Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 89 (Thursday, June 4, 2015)

[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.

[[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.

____________________