[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 89 (Thursday, June 4, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3882-H3896]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Pursuant to House Resolution 
287 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 2577.
  Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  0912


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Poe of Texas (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) had 
been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 156, line 15.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this Act is hereby 
     reduced by 1 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

[[Page H3883]]

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I am certain it comes as no surprise to 
anyone in this body that, as we go through this appropriations season, 
I come back to the floor working to make another cut to get our 
spending levels down. The bill we have before us, the T-HUD approps, is 
a $55.3 billion bill. That is discretionary funding.

                              {time}  0915

  Now, credit should go to the subcommittee chairmen and to those who 
have worked on this to get the spending levels down because this is 
$9.7 billion below the President's request. That is really quite 
remarkable. And my amendment, which is another 1 percent reduction--a 
penny out of a dollar--would save our taxpayers $598 million and would 
reduce the 2006 outlays by $369 million.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, when you look at budget authority and you look at 
the outlays, those are significant numbers. They are significant also, 
Mr. Chairman, when you look at the debt. We are $18.3 trillion in debt; 
and, quite frankly, I think that that is too much debt for us to ask 
our children and grandchildren to handle.
  I think it is imperative that we, as stewards of the taxpayers' 
money, put these issues on the table and say, ``Yes, there are great 
things we would like to do,'' ``Yes, there are projects that would be 
wonderful,'' but we have to be responsible to the taxpayers.
  This is not Federal money. It doesn't just grow on trees. What we 
have to realize is that it all comes from taxpayers. They are 
overtaxed. They feel the Federal Government is overspent, and they want 
to see the spending brought under control. I agree with them. That is 
why I bring this amendment forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I think, also, we have to look at the fact that our 
economic security, our fiscal security, and our national security are 
all closely linked. Because of that, Admiral Mullen said that the 
greatest threat to our Nation's security is our Nation's debt. We have 
to get serious about reducing this debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the bill that is in front of us is a 
responsible bill that adheres to the budget caps set by law and passed 
by this body. We set priorities in this bill, and we made targeted cuts 
to overhead, salaries, expenses, and also duplicative programs, Mr. 
Chairman. Many programs are also held at last year's level or below. 
Again, we made some tough decisions.
  The problem is, when you are doing, frankly, an across-the-board cut 
with this amendment, it would have some, frankly--and I know it is well 
intentioned--it would have some harmful effects on the priorities set 
by the Members of this House. Again, we have cut programs, but based on 
hearings, on meetings, on discussions, and on careful reviews of, 
again, the budget justifications and also the audits.
  This amendment, and I know it is very well intentioned, would hit, 
for example, air traffic control operations and cause unnecessary 
flight delays. It could hurt our most vulnerable populations by, for 
example, affecting assistance to over 50,000 residents, including 
elderly and disabled populations.
  Now, I am not telling you that there are not areas that can be 
reduced. We have done that. As a matter of fact, we have been in 
debate, and we have heard a lot of debate about some people saying that 
we have done too much of that. But we have done so after hours and 
hours of deliberations, of talking, of conversations, of study, and of 
hearings. So, again, I know it is a well-intended amendment, and I am a 
huge admirer of the sponsor of this amendment, but I have to 
respectfully urge a ``no'' vote precisely because of the time we have 
spent to make the right reductions as opposed to across-the-board 
reductions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of 
our subcommittee for yielding, and I want to join him in opposing this 
amendment.
  This is an indiscriminate amendment. It cuts programs in 
transportation and housing without any thought as to their relative 
merits. It is the opposite of intelligent appropriating.
  For example, this would result in fewer air traffic controllers, 
fewer pipeline safety inspectors, and the eviction--literally, the 
eviction--of elderly and disabled tenants. More generally, investments 
in our transportation and housing infrastructure would be altered. The 
associated jobs would be lost.
  This bill is already underfunded, Mr. Chairman. It has got to be 
revisited when we have a budget agreement that lets us do a decent job 
with this bill.
  So this amendment goes in exactly the wrong directions. It would 
encourage the agencies not to do more with less, but to do less with 
less, and it would be a body blow to our constituents and our 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell you why this is the right approach. Our 
States, who can't go print money in order to balance their budget, 
utilize across-the-board cuts. Look at Tennessee, Massachusetts, 
Washington State, New Jersey, and Colorado. They all employ this. Here 
is why, if you want to engage State employees and Federal employees, 
and bring the agencies into the process, you say: Okay. We have set 
your budget levels, we have appropriated your money, now we are coming 
to you. You are a part of the team, and we need you to engage in how we 
best save taxpayer money.
  This is why it works in the States. When I was in the State senate in 
Tennessee, if we didn't balance the budget, we didn't go home. It is 
time for the Federal Government to dig deep and engage these employees. 
You can talk with rank-and-file Federal employees. I have done it many 
times. They say we know how we can save money, but they are not 
incentivized to do so. Let's challenge them. Let's engage them. Let's 
have them bring forward their best ideas.
  A penny on a dollar? Absolutely. We are doing this for the children. 
We are doing this for future generations. We are doing this for our 
Nation's fiscal health, and we are doing it to preserve our sovereignty 
to get these debt levels down.
  It is time for us to do that. It is responsible budgeting. It is time 
for everybody to be a part of the team, putting this Nation back on the 
road to fiscal health, to a balanced budget, and being respectful of 
the taxpayer and a good steward of the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the 5th or 14th Amendment to the 
     Constitution or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H3884]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to prohibit the use of 
Federal funds to stop, investigate, detain, or arrest people on 
highways based on their physical appearance in violation of the Fifth 
and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and title VI of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the same amendment I successfully 
offered to the fiscal year 2015 T-HUD appropriations bill and was 
agreed to by a voice vote on the House floor and was included in the 
fiscal year 2015 omnibus bill. I ask the same for the current 
amendment, which, like the one passed by the House last year, seeks to 
prevent profiling by law enforcement officials and to ensure that 
citizens are not stopped, investigated, or detained based on their 
color or other inherent physical appearance.
  The Supreme Court, in Whren v. United States, held that profiling 
based on physical appearance on highways violates equal protection of 
the laws. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, whose 50th anniversary 
we celebrated in 2014, enforces the 14th Amendment and applies to 
funding for all Federal agencies and departments. My amendment carries 
out this title VI mandate as expressed in transportation funding in 
particular.
  Federal guidance regarding the use of race by a Federal law 
enforcement official finds that racial profiling is not merely wrong, 
but is also ineffective. Not only Blacks and Hispanics are affected, 
but many others in our country as well, given the increasing diversity 
of American society.
  The United States Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice 
Statistics reports that Whites are stopped at a rate of 3.6 percent, 
but Blacks at 9.5 percent and Hispanics at 8.8 percent, more than twice 
that of Whites. The figures are roughly the same regardless of region 
or State.
  In Minnesota, for example, a statewide study of racial profiling 
found that African American, Hispanic, and Native American drivers were 
stopped and searched far more often than Whites, yet contraband was 
found more frequently in cars where White drivers had been stopped.
  In Texas, where disproportionate stops and searches of African 
Americans and Hispanics were found to have taken place, it was also 
found that Whites more often were carrying contraband.
  Earlier this Congress, I reintroduced the Racial Profiling Prevention 
Act, my bill to reestablish a popular Federal program aimed at reducing 
racial profiling. This bill permits States to apply for grants to 
develop racial profiling laws, to collect and maintain data on traffic 
stops, to fashion programs to reduce racial profiling, and to train law 
enforcement officers.
  Nearly half the States participated in the program when it was in 
existence, which shows both the need and the interest in our country in 
tackling this civil rights issue. I got this program included in the 
surface transportation law in 2005, but that program expired in 2009. I 
will try to get this bill included in the surface transportation 
reauthorization bill we will be writing this year, but in the meantime, 
a formal prohibition on racial profiling is in order. Meanwhile, 
Congress should have no hesitation in carrying out the 14th Amendment 
and the 1964 Civil Rights Act mandate regarding Federal funding of 
transportation, and neither the House nor the Senate hesitated last 
year.
  Considering our country's history and increasing diversity, we are 
late in barring profiling at the national level. At the very least, 
Federal taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize the 
unconstitutional practice of profiling by law enforcement officials in 
the States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment, especially in 
light of recent issues in cities like Ferguson and Baltimore.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out the rule entitled ``Affirmatively 
     Furthering Fair Housing'', published by the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development in the Federal Register on July 
     19, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 43710; Docket No. FR-5173-P-01) or to 
     carry out the notice entitled ``Affirmatively Furthering Fair 
     Housing Assessment Tool'', published by the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development in the Federal Register on 
     September 26, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 57949; Docket No. FR-5173-N-
     02).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment intended 
to prevent yet another costly overreach by the Federal Government into 
the jurisdiction of local towns and communities.
  Last Congress, during debate on this bill, the House passed an 
amendment of mine to prevent funds for HUD's proposed new regulation 
that will allow bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., to get in the middle 
of local planning and zoning and prohibit community development block 
grant funds from going to communities that need them.
  The amendment seeks to once again defund and block this new 
regulation that was not approved by Congress. HUD's misguided rule 
would grant the Department authority to dictate local zoning 
requirements in any community across the country that applies for a 
community development block grant.
  According to reports, in 2012, this rule would have negatively 
impacted more than 1,200 municipalities throughout the country, causing 
these communities to forfeit millions that are meant to help the 
neediest of families.
  Once again, this flawed proposal by HUD will increase local taxes, 
depress property values, and cause further harm to impoverished 
communities that are actually in need of these funds.
  These burdensome zoning rules that would be imposed by HUD 
bureaucrats on localities would be derived from tracked resident data 
based on citizens' race, sex, religion, and other federally protected 
demographics.
  Multiple watchdog groups have raised serious and valid concerns about 
HUD's proposal. A trial run of this rule already took place in New 
York. It failed miserably, and a local county was initially forced to 
forego $12 million in funds that would have benefited the community due 
to the impractical and unrealistic requirements associated with the 
misguided agency regulation.
  The county had intended to use a large portion of these block grant 
funds to establish public housing for individuals in need. But 
recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 
ruled in favor of the county and granted a stay against HUD's attempts 
to reallocate those millions.
  This new regulation that is sitting at OMB is very dangerous and, 
worst of all, unnecessary. The Federal Government already has the 
authority to withhold grant money from communities that violate the 
law. And to clarify, I do mean the actual law in the United States 
Code, as opposed to overreaching executive dictums.
  American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they 
would like to live and not be subject to Federal neighborhood 
microengineering at the behest of overreaching Federal bureaucrats.
  Further, HUD officials shouldn't be holding hostage grant moneys 
aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas 
of what every community should resemble. Local zoning decisions have 
traditionally been, and should always be, made by local communities, 
not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment because it 
keeps the Federal Government out of your backyard and prevents the Feds 
from reorganizing communities to a fantastical standard.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it aims to 
treat municipalities and individual citizens

[[Page H3885]]

as capable and intelligent, rather than disenfranchised, divided, and 
coddled groups in need of protection from a problem that does not 
exist.
  As always, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
continued work on the committee.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The rule in question, HUD's rule, is intended to help communities 
more fully comply with the law and to avoid costly and time-consuming 
legal challenges.
  The charge that this rule injects HUD into local planning and zoning 
conditions is simply inaccurate. Nor does it set up additional hurdles 
to Federal funding. That is inaccurate too.
  The rule allows for communities to better understand local conditions 
and to create locally decided and implemented solutions.
  I don't understand why we would want to revert back to a standard 
that relied on drawn-out litigation rather than simply presenting 
communities up front with information on local housing conditions and 
letting them address their needs. I know my local officials prefer 
community developed solutions over decrees that are judicially imposed.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a 
distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee, to express 
his opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the 
time.
  Let's talk about what we are really actually talking about. We are 
trying to fight racial segregation. That is what this is all about. Our 
Nation, the Nation I love, held slaves for 246 years and did Jim Crow 
segregation for another 100 years, and that created racial segregation 
patterns which this Member is trying to stop us from correcting. This 
is deeply offensive.
  I just want to say that when I think about the progress that our 
Nation has made so that when we say ``all men are created equal'' and 
when we say ``liberty and justice for all,'' that it will be true. This 
amendment is saying no, we are not going to allow it to be true; we are 
going to keep residential segregation based on race; we are going to 
make communities balkanize.
  When I hear somebody say something like the Federal Government should 
stay out of local affairs, that sounds like some states' rights talk 
from 1955. That sounds like something really offensive to me.
  Look, we need HUD to help implement affirmatively furthering fair 
housing rules. We need that. We need HUD to expand its efforts to fight 
discrimination and promote equal opportunity in every community.
  Too often in this country, too many people's economic opportunities, 
their life chances, are limited by where they live. And yes, the 
Federal Government should promote equality and should promote fair 
housing. Affirmatively furthering a fair housing rule helps to do that. 
Why we would want to strip it out makes absolutely no sense to me.
  I urge Members to understand what is going on right here and to very 
fervently vote ``no'' on the Gosar amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, how dare the opposition create and instigate 
racism. This is about decisions made at the local level and the local 
level knowing what is best for their communities. There is nothing of 
the sort that the gentleman from Minnesota brought up in regard to that 
attitude that I brought forward.
  This is an overreach of the Federal Government instilling in our 
local communities where, how, and when people are going to live. That 
is the wrong way to be. Instead of building cripples like we are doing 
right now with the Federal Government, we ought to make sustainable 
communities that are based on local ideas and principles.
  I ask all Members to vote for this amendment because it definitely 
rejects the overreach of the Federal Government.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to permit air transportation service between midnight 
     and 6 a.m. at Ronald Reagan National Airport (DCA).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would prohibit 
Federal funds from being used to permit airline service between 
midnight and 6 a.m. at Ronald Reagan National Airport.
  Last month, I held a widely attended community meeting with standing 
room only on airport airplane noise with residents of Palisades, 
Foxhall, Georgetown, Hillandale, and other impacted neighborhoods in 
the District of Columbia. Representatives of the Metropolitan 
Washington Airports Authority, the Federal Aviation Administration, and 
residents sat on a panel while we discussed airplane noise that has 
completely disrupted the life of this community.
  Over the last 18 months, D.C. residents have reported an increase in 
air traffic activity during nighttime and early morning hours, breaking 
the sleep of children and adults alike. During this time period, one 
airline added two flights that arrive at Ronald Reagan Washington 
National Airport after midnight and three flights that depart before 5 
a.m.
  As of now, there is no congressional prohibition, none whatsoever, on 
nighttime flights at Ronald Reagan National Airport. Until recent 
years, however, flights at this airport could not land after 10 p.m. or 
take off before 7 a.m.
  My amendment gives airlines greater latitude without introducing 
continuing sleepless nights for residents. Congress can settle this 
issue in the Nation's Capital to provide relief to those residents who 
suffer from airline noise night after night and early morning after 
early morning.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I will have to oppose 
this amendment.
  I am actually concerned about the potential unintended consequences 
of this amendment. We don't know all of the potential impacts of this 
amendment, from safety to capacity to, frankly, the effect on local 
economics.
  We have made in this bill an effort not to legislatively direct 
specific flight restrictions or flight paths. As you can well imagine, 
Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of these issues out there, but we have 
made the decision to not do that.
  And again, we just don't know all of the potential unintended 
consequences, so I would respectfully have to urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman 
yielding.
  I would simply add an observation about the situation that this and 
other

[[Page H3886]]

amendments we may be considering today point to with respect to the 
pending FAA authorization. It is expiring at the end of this fiscal 
year.
  Our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are 
exploring options to reform the FAA. One of them includes separating 
the FAA from the Department of Transportation and allowing the FAA more 
independence over the use of its resources.
  This is an important time to encourage our colleagues to think very 
carefully about that, about whether a more independent FAA, one that 
does not have to rely on annual appropriations, would be as attentive 
to concerns such as our colleague raises today, concerns about noise, 
concerns about flight paths.
  We ought to move very cautiously in this area. I have misgivings 
about the piecemeal approach, but I believe there is an important 
message that is being delivered to the leadership of the FAA. I 
strongly urge the Administrator to ensure the FAA is more attentive to 
the concerns that are raised by communities when developing their new 
flight procedures.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, while I understand the concerns of my 
friend on the other side of the aisle, and I appreciate the remarks of 
my friend on this side, I do alert the House to the fact that I am at 
least speaking from precedent.
  I understand that all over the United States there are people who may 
have similar concerns. But remember, we are talking about a 
jurisdiction which in recent years has had no flights between 10 and 7, 
and now there are some airlines that have taken advantage of the fact 
that there are no limit on slots at Reagan National Airport.
  This is a community in the Nation's Capital that is metropolitan in 
scope. The Nation's Capital is different from many other communities. I 
ask the House--and I certainly appreciate the remarks concerning 
possible privatization of FAA--to bear in mind that it is Congress that 
is ultimately the arbiter of such concerns.
  I urge adoption of my amendment and yield back the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  0945

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule 
     entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards 
     and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains'' 
     published by the Department of Transportation in the Federal 
     Register on May 8, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 26643 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
would prohibit funds for the implementation of the Department of 
Transportation's bungled new regulations for rail tank car standards.
  I am strongly in favor of robust standards and best practices which 
actually improve the safety and efficiency of oil-by-rail transport. 
However, the new tank car rule completely missed the mark.
  Instead of utilizing the expertise and practical experience of the 
rail, oil, and manufacturing industries, the Obama administration 
developed a series of special interest regulations at the behest of 
extremist environmental groups that seem more intent on thwarting the 
American energy renaissance than on actually creating a safer rail 
network.
  In fact, the only reason these new regulations were even proposed is 
because of a misguided lawsuit filed against the DOT by the Sierra 
Club.
  Analytics firm ICF International estimated the cost of these new 
regulations to top $42 billion, which will be laid on the backs of 
individual consumers and hard-working Americans. I repeat, $42 billion 
will be lost to our economy as a result of this new rule. These costly 
regulations will be reflected not only in the price we pay at the pump, 
but also in the price of manufacturing the millions of products that 
use plastics and chemicals derived from American petroleum.
  The most egregious part is that these regulations don't even address 
the root cause of these accidents, which are related to track 
conditions and human error.
  This new rule is nothing more than regulation in search of a problem. 
Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said as much in 
2014 when he admitted: ``The truth is that 99.9 percent of these oil 
shipments reach their destinations safely.''
  These new and overreaching mandates require railroad companies to 
unnecessarily increase their steel tank walls and will require 
significant upgrades and retrofitting for an estimated 154,500 tank 
cars. In fact, The Wall Street Journal has reported: ``The steel jacket 
alone would lower a car's 30,000-gallon capacity by about 800 gallons, 
forcing shippers to deploy more cars, according to rail industry 
analysts.''
  Clearly, this is an unintended consequence of these new regulations 
for a .01 percent problem, which actually increases this .01 percent 
user accident rate percentage by requiring significantly more railcars 
to actually haul the amount of oil.
  In addition, the aggressive timeline proposed by the DOT for 
completing these retrofits is unrealistic and could harm consumers by 
disrupting the production and transportation of goods that play major 
roles in our economy, including chemicals, gasoline, crude oil, and 
ethanol.
  If Democrats and this administration were really concerned about rail 
safety for transporting oil, they would approve the Keystone pipeline. 
Pipelines are the safest way to transfer crude.
  Our country is in the midst of an energy renaissance which is driving 
a much-needed economic revival in American manufacturing. We should be 
pursuing thoughtful, fact-based best practices, instead of adding 
artificial constraints on the growth of the American energy sector 
focused on a 1 percent problem that is caused by user error.
  I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment which would 
prohibit the implementation of this extraneous new rule and to insist 
that the Department of Transportation pursue a more feasible, data-
driven approach that has safety standards in mind.
  I thank the chair and ranking member for their leadership on this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise, honestly, in some 
disbelief that this amendment is actually being offered.
  Members of Congress and industry stakeholders have been calling for 
months for the DOT to complete its rulemaking to update the integrity 
of tank cars that carry energy products and other hazardous materials. 
The DOT got the final rule out on May 8, and now, today, the gentleman 
wants to stop the implementation of that rule in its tracks.
  There have been countless examples of derailments involving trains 
that carry crude oil and other energy products. These incidents have 
resulted in explosive fires that burn for days. The incident that 
occurred in Quebec resulted in the preventable deaths of almost 50 
people.
  U.S. and Canadian transportation officials have worked hard to try to 
improve the safe transportation of these dangerous products. The 
railroad industry wants stronger cars. Safety groups want stronger 
cars. Communities desperately want stronger cars.
  We ought not to delay the implementation of this long-awaited rule, 
so I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I am now happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-

[[Page H3887]]

Balart), our distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I also need to first recognize and thank the sponsor of 
the amendment. I am grateful that he is so vigilant as the Federal 
Government does have a tendency to overregulate and to, frankly, 
sometimes do so, I would say, irresponsibly. However, in this case, I 
have to oppose his amendment.
  We have seen some horrific accidents recently associated with crude 
oil, and I think most Americans would agree that we need to do what we 
can in a reasonable fashion to try to stop that from happening.
  While I am grateful for the sponsor of the amendment for always being 
vigilant on making sure the government doesn't overregulate, in this 
case, again, I respectfully have to oppose his amendment and urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure everybody understands 
that user error and train track applications are the ones that have 
actually caused these problems.
  When you actually look at a solution to a fact-based application, we 
ought to be spending more time on engineering errors and track 
conditions than we are over something that is misguided, like these 
tank car metals.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Gosar amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Section 5309(a) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``or as merited by 
     ridership demands'' after ``weekend days'';
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A) by inserting ``or includes 
     performance features that otherwise ensure reliable travel 
     times for public transportation operating in a separated 
     right-of-way in a shared-use facility'' after ``peak 
     periods''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4)(C)(iii) by inserting ``or as merited 
     by ridership demands'' after ``weekend days''.

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Colorado and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of a number of Western 
Representatives, I am proud to offer this bipartisan amendment, along 
with Mr. Coffman, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Schweikert, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Ms. 
McSally, and Ms. DeGette.
  As we know and as has often been mentioned here on the floor, 
transportation is the lifeblood of this country. It moves people, 
goods, ideas, and information. Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins, and 
Broomfield, in my district, are some of the fastest growing cities in 
the country.
  The majority of our tourists--over 46 million in 2014--make their way 
through the Denver Metro area; but the very things that make our State 
a popular home as well as a popular tourist destination--including 
hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, skiing--challenge growth and 
infrastructure as well.
  Despite that fact that these cities are growing at significant rates 
and tourism is heavily congesting space, many of the major 
thoroughfares intersecting the region have not been expanded in 
decades.
  Highway 70 West, our major tourism artery to our world-class ski 
resorts, stretches from the Denver Metro area out to our 14,000-foot 
peaks. I-25 North takes our visitors north of Denver and through 
Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, all the way to Wyoming.
  These two highways are effectively the only major arteries traveling 
north and west of Denver and the only option for residents and visitors 
to my district to even get out of Vail, Breckenridge, or Fort Collins; 
and in some places, these highways narrow to as little as two lanes, 
meaning hard-working constituents who commute every day across my 
district might wait for hours every day just to go back and forth.
  Tourists, likewise, spend long times waiting to get out of their 
destination towns or to their our attractions.
  Worse yet, Mr. Chairman, is a lack of a clear solution. You cannot 
simply expand a road that winds up some of the steepest peaks in the 
United States, and it is very costly to expand a tunnel under a large 
mountain.
  One of the only good options that we have for quick, reliable, and 
affordable mass public transportation is bus rapid transit systems. On 
Highway 36, our main artery from Boulder to Denver, we recently began 
operating a BRT system with huge success.
  This system shares a HOT lane with high-occupancy vehicles that 
allows for expedited and assured arrive times. It is used by hundreds 
of people every day for their commutes. That tool, however, was 
recently taken out of the toolbox for States across the West.
  A hugely problematic change to our surface transportation and 
authorization MAP-21 bill 3 years ago was the heavy restrictions placed 
on project eligibility for capital investment grants that build BRT 
systems nationwide.
  Unfortunately, for the first time in history, Congress required that 
BRT systems have access to an exclusive lane and operate as regularly 
during nonpeak weekday hours and weekends as they do during peak hours. 
That simply doesn't match the reality on the ground in places like 
Colorado and Arizona.
  Mr. Chairman, we need access to these grants. The ability to create 
and innovate in transportation should be encouraged by Congress; yet we 
are removing the very critical area of investment for BRTs under the 
current MAP-21 rule, barring them from BRT eligibility because we don't 
have the capacity to add additional lanes, nor does it make any sense 
to reserve a lane solely for bus traffic, nor does it make any sense in 
our commuter and tourism corridors to have buses every couple of 
minutes on, let's say, a Tuesday at 2 p.m. or on a Sunday at 9 p.m. 
Ridership and data should drive these decisions, not Washington 
bureaucrats and not Congress.
  My amendment would allow our States and localities the flexibility we 
need to create the best possible surface transportation system in our 
area. There simply isn't a one size fits all when it comes to growth 
and infrastructure.
  I encourage this body to take into account the needs of States like 
Colorado and Arizona.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Did the gentleman invoke his point of order or reserve a 
point of order?
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understood that the gentleman from 
Florida reserved a point of order.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, instead of giving top-down directives from 
Washington, we should be allowing for the equity of Federal resources 
and take into account local needs. What works for some transportation 
corridors might not work for others. We simply have different needs 
with regard to our computing patterns and tourism patterns in other 
areas of the country.
  I am proud to bring up this amendment with a strong bipartisan 
coalition of Members, which includes Representatives Coffman, 
Perlmutter, Schweikert, DeGette, McSally, and Kirkpatrick, because we 
can't effectively discuss funding levels like those in the underlying 
bill without first putting in place equitable policies that encourage 
innovation for their disbursement.

[[Page H3888]]

  I ask that my colleagues work with me and the coalition of Members I 
have named to find and enact a fix as we move forward with the 
transportation reauthorization later this summer.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) to see if he 
will be willing to work with us with regard to finding a fix on this 
policy issue.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I know the gentleman is very committed and has worked awfully hard. I 
look forward to working with him on this.
  Again, I know how passionate he is about this, and I look forward to 
working with him.
  Mr. POLIS. In reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Colorado?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1000


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Federal Transit Administration's Rapid Growth 
     Area Transit Program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense, 
fiscally responsible amendment that will ensure scarce transportation 
dollars are going towards highways, bridges, and other critical 
infrastructure that are in desperate need of repair.
  The Obama administration's budget request for the fiscal year 2016 
included $500 million for a new discretionary grant program for bus 
transit. The administration made the same new request in fiscal year 
2015 for this same misguided program. This request was rejected in its 
entirety last year, and the proposed rapid growth area transit program 
received no funding in the CR/Omnibus. With significant infrastructure 
needs, including road and bridge maintenance, now is not the time to 
spend $500 million on a new discretionary bus transit program.
  In fact, the Obama administration actually proposed two new programs 
this year that sought funding from the highway trust fund, both of 
which asked for $500 million for each. The committee made clear in the 
committee report that they chose to fund the new $500 million Fixing 
and Accelerating Surface Transportation, or FAST, program in this bill. 
If I had to fund only one of these two new programs, that is exactly 
the one I would have funded.
  So I applaud the chairman, ranking member, and committee for the 
choice they made, and also for apparently choosing not to fund the 
proposed rapid growth area transit program once again in this 
legislation.
  Having said that, there are no detailed summaries of the particular 
program accounts because authorizing language has not yet been passed. 
In addition, nothing is said about the proposed $500 million new 
discretionary bus transit program in the bill or the committee report. 
My amendment is also necessary to prevent funds from being transferred 
to this account.
  A recent economic analysis found: ``Over the past few decades 
lawmakers have diverted more trust fund resources . . . thus starving 
general purpose roads of funds,'' and, ``Transit--including light rail, 
trolleys, and buses--marks the largest diversion. In 2010 alone, it 
received 17 percent, or $6 billion, of Federal highway user fees, even 
though it accounted for only 1 percent of the Nation's surface travel. 
Despite receiving a portion of Federal user fees for decades, transit 
has failed to reduce traffic congestion or even maintain its share of 
urban travel. For example, between 1983 and 2010, traffic volumes in 
the Nation's 51 major metropolitan areas increased by 87 percent, peak 
travel times in those areas increased by 125 percent, and transit's 
share of passenger miles fell by one-fourth.''
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to once again repeat what I said a little 
while ago. I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work. It is 
evident that he spends the time and he does his homework. I am greatly 
appreciative of that. I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman for his support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  Ms. LEE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to administer, implement, or enforce section 193 
     or section 414 of this Act.

  Ms. LEE (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that 
the reading to be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Sanford for his leadership 
as it relates to this amendment and helping us try to end these 
outdated and failed policies toward Cuba. I rise in support of our 
amendment, and I am very proud to cosponsor this simple, bipartisan 
amendment. This amendment would strike two provisions included in this 
bill that would further limit travel to and from Cuba via flights and 
ferries. Not only are these provisions inappropriate policy riders, 
they would deny Americans the right to travel to Cuba.
  I understand some of my colleagues, including our subcommittee chair, 
have a personal interest in Cuba, yet personal interest should not 
stall progress nor interfere with what is good for the American people. 
I am joined by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and a 
diverse coalition of organizations and businesses in strong opposition 
to this and other attempts to undermine efforts to normalize relations 
with Cuba.
  Not only are the current provisions in this bill wrong for diplomacy, 
they are patently antibusiness. That is why this amendment is supported 
by the United States Chamber of Commerce, Orbitz, the American Society 
of Travel Agents, and the broad-based coalition Engage Cuba.
  These provisions that are currently in the bill set us back 50 years. 
They would eliminate flights that airlines have already invested in and 
would kill a new market for maritime carriers. Simply put, these 
provisions are an affront to Americans' basic freedom. Cuba is the only 
country in the world, including North Korea, Iran, China, and Vietnam, 
where Americans cannot freely travel. The President's announcement to 
expand travel was a step in the right direction.
  We should be passing the bipartisan and bicameral Freedom to Travel 
to Cuba Act, H.R. 664, which I am proud to cosponsor with my colleague 
Mr. Sanford, rather than moving backwards with these misguided 
provisions.
  Opponents to normalize the relations are quick to claim that renewed 
engagement somehow rewards the Cuban Government. That couldn't be more 
wrong. In order to engage on issues like human rights and democracy, 
Americans should be able to do just that. This amendment allows that.
  Those who are serious about moving our relations forward to the 
betterment of both Americans and Cubans know that increased exchange 
and formalized relations are the path we need to be on. A majority of 
Americans and Cubans agree: we need a 21st century approach to our 
relations with this nation 90 miles away from our shores.

[[Page H3889]]

  This is 2015, my colleagues, not 1960. The rest of the world is doing 
business with Cuba, allows its citizens to travel to Cuba, and also has 
normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. The United States is isolated. 
This amendment begins to thaw that freeze and to keep our country 
moving forward in this next decade and, further, to become part of the 
world family who understands that Americans should, like other citizens 
in other countries, have a right to travel wherever they so desire.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I intend to strike the 
last word so as to give the speakers more time.
  Ms. LEE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, my comments will be brief. It is quite simple. The 
concept is this: if I travel on Delta Airlines to Moscow, it does not 
mean that I support Putin; if I travel on Royal Caribbean to Shanghai, 
it does not mean I support the Chinese regime.
  This bill is fundamentally, as my colleague from California has 
pointed out, about Americans' right to travel. It is, secondarily, 
about something we talk about as Republicans, which is balance of 
power. If we don't want the President overstepping his bounds, we 
shouldn't overstep our bounds as Members of Congress. That is precisely 
what this bill does in trying to proscribe the President, though he has 
full authority within the licensing, within the Department of Commerce, 
to do as he has done.
  Finally, I think it is about American opportunity. Why should we have 
Canadian or Mexican jets traveling to a country that we are allowed to 
travel to rather than American jets?
  Ms. LEE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, just a couple things from the debate 
that we have heard. The sponsor of the amendment talked about that this 
may be a personal issue for some. Mr. Chairman, let me be very frank 
and very clear: this is not a personal issue.
  Let me also talk about what the language in the bill does that this 
amendment is trying to take out. It doesn't deal with the overriding 
issue of policy versus whether we like the President's policy or not. 
It deals with one specific issue and one specific issue only, Mr. 
Chairman: whether we should condone, whether we should approve, whether 
we should permit the trafficking of confiscated--in other words, 
stolen--property.
  When the gentleman from my side of the aisle said that, you know, 
this is an issue about traveling to other countries, when we travel to 
Russia, we should be able to do that, that is fine. But is he also 
saying, which is what this amendment says, that we should condone the 
use of stolen, confiscated property, property that was stolen and 
confiscated illegally from Americans? So if you support this amendment, 
Mr. Chairman, what you are saying is it is okay to do business on 
property that was stolen from Americans.
  Now, I can understand having differences of opinion on overall 
policy, but the language in the mark deals specifically with 
confiscated--in other words, stolen--properties from Americans. For the 
life of me, I would never understand how anybody can justify doing 
business on confiscated, stolen property and then try to obfuscate the 
issue talking about policy, which is not what is in the mark.
  I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a distinguished gentlewoman from the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  As the chairman points out, do we really want to trample on the 
property rights of innocent Americans whose properties were illegally 
stolen by the Cuban regime?
  The gentleman from South Carolina is correct, the concept is simple, 
but the concept he doesn't seem to understand is this: it is not about 
travel to Cuba. This is about protecting American properties that were 
illegally seized by the Castro government. We are selling out these 
legitimate property claims to thousands of American citizens. Respect 
for private property rights, Mr. Chairman, has been a consistent 
American policy since the founding of our Republic.
  The Cuban regime illegally confiscated property from American 
citizens. Our citizens have not been compensated, and we know there is 
no respect for the rule of law in Cuba. If an American's property has 
been seized, what does that American do? Well, there is no fair court 
for recess. Let me tell you what the Inter-American Law Review has 
noted about the Cuban regime's confiscation of U.S. assets. It says it 
is the ``largest uncompensated taking of American property by a foreign 
government in history.''
  So this is what this amendment is about. If this amendment to strike 
the use of confiscated property were to pass, we would be, in essence, 
allowing and condoning the trafficking of stolen goods. Currently, 
there are over 8,800 claims certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission, which is under the U.S. Department of Justice. American 
citizens whose properties were seized illegally--almost 9,000 have 
filed claims--the Castro regime doesn't care. These certified claims, 
are they just small? No. They are worth approximately $8 billion.
  This body must protect the interests of those citizens, of all of our 
citizens, so I implore our colleagues to not support these misguided 
attempts to normalize relations with the Cuban regime on the backs of 
American citizens. We are better than that. We must not allow this 
amendment to pass. We are about protecting American private property 
rights. This language in the bill protects American citizens, 
constituents that we represent in our congressional districts.
  Is this Chamber really going to side with a Communist tyrant in Cuba 
over American citizens? The Cuban regime should not be allowed to use 
American properties stolen from our citizens for its commercial 
benefit. If the U.S. endorses such a practice, what message will we be 
sending to other rogue regimes who would love to be confiscating 
American properties?
  So, if we want to help the Cuban people, and I am sure that all of us 
do, let's not give their oppressors more resources to violate their 
rights. We are here to protect private property rights of American 
citizens. We must reject this amendment, and rather than striking the 
provisions directly, which my colleagues could have done, they are 
offering limitation amendments that would prohibit funds to enforce 
those same provisions. Let's not do this.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let's not trample on 
the rights of American citizens.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Three quick points. If you follow this logic, then no 
American plane should fly into Saigon, no American plane should fly 
into China, no American plane should fly into Russia, because indeed 
property was confiscated at the time of the Russian revolution, the 
Chinese taking, or, for that matter, what happened in Vietnam. There 
are American properties there.
  This is not about American property rights. This is about 
legalistically trying to undo that which has been changed.
  The other thing it is about is, again, legalism. What the bill 
actually says is if a boat docks in the previous 180 days within 7 
miles of a port or property where there may be land somewhere 
connected.
  This is a legalistic attempt to undo what the President has proposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from California has 
expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last

[[Page H3890]]

word in order to express my strong support for this amendment and my 
appreciation to our colleague from California for offering it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the bill, and the language that we are trying 
to strike out reads: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may 
be used to facilitate new scheduled air transportation originating from 
the United States if such flights would land on, or pass through, 
property confiscated by the Cuban Government, including property in 
which a minority interest was confiscated, as the terms confiscated, 
the Cuban Government, and property are defined in'' the paragraphs 
below.
  This is just a job killer for Americans. We have a hundred thousand 
Americans who are visiting Cuba illegally. You know how they get there? 
They go to Mexico. Who gets the business? Mexican airlines. They go to 
Canada. Who gets the business? Canadian airlines. Or, any other country 
in the world that has normal travel relationships with Cuba.
  You are just cutting off the ability for American enterprise to get 
access to Cuba, where everybody wants to go, because there are family 
feuds going on here, because it is including property which has a 
minority interest.
  How are the airlines, how are the people going to decide what 
property has been confiscated, who is the ownership title? Those are 
big legalistic problems in the United States when we confiscate 
property to build freeways or railways.
  This amendment really screws up the ability for America to be 
involved in a business that Americans want to do. They want to travel. 
Censorship of American travel--this is just ridiculous in these days.
  What is the message to the world? Do we prohibit our citizens from 
going to countries that are communist countries? You can go to Vietnam, 
China, and Russia, but you can't go to Cuba because there is a lot of 
feuding going on in Florida.
  In fact, Florida is going to benefit from this because where are the 
airports that these scheduled airlines are going to leave from? They 
are Tampa, they are Miami, the businesses in your State.
  So if you want to give American jobs to Americans, and you want 
commerce to occur, and you don't want to continue this censorship of 
Cuba, then vote for this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. A couple of points I would just like to make.
  First of all, confiscated property 50 years-plus ago should be part 
of negotiations in terms of bilateral discussions as it relates to 
normalizing relations with Cuba. What is in this bill right now is what 
we have indicated, and which is why we offer this amendment.
  This bill prohibits Americans from traveling to Cuba. It eliminates 
jobs in America, and it eliminates economic growth through our maritime 
industry and our airline industry.
  Once again, all of the issues that occurred 50 years ago are subject 
to discussion based on any bilateral negotiations taking place.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Could I inquire how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) has 
45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just make three last points. As was correctly pointed out by 
my colleague from California, indeed this is about American jobs. It 
indeed is about, again, this larger notion of private property rights.
  I would stand my private property rights record up to anybody. I 
believe strongly in private property rights and legal code, which is 
why Ms. Lee is correct: should there be bilateral relations between 
Cuba and the United States, this would be part of that discussion.
  But the idea of creating a legal hurdle for an airline not to be able 
to fly from Miami or Tampa to Havana--and instead, those jobs go to 
other places around the globe--makes no sense to me.
  Finally, I would simply say this. We have tried 50 years of one 
policy, and it hasn't worked. It was Ronald Reagan who encouraged 
travel to the Eastern Bloc countries. I think it would make sense in 
this instance.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has 
expired.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of things that, by 
the way, you will notice, at very few times actually deal with language 
in the mark, the language in the bill. By the way, for example, that 
this is going to hurt American jobs.
  To argue, Mr. Chairman, that American companies will benefit from 
trafficking in stolen property that was stolen from American companies 
I think is probably the definition of an oxymoron, number one.
  Number two, there is a lot of obfuscation. The language in the bill 
doesn't say that Americans can't travel. The language says that they 
cannot use trafficking in, make a profit from, property that was stolen 
from Americans. Stolen from Americans.
  So I understand that the gentleman says that his property rights 
record is as good as any, but, Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill 
deals with a specific issue, and one specific issue alone: Should we 
condone, should we allow, should we permit, should we encourage the 
trafficking, the profiting from stolen property--property that was 
confiscated from Americans, whether there are certified claims or not.

  If you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, you are saying it is 
okay for folks to traffic in property that was stolen from Americans, 
illegally stolen from Americans. I think, frankly, that is a sad day.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating to come here to the floor and listen 
to colleagues who struggle to support free trade agreements with our 
allies come to the floor and advocate for expanded trade with one of 
our enemies, taking advantage of properties stolen from American 
citizens.
  I heard that we have a personal interest in this matter--and I do. I 
am an American citizen. I was born here. And I want to do justice by 
American property owners.
  Shouldn't we resolve these 8,818 claims before proceeding? Shouldn't 
we do justice by these families, these businesses whose property was 
stolen with no due process, with no hearing by the Castro government?
  Whose side are we on, Mr. Chairman? That is the question here. As 
Americans, do we want to be on the side of those who were aggrieved by 
a tyrannical regime--American citizens--or do we want to reward that 
regime by allowing others now to profit over those stolen properties? 
That is the question that we need to ask ourselves today.
  This is not about travel. No one is here advocating for restricting 
travel to Cuba. Many people travel to Cuba today legally, and that 
would not change. But I cannot stand for violating the property rights 
of my fellow American citizens.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, again, before I yield back, as Mr. 
Curbelo just mentioned, this is not an issue of travel. This is not an 
issue of the overriding policy. This is not an issue of even arguing 
whether President Obama has been a good negotiator or a horrible 
negotiator on anything. This is about whether we want to condone, 
permit, accept, in violation of everything that the United States 
stands for, the trafficking of stolen property, property illegally 
confiscated from American citizens.
  If you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, you are supporting, you 
are condoning, you are assisting, you are helping trafficking and the 
profiting on property that was stolen from Americans.
  This cannot stand. This should not stand. I would respectfully ask 
for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

[[Page H3891]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. 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 gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Posey

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 416.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Transportation to take any 
     actions with respect to the financing of a new passenger rail 
     project that runs from Orlando to Miami through Indian River 
     County, Florida.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, All Aboard Florida was presented as a 
private passenger rail project that would run from Miami to Orlando, 
and vice versa, along Florida's east coast.
  The project was initially sold to the public as the first privately 
funded and operated passenger train. However, that story soon changed, 
as All Aboard Florida decided to pursue a $1.6 billion loan from the 
Department of Transportation. Apparently, because the loan requires a 
strict Environmental Impact Statement to be completed, All Aboard 
Florida decided to also apply for $1.75 billion in tax-exempt private 
activity bonds from the Department of Transportation.

                              {time}  1030

  The U.S. Department of Transportation has moved to green light this 
financing option, even though they have absolutely no statutory 
authority to do that, and the environmental impact study has yet to be 
completed. We don't even know if the project is safe or feasible yet.
  Furthermore, these trains will move through our small beach towns at 
speeds of up to 110 miles per hour, with virtually no--none, nada--
buffer separating it from our communities.
  All Aboard Florida envisions 32 trains running per day, on top of 20 
freight trains. That is a lot of traffic. Given how close this track is 
to our adjacent roads and surrounding neighborhoods, obviously, there 
are serious safety concerns. Why should you ask taxpayers to be on the 
hook for this train?
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment to stop the 
Department of Transportation from funding this train.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague 
from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, trying to 
destroy passenger rail in this country. I don't understand why 
Republicans refuse to support transportation infrastructure.
  Let me tell the gentleman from Florida that our competition is not 
Georgia, and it is certainly not Alabama. It is Europe. It is Japan. It 
is China. The people in Florida support All Aboard Florida. This is a 
system that will go from Orlando to Miami. The studies indicate it is 
an economic boom to our State.
  I just for the life of me don't understand why, without vision, the 
people perish? Why is it that you can go to Europe and you can get on a 
train to go from London to Paris--2 hours, 1 hour and 15 minutes--and 
we don't want that same system here?
  Our competition is spending close to 8 percent--8 percent--of their 
economics for passenger rail, and we fight about 1 percent; yet we can 
spend close to $300 billion for tax breaks; yet we don't even want to 
encourage public-private partnerships.
  Shame on you. The people in Florida need to be able to move around 
our State, and this is not just a Florida issue; it is a national 
issue. Here we are, $2 billion that could fix Amtrak; yet we can do a 
tax break for close to $300 billion and don't pay for it. I don't 
understand.
  What is wrong with the people's House? Why is it that we don't 
support transportation infrastructure? This is not just a Florida 
issue. When we had 9/11, Amtrak was the only entity that was moving 
people. When we had Katrina, we had over 3,000 people die because they 
couldn't move around the area.
  We need a train that leaves New Orleans to go to Orlando and on down 
to Miami. That is the future.
  Shame on you.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are advised to address their remarks to the 
Chair and not to other Members in the second person.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, shame on me for asking the Department of 
Transportation to follow the law, respect the Constitution of the 
United States, and make economically sound decisions.
  This is not a partisan issue, in response to that allegation. In 
September, I wrote the GAO, along with my colleague from Florida, 
Representative Patrick Murphy, asking them to study the project to 
ensure taxpayer funds were not at risk.
  A recent independent economic analysis conducted by Dr. John Friedman 
concludes that, even under all optimistic assumptions, AAF will 
generate losses of more than $100 million and will be unable to service 
its debt burden. Dr. Friedman has a Ph.D in economics, is a 
distinguished Brown University professor and former Economic Council 
special assistant in the current Obama administration.
  The Department of Transportation has been unable to explain where 
they get their authority to authorize bonds for this project. That is 
because they don't have any authority. They say title 23 funding has 
been given to the project in the past, which could trigger the bond 
authority, but have been unable to state where title 23 funds were ever 
spent, on what projects, and when.
  This is just common sense. Now, it might not make some congressional 
sense to some people, but this is common sense and a simple ask that 
the Department of Transportation follow the law and not violate the law 
to help a special interest and put the taxpayers on the hook for $1.75 
billion.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POSEY. 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 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:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of these funds made available by this Act 
     may be used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to 
     redesign the Phoenix Metroplex regional airspace.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would 
prevent the FAA from moving forward with plans to redesign the Phoenix 
metroplex airspace. Let me explain why it is important to my city.
  Imagine living in a quiet neighborhood, then waking up one morning to 
discover dozen of planes suddenly have been roaring over your head. 
Next, imagine the frustration of running a business, raising a family, 
or even trying to get a good night's sleep when your windows are 
constantly rattling because of the noise of passing aircraft.
  Finally, imagine that all of this discomfort was both needless and 
avoidable, that it was caused by out-of-

[[Page H3892]]

touch bureaucrats who rerouted major flight paths over your community 
without bothering to consult the people that live there.
  Unfortunately, for thousands of Phoenix residents, this is not a 
hypothetical situation. In September of last year, the FAA instituted 
new flight paths for the aircraft departing from Phoenix Sky Harbor 
International Airport, without any notice for anybody, without any 
notice to our neighbors. For too many members of my community, these 
changes have meant more noise and a lower quality of life.
  Disturbingly, the FAA altered these flight paths without seeking 
local input, failing to consult with the community members or civic 
leaders in the Phoenix area. Not only that, but the FAA also failed to 
provide a report that was mandated by the previous Congress on Sky 
Harbor on last year's FAA bill about how it planned to do and change 
with the patterns. It is now more than 2 months overdue, with no 
response yet from the FAA.
  Mr. Chairman, this isn't how our government is supposed to run, and 
this is not how the FAA is supposed to operate.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Gallego. I 
appreciate that.
  Let's put some facts around this. Phoenix Sky Harbor International 
Airport is the tenth busiest airport in the United States, but we have 
something that is a little unique--and think about this because this is 
coming to your neighborhood, too.
  We actually have a downtown airport. Our city grew up around an 
airport, so it makes traffic patterns and the mechanics dealing with it 
quite unique. Also, our big county has about 4.2 million people in it. 
It is either the third or fourth most populous county in the United 
States--so a huge population. Remember, Arizona has been attributed as 
the most urbanized State in the country.
  I have a downtown airport, and then the FAA goes and starts to change 
the flight patterns. When it becomes one of the biggest issues at all 
of our congressional offices, they are arrogant; they don't return 
calls. We point out the fact that they are violating last year's law, 
and they just grin at you and then walk out of the meetings with this 
sort of arrogant vanity.
  This is the process we, as Members--and remember, there are seven 
congressional districts that touch this Phoenix metroplex area that all 
care about this. This is our opportunity to at least get our voices 
heard.
  I am going to ask the chairman, please consider what is happening to 
4.2 million people in the Phoenix area. The fact of the matter is there 
is well-established corridors where you don't have to have the effects 
on the neighborhoods, and we can still be moving to the NextGen if I 
could find someone at the FAA who would actually listen to our 
concerns.
  Just to finish, this amendment is very straightforward. It would just 
simply ensure the FAA does not proceed with the redesign of the 
regional airspace around Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport until 
these issues are resolved in the local neighborhoods.
  Experts tell us that if the flight paths in Phoenix are eventually 
altered, then the entire metroplex airspace will also need to be 
revisited. By asking them to slow down, consider the overall effect of 
what is happening now, we are actually going to do them a favor by not 
having them to revisit it later on.
  Instead of rushing forward, the FAA should do the prudent thing and 
wait until our communities' concerns have been fully addressed.
  In closing, let me just offer a word of warning. For those of you who 
think this is exclusively a Phoenix problem, just wait because your 
city could be next, and then you will be dealing exactly with the same 
FAA relationship that we are dealing with right now, someone who is not 
responsive to the concerns of both the local politicians, the Members 
of Congress, and the citizens.
  Mr. GALLEGO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOYCE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JOYCE. Mr. Chairman, I would be concerned about the unintended 
consequences of the amendment. We don't know all the potential impacts 
of this amendment, from safety to capacity to local economics.
  While I sympathize with both these gentlemen and I pledged to work 
with the gentleman and his community and the FAA to find a resolution, 
we have made an effort in this bill not to legislatively direct 
specific flight restrictions on flight paths.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JOYCE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
simply want to add--or to reiterate, I might say--that our 
subcommittee's fiscal year '15 report required the FAA to work with the 
Phoenix community on this issue and to report back to the committee on 
these efforts. We are still waiting for that report.
  Again, let me reiterate what I said earlier. The FAA must be more 
proactive in responding to concerns that are raised by communities. 
These are legitimate concerns, and the FAA needs to be accountable.
  Mr. JOYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 416.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to support Amtrak's route with the highest 
     loss, measured by contributions/(Loss) per Rider, as based on 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Fiscal Years 
     2014-2018 Five Year Plan from April 2014.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It 
would eliminate funding for the absolute worst performing line at 
Amtrak, the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles.
  The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 required that Amtrak 
operate without any Federal operating assistance after 2002. I have 
since then offered this amendment each year.
  Amtrak was supposed to be free of Federal operating subsidy; yet 
despite this commonsense requirement that Amtrak cease their fiscal 
irresponsibility and mismanagement, instead, they turned to continuing 
this line that costs the taxpayers $405.67 for every single ticket that 
is bought, for every single trip. That is $405.67 to subsidize the 
travels of passengers from New Orleans to Los Angeles, a trip that 
takes nearly 48 hours, assuming the train is on time.
  I believe this is exceedingly unlikely also because it has a terrible 
record of being on time. According to Amtrak's most recent monthly 
performance report, the Sunset Limited was only on time 42 percent of 
the time; yet 100 percent of the $405 was paid for the ticket.
  This places the Sunset Limited as one of the top 10 worst ontime 
routes for any of Amtrak's routes in its latest performance report.
  Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, taxpayers should be happy when the train is 
not running, but not running on time, and the cost to the taxpayer is 
prohibitive. Why does it run this route when Amtrak loses an average of 
$41 million a year?
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simply to help Amtrak make the tough 
decisions that they appear to be incapable of doing themselves. I think 
it is the first step to instilling a small measure of fiscal discipline 
in Amtrak. Failure to do so will only continue Amtrak along this 
process rather them being a north-south provider on both coasts.
  I hope my colleagues will join me. Certainly, I know they are 
taxpayer

[[Page H3893]]

advocates that believe as I do. I urge all my colleagues to support 
this amendment and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment. Our colleague from Texas has offered amendments like 
this in the past, an attempt to micromanage Amtrak from the floor of 
the House. I don't think it is a good idea.
  We had a vigorous debate last night on the importance of investing in 
inner city passenger rail. Of course, he will get no quarrel from me or 
other colleagues, I suspect, in arguing for improved service and 
arguing for making the service more attractive.
  What we are dealing with here--and have been through this whole 
debate--is a number of colleagues who simply want to defund passenger 
rail in this country, overlooking the fact that every mode of 
transportation is subsidized to some degree and that the national 
interest requires diverse modes of transportation.
  Colleagues seem intent on singling out passenger rail for 
elimination, and we have had amendments offered to this bill that would 
do just that.
  This one is more about micromanagement. It is more about a specific 
route, the Sunset Limited. This would eliminate the Sunset Limited's 
long-distance route. It serves communities along the southern tier of 
the United States. Actually, it serves more than 300,000 passengers 
annually in five States: Louisiana, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and 
California.
  It is no way to run a railroad, if I might say so, and I urge 
rejection of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, that is 300,000 times $405.67 for every 
single ticket.
  I am not trying to micromanage, nor am I trying to kill Amtrak. I 
vote for Amtrak; I am for Amtrak, but they also want more and more and 
need more and more resources to help in their north-south line in the 
East Coast and the West Coast.
  What they are doing is bleeding off their hard-earned money, using 
the subsidy rather than doing what their original mission should be.
  Mr. Chair, I think I support all of Amtrak, and I am for it. This is 
not micromanaging. It is showing them the obvious things which they 
need to accomplish.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. 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.


          Amendment Offered by Ms. Maxine Waters of California

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out section 210 of this Act with respect to 
     the Housing Authority of the county of Los Angeles, 
     California.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an 
amendment that removes the exemption that the Housing Authority of the 
County of Los Angeles currently has from the requirement to have a 
resident of public housing or Section 8 on its governing board.
  I am offering this amendment because I have learned that HACoLA is 
not in compliance with requirements outlined in this exemption, which 
has directly resulted in a lack of meaningful engagement by residents 
of the housing authority on important policy issues affecting the 
effectiveness of the programs that it administers.
  In 1998, Congress passed a law requiring that the governing body of a 
public housing authority must include at least one member who is 
directly assisted by the housing authority. This provision was an 
important recognition of the need for the perspective and participation 
of tenants in the governance of public housing authorities. It is as 
simple as that.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 416.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to support any Amtrak route whose costs exceed 
     2 times its revenues, as based on the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation Fiscal Years 2014-2018 Five Year Plan 
     from April 2014.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, once again, I stand in trying to help 
Amtrak to effectively manage its system by taking away those routes 
that are cost prohibitive.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for Amtrak's long-
distance routes, which have total direct costs that are more than twice 
the revenue that they generate. Every single long-distance route that 
Amtrak provides--those of over 400 miles in length--operates at a loss 
every month. Eleven routes cost double the amount of revenue they 
create.
  Oh, by the way, Mr. Chair--and this is true since 1997 when I came to 
Congress--these routes are ineffective and waste valuable taxpayer 
money, as well as money that could be used in the system for highly 
used routes for the safety and security of their passengers on north-
south routes.
  Some argue that many travelers cannot afford to fly and they need a 
less expensive travel alternative. However, for most of these routes, 
bus tickets and plane tickets are less expensive, more efficient, and 
more frequently on time.
  Combined, these 11 routes cost the American taxpayer about $500 
million in fiscal year 2014 alone. Four lines cost over $50 million 
each. I think it is clear that government-subsidized rail service on 
Amtrak does not make economic sense if they have enough money to bleed 
off $500 million with routes that cost twice in expense what they 
generate in revenue, so I am offering this amendment again.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and the 
underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment offered by our friend from Texas. This amendment outdoes 
his last one.
  We are now talking about eliminating nine routes, with a total 
ridership of over 2 million people: the Cardinal and Capitol Limited 
routes from D.C. to Chicago, through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana; the Southern Crescent, New York City to New 
Orleans; the Coast Starlight, along the coast of California, Oregon, 
and Washington.
  To elaborate further on our opposition, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I appreciate 
him referencing the Coast Starlight.
  This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Congress has created a difficult 
situation for Amtrak, consistently shortchanging maintenance and 
capital.

[[Page H3894]]

  As my good friend from North Carolina points out, all modes of 
transportation in this country are subsidized by the public. Amtrak is 
no exception. It provides a variety of services for people.
  We are watching on the West Coast ridership increase. It provides an 
important opportunity for businesspeople. If you talk to businesspeople 
in Seattle, in Portland, they would say they would like the Federal 
Government to invest more. It has made a big difference for how they 
conduct business.
  Part of the strength is having a network. Make no mistake, we are, in 
fact, going to have a passenger rail network in the United States, 
despite consistent efforts to chop away and minimize it.
  China, 6 years ago, had no high-speed rail. Today, they are moving 
more passengers than the entire air fleet in the United States. We will 
have higher speed rail, but the question is whether we are going to 
build on what we have got--American built, American managed--or we will 
wait until it deteriorates, gets so bad that we end up with a design-
build to China, paying more, shipping the profits and the work 
overseas.
  I would suggest it is far better to protect what we have now, build 
on the progress, not undo the network, and most certainly reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Joyce).
  Mr. JOYCE. I oppose the gentleman's amendment. This amendment has 
far-reaching implications, and it would shut down 9 of 15 long-distance 
routes.
  I do not believe that an appropriations bill is the place to do this. 
This would need to be carefully debated and discussed by the committee 
of jurisdiction.
  For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, look, I made a mistake. I came here from 
business. I came here as somebody that had to operate within the bounds 
of common sense and doing things that made sense with money and 
opportunities.
  I will just say to you, Mr. Chairman, I am going to stay after this 
issue. I am all for Amtrak, but not when they continue to have routes 
that cost twice what the revenue is.
  This is what our airlines did for a long time. They provided service, 
and they went broke, and then we want to turn around and say we are 
going to subsidize the airlines. Marketplace ideas work, and that is 
why we are a capitalist country.
  I urge my colleagues to think over this commonsense amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. 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.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

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

       At the end of the bill, (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to enforce section 47524 of title 49, United 
     States Code, or part 161 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, with regard to noise or access restrictions or 
     to enforce section 47107 of title 49, United States Code, 
     with regard to access restriction on the operation of 
     aircraft by the operate of Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, 
     California.

  Mr. SCHIFF (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment that I am offering along with my southern 
California colleague, Mr. Sherman.
  The amendment would allow the Burbank Bob Hope Airport to implement a 
nighttime curfew between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and restore local control 
to the community that has been denied to them for decades.
  Thousands of residents of southern California's San Fernando Valley 
who live under the flight paths or near the terminals at the Bob Hope 
Airport endure the house-shaking noise of air traffic during the day 
and suffer the jarring interruption of their sleep that is caused by a 
roaring jet taking off or landing.
  I want to also distinguish this measure. I know my colleagues have 
heard some other curfew measures today, and without detracting from 
them, I want to point out that the facts of this one are quite 
different. This is, I think, a unique case in the case of Burbank 
airport.
  When Congress passed the 1990 Airport Noise and Control Act, ANCA, it 
intended to permit airports to implement noise restrictions if they met 
certain requirements. At that time, Congress exempted several airports 
from the law's requirements for FAA approval of new noise rules if they 
had preexisting noise rules in effect to address local concerns. So 
airports were grandfathered in when ANCA was passed; but because of a 
mistake, Bob Hope Airport, which had a curfew in place, did not get 
grandfathered in.
  The Bob Hope Airport in Burbank was one of the first airports in the 
country, in fact, to impose a curfew and has a long history of curfews 
but, unfortunately, was not given the protection of the grandfather 
provision of ANCA that several other similar airports received. This 
amendment would correct this inequity and put Bob Hope on the same 
footing as several other airports across the country that had curfews 
before ANCA's passage.
  It doesn't set a precedent in terms of other airports, and this would 
be uniquely confined to the situation involving Bob Hope. By correcting 
the omission of not allowing Bob Hope Airport to implement on a 
permanent and mandatory basis curfew which it had, in effect, 
informally in the 1980s, we would return local control to the community 
that has sought it for years.
  It is also important for my colleagues to understand the impact this 
will have on aviation in southern California. There will be no impact 
on commercial flights--zero. Almost all commercial airlines already 
voluntarily abide by the voluntary curfew at Bob Hope, and the impact 
on general aviation will be limited to two nighttime landings. The 
impact, however, will be significant for people trying to get sleep 
that are disrupted by those small number of flights.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from southern 
California (Mr. Sherman), my colleague.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for putting forward 
this amendment.
  Bob Hope is a local neighborhood airport. Only through a technicality 
was it denied a curfew. All the commercial carriers already adhere to 
that curfew. We have a handful of nighttime flights that could easily 
go through one of the larger airports in the Los Angeles area.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good balance between the needs for 
commercial aviation on the one hand and the need to sleep on the other.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one final point. This 
amendment had bipartisan support last year. It came within just three 
or four votes of passage. Because of the unique situation facing the 
Burbank Airport, I would urge unique consideration of correcting the 
injustice when Bob Hope was not grandfathered as it should have been.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H3895]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Posey

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 416.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Transportation to authorize 
     exempt facility bonds to finance passenger rail projects 
     which do not use vehicles that are reasonably expected to be 
     capable of attaining a maximum speed in excess of 150 miles 
     per hour between scheduled stops as defined in section 142 of 
     title 26, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, exempt facility bonds are special tax-exempt 
financing instruments designed to help raise funds for important 
infrastructure projects like airports, waste management facilities, 
highways, and other transportation needs.
  In fact our current law, 26 U.S.C. Section 142, clearly lists 15 
specific categories of projects that can receive financing through the 
use of exempt facility bonds.
  One area where the law restricts the ability of the Department of 
Transportation to authorize exempt facility bonds is to finance 
passenger rail, which it limits to high-speed rail that can reasonably 
attain the speed of 150 miles per hour between stops. Yet the 
Department of Transportation has decided to ignore the law and 
authorize bonds for projects that clearly do not qualify.
  Whatever views Members have on passenger rail, my amendment would 
simply ensure that the Department of Transportation follows the law in 
authorizing the use of tax-exempt bonds, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. All in Florida received a private activity bond 
allocation to issue these bonds. There is no provision in this 
particular section of U.S. Code that requires a passenger rail project 
to achieve 150 miles per hour. This amendment would prevent DOT from 
taking any potential further steps on this very, very important 
project. If for some reason, let's say the project needed a small 
extension, DOT could not process it.
  Now, the passenger rail line that would link Miami to Orlando, 
frankly, is an important project to the State of Florida and one that I 
fully support, Mr. Chairman. We have to remember it is being done by 
the private sector. So I don't think that we should be looking at 
creating any unnecessary restrictions, any barriers or uncertainty for 
this project as it moves forward. It is a project--potentially, I 
think, the first of its kind in the country--where you have the private 
sector assuming most, if not almost all, of the risk. You have the 
private sector who is going to be involved in it. The numbers can't be 
made up, cooked or anything, because it is the private sector who is 
doing this and who will ultimately be held accountable by their 
shareholders.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, there is nothing in 
this amendment that adds any restrictive impediments whatsoever. It 
only requires that the Department of Transportation follow the law when 
they allocate these funds.
  Although this is being called a private project, the taxpayers will 
be on the hook for over $1.7 billion--that is $1.7 billion. So I think 
it is important in the interests of protecting our taxpayers, 
certainly, that we make sure the Department of Transportation follows 
the law.
  If there weren't a propensity already demonstrated not to follow the 
law, then I would not have to bother with this amendment. But it is 
clear there are some intentions to violate the provisions of the law 
and do things that they are not authorized to do. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to bring 
accountability and protect taxpayers for $1.7 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. 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 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     necessary expenses for the ``Department of Transportation, 
     Office of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses'' is hereby 
     reduced by $1.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my heart goes out to the chairman and 
ranking member for the task that they have been given. People have 
appropriately condemned and opposed many of the provisions. As people 
dig into the bill, the more they see, the worse it looks: slashing 
TIGER grant funding, no funding for high-speed rail, cutting Amtrak, 
and overall reductions. No wonder it has drawn a veto threat. But it is 
definitely not the fault of the committee. They have been given an 
impossible task. They have been requested to finance the Federal 
Government's transportation responsibilities in 2015 with 1993 dollars.
  Our country is falling apart while we are falling behind the rest of 
the world. We are of a generation when some of us can remember the 
United States having the finest infrastructure in the world. We had 
rail passenger service, airlines, superb highways and transit. Those 
days have long since passed. We are watching the deterioration of 
transit. The squabbling here over Amtrak is really dealing with a 
failing system because it is a symptom of our inability to invest in 
the future--just one, but a very glaring symbol.
  Sadly, Mr. Chairman, in the 55 months that my Republican friends have 
taken over Congress, we have not had a single hearing in the Ways and 
Means Committee, on which I serve, for our responsibility for funding 
transportation. We have not increased the gas tax in 22 years.
  Mr. Chairman, in the last 6 months, six Republican States have raised 
the gas tax, and we can't even have a hearing on a proposal that is 
supported by the U.S. Chamber, by the AFL-CIO, by the AAA, the 
truckers, contractors, transit, bicyclists, and everybody in between. 
As a result, we continue to limp along.
  What did we do late last month? We extended the transportation 
funding for the 33rd time on a short-term basis. What country ever 
became great building its infrastructure 6 months at a time? We will be 
dealing with this in another 2 months.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we deal with this bill as best we 
do, because it is not adequate. I am going to oppose it. But the bill 
is a symptom of the failure of my Republican colleagues to face what 
other entities have done, including red Republican States.
  Why don't we come back next week and put the Ways and Means Committee 
to work for a week, inviting in the people who build, maintain, and use 
our infrastructure, listen to them, let the committee do its work, and 
come up with a proposal that will adequately fund our infrastructure?

                              {time}  1115

  Then we can have the authorizing committee not mess around with a 
couple of months' extension but get down

[[Page H3896]]

to work to fashion a 6-year, comprehensive transportation bill that 
will put hundreds of thousands of people to work in communities all 
across the country, making them more livable, making our families 
safer, healthier, and more economically secure.
  We shouldn't be caught in this trap of our own making. Let's step up, 
invest in the future, and do our job.
  Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 4, 2015, on page H3896, the following appeared: There was 
no objection. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. POSEY
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: There was no 
objection. The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn. AMENDMENT 
OFFERED BY MR. POSEY


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Posey

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 416.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Transportation to make a loan in 
     an amount that exceeds $600,000,000 under title V of the 
     Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 
     U.S.C. 821 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement 
Financing program, or RRIF program, provides direct loans and loan 
guarantees to finance the development of railroad infrastructure. Under 
the program, the Federal Railroad Administration is authorized to 
provide direct loans and loan guarantees of up to $35 billion to 
finance development of railroad infrastructure.
  Since 2002, the Federal Railroad Administration has made 35 loans 
which demonstrate the importance of this program to our Nation's 
railroads. No doubt about that. However, only five of these loans have 
ever met or exceeded $100 million. Two of those were to Amtrak. In 
fact, prior to this year, the largest RRIF loan ever made was to Amtrak 
in 2011 for $562 million.
  My amendment ensures funds are spent responsibly on viable railroad 
projects and taxpayer risk is minimized by limiting loan amounts to 
$600 million.
  I urge my colleagues to support my fiscally responsible amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the 
Department of Transportation from making a Railroad Rehabilitation & 
Improvement Financing loan that exceeds $600 million, as the chairman 
said.
  Now, I know that $600 million, frankly, is a lot of money, and it 
sounds like a lot of money because it is; but when we are dealing with 
financing of railroad projects, it is just really not. This low loan 
ceiling is way too restrictive, and it would eliminate valuable 
projects, by the way, including some safety projects from being even 
considered for a loan. It has really far-reaching effects, and it could 
impact, frankly, every railroad entity in America. For example, there 
are railroads that are using this RRIF loan for positive train 
control--for positive train control.
  So, again, it is unduly restrictive. I think it could have some far-
reaching, negative effects. So I would respectfully ask for a ``no'' 
vote. I cannot support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee 
chairman for yielding.
  I simply want to underscore his opposition to this amendment. It 
would block Amtrak's loan request for $2.5 billion for new Acela high-
speed train sets. This loan would make it possible to upgrade Amtrak's 
best and most profitable service, but one that is severely stressed.
  We need to remind ourselves that the cars in which people died in 
Philadelphia were 40 years old. We desperately need the kind of 
investment that this loan would make possible. As the chairman has 
stressed, this may turn out to be the way that we can fund positive 
train control. It may be the only way, given other limitations in the 
bill, other limitations in Amtrak funding.
  It would prevent loans that exceed $600 million for other purposes, 
including safety purposes. This is a very, very ill-advised amendment. 
I urge colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, it has been said that this could be 
restrictive. Well, I just want to point out that never, ever before 
this year in the history of this program have they ever loaned $600 
million under this program, and so I don't think it is unduly 
restrictive.
  I mentioned discussing some other amendments, and I am staring down 
the barrel of taxpayers being on the hook for $1.7 billion on one 
program that clearly is not going to be able to repay the loan, so it 
is going to fall on the shoulders of the taxpayer.
  I think it is just common sense that we take this measure on behalf 
of our honest, hard-working taxpayers at home. They work hard and play 
by the rules. I think we should respect that.
  There are some people that just consider the Federal Government to be 
a big pinata, and everybody is going to take their whack at it and get 
all the goodies and the candy and the money that falls out of it, but 
this money has got to be paid back some day. We are not going to do it. 
We are not going to be around here to do it. It is going to be paid 
back by our children, and I think we need to act responsibly and think 
about their future.
  I urge my colleagues to please support this commonsense amendment for 
better accountability in our government.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, 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 Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________