[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3971-H3990]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
General Leave
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2577, and that I may include
tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) kindly resume
the chair.
{time} 1949
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 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (Acting Chair) in the chair.
[[Page H3972]]
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. Posey) had been
disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 156, line 15.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him
for his great work on this appropriations bill.
Madam Chairman, for over 20 years I have been a staunch advocate for
reducing aircraft noise over northern New Jersey. I have attended
dozens of public hearings and meetings with officials from the FAA and
responded to thousands of calls from constituents whose lives have been
affected by increased aircraft noise.
While the safety of airplane passengers is paramount and the vitality
of our air transport system is important, people on the ground have a
right to a quality of life with a minimum exposure to air noise
overhead.
Despite spending over $70 million in taxpayer dollars on the New
York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia airspace redesign project, time and
time again the Federal Aviation Administration has turned a deaf ear to
the tremendous impact air noise has had over northern New Jersey. I
recently wrote two letters to the FAA to bring my constituent concerns
directly to Administrator Michael Huerta's attention. To date, these
letters and my constituents' pleas for help have gone unanswered.
As the FAA proceeds with the New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia
airspace redesign, they must factor air noise into their calculations.
I look forward to working with the chairman to ensure that this is
done.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I want to again thank the gentleman for raising this
important issue. I appreciate his dedication to ensuring that his
constituents' air noise concerns are adequately addressed by the FAA.
Again, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Maxine Waters of California
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam 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. 4__. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to establish any asset management position (including
any account executive, senior account executive, and troubled
asset specialist position, as such positions are described in
the Field Resource Manual (Wave 1) entitled ``Transformation:
Multifamily for Tomorrow'' of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development) of the Office of Multifamily Housing of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or newly
hire an employee for any asset management position, that is
located at a Core office (as such term is used in such Field
Resource Manual) before filling each such asset management
position that is located at a Non-Core office (as such term
is used in such Field Resource Manual) and has been vacated
since October 1, 2015.
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. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an
amendment regarding HUD's multifamily transformation plan. I will
ultimately withdraw this amendment because I know that there will be
Republican opposition, but I think it is important for me to speak out
against the ill-advised plan.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is currently in the
process of a major consolidation of its multifamily offices, which it
has dubbed the multifamily transformation plan. I have been vocal in my
skepticism of HUD's assurances that this plan will bring about
significant savings without impacting program delivery.
In fact, last year this House approved an amendment to the fiscal
year 2015 appropriations bill that required HUD to follow a
transformation plan that maintains asset management staff in its field
offices. I fought for this amendment because I believe strongly that
HUD's plan to consolidate the important function of asset management
from 17 hubs overseeing 50 field offices into just 5 hub locations and
7 satellite offices would significantly impair program delivery without
resulting in significant cost savings.
Asset management is a hands-on job which calls for an intimate
knowledge of the local housing market and frequently requires staff to
make on-site visits to troubled properties. That is why it is so
important to have asset management staff in local field offices to
respond to local needs.
Unfortunately, I have been hearing from advocates that HUD has been
failing to replace vacancies in asset management positions in field
offices and is only hiring new asset management staff in hub locations.
This is unacceptable. There are already two field offices that have
completely shuttered because they have no working staff. In Los
Angeles, we have already lost 15 asset management staff who have not
been replaced.
My amendment would ensure that HUD prioritizes the hiring of asset
management staff in local field offices for vacancies that occur in the
next fiscal year instead of continuing to consolidate this important
function to a select few hub and satellite locations. It would help
ensure that our multifamily field offices remain open and operating at
current staffing levels. Without this amendment, local multifamily
offices will continue to have more vacancies that go unfilled.
I regretfully ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho
Mr. YOHO. 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 subpart E of part 5 of the
regulations of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
(24 C.F.R. Part 5, Subpart E; relating to restrictions on
assistance to noncitizens).
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. YOHO. Madam Chair, my amendment simply ensures that no funds can
be used to circumvent current law which prevents illegal immigrants
from obtaining housing assistance. Spending should be prioritized based
on the needs of American taxpaying citizens, not those who are residing
in our country illegally.
Constituents back in my district and throughout the country work hard
every day, and their needs should not play second fiddle to those of
immigrants who broke our laws and came into this country illegally.
With the continued efforts by some in this country to disregard the
rule of law, much to the detriment of taxpaying Americans, I truly
believe this amendment is necessary to clarify and reinforce the intent
of Congress as it pertains to housing assistance providing via HUD.
This is a simple, commonsense amendment that shows the hard-working
American citizens that we are serious when it comes to spending their
tax dollars and that we will not use their hard-earned money to
prioritize and reward those who break our laws. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment and support the rule of law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I do oppose this amendment.
On the face of it, it simply restates existing regulations, but I fear
there is another motive at play, that is, an anti-immigrant agenda.
[[Page H3973]]
Let me explain what I mean. This amendment feeds into the widely held
misperception that many undocumented individuals are, in fact,
obtaining Federal benefits despite restrictions--verification
procedures--specifically designed to prohibit such activity.
We must not allow this appropriations bill to become a platform to
denigrate immigrants in this country or to score political points at
their expense. We need real solutions. We need to actually fix our
broken immigration system. We shouldn't be wasting valuable floor time
on amendments such as these. We would be better served by moving
comprehensive immigration reform, fully debating it in this Chamber.
{time} 2000
We are ready to do that. We can pass comprehensive immigration
reform, if the Speaker would bring it to the floor, this very week.
Until then, I would ask restraint on amendments that in no way alter
existing law and regulation and only serve to stir controversy,
reinforce prejudices, and distract us from the business at hand.
I urge defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. YOHO. Madam Chair, this amendment is strictly about the rule of
law and following the rule of law. I agree we shouldn't have to debate
immigration here. This is not about this. This is about following the
rule of law.
At this point, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Chair, this amendment has nothing to do with being
anti-immigrant. In fact, the gentleman's comments play into that
accusation. This is entirely incorrect and inappropriate. In fact, it
reminds me of a comment a President made from right up there at that
podium that no illegal aliens would get ObamaCare. Somebody thought
that was not true and said so. It turns out it was not true. They have
gotten it.
I went home and talked to a number of people that were in and around
Walmart this weekend--immigrants, people that are here legally, and
they can't find work and they need help. They did everything to come
here legally and properly--Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, African
Americans, Anglo Americans--and they just need help.
I would submit, if we are going to be true to the oath we took to our
Constitution and the laws which uphold our Constitution, we need to be
about helping those that are under our care, those who have come
legally.
I support the gentleman's amendment, and I appreciate him doing it.
It is a pro-immigrant amendment for immigrants that will come legally,
and there are plenty of those here.
Mr. YOHO. Madam Chair, to the ranking member, I would love to have
that discussion down the road about responsible immigration reform, and
I think we need to have that. The American people expect it. They
deserve it, and I look forward to having that.
In the meantime, this is just a commonsense amendment that strictly
puts the emphasis on following the rule of law, and I think all
Americans, regardless of what side of the aisle, would stand supporting
the Constitution, the very document that we all took an oath to.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam 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.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, 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. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 5309 of title 49, United
States Code.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the ranking member, Mr. Price, and his
staff, as well as the chairman, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for their work on
something that is very close and near and dear to many Members' hearts.
It certainly is close to mine.
The Jackson Lee amendment was passed last year. I am grateful to have
the opportunity this year to restate the fact that this amendment
indicates that none of the funds made available by this act under the
heading ``Federal Transit Administration: Transit Formula Grants'' may
be used in contravention of section 5309.
This is, as I said, an amendment identical to the Jackson Lee
amendment. Might I just briefly speak to this amendment. It affirms the
importance to the Nation of projects that create economic development,
particularly in the transportation area.
It particularly says that the Secretary of Transportation may make
grants under this section to State and local governments; it has the
authority to assist in financing capital projects, small start-up
projects, including the acquisition of real property.
The key is that these grants under State and local authority can
undertake capital projects, which means that, when local governments
propose their projects, the Secretary has the authority to go forward.
Nothing can contravene that authority.
It is well documented that nothing enhances the competitiveness of a
Nation in this increasingly globalized economy than investments in
transportation and infrastructure capital projects.
I will include an article about transportation dated March 31, 2015,
into the Record.
[From the Houston Chronicle, Mar. 31, 2015]
Study Finds Houston Traffic Congestion Worsening
(By Dug Begley)
As workday commutes go, Raj Dada's isn't terrible. He lives
east of Jersey Village, an easy drive from the freeway. His
off-ramp from Interstate 10 puts him practically in front of
his job near Bunker Hill.
In each of the past three years, though, the daily drive
has gotten worse, Dada said.
``I leave earlier than I used to,'' he said Monday morning
as he stopped for gas near his office. ``Even on weekends,
it's taking longer to get around all the construction and
traffic.''
It's a common dilemma for Houston motorists. Congestion in
Houston increased sharply from 2013 to 2014, according to a
report released Tuesday by TomTom, developer of the mapping
and traffic data fed to phones and other GPS devices.
Analysts said trips in the region on average last year took
25 percent longer than they would have in free-flowing
conditions, compared with 21 percent longer in 2013.
This means that a hypothetical 30-minute, congestion-free
trip, on average, takes about 52 minutes at peak commuting
times. For an entire year, it means drivers waste 85 hours--
more than 3.5 days--plodding along the highways and streets
of Houston.
It's the first increase in TomTom's traffic index for
Houston in four years after three consecutive years of slight
declines.
Growing cities with robust economies tend to experience the
biggest increases in traffic. Oil price dips notwithstanding,
Houston certainly fits the bill, said Tony Voigt, the program
manager for the Texas A&M Transportation Institute's Houston
office.
Voigt said local analysis supports the conclusion in the
TomTom report: More local streets and highways are more
congested for more hours of the day. Even weekend trips to
some spots--notably retail corridors--can be increasingly
time-consuming.
``This is a result of more people living here as compared
to two or three years ago and our economy being very active
and healthy,'' Voigt said.
Nick Cohn, senior traffic expert for TomTom, said the
opposite is true in places where job prospects are not as
strong, based on the company's worldwide traffic research.
``In Moscow, where there has really been an economic
slowdown and gas prices are up, there has been a slowdown,''
Cohn said.
Moscow and other international cities continue to
experience traffic far worse than cities in the U.S. In the
United States, Houston ranked 12th-worst among major cities
for traffic, compared to 85th worldwide.
News that 11 other American cities have worse congestion
isn't comforting to Houston drivers.
``It's terrible,'' said Debbie Curry, 60, a lifelong
Houstonian. ``Traffic in this city has gotten worse. When I
moved (to western Houston) I thought it would get better. It
did for a little while; now it's as bad as it's ever been.''
Reasons why Houston drivers spend so much of their time in
traffic vary, but most theories circle back to explosive
growth.
[[Page H3974]]
``Some of the congestion on U.S. 290 and on (Loop 610
North) is, of course, construction-related,'' Voigt said.
``But what we are really seeing is travel demand is greater
overall, and this is causing the peak congestion periods to
spread out.''
Peak commutes, once contained to two hours each in the
morning and evening, are spreading to three and sometimes
four hours. Though it means more days when traffic is heavy
for longer periods, the gradual growth of peak commuting
periods isn't all bad, Cohn said.
``It means at least when possible they are being flexible
with those work-to-home and home-to-work trips,'' Cohn said,
noting that an alternative could be a more compressed--but
more severe--peak commuting period.
Houston-area officials have a long list of road-widening
projects planned over the next decade, along with some
transit growth. Suburban areas, notably Conroe and The
Woodlands, are exploring their own transit options. It's a
pattern across the U.S., Cohn said.
Each city faces different obstacles, Cohn said. Houston's
lack of density could make transit less effective, but public
transportation remains a critical part of any congestion
relief as roads dominate.
Many municipalities, state transportation officials and
counties in the area have made ``significant requests for
roadway dollars,'' said Houston Councilman Stephen Costello,
chairman of the Transportation Policy Council of the Houston-
Galveston Area Council.
Those projects are not just about relieving traffic now,
but about building before it gets worse, Costello said.
Any improvements are constrained by funding, which federal
and state lawmakers have been slow to deliver. Federal
officials remain at an impasse about a long-term
transportation bill, and many have shown reluctance to
increase federal highway spending. Texas voters last year
approved $1.7 billion for state highways, leaving about $3.3
billion in additional money needed, according to the Texas
A&M Transportation Institute.
That funding shortfall has many, especially officials in
suburban Houston, worried as their traffic worsens and
projects crawl toward completion, said West University Place
Mayor Bob Fry.
``I think outside (Loop 610) is going to be worse for
traffic than inside the Loop,'' Fry said. ``Inside is built
out, and it's not going to get worse like it is outside.''
In the urban core, Fry said, transit is the important
investment. He said Metro's upcoming redesign of bus service
will ``help quite a bit.''
Personal choice
With projects slow to take shape, Cohn said drivers might
see the best results by using an increasing and improving
array of traffic information available to them. Houston's
TranStar system--a partnership of Houston, Harris County, the
Texas Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan
Transit Authority--is one of the largest and most
comprehensive real-time traffic systems in the country.
``There used to be a big difference between what the
highway authority has and what real-time traffic systems
have,'' Cohn said. ``It is more of a unified service now.''
When a motorist finds alternate routes to avoid congestion,
it helps not just that driver but also others because one
less vehicle is clogging up the problem spot.
Reliance on the information, and better personal planning,
might be the best relief for traffic now.
``I don't think drivers can sit back and wait for some big
infrastructure project,'' he said.
____
[From the Houston Chronicle, Feb. 5, 2013]
Congestion A Constant for Houston Commuters
(By Dug Begley)
Houston region has been rated as having the sixth worst
commute in the nation based on hours of delay.
The good news is that traffic congestion isn't getting much
worse in the Houston area. The bad news is it was pretty bad
to begin with.
Houston commuters continue to endure some of the worst
traffic delays in the country, according to the 2012 Urban
Mobility Report released Tuesday by the Texas A&M
Transportation Commission. Area drivers wasted more than two
days a year, on average, in traffic congestion, costing them
each $1,090 in lost time and fuel.
And it's unlikely to get any better, researchers and public
officials say.
``I think as rapidly as this area is growing, (the
challenge) is just trying to stay where we are,'' Harris
County Judge Ed Emmett said of the traffic congestion.
Planned toll projects on U.S. 290 and eventually Interstate
45 will help ease traffic, just as the Katy Freeway managed
lanes did in 2008, Emmett said.
Drivers take the congestion in stride and devise their own
strategies to deal with the hassle. Roger Wilson, 54, takes a
park and ride bus from Katy, but his co-worker Brad Steele,
39, drives in from Spring. Over lunch Monday, both claimed
their method was best.
``Yeah, you get to read or sleep,'' Steele told Wilson,
``but I would rather have my car.''
But as long as Houston attracts jobs, and those jobs
attract workers, commuting hassles will persist, said Tim
Lomax, a co-author of the mobility report.
``We're hitting the limits of improving traffic by
widening the roads,'' said Stephen Klineberg, co-director of
the Kinder Center for Urban Research at Rice University.
With 4 million people in Harris County, and another 1
million coming in the next 20 years, the region will embrace
new development patterns that reduce the need for driving--
but on its own terms and without abandoning the car,
Klineberg said.
``Suburban areas are developing town centers and walkable
urbanist developments,'' Klineberg said, pointing to
developments in The Woodlands, Sugar Land and Pearland.
Drivers adapting
The new patterns follow years of steady outward growth,
leading to greater distances between homes and workplaces.
Based on the mobility report, in 1982 drivers spent about
22 hours each year stuck in congestion, a figure that has
increased almost every year since. Traffic congestion peaked
in 2008 at 55 hours, the same year two carpool/toll lanes
along I-10 opened between downtown and Katy. The lanes took
five years to complete and cost $2.8 billion.
But some of the best ways to reduce congestion are less
costly. As Houston drivers have acclimated to rush-hour
traffic jams, they've become more adept at saving themselves
time.
``People are adjusting when they leave,'' Lomax said,
noting resources that provide real-time traffic information.
As smartphones and computers become more common, and workdays
come with greater flexibility for some people to work from
home, commuters can adjust to less-stressful drive times.
Thus, even though they have the sixth-worst commute in the
country based on hours of delay, the region's drivers rank
21st on a new calculation that determines how much extra time
drivers have to build into their trips. The new measure,
called the freeway planning time index, shows drivers don't
have to build in as much extra time as others, because
planning and good freeway clearance rates by tow trucks keep
roads moving, Lomax said.
Public transit can provide some relief, but with jobs in
Houston divided among a dozen or so job areas, it's hard for
public transit to carry everyone where they need to go
efficiently, Lomax said.
Still, drivers and elected officials said traffic
congestion is spreading farther from the urban core and
growing.
Trucking hurt
``I think within the next two years it is going to get
worse,'' said Liberty County Commissioner Norman Brown, who
said traffic is already worsening for some Dayton-area
drivers.
Some congestion on the region's fringes is the result of
trucking and manufacturing, Brown said. The mobility report
found congestion accounted for $646 million in cost to
businesses reliant on trucking in 2011, up from $490 million
in 2007.
Emmett said the shipping growth demonstrates the need for
investment in rail and other methods to move goods.
Lomax said congestion caused by flourishing truck business
can be a good problem to have.
``Economic recession seems to be the one foolproof way of
controlling congestion,'' Lomax said. ``But nobody's saying
that is a solution.''
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just to emphasize, finally, whether it is seaways,
dams, highways, or tollways, whether it involves other modes of
transportation, transportation projects are major engines driving the
economy. That is why we are here on the floor. It is important for the
local communities to be drivers of that. The metropolitan regions will
not be able to maintain economic vitality without this investment.
Finally, the Jackson Lee amendment clearly speaks to the global
aspects of the Secretary of Transportation having the ability to work
with our local and State governments.
I ask my colleagues to join me in restating that the Secretary of
Transportation has authority to work with local and State entities on
the proposed projects that they have and for these projects to continue
to grow and develop to ease traffic congestion.
Madam Chair, Let me thank Subcommittee Chairman Diaz-Balart and
Ranking Member Price for their leadership on this important legislation
and for the opportunity to explain my amendment.
The Jackson Lee Amendment adds at the end of the bill the following
new section providing that:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act
under the heading `` Federal Transit Administration--Transit
Formula Grants'' may be used in contravention of section 5309
of title 49, United States Code.
This amendment is identical to the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R.
4775, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations
Act for FY2015 adopted by the House last year by voice vote.
In particular, the Jackson Lee affirms the importance to the nation
of projects that create economic development, particularly in the
transportation area.
[[Page H3975]]
Pursuant to section 5309 of title 49, the Secretary of Transportation
may make grants under this section to State and local government the
authority to assist in financing capital projects, small startup
projects, including the acquisition of real property.
This section further supports capacity improvements, including double
tracking, and it specifically relates to work that deals with projects
on approved transportation plans.
That is key; section 5309 of title 49 grants to State and local
governments the authority to undertake capital projects, which means
that when local governments propose their projects, the Secretary has
the authority to go forward on them.
It's instructive to consider what some of the nation's leading
transportation and economic development organizations have to say about
the importance and economic impact of investments in local light rail
capital projects.
It is well documented that nothing enhances the competitiveness of a
nation in this increasingly globalized economy, than investments in
transportation infrastructure capital projects.
Whether it is the seaways, dams, highways, or tollways, and whether
it involves other modes of transportation, transportation projects are
major engines driving the economy.
And it is important for the local community to be the drivers of
that.
Metropolitan regions will not be able to maintain its economic
vitality without the ability to create and preserve infrastructure that
supports the movement of people and goods throughout our country.
The Jackson Lee Amendment clearly speaks to the global aspect of the
Secretary of Transportation having the ability to work with our local
and State governments.
Houston is the fourth most populous city in the country; but unlike
other large cities, we have struggled to have an effective mass transit
system.
Over many decades Houston's mass transit policy was to build more
highways with more lanes to carry more drivers to and from work.
The city of Houston has changed course and is now pursuing Mass
transit options that include light rail.
This decision to invest in light rail was and is strongly supported
by Houstonians by their votes in a 2003 referendum and by their
increased usage of light rail service made possible in part by
transportation appropriations bills.
Specifically, Harris County voters passed a massive referendum
proposal that was to set the stage for transit for the next 20 years.
It included a first stage of four light rail lines, to be complete by
2012, and a master plan for a 65-mile system, to be complete by 2025.
An April 2014 report by the Houston METRO on weekly ridership states
that 44,267 used Houston's light rail service, which represented a
6,096 or 16% increase in ridership from April of the previous year.
This increase in light rail usage outpaced ridership of other forms
of mass transit in the city of Houston: metro bus had a 2.3% increase
over April 2013; metro bus-local had a 1.3% increase over April 2013;
and Metro bus-Park and ride had a 8.0% increase over April 2013.
In a story published February 5, 2013, the Houston Chronicle reported
on the congestion Houston drivers face under daily commute to and from
work.
According to the Chronicle article, in 2011 Houston commuters
continue to enjoy some of the worst traffic delays in the country, and
Houston area drivers wasted more than two days a year, on average, in
traffic congestion, costing them each $1,090 in lost time and fuel.
Today, those figures have increased to 3.5 days a year wasted in
traffic congestion, costing them each $1,850 in lost time and fuel.
To put it in simpler and starker terms: A driver in Houston could see
154 movies this year or purchase 21 tickets to a home Texans game with
the money wasted because of poorly maintained or traffic-clogged roads.
Expanded light rail is critical to Houston's plan to meet its
transportation and environmental challenges, ease its traffic
congestion, and improve its air quality.
Places most likely to see immediate benefit from light rail in
Houston are the 50,000 students that attend the University of Houston
and Texas Southern University.
Funds made available under this deal should be available to support
local government decisions of the Houston Metropolitan Transit
Authority and the city of Houston to expand rail service.
When we put our minds to it, we can get things done.
In Houston, we built a port 50 miles from the ocean, created the
world's greatest medical center in the middle of open prairie, and
convinced the federal government to base its astronauts in a hurricane
zone 870 miles from the launch pad.
Each of those achievements shares a common element: elected officials
have advocated, built public support, and brought the agencies
together.
Members of Congress should respect the decisions of state and local
governments when it comes to deciding how they will spend funding made
available for public transportation under this appropriations bill.
I ask my colleagues to again support the Jackson Lee Amendment and
affirm the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to work with
local governments to develop local transit projects that will relieve
traffic congestion, efficiently move people and goods, create jobs and
maintain America's status as the leading economy in the world.
I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Brooks of Alabama
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam 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 provide financial assistance in contravention of
section 214(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 1436a(d)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Chair, America recently blew through the
$18 trillion debt mark. America's Comptroller General warns that
America's debt path is unsustainable.
In short, Washington's financial irresponsibility threatens America
with a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that risks destroying the
America our ancestors sacrificed so much to build.
With this impending financial crisis as a backdrop, I ask the House
of Representatives to have the courage, to have the backbone, to be
financially responsible. The House can do that in part by adopting my
amendment that eliminates Federal Government housing subsidies for
illegal aliens.
How big is this problem? Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center
for Immigration Studies in 2012 reflects that at least 130,000
households headed by self-identifying illegal aliens live in public or
subsidized housing. That is potentially hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars being illegally taken by illegal aliens with the tacit
or open consent or even the encouragement of the United States
Government.
Think about that for a moment. While American families struggle to
make ends meet, while America faces a debilitating and destructive
insolvency and bankruptcy, while American families and lawful
immigrants are being forced to wait in line for public housing, this
administration ignores the law to spend potentially hundreds of
millions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing illegal aliens, thereby
encouraging their illegal conduct.
Madam Chair, my amendment is simple. It prohibits funding to
subsidized housing in violation of section 214(d) of the Housing and
Community Development Act that, for clarity, bars HUD from providing
taxpayer assistance for the benefit of an applicant ``before
immigration documentation is presented and verified'' by DHS' automated
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system or a subsequent
successful appeal.
Unfortunately, this administration ignores the law and permits
illegal aliens to move into public housing before the legality of their
status is finally determined.
Also, unfortunately, the administrative and legal process being what
it is, it takes as much as 2 years to evict illegal alien tenants after
their illegal alien status is discovered.
Madam Chair, it is unacceptable that, in a time of out-of-control
United States debt and deficit, HUD violates the law to give limited
public housing benefits to illegal aliens, rather than needy American
citizens and lawful immigrants.
Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment that, first, denies
public housing subsidies to illegal aliens; and, second, underscores
the sense of
[[Page H3976]]
Congress that the law must be obeyed and that it is wrong to use public
housing subsidies to reward illegal aliens for their illegal conduct.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. Once again, we have an amendment that, on its face,
simply restates existing law. In fact, the gentleman offering the
amendment has acknowledged that existing law categorically prohibits
HUD benefits from going to undocumented persons.
What is going on here? What is lurking beneath the surface? I fear
something is. An anti-immigrant agenda based on fear and prejudice
would appear to be the answer.
We are feeding into widely held misconceptions that so many
undocumented immigrants are seeking and receiving Federal benefits,
that Federal programs, Federal dollars, are being abused and misused.
Well, we do need to have a remedy for our broken immigration system.
As I said earlier, a comprehensive immigration reform bill, bipartisan,
passed the Senate last Congress. It could be placed on this floor
tomorrow and pass overwhelmingly. That doesn't appear to be happening.
Instead, what we have is this drumbeat of measures that are denigrating
the immigrant community.
We need to have some restraint in this body on such amendments. They
don't alter existing law. They do, I am afraid, though, stir
controversy. They reinforce prejudice and stereotypes. They distract us
from the business at hand.
I think it is an unworthy amendment. I urge my colleagues to reject
it, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), the
chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think it is important to just kind of always try to lower the
decibels as much as we can.
This amendment, as both gentlemen have said, does not change current
law. It doesn't change current HUD policies. It merely restates current
law. I don't, frankly, see a reason to have the amendment. Likewise, I
don't see a big reason to oppose the amendment that just, again,
restates current law. I ask all sides to try to lower the rhetoric on
this issue. This amendment does not change anything.
As the ranking member knows, I have been involved in trying to get
immigration reform for a long, long time and have worked with a number
of Republicans and Democrats. I will tell you that both sides have had
opportunities to get it done, and neither side got it done when they
had the opportunity to get it done. I am hoping that we will be able to
get it done.
{time} 2015
But this is not the time and place to have that debate. So, again,
while I don't see the need for this amendment, I don't see what the
issue is of objecting to an amendment that, in essence, does absolutely
nothing.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for allowing me
some of his time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the chairman, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Chair, I find it interesting and
somewhat perplexing how my good friend across the aisle talks about an
anti-immigrant agenda appealing to fear and prejudice.
It seems that whenever we start talking about border security and
lawful immigration, the race card is played. And I would submit that
that is because, in part, there is an absence of rational sound public
policy for the position taken.
Let's emphasize something. America has, far and away, the most
generous lawful immigration policy in the world. No nation is as
compassionate with respect to lawful immigrants as the United States of
America is, and I challenge anyone to say different.
I wish that this kind of amendment was not necessary, but when you
have got an executive branch that has shown itself to be willingly
lawless, to the point that two Federal judges, one in Pennsylvania and
one in Texas, have had to render a decision trying to force this
administration to obey the law, then I would submit, Madam Chair, that
it is important to have these kinds of amendments to also deny the
funding that otherwise would be used for that lawless conduct.
I ask for support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam 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 Alabama will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, 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. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Transportation, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, or any other Federal agency
to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any
executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except
in accordance with Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet
Performance, dated May 24, 2011.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that required all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternative fuel vehicles,
such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31,
2015.
My amendment echoes the President's memorandum by prohibiting funds
in this act from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty
vehicles unless that purchase is made in accord with the President's
memorandum.
I have submitted identical amendments to 17 different appropriations
bills over the past few years, and every time they have been accepted
by both the majority and the minority. I hope my amendment will receive
similar support today.
Global oil prices are down. We no longer pay $147 per barrel. But
despite increased production here in the United States, the global
price of oil is still largely determined by OPEC.
Spikes in oil prices have profound repercussions for our economy. The
primary reason is that our cars and trucks run only on petroleum. We
can change that with alternative technologies that exist today.
The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty
vehicles in America, over 635,000 vehicles. More than 6,000 of these
vehicles are within the jurisdiction of this bill, being used by the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
When I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they diversified
their fuel by greatly expanding their use of ethanol. People there can
drive to a gas station and choose whether to fill their vehicle with
gasoline or with ethanol and also possible blends as well. They make
their choice based on cost or whatever criteria they deem important.
So I want the same choice for America's consumers. That is why I am
proposing a bill in Congress, as I have done many times in the past,
which will provide for cars built in America to be able to run on a
fuel instead of, or in addition to, gasoline. If they can do it in
Brazil, we can do it here, and it would cost less than $100 per car to
do.
So, in conclusion, expanding the role these alternative technologies
play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage that
foreign-government-controlled oil companies hold over Americans. It
will increase our Nation's domestic security and protect consumers.
I urge that my colleagues support the Engel amendment.
In conclusion, I would just say that energy policy is something that
is really important, and we can take a very
[[Page H3977]]
small step tonight to move closer to energy independence and protecting
the American consumer. I would urge all my colleagues on both sides, as
they have in the past, to support this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hultgren
Mr. HULTGREN. Madam 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 by the Federal Aviation Administration for the bio-
data assessment in the hiring of Air Traffic Control
Specialists.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HULTGREN. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment, which
defunds a troubling hiring test put forth by the FAA which has led to
cheating and questionable hiring practices for air traffic controllers.
The intent of my amendment is not to slow hiring, but to stop the
FAA's use of a discredited gatekeeper hiring test.
I represent more than 270 air traffic controllers in Illinois' 14th
Congressional District. More than a year ago, the FAA made an
inexplicable and obscure change to its longstanding hiring practices,
with few details given about how the changes would be implemented and
with little advance warning.
Setting aside its decades-long process by which qualified Collegiate
Training Initiative students and military veterans were given
preference in hiring, the FAA implemented a new biographical
questionnaire, or Bio Q, which contains such questions as, ``How many
sports did you play in high school?''
With no way to know what a right answer is, how to improve on the
test, or what their final score was, many otherwise highly qualified
applicants failed, after spending countless resources and time training
to become air traffic controllers.
The new procedures caused the agency to divert the hiring process
around highly qualified, CTI-certified trainees and experienced
veterans, jeopardizing air travel safety in favor of off-the-street
hires, some of whom have little experience or ambition.
Since then, the FAA has been under fire following a six-month
investigation which uncovered that FAA or aviation-related employees
may have assisted in giving potential air traffic controller recruits
special access to answers on the Bio Q to help them gain jobs with the
FAA.
This cheating is greatly disturbing and jeopardizes any shred of
credibility of the Bio Q that it had any accurate or fair test to
determine who should be an air traffic controller.
Yet, we are now finding out that the cheating may run deeper than
first reported, possibly with knowledge at the highest levels of the
FAA.
If additional FAA or aviation-related employees helped applicants
cheat on the Bio Q, it is imperative that we expose those responsible
and determine how widespread and systemic the misconduct is.
I have urged Congress to compel the FAA to appear before the American
people to get to the bottom of this troubling discovery. These
investigations uncover just how discredited the Bio Q is in any hiring
process.
But until we get answers to these questions, like who knew about the
cheating, when did they know about it, and how did they cover it up, we
cannot let the FAA employ people unfairly using the highly flawed Bio Q
as a gatekeeper.
In addition, we still don't know what will happen to those who have
either failed the Bio Q, aged out of the hiring process, or both.
Disqualifying highly trained, certified graduates and military
veterans because they did or did not play sports in high school is
ridiculous. This amendment would restrict funding for the Bio Q,
stopping its use by the FAA.
When you climb into an airliner, you trust the pilot, the crew, and
the air traffic controllers will keep you safe. I have introduced H.R.
1964, the Air Traffic Controllers Hiring Act of 2015, to reverse the
effects of the FAA's policy, restore safety and confidence to air
travel, and to make sure we have the best and brightest in our control
towers.
I have hopes that this legislation can move quickly through the House
and have urged the Transportation Committee to hold a hearing on the
bill. Now that Aviation Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo has cosponsored
the legislation, I am looking forward to the committee's consideration.
Until then, this amendment will help restore some sanity back to the
FAA.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Lipinski), my good friend and colleague.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his work on this amendment and on the bill.
As the gentleman said, early last year, the FAA switched course on
its hiring process by moving from the AT-SAT, which was a tried-and-
true, knowledge-based test, to a bio-data assessment. The change had a
tremendous impact on the 36 Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative
schools.
I have one of the best of these schools in my district, Lewis
University. Lewis 2 years ago won the Loening Trophy as the best
aviation program in the Nation.
Maybe students chose to attend Lewis and these other schools because
of the advantages that CTI schools provided under the old hiring
system. They decided at a young age to enroll in a program fostered by
the FAA and were given the opportunity to excel on the AT-SAT, which
was unfairly pulled out from under them.
Madam Chair, this amendment is a step in the right direction towards
fixing the misguided policy change that had a negative impact on
students and the universities that invested significant resources in
training our future generations of air traffic controllers.
But I need to emphasize that this amendment should not come at the
cost of slowing down the hiring of air traffic controllers. We have
already suffered from a hiring and training slowdown and cannot afford
further delays to staffing an essential safety function of the FAA.
Our hard-working air traffic controllers are already understaffed,
and Congress must ensure that we are increasing their ranks quickly and
with well-trained air traffic controllers.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. HULTGREN. I thank my colleague from Illinois, and I would also
urge my colleagues to support this passage and to make sure that we
continue to have the safest air traffic control towers in the world.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I very reluctantly, actually, claim
time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I actually understand and, frankly,
listened very intently to the gentleman's concerns, and I actually want
to work with him to make sure that nothing is used that is absolutely
arbitrarily, or frankly, totally unfair. And so I think the gentleman's
concerns are very, very valid.
At this time, however, and that is why I say ``very reluctantly''
have to oppose, because, again, at this moment, I am concerned, hearing
the other gentleman from Illinois mention the fact that we want to make
sure that we don't slow down the hiring of the air traffic controllers.
We need to hire another 1,500 new controllers in 2016.
So I not only appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but I, in fact,
potentially could share a lot of his concerns.
But again, reluctantly at this time, because I am concerned about
potentially slowing down the hiring of new controllers, I reluctantly
have to oppose his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HULTGREN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H3978]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Meehan
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam 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. 416. None of the funds made available by this Act for
Amtrak capital grants may be used for projects off the
Northeast Corridor until the level of capital spending by
Amtrak for capital projects on the Northeast Corridor during
fiscal year 2016 equals the amount of Amtrak's profits from
Northeast Corridor operations during fiscal year 2015.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
{time} 2030
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chair, before I begin my comments, I would like to
thank Chairman Diaz-Balart and Ranking Member Price for all of their
diligent work on this bill.
My amendment seeks to prioritize investment in Amtrak's Northeast
Corridor, which is its most heavily traveled route, by ensuring that
operating profits that are earned there stay there.
Last year, Amtrak's Northeast Corridor line earned nearly $500
million in operating profit. More than 100,000 Americans get on a train
that travels along the Northeast Corridor every day, but instead of
reinvesting those dollars into improvements in the line's
infrastructure, much of that money was sent across the country, used to
subsidize money-losing, long-distance Amtrak routes. This has left
Amtrak's most heavily traveled route less funded, and it has delayed
needed improvements to Amtrak's only line that actually turns a profit.
This amendment will fix that. It will ensure that the dollars Amtrak
earns along the Northeast Corridor are invested into improvements in
the line's infrastructure. It will make travel along Amtrak's most
heavily used route safer, and it will also do so without adding to the
taxpayers' burden.
This amendment will codify the principle that was passed in the
Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act, and I might add that that was
approved with more than 300 votes in this House earlier this year. This
tracks that same principle. And that legislation passed with the
leadership of my friend and fellow Pennsylvanian, Chairman Bill
Shuster, which requires that Amtrak direct capital investments into the
Northeast Corridor, where it is needed most.
Madam Chair, more than 11 million Americans rode an Amtrak train
between Boston and Washington last year. Many more used rail lines like
SEPTA or Metro-North, operating on tracks owned by Amtrak, to get to
work every day. The tragic derailment in my own area of Philadelphia
last month has shown that there is a desperate need to improve the line
and strengthen capital investments in the region.
This amendment will ensure Amtrak makes smart investment decisions
and directs capital spending where it is needed most. It will help
Amtrak tackle the backlog of capital projects that plague the Northeast
Corridor. It will reduce delays. It will mean safer, more efficient
travel for millions of Americans who rely on Amtrak's Northeast
Corridor every year. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, there is a lot of work that goes into this bill and
there is a lot of work that goes into the amendments, but I will tell
you that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked nonstop to find
real solutions to deal with making sure that Amtrak is safe and, in
particular, that the Northeast Corridor is as viable and as safe as
possible. So I just must commend the gentleman for his hard work, for
the way that he has just worked this issue day in, day out to get to
the point where we are today.
Mr. MEEHAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I wish to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I too want to commend my
colleague for offering this amendment. I understand his intent. There
are significant capital needs on the busy Northeast Corridor. It is
Amtrak's busiest and most successful corridor. It is a fundamental flaw
of this bill that we are unable to provide for the kind of investments
that the service in that corridor warrants and, indeed, that the
service of Amtrak nationwide warrants.
But the effect of this amendment, I fear, in the environment of
inadequate investment, this would provide a much-needed boost in
investment in the Northeast Corridor. It may be still not enough, but
it would do so at the expense of the rest of the Amtrak network, and
that should give us pause when we consider this amendment.
The amendment would require Amtrak to spend at least $1.2 billion--
the annual amount of Northeast Corridor revenues--on Northeast Corridor
capital projects before they could spend any of their Federal capital
funding elsewhere. This would have the effect of halting all capital
projects that are not on the Northeast Corridor, including all
information technology, upgraded safety technology, until very late in
the fiscal year at the earliest, and possibly longer, should projects
on the Northeast Corridor not be ready to advance. This would also
hinder Amtrak's ability to manage State and long-distance service.
I know that all of these consequences are probably not my colleague's
intent, but it does demonstrate the types of consequences that we need
to consider when making such a policy change. I ask colleagues to vote
against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chair, before I close my comments, I think it is
important to recognize that the same principle has already been adopted
by 318 Members of this body, including a near unanimous vote by my
colleague from the other side of the aisle, his colleagues on that side
of the aisle.
I will also say that I am not sure that the gentleman understands the
actual effect of the bill. It simply is to reinvest the profits that
are made on the Northeast Corridor. These are being made by the
investments that are being made by the taxpaying people who are
purchasing those tickets. We can still look for ways to fund other
parts of the system around the country where they can earn their
investments on merit.
We are asking, in light of the fact that this is a line which is so
heavily used, the priorities be placed where they are most needed.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam 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 Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Newhouse
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam 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 issue, implement, or enforce the proposed
regulation by the Federal Aviation Administration entitled
``Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems'' (FAA-2015-0150) without consideration of the use of
small unmanned aircraft systems for agricultural operations,
as defined in 14 CFR 21.25(b)(1).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairwoman, 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 Washington (Mr.
Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
[[Page H3979]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Chair, I rise today to introduce an amendment on
an important topic that will undoubtedly have a growing impact not just
on our Nation's agricultural sector, but on our economy as a whole.
The use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, has enormous
possibilities for our economy, whether it is providing cost-effective
means to deliver packages, photographing housing for Realtors,
broadcasting sports games, assisting law enforcement with tracking
criminals, or providing mobile WiFi hubs for Internet access. However,
one vastly underconsidered outcome for UAV technology is that it could
potentially transform our Nation's agricultural sector.
Ideas have been considered using UAVs to survey cropland, to
determine property lines, or to help plan for planting, spraying,
watering, or harvesting of crops; however, the potential applications
are even greater. Depending on how this technology evolves, UAVs may be
equipped with special cameras to determine if crops are dry and need
extra water and where and how much should be applied. They may also be
used to apply pesticides or fertilizers with precision to ensure that
too little or too much isn't being used. And depending on their
sophistication, someday, UAVs may even be used to harvest the food we
grow.
The potential applications don't just stop there, though. In my
district last year, we experienced the worst forest fire in Washington
State history, consuming hundreds of thousands of acres. In the future,
first responders, the Forest Service, and other stakeholders may be
able to use UAVs to monitor the spread of fire to get people out of
harm's way or to better predict where to best apply water and fire
retardants. They could even help with identifying dry or overgrown
areas in advance to help stakeholders know where treatment is needed,
which could prevent fires in the first place.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the steps the FAA has taken in releasing
draft rules regarding UAVs and that the FAA has been more agreeable in
allowing testing of UAVs for commercial purposes.
While I understand that safety and privacy are enormous concerns
being considered by the FAA, it is also important that we do not fall
behind other nations in utilizing this technology, which are currently
developing and innovating in this industry more rapidly than we are
here in the United States.
Madam Chair, my amendment today is simple. It merely limits FAA's
rulemaking on UAVs if the rules do not take into consideration
agricultural applications of UAVs in the rulemaking process.
I appreciate the work the FAA is doing on this matter, and I hope the
final rules that are expected later this year generously allow for the
safe testing and commercial use of UAVs, ensuring the amazing
agricultural prospects for these technologies are well considered in
the process.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Washington?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Newhouse
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam 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 issue, implement, or enforce regulations by the
Federal Aviation Administration entitled ``operations and
certification of small unmanned aircraft systems'' (FAA-2015-
0150) in contravention to 14 CFR 21.25(b)(1).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Washington and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Chair, in my previous comments, I addressed this
amendment, which is in order, and I would just submit those comments to
be used for this particular amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett
Mr. GARRETT. Madam 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 implement, administer, or enforce the final rule
entitled ``Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's
Discriminatory Effects Standard'', published by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Federal
Register on February 15, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 11460; Docket No.
FR-5508-F-02).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
{time} 2045
Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, I rise today, as I have done in the past,
to offer an amendment that attempts to restore some sanity, fairness,
and certainty to our housing market. My amendment would undo harmful
economic actions taken by the administration that weaken credit
availability and job creation. You see, the Department's final rule
implementing the Fair Housing Act's discriminatory effects standard
establishes regulations promoting the use of a legal theory known as
disparate impact.
What is disparate impact? Disparate impact liability allows the
government to allege discrimination on the basis of race or other
factors based solely on statistical analyses that find disproportionate
results among different groups of people and--get this--regardless of
any evidence of any actual discriminatory actions or intent. Let me
point that out again--regardless of any evidence of actual
discrimination.
If, for example, a mortgage lender uses a completely
nondiscriminatory standard to assess credit risk, such as maybe a debt-
to-income ratio, they can still be found to have discriminated if the
data shows different loan approval rates for different groups of
consumers.
So real and actual discrimination must be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law. I think that is something everyone here can agree
on. But under the example that I just laid out, that lender could even
have specific antidiscriminatory practices in play, in other words, he
would have rules in his business in place, but still be found liable
under this theory.
Predictably, by creating a presumption of discrimination, this rule
will result in a perverse regulatory scheme where lenders, insurers,
and landlords would effectively be required to intentionally
discriminate among different classes of borrowers. Why? Just to protect
themselves from becoming entangled in the regulatory pretzel-like logic
of this administration.
So if we specifically consider the examples of homeowner insurance
commonly considered factors, including an applicant's claim history,
construction material, the presence or absence of a security system,
the distance to the firehouse, well, they could be barred if they were
found to result in creating a statistical disparity for a class defined
by race or ethnicity or gender.
You see, sound risk-based lending insurance underwriting and pricing
that unintentionally results in a statistical disparate outcome, that
is not discrimination; rather, accurate risk identification and
classification is absolutely essential to the lending of insurance
businesses.
In addition to being unfair and unwise, the HUD rule is also
unnecessary. Why? Because protected class characteristics are already
prohibited from consideration in the risk assessment process.
You see, State law already prohibits insurers from recording race,
for example. The HUD rule requiring race considerations there turns on
its head and violates these laws. You see, all 50 States in this
country have antidiscriminatory provisions in their housing insurance
regulations, and there is no claim that these have been insufficient.
The Federal Government, therefore, should be encouraging sound business
practices, not punishing them to utilize them.
[[Page H3980]]
We have seen what risky lending practices can do to our economy
already. Although I believe the Supreme Court will strike down
disparate impact theory, we should do all we can in our power to rein
in an administration policy that will increase the cost and undermine
the availability of credit throughout the economy.
Now, to this Chamber's credit, let me point out, this House recently
passed my amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill
that would prevent the DOJ from using this very same theory.
I hope that we will continue to take a stand against this flawed
logic and theory and promote sound business practices.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I wish to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
It would nullify a critical enforcement tool that has been used, for
example, to rule against discrimination and racially discriminatory
zoning requirements, practices that exclude families with children from
housing, discrimination by lenders, zoning requirements that
discriminate against group homes housing individuals with disabilities.
It is a critical enforcement tool, and it would be a very, very bad
mistake to pass this amendment.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine
Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I rise in strong
opposition to this amendment. I am very surprised that this amendment
is being brought by my friend, Mr. Garrett.
Mr. Garrett's amendment seeks to empower HUD's efforts in enforcing
the Fair Housing Act in such a way that relies on the disparate impact
doctrine. It weakens our ability to protect Americans from
discriminatory policies that deny them access to quality housing,
quality neighborhood schools, and other resources.
The disparate impact doctrine is a very effective legal tool that has
been used for decades to address seemingly neutral policies that have
the effect of discriminating against protected classes.
The disparate impact doctrine provides legal redress for victims of
hidden discrimination. It ensures that women cannot be evicted from
their apartments solely because they were victims of domestic violence,
and it ensures that veterans with disabilities are not barred from
living in certain places solely because of the lack of accommodations
for their disability. This amendment ignores the realities of harmful
discrimination in our Nation today, and it would eliminate well-
established, decades-old protections for American families.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Al Green), another outstanding Financial Services member.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, this amendment would absolutely,
totally, and completely allow discrimination against our veterans. If
you are a veteran and you need a service animal and if there is an area
that is set aside with no pets allowed, that service animal can become
a pet. We cannot allow veterans to be discriminated against.
With reference to this amendment being a theory, all 11 circuit
courts have upheld it. It is not a theory. It is a standard. It is a
standard that the courts adhere to, and it is a standard we ought not
abrogate. We must continue.
I am absolutely, totally, and completely opposed to this amendment,
and I beg that my colleagues would go on record as being opposed to it
as well.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I am wary of considering an amendment
on a rule and regulation that is currently pending before the Supreme
Court. The sponsor of the amendment is a good man, but I would hope
that we would wait for the Court to issue its ruling and then the
committee of jurisdiction can properly debate and consider what, if
any, legislative action should be taken. For those reasons, I urge a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I
strenuously urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this particular
amendment.
The fact is that residential segregation in this country has limited
opportunities for people for so many years. And I don't mean
segregation just in terms of race--people who are excluded because of
race, because of gender, because of all types of reasons.
If we say that disparate impact has no place, then we will be
precluded from looking into how disparity just causes people to have
different chances to live the American Dream. We will be consigned to
having to find a smoking gun or intent before we can take action to try
to make this country fairer and more open.
This is a very bad amendment, and I urge all Members to vote ``no.''
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. GARRETT. The gentleman said, ``The fact is.'' Well, everything we
have heard for the last 5 minutes as the facts has absolutely nothing
to do with this bill. This bill has nothing to do with vets and service
animals. This bill has nothing to do with domestic violence and women
not being able to be in the house. This has nothing to do with any of
the weakening of State standards whatsoever.
This bill basically simply says that, if a lender to you says that
you live in a wooden house versus a stone house, there might be
different rates for your insurance. It says that, if your house is
miles from a fire department and your house is right next to the
firehouse, there might be different rates for the insurance and the
mortgages and the loans you get on that house. Those are not
discriminatory practices. Those are reasonable practices that
businesses enter into. It has nothing to do with all of the examples
just given.
This bill says we should continue to go after and prosecute when
there is evidence of discrimination and intentional discrimination.
This bill will not end that. This bill will not end your ability to
look into the examples the last gentleman just raised. It would simply
say that businesses should be allowed to use standard rationales in
their risk analysis, whether it is debt-to-income ratio or construction
materials and the like.
For those reasons, along with the other reasons I have already said
and the host of organizations that support this legislation, and that
this House just passed last week on the CJS bill, we should do so again
tonight.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT. Madam 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 New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison
Mr. ELLISON. Madam 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 in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any person whose
disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in
section 2313(c)(1) of title 41, United States Code, in the
Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
include the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act'' and such
disposition is listed as ``willful'' or ``repeated''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
[[Page H3981]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this amendment simply says that the United
States Government should not give appropriations and pay contracts for
people or companies who have been found to have willful or repeated
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In other words, if you have
repeatedly and willfully stolen the wages of workers and you have a
Federal contract, then you are not the kind of contractor who the
American people, through the U.S. Congress, want to do business with.
No hard-working American should ever have to worry that her employer
will refuse to pay her when she works overtime or take money out of her
paycheck, especially if she works for a Federal contractor. The
practice is known as wage theft. Right now, Federal contractors who
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act are still allowed to apply for
Federal contracts.
This amendment, which my colleagues from the Progressive Caucus join
me in, will ensure that funds may not be used to enter into a contract
with a government contractor that willfully or repeatedly violates the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The amendment ensures that those in violation
of the law do not get taxpayer support and should not get the rewards
that other good contractors receive.
It is important to point out to Members contemplating this amendment
that, if you are a contractor who pays your workers on time, who does
what you are supposed to do, who has avoided willful violations and
repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, you should not, as
a good contractor, have to compete with somebody who gets a competitive
advantage by stealing the pay of their workers. We should have good
contractors competing for contracts, not contractors who make willful,
repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
This amendment relies upon violations reported to the Federal Awardee
Performance and Integrity Information System.
{time} 2100
That system looks back 5 years to review criminal, civil, or
administrative agency actions which have a final disposition.
This amendment differs from previous amendments that I have offered
similar to it because it targets actors who willfully or repeatedly
engage in wage theft. The amendment would ensure that a single
inadvertent violation would not disqualify a contractor, but it would
show clearly that someone who had made repeated and willful violations
would not be able to benefit from the contract.
I urge Members to vote in favor of this particular amendment because
a penny worked for and a penny earned must be a penny paid;
particularly when that penny is derived from a company with a Federal
contract, we have a right to believe that we are going to be treated in
an honest way.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I want to commend my friend
from Minnesota for offering this amendment. Every worker is entitled to
receive pay, fair pay, for the hours they work. We know, unfortunately,
there are employers, as the gentleman has stated, who refuse to pay for
overtime, who make their employees work off the clock, who refuse to
pay the minimum wage. These things go on.
The least we can do is take steps to ensure that those employers
don't receive new Federal contracts. That is what the gentleman's
amendment does. I commend him for offering it and urge colleagues to
support him.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for the
support for this amendment.
Let me just point out a few things for Members contemplating this
amendment.
An important think tank looked at this question and found that in
total, the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,600 a year in
unpaid wages, representing about 15 percent of their earned income.
One thing that I believe Democrats and Republicans can agree on is
that, if you break your back on the job all day long trying to earn a
living and you don't get paid what you are supposed to get paid and
your check is light, we all have to agree that that is wrong.
I expect to have an all green board up there because to do otherwise
would say that you want to stand on the side of the wage thieves, the
ones who are willfully and repeatedly making violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
I think that, as the United States Congress, we should stand together
and say a penny worked is a penny that is going to be paid, and we are
going to insist upon it.
Finally, I just want to say that breaking the law is a bipartisan
problem. Nobody can stand with the contractors who do this. It is one
thing to underpay your workers in a way that is consistent with the law
by paying them the Federal minimum wage rate--I want to raise it; we
may not agree on that--but for sure, we have got to agree that, for
people who work for Federal contractors, we have got to insist that the
contractors who pay these workers even less than they have earned
should not benefit from a Federal contract.
To help the workers, we have to do this, and to help the honest
Federal contractors, we have to do this.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment is obviously
very well intentioned.
However, the amendment, as drafted, is so broad that, for example, a
contractor could be excluded for something as minor as failing to
display a poster in a break room. Again, it is well intentioned.
We have to remember something. We fund a lot of contracts in this
bill, everything from phone service to the computer systems that ensure
an orderly and efficient air space. Potentially, this amendment could
eliminate a number of those transportation-industry-dependent
contracts.
Nobody wants to allow for lawbreaking; but, because it is so broadly
drafted, the unintended consequences, I think, that folks could be
caught in this are a lot more than I think many folks understand.
Again, though it is a well-intentioned amendment, I would urge 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
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Emmer of Minnesota
Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. Madam Chair, 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. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
used to carry out any enrichment as defined in Appendix A to
part 611 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, for any
New Start grant request.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I rise to address an issue that
is playing a role in crippling America's transportation system by
driving our deficits and exacerbating the need for bailouts of the
highway trust fund. As we debate how to fund transportation, one of the
most vital functions of government, this body is being forced to make
hard choices.
I want to thank Chairman Diaz-Balart, the ranking member, and the
members of the subcommittee for their
[[Page H3982]]
work on bringing this appropriations bill to the floor. Their work is
definitely appreciated by me and my constituents. That said, it is
inconceivable to me that, as we kick the can on a long-term
transportation authorization bill, we continue to allow frivolous
spending on transit projects.
As important as New Starts transit projects are to my State and my
district, one would think that every last available dollar would go
towards ensuring transit New Starts have the funding needed to make a
line operational and as cost effective as possible.
Madam Chair, that is not what is happening. Within Federal grant
applications, extras are being included that can dramatically raise the
cost of transit New Starts.
Excessive enrichments such as artwork, landscaping, and bicycle and
pedestrian improvements such as sidewalks, paths, plazas, site and
station furniture, site lighting, signage, public artwork, bike
facilities, and permanent fencing are included in the overall grant
application.
Even more shocking is that the Federal Transit Administration doesn't
include these extra costs into the cost-effective measurements for the
overall cost of the project which serves to deceive taxpayers and
Congress as to the project's real price tag.
Madam Chair, in my district alone, I have cities that have placed a
moratorium on new business development due to severe transportation
issues. It is insane to me and my constituents that we blindly spend
money on the niceties rather than prioritize funds for the necessities.
There are numerous reasons that our Federal highway trust fund
continues to run deficits and we will continue to have that debate; but
one place that we can agree, certainly, is that Federal taxpayers
should absolutely not be paying for things like artwork, furniture,
lighting, and bike racks while transportation projects remain
unfinished across America.
I understand the need and desire for transit projects--I have them in
my district--which is why I have offered this amendment. We should make
funds available to ensure more Federal dollars go to what the hard-
working taxpayers who fund these accounts expect, transit projects,
rather than expensive add-ons that are driving deficits in our transit
accounts.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, in considering this
amendment, it is important to be very clear about what the amendment
means when it refers to enrichments.
This refers to improvements to a transit project like a sidewalk,
paths, plazas, lighting, and signage, things that can help individuals
in utilizing transportation infrastructure and ensure that they do so
in safety.
Unfortunately, Madam Chair, there are approximately 4,000 pedestrian
deaths, comprising 14 percent of overall traffic fatalities each year.
These enrichments are just the kinds of projects that could help reduce
the risk for pedestrians, for bicyclers, and other users of our
systems.
Now, the gentleman offering this amendment is just bordering on
ridicule when he talks about site lighting. Really, site lighting? What
is more important to promoting safety, promoting visibility, and
discouraging those who would prey on individuals than site lighting?
Site lighting is extremely important in improving general safety in
public places. It is incredibly important for protecting individuals
against crime, including harassment and assault. That is what we are
talking about here.
Now, the amount of funding that goes towards such enrichments is
small relative to other expenditures, but it is a commonsense way that
we can enhance our transportation projects, we can broaden their use,
and, above all, we can ensure that they are safe for all users.
It is an unwise amendment, Madam Chair, and I urge its rejection.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. Madam Chair, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have the utmost respect for my colleague from North Carolina, but
he actually makes the argument for the amendment as opposed to opposed
to it.
Yes, it reduces risk for bicyclists and pedestrians when you talk
about signage, when you talk about certain lighting, when you talk
about certain enhancements that are add-ons to the project that the
Federal Government and the Federal taxpayer dollars are intended to
fund.
The Federal taxpayer dollars should be going to the transit project
that it is intended for, instead of all the extras. The local
authorities should be responsible for those.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It is a
clear-cut amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Bass
Ms. BASS. Madam 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 spending reduction
account), insert the following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used by the Federal Transit Administration to
implement, administer, or enforce section 18.36(c)(2) of
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, for construction
hiring purposes.
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. BASS. Madam Chair, as the economy continues to recover, 8.5
million Americans are still unemployed. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of
local transportation agencies to spur job creation in their local
communities is unnecessarily obstructed by restrictive Department of
Transportation policies.
Limiting the ability of local officials to contribute to targeted job
growth is detrimental to local economies across the United States,
especially in communities where many remain jobless.
Local hiring and procurement policies have helped to provide quality
job opportunities to residents in communities hardest hit by the
economic downturn.
My local hire amendment is designed to help spur local job creation
through federally funded transportation projects nationally.
My amendment would prevent the Department of Transportation from
issuing regulations that prevent local hiring. Specifically, it would
limit the regulations and burdens placed on local governmental
agencies, preserve the competition and cost-effectiveness mandates in
our current rules that govern Federal transit grants, and give local
transportation agencies the necessary flexibility to apply
geographically targeted preferences when making hiring decisions for
federally funded transit and highway projects.
It is important to note that this local hire amendment does not
require transportation agencies to implement local hiring policies. It
simply gives local leaders the opportunity to do so if they determine
it is in the best interest of their communities.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this important
amendment. It will reduce burdensome regulations and spur local job
creation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2115
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Zeldin
Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H3983]]
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 by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to institute an administrative or civil action
(as defined in section 47107 of title 49, United States Code)
against the sponsor of the East Hampton Airport in East
Hampton, NY.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Chair, I am proud to represent a district that is
home to some of the most scenic destinations in the country, and all
forms of transportation are part of our tourism economy. Yet, with the
high season upon us, many of my constituents are finding themselves
bewildered by actions of the FAA. Federal agencies ought to stand by
their word and keep their commitments to Members of Congress and to the
citizens we represent.
In 2012, the FAA made assurances to my predecessor that, in light of
a 2005 court settlement between the FAA and a community group, the town
of East Hampton, New York, would not be subject to certain regulations
after December 31, 2014, when certain grant assurances expired and,
thus, could adopt restrictions on the use of their airport without FAA
approval.
The FAA has written that the town can proceed on certain course and
not fear FAA reprisal for their actions. Earlier this spring, the
democratically elected town board passed a set of airport regulations--
all predicated on the FAA's written assurance to not take negative
action against the town. Recently, however, the FAA has started
wavering.
I am offering this amendment, which is 100 percent consistent with
the prior written assurance made by the FAA. This amendment will hold
the FAA to its word on this critical local issue, a local issue that
should have a local solution--bring all sides to the table to improve
the quality of life on the East End this high season.
Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this effort. The
people of the East End communities across Long Island and around
America deserve straight answers and follow-through from government
agencies.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I do this, though, simply
to express some concerns about this amendment and others like it that
we have heard over the course of this debate.
I do have some concerns about limiting flight path options for the
FAA in a piecemeal fashion from the floor of the House. The FAA needs
to have appropriate flexibility to use flight paths in the wisest ways,
particularly if there are safety risks for incoming or outgoing
aircraft. I do think, however, that the FAA needs to take note and be
more responsive to the concerns that have been raised in these
limitation amendments, and there have been several this evening and in
the prior days of this debate.
I also want to observe that the FAA's authorization expires at the
end of the fiscal year. Now, as I mentioned in the debate last week,
our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are
exploring options to reform the FAA, including separating the FAA from
the Department of Transportation, allowing it more independence over
the use of its resources.
I would say this is an important time to encourage caution, to
encourage our colleagues to think very carefully about a more
independent FAA, one that does not have to rely on annual
appropriations. Would it be as attentive to concerns such as those
raised by communities and by our colleagues here tonight? We ought to
move very cautiously in this area.
I strongly urge the FAA Administrator, in observing this parade of
limitation amendments, to take note to ensure that the FAA is more
attentive to the concerns that are raised by communities when
developing their new flight procedures.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina
for his comments. Certainly, concerns within the First Congressional
District of New York are the reason this amendment is being offered. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this important amendment so as
to ensure that these local issues have local control.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis
Mr. LEWIS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 156, after line 15, insert the following new section:
Sec. 416. Notwithstanding Mortgagee Letter 2015-12 of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (dated April 30,
2015) or any other provision of law, the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development shall--
(1) implement the Mortgagee Optional Election (MOE)
Assignment for home equity conversion mortgages (as set forth
in Mortgagee Letter 2015-03, dated January 29, 2015),
allowing additional flexibility for non-borrowing spouses to
meet its requirements; and
(2) provide for a 5-year delay in foreclosure in the case
of any other home equity conversion mortgage that--
(A) has an FHA Case Number assigned before August, 4, 2014;
and
(B) has a last surviving borrower who has died and who has
a non-borrowing surviving spouse who does not qualify for the
Mortgagee Optional Election and who, but for the death of
such borrowing spouse, would be able to remain in the
dwelling subject to the mortgage.
Mr. LEWIS (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of
order.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Georgia and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LEWIS. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R.
2577.
When I was first elected in 1987, Congress created the first
nationwide Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program. Also known as
reverse mortgages, these loans differ from traditional mortgages and
have very good intentions. They are designed to help seniors stay in
their homes by using the values of their properties as a means for
living more stable and independent lives. Since the borrowers must be
62 years of age or older, lenders often advise some borrowers to remove
younger spouses from the titles. This allows them to be eligible for
the program or to qualify for greater loans. Unfortunately, Madam
Chair, many seniors are experiencing challenges in the program's actual
operation.
For example, a citizen in my district, Mrs. Helen Griffin, reached
out to my office last year. She and her husband took out a reverse
mortgage on their home. In order to qualify, she agreed to be taken off
the title. The lender promised that she could be added back on the
title at a later date if they refinanced. Unfortunately, she and her
husband had no idea how expensive refinancing would be. Like so many
others, Mrs. Griffin was now in a dangerous financial situation. Upon
the reverse mortgage borrower's death, a surviving spouse is required
to pay the full balance due on the loan--or 95 percent of the value of
the property--simply to remain in their home.
My amendment would protect people like Mrs. Griffin and allow them
more time to protect themselves from foreclosure. I think we must do
everything in our power to inform and protect unknowing senior couples
from the danger of not only losing their loved ones but also their nest
eggs.
Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida and his staff
for working so hard on this legislation and for making a commitment to
this issue. I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman to
make sure that we do all that we can to realize
[[Page H3984]]
the full goal of this important program.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Denham
Mr. DENHAM. Madam 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 for high-speed rail in the State of California or for
the California High-Speed Rail Authority, nor may any be used
by the Federal Railroad Administration to administer a grant
agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority that
contains a tapered matching requirement.
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. DENHAM. Madam Chair, once again, I am here one more year,
offering another amendment to end this incredible waste of taxpayer
dollars.
I have been clear about my position on high-speed rail. High-speed
rail has a future in the United States. It just can't be done as it is
being done in California--$70 billion over budget and completely
changed from the proposition that the voters originally voted on. If
the Governor and the Obama administration are committed to bringing
this high-speed rail to fruition, then it should go back before the
voters and actually uphold the will of the voters.
This is a case study. If you want to get it wrong, if you want to end
high-speed rail across the Nation, then go ahead and continue to waste
dollars in California on a project that continues to have many
different flaws. This authority in California is not only demolishing
homes, but it is demolishing businesses. The only way they can continue
to get right-of-way is through eminent domain--slashing farms, tearing
down businesses, and now kicking people out of their homes.
Today, it was announced that, instead of ending the initial
construction segment in the outskirts of Bakersfield, the rail work
will now stop just north of Shafter--a full 8 miles of what the
original segment was--with still no operating segment that will allow
people to travel from one end of the State to the other or even from
one end of the valley to the other. Currently, if you ride Amtrak from
north to south, you have to get off in Bakersfield, get on a bus, go
over the mountains, and take that bus until it hits rail in the LA
area. Now we are going to have a bus in Shafter. This just doesn't make
any sense. They continue to change over and over again.
In the wake of Amtrak accident 188 and with the incredible focus on
safety that is necessary to pass PTC across the country, why wouldn't
we take high-speed rail dollars and actually fix the safety
improvements that need to be done in California? Where is the
commitment to safety? Let's fix the positive train control and make
sure that our trains in California are safe, and let's end this project
that continues to waste taxpayer dollars.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment is a new
twist on an amendment that the gentleman from California has been
offering over the last few years. The net result, however, is the same.
It would stop the development of California high-speed rail in its
tracks, so to speak.
The amendment would prevent the Federal Railroad Administration from
administering the funding that California received under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This would have the effect of preventing
the FRA staff from providing routine project delivery oversight or
invoicing on all of the environmental work funded under the grant
agreement.
Do we want the Federal Government to conduct oversight on the
projects that receive Federal funding?
Furthermore, with the Recovery Act funds set to expire at the end of
fiscal year 2017, the amendment would make it virtually impossible for
the California High-Speed Rail Authority to spend all of its funding by
the deadline. It would put the completion of the project in grave
jeopardy. In January, Governor Brown and other California leaders came
together to mark the commencement of construction for California's
high-speed rail project. The project is expected to create 20,000 jobs
per year.
I include for the Record two letters--one from industry and one from
labor groups. Both support the California high-speed rail project.
May 12, 2015.
Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, HUD, and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington DC.
Hon. David E. Price,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation, HUD, and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington DC.
We are writing to voice our strong support for public works
investment, including recent efforts to develop, construct
and deliver high-speed intercity passenger rail service for
the first time in American history. Specifically, we oppose
the inclusion of harmful riders in the fiscal year (FY) 2016
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act that would target or impede
efforts to construct any specific high-speed rail projects,
including the California High-Speed Rail program.
American public works infrastructure is at an inflection
point, and this will be a pivotal year as the U.S. Congress
deliberates Federal highway, transit, rail and aviation
policy bills, and debates how to fund Federal transportation
programs that will meet our Nation's future mobility needs.
Meanwhile, the State of California, in partnership with the
Federal government, has made significant investments in
intercity high-speed passenger rail. In January, the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (the Authority) hosted a
``Groundbreaking Ceremony'' for the California High-Speed
Rail program to mark the commencement of sustained
construction, which will accelerate this year and create
20,000 jobs annually for the next five years. Additionally,
the bids on the Authority's first two construction contracts,
valued at almost $2.2 billion, came in significantly under
budget.
To date, the State of California has committed the majority
of the funding that has been committed to build the program's
initial operating section. And last year, the Authority
secured the ongoing appropriation of 25 percent of all future
California State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund auction
proceeds for the high-speed rail program--a dedicated revenue
stream capable of producing hundreds of millions of dollars
annually for direct funding or financing. The private sector
is now also exhibiting a great deal of interest in investing
in the program.
We believe that America is a country with bold vision that
does big things, and we believe that robust investment in
infrastructure benefits our industry and the American public.
Congressional efforts to impede new public works projects in
any one state send the wrong message to local, state and
private sector investors in every state who are willing to
invest in sorely needed new infrastructure projects in any
mode of transportation.
Moreover, the California High-Speed Rail program represents
the first ever effort to build an intercity high-speed
passenger rail system in this country. California is at the
forefront of developing an entirely new American industry
where investments in and the development of new technologies,
manufacturing capabilities, and innovative business practices
will create high-skilled, good paying jobs and benefit
American public works for decades. The Authority is also
operating under a Community Benefits Agreement with skilled
building trades and contractors to promote training and
apprenticeship programs and provide opportunities for
disadvantaged workers. Halting or impeding this seminal
program at its outset will set our industry back and
jeopardize thousands of new middle-class jobs.
We believe that the California High-Speed Rail program may
serve as model of a Federal, state, industry and labor
partnership that creates jobs, links economies and
communities, preserves our environment and builds a
sustainable future. Therefore, we respectfully oppose the
inclusion of harmful riders in the fiscal year (FY) 2016
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act that would target or impede
efforts to construct any specific high-speed rail project,
including the California High-Speed Rail program.
American Train Dispatchers Association; Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers; Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen;
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers;
International Union of Operating Engineers; North
America's Building Trades Unions; SMART Transportation
Division; State Building and Construction Trades
Council of California; Transportation Communications
International
[[Page H3985]]
Union; Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO;
Transport Workers Union International; UNITE HERE!
____
June 1, 2015.
Hon. Susan Collins, Chair,
Hon. Jack Reed, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Reed: As you prepare to consider
the Senate's version of the fiscal year (FY) 2016 ``THUD''
appropriations bill, we are writing to ask you to avoid using
the measure to set up roadblocks to transportation
investment. Specifically, we wanted to make you aware of
policy language contained in the House version of the FY 2016
THUD bill that seeks to block federal approvals for the
California high speed rail program.
In January, Governor Jerry Brown and other California
leaders commemorated the beginning of construction on the
nation's largest infrastructure project: a high-speed
railroad connecting Southern and Northern California through
the Central Valley. This program, in which the state will be
the primary funder, will bring together public and private
funds to create a transformative investment for California
and the nation. During construction, the program will create
20,000 jobs per year. After it is open, it will help ensure a
sustainable and growing economic future for California.
By including language in its appropriations bill intended
to withhold federal support and approvals for the project,
the House is sending a message to all the states that major
infrastructure projects--even after receiving federal grants
and multiple federal approvals--are at risk of being halted
in their tracks based on political considerations in
Washington, DC.
In a May 11 letter to House appropriators, OMB Director
Shaun Donovan also expressed the Administration's opposition
to the language in the House bill dealing with the California
High-Speed Rail program.
We believe that the California high speed rail program will
serve as model of a Federal, state, industry and labor
partnership that creates jobs, links economies and
communities, preserves our environment and builds a
sustainable future. Therefore, we respectfully request that
your subcommittee produce a bill free of any harmful riders
in the FY 2016 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that would impede
efforts to construct any specific high-speed rail project,
including the California High-Speed Rail program.
Thank you for your attention to our views.
Sincerely,
American Council of Engineering Companies.
American Public Transportation Association.
American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
Association of Independent Passenger Rail Operators.
Railway Supply Institute.
U.S. High Speed Rail Association.
{time} 2130
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The administration has been very clear
that it strongly opposes provisions in this bill that would restrict
the development of high-speed rail. Moreover, the California
congressional delegation has overwhelmingly opposed these restrictive
riders in the past, and I am happy to stand with them again tonight,
urging my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Denham, for his
hard work on curtailing this waste of taxpayer money.
Here are just a few of the headlines currently on the Internet about
California's high-speed rail project: ``Why California's High-Speed
Rail is Off Track''; ``High-Speed Rail Brings Fears of Gutted
Communities and Noise''; ``High-Speed Rail Foes Cite Noise, Property
Value Concerns''; ``Protesters Rail Against High-Speed Rail Route
Proposal''; ``High-Speed Rail Opponents Expected to Converge at LA
Meeting''; finally, ``What an Unholy Mess This California Bullet Train
Meeting is Going to Be.''
This is all reflected in southern California planning for a route
that isn't even planned yet; yet billions of dollars of the California
taxpayers--but even more importantly, in this body, Federal taxpayer
dollars--are being planned and spent and will be spent if we don't stop
this here tonight for a route, for a plan, for a project that isn't
even a plan.
You couldn't send astronauts into outer space without a plan to bring
them back, yet they are hell-bent on this project to spend the money as
fast as they can without having any idea where the route is going to
go; and we are seeing people all over California protest it, for a
project that has tripled in price from what the voters saw as Prop 1A
just 7 years ago. Yet here we are 7 years later with a groundbreaking
that consists of knocking down some of the houses and buildings without
any track being laid, without a real project they can actually count on
being a true route under Prop 1A from San Francisco to Los Angeles. We
need to put a stop to this now.
Mr. DENHAM. Madam Chair, as you have heard, this project is $70
billion over budget. It has a shortfall of $87 billion. If my
colleagues in California, if the minority party of this body would like
to continue on with this project, then where is the $87 billion? I
don't see a proposal from them, nor do I see a proposal from the
Governor for $87 billion.
We have priorities in the State. As you may know, we are going
through a big drought in California. We would love to create the jobs.
Let's utilize the billions of dollars that would be spent on high-speed
rail over the next several decades on water projects that would
actually help our infrastructure, our agriculture, as well as people
throughout California.
There is a good way to spend taxpayer dollars. This is not it. We
cannot afford to leave the next generation with an $87 billion hole
that will continue to not only put California in further debt, but will
continue to show that our priorities are misguided.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Peters
Mr. PETERS. 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 Executive Order 11246 (relating
to Equal Employment Opportunity).
Mr. PETERS (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, no American should be fired, denied a job or
a place to live for being who they are or because of whom they love.
Every American deserves to be treated equally and with dignity.
My amendment would make a simple change to the text of the bill but
make an important difference in the lives of LGBT Americans across the
country. President Obama signed an executive order in July 2014 to
prohibit Federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity against their employees or those seeking
employment. This amendment would affirm that order by ensuring that no
funds in the bill are used to conflict with the President's rule. It
would demonstrate to the American people that Congress supports
fairness and equality for all.
Today, only 18 States and the District of Columbia have
nondiscrimination protections for LGBT communities in sexual
orientation and gender identity in both employment and housing. That
means that in a number of States an LGBT individual can get married in
the morning and fired from his or her job or denied an application in
the afternoon for no other reason than the change in marital status.
That is unacceptable. As a country that believes in equality for all
people, we must do better.
June is Pride Month, and in cities and towns across the country,
millions
[[Page H3986]]
of Americans will celebrate the vibrant diversity of the LGBT
communities who are enriching our society. As we look forward toward
full nondiscrimination, we can help provide at least a small window of
equality for all members of the LGBT community by passing this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to stand on the side of equality and
against discrimination and support this amendment.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I simply want to commend him for offering this amendment
and offer my enthusiastic support.
In various ways, we ensure that the Federal Government doesn't pay
substandard wages, doesn't do other things that are detrimental in the
workplace or that set a low bar, set a low standard. This amendment
adds to that, I think, in a very constructive way. It adds to worker
protections by preventing any company that does business with the
Government from firing employees based on who they are and whom they
love.
I commend the gentleman. It is a fine amendment. I hope colleagues
will support it.
Mr. PETERS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MULLIN. Madam 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mullin
Mr. MULLIN. 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 enforce subpart B of part 750 of title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, regarding signs for service clubs and
religious notices as defined in section 153(p) of such part.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, churches and civic groups are in danger of
being forced to tear down their informational highway signs. Some of
these signs have stood for decades. The current law states that
religious and civic groups can no longer have signs larger than 8
square feet. That is 2 feet by 4 feet. However, ``Free Coffee'' signs
in the same law are unlimited in size.
My amendment would allow churches and civic organizations to keep
their signs that are larger than 8 square feet. This is a reasonable
amendment. It would be beneficial to the safety of the traveling public
and allow our Federal Government to focus its resources on more
critical infrastructure uses. We need to be focusing on repairing our
roads and bridges, not tearing down church signs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment would
suspend enforcement of rules governing the size of billboards for
religious organizations and service clubs. These rules have been in
place for a long time--since 1975.
As I understand it, the gentleman is seeking to increase the
allowable size of billboards for religious organizations and service
clubs from 8 square feet to 32 square feet. This isn't the appropriate
place to deal with this issue. We have barely heard of it before it was
offered. We certainly haven't had extensive deliberations, haven't
heard from State authorities, local authorities, people who have a
stake in this. It needs to be reviewed and debated within the context
of the surface transportation authorization.
The authorizing committees are in the midst of working on the new
authorization bill right now. That is where I would suggest the
gentleman might want to take his concerns. This is not the place here
tonight. I urge colleagues to reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MULLIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Bridenstine), my colleague.
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Madam Chair, I rise today to give my very strong
support to this amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma.
The Federal Government creates a regulation. That regulation says
that, if you are a church or if you are a civic group or if you are
some kind of community organization, you are limited in the size of
your sign to 8 square feet, 2 feet by 4 feet; however, if you are a
billboard company, you can have 25 feet by 60 feet. This is
discrimination against churches and civic groups that I think is
inappropriate.
I would also say that the State of Oklahoma has weighed in. The State
of Oklahoma would like to regulate the signs in the State of Oklahoma.
I think that is absolutely not only appropriate, but I think it is
constitutional that the State have the right to regulate the signs in
its own State.
Here is the sad part that I would like to let people know and
understand. If the State of Oklahoma chooses not to enforce this
Federal regulation that is discriminatory, then the State of Oklahoma
risks losing 10 percent of its Federal funding for roads. This is the
Federal Government using Oklahoma taxpayer dollars against the State of
Oklahoma. It is Federal bullying.
This amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma is a good
amendment. I fully support it, and I highly recommend my colleagues
support it.
Mr. MULLIN. Our churches and our civic organizations have better ways
to spend their limited resources than tearing down signs. Our States
would have more time on their hands to be looking at our roads and
bridges if they didn't have to go out and enforce a law that our State
doesn't even want. If we could simply be focusing on the important
issues, like our roads and our bridges, not wasting Federal dollars and
State dollars on enforcing an out-of-date law, this wouldn't even
simply be an issue.
I would urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grothman
Mr. GROTHMAN. 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
under the heading ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Housing Programs--Project-Based Rental
Assistance'' may be used for any family who is not an elderly
family or a disabled family (as such terms are defined in
section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437a(b)) and who was not receiving project-based
rental assistance under section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1437f) as of October 1, 2015, and the amount otherwise
provided under such heading is reduced by $300,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
{time} 2145
Mr. GROTHMAN. The first thing we should look at when we look at this
budget is cost, and this is one program that is going up in cost. We
are still in a position in this budget in which we anticipate borrowing
about 14 percent. We have the $18 trillion debt.
This amendment will reduce the cost in this budget by $300 million,
which by itself is nothing to sneeze at, but the real reason for this
amendment is the perverse incentives in Section 8 and other tenant-
based rental assistance programs.
All of these programs are conditioned upon, first, having little or
no income. It is wrong to encourage people not to work. As I get around
my district, I find so many employers who cannot find employees today,
in part, because they feel it pays better not to work.
[[Page H3987]]
Secondly, and more importantly, this program, like so many other
programs designed to help poor people, has a huge marriage penalty
associated with it. In order to get this low-income housing, it almost
encourages one--it does encourage one--to have children without a
mother and father at home. To continue this program or even expand this
program to more people is to just destroy the moral fiber of America.
This amendment is tailored to not include or not reduce low-income
housing for the elderly or disabled. I am aware of the fact that we
have people in this country on Social Security maybe making $500 a
month, and they may find it very difficult to find anywhere else to
live, so I am not chipping away at that part of the program.
I will give you an example. In my district, I talked to someone who
ran one of these low-income projects--not Section 8, but more of a
project-based one--and they were very proud of what nice, low-income
housing it was. It was very nice, very generous. They pointed out the
only thing you needed to do to get these apartments for $25 a month was
to not have a job. Now, can you imagine anything so foolish as to
encourage people to not have a job?
In any event, I hope this amendment passes. I hope there is nobody
else in this room who would have any objection to this commonsense
amendment designed to restore the moral fiber that made America great.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, if there is an air of
familiarity about this amendment and what the gentleman has just said
about his amendment, listeners may want to tune in and remind
themselves of virtually this same amendment being offered last week.
I should begin by saying that tenant-based Section 8 housing--a
program, by the way, that conservatives should love because it is
market based and the tenants pay a substantial portion of their income
in rent--tenant-based Section 8 housing in this bill is just barely
held even, with more or less level funding. Of course, other things in
the bill are treated much worse.
The gentleman apparently thinks there is too much money in this bill,
too much investment, with thousands on waiting lists across this
country. This amendment would certainly increase those waiting lists.
Now, last week, it was $614 million cut; this week, it is a $300
million cut--so not quite as many people would be evicted. This week,
the gentleman is saying that the elderly and the disabled would not be
evicted. Who does that leave? It leaves everybody else; it leaves
working families.
I ask anyone in this body to go to their local community house
authority and ask about those waiting lists. Ask how many people are
waiting for a roof over their head who are willing to work, willing to
participate in financing, but need a leg up, the kind of support that
tenant-based and project-based Section 8 represents.
It escapes me why the gentleman would offer this amendment in a bill
that is already at rock bottom.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, just as we did last
week, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GROTHMAN. I do not give up hope that, by the time this budget
rolls around next year, you see the wisdom of the amendment.
I think a lot of people get confused when they find waiting lists for
this sort of program. If you are handing out apartments for $25 a
month, of course, there are going to be waiting lists; so that is not
surprising. Even then, there are certain areas in my State, in my
district, where they are trying to find people who are not in the local
area to fill these units because there is an excess of units.
Nevertheless, I think you want to think about the perverse incentives
you have in a program in which, the more you work, the more your rent
goes up. In order to get in, in the first place, you almost can't work
at all; and, secondly, what the long-term effect on our society is if
you would tell somebody that, if they raise a child out of wedlock, you
get a free, air-conditioned, maybe two-bedroom, two-bath apartment, but
if you get married to somebody with a job, you lose that apartment--is
that the type of incentive we want for the next generation?
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grothman
Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam 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
under the heading ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Public and Indian Housing Programs--Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance'' may be used for any family who is not an
elderly family or a disabled family (as such terms are
defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)) and who was not receiving tenant-
based rental assistance under section 8 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1437f) as of October 1, 2015, and the amount otherwise
provided under such heading is reduced, the amount specified
under such heading for renewals of expiring section 8 tenant-
based annual contributions contracts is reduced, and the
amount specified under such heading for administrative and
other expenses of public housing agencies in administering
the section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program) is
reduced, by $300,000,000, $210,000,000, and $90,000,000,
respectively.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. I think all we talked about in that last amendment
applies to this amendment, with one additional thing that people should
find offensive, because here we are dealing with project-based rental
assistance.
Not only are we encouraging some people not to work very hard, not
only are we encouraging people not to raise children in an old-
fashioned nuclear family, we are also kind of having a strong element
of corporate welfare here, too, which is something I don't care for.
Over time, we have this kind of industry growing up in which you
operate low-income housing. In some ways, I assume people are entering
into it because it is more profitable than a pure, free market sort of
thing; and I would think that people who are opposed to corporate
welfare ought to be opposed to it for that reason as well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, here we go again with, once
again, a reprisal of the amendment offered last week and rejected.
The amendment offered tonight separates that amendment in two:
tenant-based Section 8, project-based Section 8.
The argument does apply, I think, to any of this assisted housing. It
behooves us to reflect on some numbers, I think. On any given night,
575,000 of our constituents are homeless, absolutely homeless. That is
50,000 veterans, by the way.
They get on these waiting lists for these Section 8 projects, and the
waiting lists often have thousands of names. They finally get into
Section 8. They are paying a large proportion of their income in rent.
They are struggling to get a leg up and struggle to find jobs.
By the way, how likely is one to find a job if one is homeless? If
you are talking about self-reliance, isn't it better to have a roof
over your head and have some of the basics of life so you can go out
and seek work?
Evictions, we are talking about evictions here. How does kicking out
children and how does kicking out families promote marriage, for
goodness' sake? How does it promote wedlock? How does it promote self-
reliance? It is likely to promote destitution and desperation.
We are a better country than this. I plead with colleagues, look at
this amendment closely. Think about what we stand for. Think about the
fact that this bill is already inadequate. Let's not make it worse.
[[Page H3988]]
Reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GROTHMAN. First of all, I would like to clarify something in the
amendment. The amendment does not apply to people who were receiving
rental assistance--and neither did the other amendment--prior to
October 1 of this year. It is not a matter of kicking people out; it is
a matter of not putting any further people on.
Furthermore, I think we have to discuss how generous this benefit is.
There are so many people in our society who are living with parents,
living with other family members, living with roommates, and working to
afford that rent. To give somebody a freestanding apartment--some of
these are very nice apartments, two-bedroom, two-bath, air-conditioned
apartments--without having to work at all to receive that apartment is
just a horrible incentive.
I would ask the gentleman to go back in his district and talk to
people who live in the neighborhoods where they have these subsidized
projects. One of the things I find is that sometimes people who live in
maybe high-end areas and are not familiar with these get confused.
I think, if you talk to people who know people who live in this
subsidized housing, you will have no problem finding many anecdotes of
people who are clearly not hurting materially; and, in order to keep
their subsidies going, they cannot work, work harder, or get raises.
Above all, they can't get married.
I think you have to ask yourself whether we ought to continue these
programs that are around year after year after year or whether it is
high time to look at these programs; change the underlying
qualifications; change the time limits; change the amount that has to
be paid; and, quite frankly, also sometimes look at the very generous
accommodations that the government is providing, quite frankly, more
generous accommodations than a lot of people who are working quite hard
have.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Issa
Mr. ISSA. Madam 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 acquire a camera for the purpose of collecting or
storing vehicle license plate numbers.
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. ISSA. Madam Chair, this amendment reflects a simple principle.
The government does not and should not have unchecked power to track
American citizens.
There are many very legitimate reasons to observe license plates
using camera technology. Every day in America, law enforcement drives
through neighborhoods looking for stolen cars. Cameras and computers
identify the number of that plate and run it against a database to see
if it is stolen.
{time} 2200
But again, there is no reason to store that data. The bulk collection
of the location of every American's automobile is well beyond a
reasonable standard. It is a difficult one, but it is simple in this
case.
The Federal Government should not provide money for cameras that
indiscriminately bulk collect information on where you are at all
times. I hope that this amendment will spark a healthy dialogue similar
to the one we had on the PATRIOT Act, one in which we agreed that with
a court order you can collect this kind of data, with a court order you
can seek it, with a known database of stolen cars or wanted criminals,
you can compare a camera image.
But the simple collection, in bulk, of your location of your car, 24
hours a day, using thousands, tens of thousands or perhaps millions of
cameras, is far too ``1984'' for Members of this body or the American
people.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment is well-
intentioned, I realize, but I think it is an overreach and certainly
not appropriate for this appropriations bill.
Records of license plate information can serve as a helpful clue to
investigators. They can produce leads in criminal cases. This
information is also used routinely by law enforcement and by the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to help find missing
children.
I understand there are legitimate privacy concerns. I share those
concerns. But there is already a Federal law that governs the use of
such data. The data is not used to track citizens in real time, despite
what some assert.
Putting restrictions on law enforcement's ability to obtain and use
this license plate information without really fully exploring the facts
or giving due consideration to the consequences, this needs to be done
by the appropriate committees. But doing it here tonight seems risky
and unreasonable, actually, to expect us to legislate on this matter in
the context of this appropriations bill.
Madam Chair, I will insert into the Record a letter from the
Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement entities asking
Congress not to limit the use of this information.
National Fraternal
Order of Police,
February 23, 2015.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry M. Reid,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell, Mr. Speaker, Senator Reid and
Representative Pelosi: I am writing on behalf of the members
of the Fraternal Order of Police to express our concern about
continued efforts to portray automated license plate
recognition (ALPR) as an ongoing, national real-time tracking
system operated by law enforcement. This is emphatically not
the case.
We believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding as
to how ALPR technology is deployed and used by law
enforcement and other public safety agencies. Many people,
including members of Congress, are under the impression that
this technology is being used by our national security
apparatus to geotrack our citizens and monitor their
movements. Indeed, a Dear Colleague letter circulated last
year in support of an amendment defunding this technology was
entitled, ``Stop NSA-like geotracking of innocent
Americans.''
This is not the case. To begin with, ALPR data is simply a
photograph of a vehicle's license plate in a public place at
a particular point in time. Geotracking is the use of Global
Positioning System (GPS) data to track over time the movement
of a specific electronic device capable of emitting GPS
location information. Conversely, ALPR data is collected
anonymously without personally identifying information. A
government agency with access to ALPR data may connect that
data to personal information from a State's vehicle
registration system, but if they do so without a legitimate
law enforcement or public safety purpose, then they are in
violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act. Any other
use of the data would be an unjustifiable violation of
privacy and Federal law.
Thousands of local, State and Federal law enforcement
agencies use ALPR data every day to generate leads in
criminal investigations, apprehend murderers, respond to
Amber and Silver alerts, find missing children, recover
stolen vehicles, and protect our borders. Even something as
simple as the use of cameras at traffic lights and toll
booths has a beneficial impact on the safety of our roadways.
The FOP would also submit that the only difference between
the use of ALPR technology and an officer taking down license
plate information along with the time, date and location is
the efficiency by which the data is collected. Every State in
the Republic mandates that every vehicle have a mounted and
clearly visible license plate for the specific purpose of
contributing to public safety, whether the data is collected
by a fellow citizen, law enforcement officer or camera.
With these facts in mind, it is our hope that Congress will
recognize the substantial benefits this technology makes to
public safety and oppose any legislation or amendment that
would restrict the use of ALPR by law enforcement.
On behalf of the more than 335,000 members of the Fraternal
Order of Police, I thank you
[[Page H3989]]
for your consideration of our views. If I can provide any
further information about law enforcement's use of ALPR
technology, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive
Director Jim Pasco in my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
____
March 9, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader,
House of Representatives.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Pelosi, Leader McConnell, and
Leader Reid: We are deeply concerned about efforts to portray
automated license plate recognition (ALPR) technology as a
national real-time tracking capability for law enforcement.
The fact is that this technology and the data it generates is
not used to track people in real time. ALPR is used every day
to generate investigative leads that help law enforcement
solve murders, rapes, and serial property crimes, recover
abducted children, detect drug and human trafficking rings,
find stolen vehicles, apprehend violent criminal alien
fugitives, and support terrorism investigations.
There is a misconception of continuous government tracking
of individuals using ALPR information. This has led to
attempts to curtail law enforcement's use of the technology
without a proper and fair effort to truly understand the
anonymous nature of the data, how it is used, and how it is
protected.
We are seeing harmful proposals--appropriations amendments
and legislation--to restrict or completely ban law
enforcement's use of ALPR technology and data without any
effort to truly understand the issue. Yet, any review would
make clear that the value of this technology is beyond
question, and that protections against mis-use of the data by
law enforcement are already in place. That is one of the
reasons why critics are hard-pressed to identify any actual
instances of mis-use.
If legislative efforts to curtail ALPR use are successful,
federal, state, and local law enforcement's ability to
investigate crimes will be significantly impacted given the
extensive use of the technology today.
We call on Congress to foster a reasonable and transparent
discussion about ALPR. We believe strong measures can be
taken to ensure citizens' privacy while enabling law
enforcement investigators to take advantage of the
technology. Strict data access controls, mandatory auditing
of all use of ALPR systems, and regular reporting on the use
of the technology and data prevent misuse of the capability
while enabling law enforcement to make productive use of it.
Adoption and enforcement of strong policies on the use of
ALPR and other technologies by individual law enforcement
agencies would also help.
We strongly urge members of the House and Senate to
understand and recognize the substantial daily benefits of
this technology to protect the public and investigate
dangerous criminals. We urge opposition to any bill or
amendment that would restrict the use of ALPR without full
consideration of the issue.
Sincerely,
J. Thomas Manger, Chief of Police, Montgomery County Police
Department, President, Major Cities Chiefs Police
Association; Chief Richard Beary, President, International
Association of Chiefs of Police; Mike Sena, Director,
Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, President,
National Fusion Center Association; Ronald C. Sloan,
Director, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, President,
Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies; Sheriff
Donny Youngblood, President, Major County Sheriffs'
Association; Bob Bushman, President, National Narcotic
Officers' Associations' Coalition; Jonathan Thompson,
Executive Director, National Sheriffs' Association; William
Johnson, Executive Director, National Association of Police
Organizations; Mike Moore, President, National District
Attorneys Association; Andrews Matthews, Chairman, National
Troopers Coalition.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I urge opposition to the amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, in closing, I respect the gentleman's opinion,
but we are not legislating on this appropriations bill. What we are
doing is determining that the relevant committees of jurisdiction have
not authorized broad collection of data of the American people.
The committees of jurisdiction have not authorized this sort of
proactive tracking of people because, at some point, someday there may
be a reason to use that database. So, in fact, it is perfectly
appropriate not to spend the money, not to authorize the money until or
unless the authorizing committees have made a thorough decision of what
should be authorized and what safeguards need to be in order.
So my amendment will simply limit, until such time as a legislating
amendment or authorization from a committee can, in fact, ensure that
we both authorize law enforcement to collect and protect the privacy of
American citizens because, ultimately, these are the taxpayer dollars
of the American citizens and the privacy embodied in the Constitution
and guaranteed to every citizen.
Therefore, I insist that Members consider voting for an amendment
that recognizes, just as the minority clearly said, we have not yet had
a debate on the basis under which we should pay for the bulk collection
against the American people without their permission or safeguards of
their rights.
I urge support for 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. Issa).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISSA. Madam 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 California
will be postponed.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, we are coming to the end of
several days of floor debate on the 2016 Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations bill.
I want to, again, express my appreciation to Chairman Diaz-Balart,
subcommittee members from both sides of the aisle, and our remarkable,
dedicated staff for all the hard work that has gone into this bill and
for the orderly and civil character of our floor deliberations.
I very much wish that all of this work and all of our efforts at
cooperation were being more adequately rewarded, but they are not. And
that is not the chairman's fault. It is the fault of the majority's
profoundly misguided and flawed budget policy, a policy that has left
this bill a mere shadow of what it should be and has decimated the
investments a great country should be making.
Make no mistake, Madam Chair, our roads, our highways are crumbling.
One out of every nine bridges in this country is structurally deficient
and in need of repair or replacement.
Americans spend the equivalent of one work week a year sitting in
congestion caused by overcrowded highways. The capital backlog for our
transit systems is nearly $78 billion.
And make no mistake, our public housing resources don't meet the
basic needs of millions of vulnerable and low-income Americans. On any
given night, 575,000 of our constituents, including more than 50,000
veterans, are homeless. The maintenance backlog for public housing
approaches $25 billion.
Madam Chair, this is a defining crisis for our generation. This bill,
which is intended to help improve housing and transportation options
and create jobs for hard-working American families, will, instead, dig
the hole deeper by cutting everything from safety programs to
transportation construction grants to maintenance budgets for public
housing.
It would be bad enough if the cuts were limited to our transportation
and housing systems, but Republicans have taken the same shortsighted
approach with each of this year's domestic appropriations bills.
Unfortunately, the majority has targeted domestic appropriations to
bear the entire brunt of deficit reduction. That means deep cuts, not
just to our transportation and housing infrastructure but also to
research support, programs that make college more affordable, the very
things that make this country the envy of the world.
Meanwhile, the majority lacks the courage to address the real drivers
of the deficit, which I think most Members of this Chamber realize are
tax expenditures and entitlement spending.
In the 1990s, we achieved budget surpluses as the result of concerted
bipartisan efforts to balance the budget through a comprehensive
approach. We actually paid off $400 billion of the national debt.
Until we have a similar budget agreement this year, one that sets
responsible funding and revenue levels across
[[Page H3990]]
the board, we cannot write a bill that addresses our country's
crumbling roads and bridges, that brings our rail system up to first-
world standards, or that provides shelter for America's elderly,
disabled, and other vulnerable populations.
In fact, we cannot make any of the investments that we simply have to
make to continue as the greatest country in the world. So I implore my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted, irresponsible bill, but
beyond that, to consider the long-term consequences of the fiscal
course we are on. We simply have to make a correction for our country's
sake.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I want to thank the ranking member,
first, for his kind words towards me right now but, more importantly,
for his willingness to work with me, to spend the time, the effort.
Both he and his staff, the committee staff, have, frankly, worked
awfully hard on making sure we do the best job that we can, and I am
grateful for that.
I just very briefly want to just mention that this bill, this is a
bill that prioritizes funding and funds our country's priorities. It is
a balanced bill.
And very important, Madam Chair, this is a bill, that, yes, it does
not raise taxes.
Now, I know that a lot of folks have talked about the President's
requests and the President's requests. And the President's requests for
this area are much higher in many areas than what this bill is funding.
But let's remember a couple of things. The President has massive
taxes, tax increases in his proposals, number one. And also, that this
bill adheres to not only the budget that was passed by Congress, House
and Senate, but this bill adheres to the law, the law that was passed
by Congress and signed by the President of the United States, the so-
called ``sequester'' law.
So if we go above and beyond that level, which some people, I guess,
don't remember, it is fake. It gets sequestered.
So, Madam Chair, again, I thank the ranking member for his hard work.
This is a balanced bill. It is a good bill. It is a responsible bill.
It pays and funds the priorities of this great country. And I am going
to ask for our colleagues to give us a favorable vote on this fine
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________