grimm
Guthrie
Hahn
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marino
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Moore
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (MI)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Welch
Whitfield
Williams

[[Page H5140]]

Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--18

Campbell
Dingell
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Labrador
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Rangel
Young (FL)

{time} 1910

Messrs. ROKITA and CRAWFORD changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McClintock

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 422]

AYES--166

Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Camp
Cantor
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cotton
Culberson
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latta
Long
Maffei
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Payne
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruiz
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoho
Young (IN)

NOES--248

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibson
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Hahn
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Ribble
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--19

Campbell
Dingell
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Labrador
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Rangel
Rokita
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1913

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 423]

AYES--154

Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kilmer
King (NY)
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Owens
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Quigley
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)

[[Page H5141]]

NOES--258

Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Levin
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--21

Aderholt
Campbell
Cramer
Dingell
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Labrador
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Rangel
Simpson
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1917

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 424]

AYES--109

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bustos
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castro (TX)
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Deutch
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Grijalva
Grimm
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Huffman
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Payne
Pocan
Posey
Quigley
Richmond
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)

NOES--300

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Coble
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hahn
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lofgren
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--24

Campbell
Cole
Cramer
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Hoyer
Labrador
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Rangel
Waters
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

[[Page H5142]]

{time} 1920

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Crenshaw was allowed to speak out of
order.)

The Congressional Challenge Cup

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think most Members of this body know
that every year for the past 12 years there has been a golf match
between the House Republicans and the House Democrats. It has become
known as The First Tee Challenge, because the money that is raised from
this event goes to help The First Tee, as they reach nearly hundreds of
thousands of young people across this country using the game of golf to
talk about honesty, integrity, hard work, and discipline. It is
patterned after the Ryder Cup.
This year's competition took place last Monday. After the matches
were over, the score was tied--10 points for the Republicans and 10
points for the Democrats. That is the ultimate in bipartisanship.
But the rules of The First Tee Challenge Cup provide, just like the
Ryder Cup, that the team that is in possession of the coveted Roll Call
Cup, which I have right here in my hand, the team that is in possession
of the cup must be defeated for the cup to change hands. So, therefore,
the fact that the match was a tie this year, the coveted Roll Call Cup
will stay in possession of the Republican team for 1 more year.
I just want to thank all the members of the team for their hard work,
their dedication, their fine play, and congratulate The First Tee for
all the work that they do. And a special word of thanks to the
sponsors, who have raised over $2 million over these years to help
support The First Tee.
I would like to yield to my Democratic counterpart, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Florida for
his kind remarks.
It was a wonderful competition. I would like to blame redistricting
on the reversal of fortune that we've had over the last 2 years; but I
can say in all honesty that it was a phenomenal competition and, more
importantly, it was a very civil and friendly competition with a great
deal of mutual respect and a great deal of humor and fun in a day that
was documented last night on Golf Central on the Golf Channel. As my
friend said, the most important thing is that we are raising money for
a very important charity that has done phenomenal work throughout the
country.
I want to congratulate the Republicans for retaining the cup and
congratulate my own team for a valiant effort. I must remind everyone
that we didn't lose, we tied, and that we will get back at it next year
and try to steal that cup from the Republicans where it rightfully
belongs.
Once again, thank you very much to the Republican team. Thanks also
to the sponsors, and primarily to The First Tee for the great work that
they do.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 425]

AYES--116

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Grimm
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kilmer
King (NY)
Kuster
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Payne
Pocan
Posey
Quigley
Richmond
Runyan
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)

NOES--295

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lofgren
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--22

Campbell
Carney
Cramer
Dingell
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Labrador
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Meadows
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Rangel
Young (FL)

[[Page H5143]]

{time} 1929

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Continuation of Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my close
friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who not only called the House to
order but who has been an extraordinary champion of transit systems for
years, especially of Washington's metropolitan transit system, because
he gets it. He understands how important this transit system is.
There was a previous discussion, a dialogue, between Mr. Connolly and
Mr. Garrett. The outcome of it was a suggestion that Washington's Metro
system is somehow extraordinarily subsidized. The fact is that it's
subsidized but that it's subsidized primarily by local governments. We
have been trying on our side to provide subsidies to transit systems
all over the country, including in the New York-New Jersey area--
apparently, given the results of some of the votes, without much
success on this bill.
The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that Metro is our Nation's
transit system. It was created largely to serve the needs of the
Federal Government. Forty percent of Metro's peak ridership are Federal
employees, so a Federal role is both necessary and appropriate. WMATA
is also the primary means of transportation for visitors to our
Nation's Capital. Whether they come to experience our historical
legacy, to participate in rallies on The Mall or to meet with their
Members of Congress, they use our Nation's Metro system.
Now, in recognition of this special relationship and of WMATA's
urgent need for additional capital funds, the Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act of 2008 authorized $1.5 billion over 10 years for
WMATA's capital and preventative maintenance projects. It was
bipartisan. As Mr. Connolly suggested, his predecessor, Mr. Davis,
largely led much of the effort, and it was to be matched dollar for
dollar by the jurisdictions that WMATA serves--the District of
Columbia, the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
That bill represented a compact between WMATA and the Federal
Government, which was granted representation on the WMATA board. That
was part of the legislation, that you've got to put Federal
representation on the board in return for the funding. Up to this
point, the Federal Government has upheld its end of this compact.
That's why we object so strongly to the Garrett amendment. Currently,
this appropriations bill on the floor today provides $125 million,
which is consistent with this compact in its funding for the Metro
system. It's a 16 percent cut already below the authorized level,
which, in fact, has been fully funded in previous fiscal years, but Mr.
Garrett's amendment would eliminate even that reduced funding level.
The elimination of WMATA funding would be deeply detrimental to the
system and would diminish the ability of thousands of employees to get
to work--two-fifths of them Federal employees. Critically, the further
cuts mandated by Mr. Garrett's amendment would limit WMATA's ability to
continue improving the safety of the system and fully implement the
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board that
resulted from the 2009 Red Line crash. That's what we need to
implement. We wouldn't be able to do it with this amendment.
Eliminating Federal funding would also jeopardize State capital funding
for the Metro system by breaking the matching compact that has been
agreed to by all the parties.
So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this
unnecessary amendment, which would irreparably harm America's most
critical transit system.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. I just want to speak briefly in support of what Mr. Moran
said.
Mr. Chairman, this law that we are drastically changing was really
the result of a bipartisan agreement with regard to the Congress, and
it was authored by former Congressman Tom Davis from northern Virginia.
We voted on this one other time. A similar amendment was offered by Mr.
Garrett last year. It failed by a vote of 160-243.
In 2008, the Congress made a 10-year commitment as the Federal
partner to provide capital funds for the needs of the Metro system. It
was a commitment. It's in the law. We voted on it. We worked on it. It
was bipartisan. Now we come up with the Garrett amendment. These funds
are matched, as said by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), by
WMATA's regional partners--Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.
Again, it was voted on before, in the last Congress, and it failed
overwhelmingly by a vote of 160-243.
Eliminating this funding means that Congress would be choosing to go
back on its commitment to provide the money needed to maintain a safe
and reliable system used by many of your constituents--the people who
visit. Metro is currently using Federal funds to improve a 30-year-old
system to address the critical safety recommendations made by the
National Transportation Safety Board. People died on the Metro. This
money is being used to make the Metro safe. As the other Member said,
many Members have constituents who come from all over the country to
use it. More than half of the Metro rail system serves Federal
facilities like the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and
many others.
I would ask Members to keep the commitment that was made in a
bipartisan way and to vote down the Garrett amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
He and I spent literally a decade working together, shoulder to
shoulder, in a bipartisan way because this is America's subway. This is
a subway that is used by almost all of the visitors who come to visit
their capital. It is for that reason that the Federal Government has
participated in building this extraordinary system.
The gentleman is correct. We have an agreement. There is a compact
that has been signed by Republican Governors and Democratic Governors,
by Republican Members of the House and Democratic Members of the House,
by Republican members of the Senate and Democratic members of the
Senate. I would hope that the House would reject this amendment.
I adopt the remarks of the gentlemen from Virginia. My colleagues Mr.
Moran and Mr. Wolf, I think, speak for all of us, and, of course, Mr.
Connolly has spoken very strongly for himself, but I would hope that
the House would continue to keep the faith with the agreement that has
been made for what is America's subway, used by all of our people when
they come here to their Nation's Capital.
I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank the ranking member
for their efforts on behalf of the Metro as well as for keeping the
faith of the agreement that we have reached. I thank the gentleman for
his leadership and his remarks.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
I also want to thank Mr. Latham and Mr. Pastor for their opposition
to this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

THUD Appropriations

In 2008, the Congress made a 10-year commitment, as the federal
partner, to provide capital funds for the needs of the Metro system.
These funds are matched by WMATA's regional partners, Virginia,
Maryland and Washington, D.C.
This amendment would eliminate $125 million in capital funds for
Metro, which has already been cut from $150 million last year.
A similar amendment offered to last year's THUD bill failed by a vote
of 160-243.

[[Page H5144]]

Eliminating this funding means Congress is choosing to go back on its
commitment to provide money needed to maintain a safe and reliable
system used by many of your constituents.
Metro is currently using federal funds to improve its 30-year-old
system to address the critical safety recommendations made by the
National Transportation Safety Board, which Metro has made its highest
priority.
WMATA operates the second largest rail system and sixth largest bus
system in the U.S.
It provides 1.3 million trips a day--many of these trips carry
employees to and from work every day.
More than half of the Metrorail stations serve federal facilities,
like the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.
Metro is critical to the economic growth of this region.
It has spurred $37 billion in economic development at or near to
Metro's property.
I represent the Dulles airport and Loudoun County and since 1999, I
have supported extending metro rail to Dulles.
The funding provided in this bill for Metro is critical to the
success and safety of the rail project along the Dulles Corridor, which
is the single greatest economic engine for Northern Virginia.
Congress must continue to uphold its commitment to provide a safe and
reliable metro experience for the American people that we serve.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we may take advantage
of revisiting this yet again to have a teachable moment here.
My good friend from New Jersey talked about some of the problems of
the Metro system. As a practical matter, many of those problems are the
result of 40 years of an accumulated maintenance deficit and a lack of
a long-term, reliable partnership with the Federal Government,
exemplified by the irresponsibility of this amendment that is being
proposed.
The Federal Government is the primary beneficiary of Metro. Bear in
mind these 68 square miles that represent the District of Columbia: 21
percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government, and a much
larger percentage of the valuable land is tax-exempt; 30 percent of the
jobs are Federal jobs even in these difficult times, and they're not
paying taxes to the District of Columbia or to Metro; 40 percent of the
rush-hour traffic is of Federal employees, and we suffer some of the
worst traffic congestion in the United States in this region.
We have a serious accumulated deficit for maintenance, and this was
part of a bipartisan, long-term agreement to solve this problem and
improve service and meet the Federal responsibilities. I appreciate the
advocacy and the eloquence of my friends from Virginia and Maryland who
have come to the floor and pointed out this responsibility. I speak as
somebody who represents a district 2,300 miles away, but I, too, have
an interest in the Federal Government's being a responsible partner in
helping Metro function properly.
Many of us were on the floor of the House during 9/11. That was a
horrible week in our Nation's Capital. But for the Metro system, the
area would have been paralyzed.

{time} 1945

I suggest that this is, I hope, well intentioned; but I think it's
shortsighted, and it underscores the problems we have had in the
district to deal with long-term capital investments. As has been
pointed out, the local governments surrounding are part of the
partnership and are contributing money.
I would hope that the Federal Government understands its
responsibility and not only do we reject this misguided amendment, but
hopefully we can use this as an opportunity to reaffirm the
partnership, the role that the Federal Government plays, the benefit
that the Federal Government obtains for our employees, for our
visitors, for the land that is located here that occupies Federal
activities.
Mr. Chairman, these are tea leaves that people read. I am sad that
this bill underfunds infrastructure across the country on the very day
that the American Society of Civil Engineers puts out their report that
gives us a D-plus rating for infrastructure in this country, that we
need increased private investment, local government funding. We have
$2.2 trillion over the next 10 years. It will be necessary just to
bring our infrastructure up to standard. And this will be the quickest
way to put Americans to work at family-wage jobs from coast to coast. I
would hope at some point we get back to our responsibilities overall
for infrastructure, but in the meantime we should reject this effort to
undermine the partnership and the Federal responsibility.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, when we're in session, I have
the opportunity--and I take it--to ride the metro. That's the way I get
around in this great city. I have to tell you that in the late sixties,
early seventies when I first came to Washington on other business, I
saw where Connecticut Avenue was being dug up, the beginning of the Red
Line. So I can attest, Mr. Chairman, that every morning at the South
Capitol stop, people who work in this complex on Capitol Hill, that
there are lines of workers that are coming into work.
So when the proposition came before the House, the compact that the
Federal Government agreed with Maryland, Virginia, and the District, to
maintain the metro and the particular States and District had the
matching funds, I was very supportive because I knew of the benefit
that Metro brought to our employees here on Capitol Hill, as well as to
the Federal employees throughout this metro area. So I have to tell you
that I support the Metro system, and I oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this appropriations measure fails at
every level to meet our Nation's transportation infrastructure needs,
support our States' housing initiatives, or further our community
development goals.
I would like to take a moment to highlight a few of the most
egregious cuts in the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development
appropriations bill before us today because it's important for my
constituents in Rhode Island to hear exactly what's being proposed here
today.
We all recognize clearly that some cuts in Federal spending are
unavoidable. In certain cases, they're even desirable in the current
budgetary environment. But this bill goes far beyond what's reasonable
by reneging on the spirit of the agreed-to spending levels in the
Budget Control Act. The cuts in this bill to the Community Development
Block Grant program, the HOME grant, and transportation investments
endanger the well-being of America's cities and towns, as well as our
residents.
Expanding economic opportunities and creating jobs continue to be my
top priorities in Congress. It's exactly what this Nation needs right
now. It's certainly what we need in Rhode Island, given the fact we
have the fourth highest unemployment rate in the Nation. Regrettably,
this bill achieves neither of these goals. The Congressional Budget
Office estimated just last week the sequestration would result in 1.6
million fewer American jobs by the end of September 2014. Yet my
Republican colleagues have decided to double down on this reckless
policy by crafting the T-HUD bill with the assumption that
sequestration remains in effect.
These cuts translate into real jobs and real benefits to our
communities. Just 2 weeks ago, I celebrated a $10

[[Page H5145]]

million Federal TIGER grant award that will be used to help Rhode
Island replace the aging Providence Viaduct. It's part of the I-95
corridor that goes right through the center of Providence. This bill
eliminates the TIGER grant program.
In April, our State Department of Transportation unveiled plans to
improve the Providence Amtrak station. The station serves over 1
million Amtrak and commuter rail passengers each year, benefiting our
entire State, as well as neighboring ones with multimodal connections
from Providence to the Boston metropolitan area. This bill cuts Amtrak
funding by 33 percent, endangering further improvements to important
interstate transportation infrastructure.
In June, Rhode Islanders celebrated the 100th anniversary of the
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 618. Their 1,000 members take us to
school, work, to the doctor, and to the grocery store quickly and
safely every day. Public transportation decreases congestion,
pollution, and individual fuel costs; it connects us to recreation,
family, and community; and it creates jobs in the short term, while
supporting careers over the long term. This bill cuts transit funding
by 17 percent from last year.
It also delivers a 25 percent cut to the Housing Counseling
Assistance Fund, which helped over 2,000 Rhode Island families last
year stay in their homes, avoid foreclosure, or refinance their
mortgage. This bill would cut the HOME program by $300 million, a 30
percent reduction from pre-sequestration levels. HOME is a critical
resource that's used to develop affordable housing for those who need
it most. It has resulted in over 4,200 units in Rhode Island alone
being created.
Meanwhile, homeless families, the most vulnerable among us, once
again will feel the full brunt of the majority's misplaced priorities.
In 2012, over 4,800 Rhode Islanders found themselves homeless, one-
quarter of them children. The State homeless assistance programs depend
on Federal support to operate shelters to help move people to a
permanent housing solution; yet H.R. 2610 does not come close to
adequately funding these programs, placing thousands of Rhode Island
families in even further jeopardy.
By cutting the administrative fund for section 8, this bill seeks to
undermine the very integrity of that program. Those seeking housing
assistance vouchers will find agencies understaffed, underfunded, and
unable to serve the millions who depend on section 8 to stay in
affordable housing. This is outrageous.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill cuts the CDBG program by almost 50
percent, an unacceptable and draconian move that will cripple the
neighborhoods that need the most help. These grants are the cornerstone
of local investment opportunities. For every dollar spent on CDBG
grants, $3 is leveraged from private, nonprofit, and other non-Federal
funding sources. The organizations working with CDBG funds use them for
employment services, homeless assistance, child care, senior care,
mental health outreach, and countless other services. I'm sad to see
that the committee has decided that this is not worth the investment.
This bill is misguided, and I hope we will rethink this. I urge my
colleagues to oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Capito) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2610)
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________