[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 106 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5047-H5068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2020

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 445 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. 3055.
  Will the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan) 
kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1518


                     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. 3055) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, with Mr. Sablan 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, 
June 21, 2019, amendment No. 221 printed in House Report 116-119 
offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. McAdams) had been disposed of.


                Amendment No. 229 Offered by Mr. Woodall

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 229 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 193.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, if you had granted me more than 5 minutes, 
I would have spent much more of that time talking about how good it was 
to see you there in the chair, but you will just have to know I am 
feeling it here, even though I can't belabor that point.
  I serve on the Transportation Committee, Mr. Chairman, and my 
amendment proposes to strike jurisdiction that belongs to the 
Transportation Committee from the appropriations bill. Now, as you 
know, clause 2 of the House Rules prohibits legislating on an 
appropriations bill, but the House Rules Committee waived those rules 
as this bill came to the floor, so the only alternative I have is to 
come and try to strike that provision.
  The truth is that we have not had a single hearing on this provision 
in the Transportation Committee, Mr. Chairman. We have not had a single 
witness testify in the Transportation Committee. We have had bills 
sitting in the Transportation Committee that purport to deal with this 
topic since January and have not called a single bit of activity 
directed in this direction, despite having moved a whole host of bills 
to the House floor already this year.
  I see that my friends, the chairman of the Transportation Committee 
and the chair of the subcommittee, have put out a Dear Colleague 
encouraging the defeat of this amendment, surrendering this 
jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee to the Appropriations 
Committee.

[[Page H5048]]

  Mr. Chairman, there are times that we do have to legislate on 
appropriations bills, those times that we can't have a functioning 
authorizing process. That is not the case with Chairman DeFazio. It is 
not the case with Chairwoman Holmes Norton, and I cannot imagine, for 
the life of me, why this House would choose to tuck into the back of an 
appropriations bill language that should be heard by the full 
authorizing committee.
  If we strike this language today, my commitment is to work with all 
my friends in the House to try to move language forward through the 
regular authorizing process and have that back on the House floor this 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, section 193 simply ensures 
that when TIFIA loans are repaid by local funds, they are treated as 
part of the local share of transportation projects. That sounds like 
common sense to me.
  Let me address some of the concerns addressed by my colleague from 
Georgia.
  First, this provision was included in the bill with the full support 
of the authorizers, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Second, when my colleague was in the majority, I would remind him 
there were no concerns with making permanent authorizing changes on the 
Transportation appropriations bill, and it did not matter if a highway 
reauthorization bill was on the horizon.
  Third, section 193 is not a significant departure from current law. 
Today, the Department of Transportation may--may--determine that a 
TIFIA loan repaid from non-Federal funds--that is, local funding--can 
be designated as part of a non-Federal share of Transportation projects 
costs. This is particularly important for large, complex projects, 
which are seeking to piece together local, State, and Federal funding 
from multiple sources.
  The gentleman claims to be concerned about small communities losing 
their fair share of Federal capital investment grant funding, but he 
should know that we have appropriated ample funding for all projects in 
the grants pipeline. The bill includes more than $430 million for 
smaller projects, which are often projects in small and midsize 
communities, in addition to the $500 million that was appropriated last 
year.
  To provide greater certainty to States and local communities, section 
193 requires the Department to consider if a TIFIA loan has been repaid 
by local funds. That is just common sense. If a local government is 
going to use local revenue to repay a loan, why wouldn't that count as 
a local share?
  For an administration that speaks so often about innovative 
financing, public-private partnerships, and local communities taking on 
more when it comes to improving our Nation's infrastructure, it makes 
no sense to discourage State and local governments from contributing to 
the overall cost of a project. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I would have said in the realm of common 
sense that the authorizing committee should be allowed to authorize.
  I would have said the realm of common sense would have been that, if 
we have a committee that is functioning, we should allow that committee 
to function.
  I would have said in the realm of common sense, if the committee 
chairman supports it and the subcommittee chairman supports it, that 
perhaps we should have had a hearing where we at least talked about it.
  I ask, Mr. Chairman, when 80 percent of the TIFIA money goes to only 
10 States, what impact does this have on smaller States?

                              {time}  1530

  I would yield to anyone who knows, but we don't know because this 
isn't the authorizing committee.
  The cardinal is absolutely right: He provided additional money in CIG 
dollars this year. But when there are projects on the horizon that 
would, by themselves, as a single project, Mr. Chair, consume not 1-
year's worth of funding, not 2-years' worth of funding, but 3-years' 
worth of funding, leaving nothing for any other projects in the Nation, 
what is the impact of having a mandatory authorization?
  I see my friend, the chairman, at the desk. I love working with my 
friend, the chairman, in the committee. In his Dear Colleague that he 
and Eleanor Holmes Norton sent last year, he pointed out exactly what I 
am concerned about today, Mr. Chair. He said: ``As you know, the CIG 
program's statutory language is not like a typical discretionary grant 
program. . . . It is a pipeline program where eligible projects that 
meet the statutory criteria . . . are funded subject only to continuing 
appropriations.''
  The ``may'' language my friend from North Carolina cited, rather than 
``shall'' language, is included specifically because there is no 
discretion to prevent the large projects from sucking all the money out 
of the funding stream.
  I have that concern, and I would love to be able to share that 
concern and talk about that concern in the committee of jurisdiction. 
Again, I commit to working with any Member who wants to move such 
language forward.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's 
concern about the committee of jurisdiction, so I am happy to be able 
to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), the chairman of that committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, this is a ridiculous issue, to put it mildly. 
This administration has taken two totally contradictory positions on 
this.
  Prior to this administration, if you had a TIFIA loan, you were 
responsible for paying it back with local funds. It was counted as a 
local match. It is their obligation. They have to pay it back. They 
have to pay the loan fees. They have to pay for everything that is 
involved.
  Then, in the first year of this administration, they said it is 
local. It counts as a match.
  Oh, wait a minute, a year ago, they changed their mind. Exactly 1 
year apart: June 29, 2017, TIFIA loans will be considered a local 
match; June 29, 2018, they will not be considered a local match. They 
will be considered as Federal money, ineligible.
  What happened in between? I don't know. I think it had something to 
do with the Portal Bridge in New Jersey and the Gateway Program, and 
President Trump being in a dispute with the Democratic leader of the 
Senate.
  This is about politics, plain and simple, rotten politics, for 
critical infrastructure that this country needs.
  If a jurisdiction borrows money--they borrowed it, they have to pay 
it back--that doesn't count. If they go to a bank and borrow it and pay 
higher interest rates, putting more burden on local taxpayers, that is 
okay. But if they got it from the Feds--by the way, the Feds make money 
on TIFIA loans. It is one of the most amazing programs. We make money 
on it. There has only been like one default in the history of the 
program. These are good loans.
  They have to pay it back, so why wouldn't it count? Politics, plain 
and simple. This is trying to return to politics, as opposed to common 
sense, following preexisting practices and the letter of the law.
  By the way, this is just clarifying existing law because of a bizarre 
interpretation written by the Trump DOT a year ago this June.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chair, I know my friend from Oregon, when he talked 
about rotten politics and those motivations, wasn't talking about me. I 
know that he was not. If he had been, we would have taken that 
conversation a different direction. I know that he was not because my 
concern is sincere.

  The fact that so much of that conversation centered on the White 
House does make me wonder whether or not politics is at play here.

[[Page H5049]]

  To have the authorizing chairman say on the floor of the House that 
there is no statutory difference between the Secretary ``may'' and the 
Secretary ``shall'' is the most shocking thing I have heard in 2019. It 
is the definition of a categorical difference.
  We put ``may'' in there for a reason, and that is to prevent a 
perversion of the process, the perversion that I am concerned about, 
the perversion that my friend from Oregon could dismiss if only we 
would hold a hearing in the committee and allow me to hear from some 
experts about it.
  My concern is sincere, and the concern of communities in my State is 
sincere. There is a reason the House rules prohibit doing this on the 
House floor because our shared concerns are sincere.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, if our colleague says that 
the word ``may'' was put in to prevent a perversion of the process, I 
will simply say, as Mr. DeFazio has made very clear, we put in the word 
``shall'' to prevent a clear and present perversion of the process.
  Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I certainly wasn't referring to my colleague, 
who I know is here in good faith on his own terms.
  The point is, on June 29, 2017, the DOT stated that TIFIA loans will 
not be considered Federal funds for the purposes of evaluating how much 
local share an applicant brings to the table.
  What changed in that year? All years prior, that was allowed. In 
2017, suddenly, they changed their mind.
  That is what I am talking about, rotten politics.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  The amendment was rejected.


    Amendments En Bloc No. 7 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 3 of 
House Resolution 445, as the designee of the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey), I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 7 consisting of amendment Nos. 230, 236, 238, 
242, 245, 250, 252, 254, 256, 260, 261, 262, 264, 266, 269, 270, 271, 
272, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 285, 286, 287, and 290 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119, offered by Mr. Price of 
North Carolina:


       amendment no. 230 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier of California

       Page 448, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by $2,000,000)''.


    amendment no. 236 Offered by Ms. Norton of District of Columbia

       Page 464, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''.


         amendment no. 238 Offered by Ms. Waters of California

       Page 550, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 550, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 592, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 594, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 594, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 242 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       Page 449, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.


       amendment no. 245 Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode Island

       Page 448, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $800,000)''.
       Page 644, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $800,000)''.


          amendment no. 250 Offered by Mr. Foster of Illinois

       Page 449, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1)''.
       Page 449, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1)''.


       amendment no. 252 Offered by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts

       Page 447, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 254 Offered by Ms. Sewell of Alabama

       Page 447, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1)(reduced by $1)''.


          amendment no. 256 Offered by Mr. Bera of California

       Page 447, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 515, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 515, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 260 Offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina

       Page 448, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 468, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 261 Offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina

       Page 550, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 550, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''
       Page 599, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 262 Offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina

        Page 550, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 555, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


   amendment no. 264 Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York

       Page 455, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.


      amendment no. 266 Offered by Ms. Plaskett of Virgin Islands

       Page 450, line 25, insert ``, or any territory or 
     possession of the United States'' before the colon.
       Page 517, line 21, insert ``, or any territory or 
     possession of the United States'' before the colon.


         amendment no. 269 Offered by Ms. Jayapal of Washington

       Page 471, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by $2,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 270 Offered by Ms. Jayapal of Washington

       Page 447, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 535, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


      amendment no. 271 Offered by Ms. Blunt Rochester of Delaware

       Page 592, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 272 Offered by Mr. Carbajal of California

       Page 461, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 461, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.


          amendment no. 275 Offered by Mr. Levin of California

       Page 608, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000) (reduced by $1,500,000)''.


           amendment no. 276 Offered by Ms. Omar of Minnesota

       Page 603, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 603, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.


         amendment no. 277 Offered by Ms. Schrier of Washington

       Page 500, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 278 Offered by Ms. Escobar of Texas

       Page 472, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 279 Offered by Ms. Escobar of Texas

       Page 450, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 280 Offered by Ms. Porter of California

       Page 447, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 479, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 480, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 281 Offered by Mr. Phillips of Minnesota

       Page 519, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.


       amendment no. 283 Offered by Mr. Malinowski of New Jersey

       At the end of division E (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(d)(2) of title 49, 
     United States Code.


       amendment no. 285 Offered by Mr. Malinowski of New Jersey

       Page 533, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)(reduced by $1,000,000)''.


       amendment no. 286 Offered by Mr. Malinowski of New Jersey

       Page 447, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

[[Page H5050]]

       Page 535, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 287 Offered by Ms. Craig of Minnesota

       Page 469, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000) (reduced by $1,500,000)''.


          amendment no. 290 Offered by Ms. Finkenauer of Iowa

       Page 447, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 454, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, the amendments included in 
the en bloc amendment were made in order by the rule.
  Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. I urge its adoption, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the chair for yielding.
  My amendment provides direction to do everything possible to fix the 
indefensible disparity between States in the per capita allocation of 
transportation funding through the Highway Trust Fund. Under the 
current process, known as apportionment, many States receive far more 
in Federal funding for surface transportation than they contribute 
through the gas tax.
  Apportionment in no way is a scientific or mathematical formula but 
is simply grandfathering in a table of numbers that were used to buy 
votes in the Senate generations ago. Unsurprisingly, this table of 
numbers greatly favors the low-population States that are 
overrepresented in the Senate.
  This problem is compounded by the fact that high-wage States like 
Illinois pay more in taxes but get no credit for this when income tax 
funds are transferred into the Highway Trust Fund. As a result, some 
States receive sometimes five times more per person than Illinois and 
other large States.
  My amendment represents a clear statement by the House of 
Representatives that we should move toward a per capita allotment that 
is fair to people no matter what State they live in.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this en bloc 
package.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chair, my first amendment increases funding for 
the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General by 
$1 million and decreases funding for the Office of the Secretary by $1 
million.
  I am very concerned about recent reports that the Department assigned 
senior officials to smooth a ``special path'' for the Senate majority 
leader's favored grant projects.
  I have no problem with funding transportation projects in Kentucky or 
any other State. We should all have a problem with the Department 
setting up a concierge service for one State while slow-walking 
obviously critical projects like New Jersey's Gateway Program.
  My second amendment makes clear that the Capital Investment Grant 
program cannot be run in a manner outside the bounds we have 
established in law. Congress never intended for politically motivated, 
indefinite delays to transportation projects or for some projects to be 
held to a much higher standard than others.
  Infrastructure spending is something we all agree on. It is something 
we all need.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Every part of the country will lose, if not now then 
eventually, if we allow grantmaking to become politicized and the 
intent of Congress to be ignored.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support for the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support to En Bloc No. 7, 
which includes Jackson Lee Amendment No. 242.
  I wish to thank Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole of the 
Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  I thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart for their hard 
work in bringing Division E, the Transportation Housing and Urban 
Development portion of this omnibus appropriations legislative package, 
to the floor.
  I include in the Record letters of endorsement for this Jackson Lee 
Amendment provided by Bike Houston and the League of American 
Bicyclists.
  I thank them all for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee 
Amendment, which makes a good bill even better by providing $10 million 
to support urban bicycle and pedestrian safety programs.
  In June the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published 
its traffic fatality report which showed a one percent decrease in 
traffic fatalities and a four percent increase in pedestrian fatalities 
but a whopping 10 percent increase in bicyclist fatalities.
  On March 30, 2019, in the city of Houston, at the intersection of 
North Shepherd Drive and West 10th Street located in the 18th 
Congressional District of Texas, Lesha White, 54, was driving with her 
daughters when she saw Jesus ``Jesse'' Perez struggling to cross the 
intersection in a wheelchair.
  Ms. White pulled over and got out of her car to help Mr. Perez cross 
the street when another vehicle struck them, and they were both killed.
  On March 7, 2019, 23 year-old David Leon Loya was killed in a 
collision with a school bus while riding his bicycle in The Heights 
area of Houston.
  Police report that Mr. Loya was in the bike lane and tried to avoid 
the accident by sliding under the bus, but unfortunately he was run 
over by the back axle.
  This young man was greatly loved by his family, the lives of the 
people he touched in his volunteer work, and the bicyclist community.
  This amendment was offered in remembrance of Lesha White, Jesus 
``Jesse'' Perez, David Leon Loya, and all of the other pedestrians and 
bicyclists who have lost their lives in accidents with motor vehicles 
in urban areas.
  In the past sixteen years, the Houston area has seen 2,000 deaths of 
bicyclists and pedestrians, at an average of 100 a year, with the last 
three years seeing the rate increase to 150 a year, according to 
federal statistics.
  In 2017, the most recent year for which comprehensive statistics are 
available, according to the Texas Department of Transportation 
(``TDOT''), the numbers were no more encouraging.
  According to TDOT, 1,409 Houston-area pedestrians were injured in 
roadways crashes:
  275 of them were injured seriously; 146 pedestrians were killed in 
roadways crashes; 639 bicyclists were injured in roadways crashes; and 
82 bicyclists were injured seriously.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has called the 
number of deaths a `public health crisis.'
  The problem is no more encouraging on the national level as Texas 
ranks third nationwide in bicycle deaths, behind California and 
Florida.
  Nationwide, the number of fatal bicyclist accidents is rising and are 
also amounting to a greater percentage of total traffic fatalities.
  Cities are uniquely susceptible to this problem, as the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that 70 of bicycle 
fatalities occur in cities.
  City of Houston Mayor Turner has launched a Vision Zero Policy 
initiative to address the issue of bicycle and pedestrian fatalities.
  In May 2019, Mayor Turner invited bike advocacy groups like Bike 
Houston to partner with LINK Houston to identify the 10 highest 
priority intersections for improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
  LINK Houston analyzed motor vehicle crashes involving pedestrians and 
bicyclists from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017, to identify 
priority intersections across Houston.
  This work identified seven priority intersections that if addressed 
could reduce pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries:
  Fanning & Pierce; Rochester & Bellaire; Westheimer & South Dairy 
Ashford; Long Point & Gessner; Westpark Dr. & U.S. 59 South; Old 
Spanish Trail & U.S. 288 South, Fondren & West Belfort; Bissonnet & 
Wilcrest; West & Airline; Bellair & Gessner.
  Mayor Turner prioritized twelve intersections for the Safer Streets 
initiative by selecting seven intersections selected by LINK Houston 
and five intersections proposed by BikeHouston.

[[Page H5051]]

  The city then reached out to the Federal Highway Administration to 
request their assistance in performing a multi-disciplinary Road Safety 
Audit for six of the twelve locations.
  The city of Houston could fund six of the areas that are listed as 
high priorities and needs funding to perform assessments on the 
remaining six.
  Additionally, funding is needed to make the needed changes to the 
intersections to improve pedestrian and bicyclists safety.
  We must come together to tackle this problem and work to ensure that 
we stem the tide in these fatalities.
  The rising death and injury toll of pedestrian and bicyclists is 
alarming and merits serious attention but as we know too tragically, 
behind the statistics are stories about people who are treasured and 
sorely missed by family, friends, and coworkers.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in support of En Bloc No. 7, which 
includes Jackson Lee Amendment No. 242 to help reduce the number of 
pedestrian and bicycle fatalities in urban areas.

                                                  BikeHouston,

                                                      Houston, TX.
     Lillie Coney, Policy Director,
     Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Coney: BikeHouston is writing to endorse Jackson 
     Lee Amendment 103 to the Transportation. Housing and Urban 
     Development Appropriations section of HR 3055. Cities 
     throughout the country are experiencing major changes to 
     urban mobility, including an increasing number of trips taken 
     by biking, walking, and riding scooters and other micro-
     mobility options. At the same time, fatalities are on the 
     rise for people who walk and ride a bike.
       This month, June 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration released preliminary traffic fatality data for 
     2018 that shows while overall traffic fatalities dropped by 
     one percent, pedestrian fatalities rose by 4 percent, and 
     bicyclist fatalities rose by 10 percent! Nationally, 
     bicycling and walking account for 12 percent of 
     transportation trips, but 18 percent of overall traffic 
     fatalities, and yet states report spending less than one 
     percent of their highway safety funds to address the too 
     common deaths of vulnerable road users. By setting aside 
     funds to specifically address bicyclist and pedestrian 
     fatalities in cities, this amendment will help address this 
     unacceptable increase in fatalities of our most vulnerable 
     road users.
       Thank you again introducing this amendment to set aside 
     national infrastructure investment funds to address bicyclist 
     and pedestrian safety in cities. We look forward to 
     continuing our work with you to address this serious issue.
           Respectfully,
                                                  Clark Martinson,
     Executive Director, BikeHouston.
                                  ____

                                                     The League of


                                          American Bicyclists,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 2019.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Jackson Lee: The League of American 
     Bicyclists is writing to endorse amendment 103 to the 
     Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 
     section of HR 3055. Cities throughout the country are 
     experiencing major changes to urban mobility, including an 
     increasing number of trips taken by biking, walking, and 
     riding scooters and other micro-mobility options.
       At the same time, bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities are 
     on the rise. This month, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration released preliminary traffic fatality data for 
     2018 that shows while overall traffic fatalities dropped by 
     one percent, pedestrian fatalities rose by 4 percent, and 
     bicyclist fatalities rose by 10 percent!
       Nationally, bicycling and walking account for 12 percent of 
     transportation trips, but 18 percent of overall traffic 
     fatalities, and yet states report spending less than one 
     percent of their highway safety funds to address the too 
     common deaths of vulnerable users. By setting aside funds to 
     specifically address bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities in 
     cities, this amendment will help address this unacceptable 
     increase in fatalities of our most vulnerable road users.
       Thank you again introducing this amendment to set aside 
     national infrastructure investment funds to address bicyclist 
     and pedestrian safety in cities. We look forward to 
     continuing our work with you to address this serious issue.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Bill Nesper,

                                               Executive Director,
     League of American Bicyclists.
                                  ____


                [From Houston Chronicle, June 24, 2019]

                             Dying to Ride,

                           (By Dane Schiller)


                           A CYCLE OF LOSSES

       Teenager Miguel Marcial pedaled his bike along a narrow, 
     dark stretch of Richmond Avenue early one morning last July, 
     following closely behind his older brother. The immigrant 
     dish washers had worked the late shift and were both biking 
     to a nearby pharmacy to buy toilet paper. Only a few feet 
     from the drug store's parking lot, a brand-new BMW driven by 
     a law student, Steven Moritz, who had just left the Estate 
     Lounge, smacked 17- year-old Marcial from behind and launched 
     him head-long into an oak tree. The vehicle didn't stop, 
     according to police. It dragged Marcial's orange and white 
     bike beneath it for six blocks before disappearing into the 
     humid summer gloom.''If I had not pulled in, we would both be 
     dead,'' Miguel's brother Palemon recalled hauntingly last 
     week.
       Marcial was one of at least 23 bike riders killed on 
     Houston streets in the past five years, according to police 
     and safety reports, as well as court and medical records 
     reviewed by the Houston Chronicle. But only four times in 
     five years have drivers been charged with a crime after 
     fatally hitting a cyclist.
       The tally comes as tensions have increased in Houston's 
     cycling community, with two bike riders killed in recent 
     weeks in unsolved hit-and run crashes. Outspoken cyclists 
     contend the city hasn't created enough clean, safe bike 
     lanes. They also believe police aren't ticketing cars for 
     coming too close to riders or doing enough to find people who 
     run them down.
       Fred Zapalac, co-owner of Blue Line Bike Lab bike shops and 
     a cycling community advocate, said anger is simmering over a 
     lack of accountability.
       ``If we are getting run down, and there are no consequences 
     for the driver's actions then our lives have about as much 
     value as a stray animal,'' Zapalac said.
       A review of municipal court records conducted at the 
     Chronicle's request found that no citations were issued 
     during the first six months of a city ordinance that went 
     into effect in May and required that cars stay at least 3 
     feet from cyclists and pedestrians, and trucks 6 feet away.
       Some motorists, however, counter that certain cyclists 
     think they own the 'roads and openly defy traffic laws.
       City Council Member Ed Gonzalez, who has been an advocate 
     for cycling issues, said more should be done to protect and 
     educate riders, as well as motorists, and train police on 
     enforcing the 3-feet ordinance.
       ``We are a very car-centric city,'' he said. ``We are very 
     dependent on the automobiles, and we don't have a very robust 
     mass transit system. There are some major shifts that need to 
     occur.''


                            THREE CONVICTED

       Crashes that claimed the lives of riders over the past five 
     years are often a 'blend of bad choices by bike riders and 
     motorists.
       Three drivers were convicted after pleading guilty in 
     agreements that include deferred adjudication--a form of 
     probation that enables them to have their criminal records 
     cleaned if they stay out of trouble.
       One was for causing an accident with a death, another for 
     criminally negligent homicide, and a third for failing to 
     stop at the scene.
       Moritz, a student at South Texas College of Law, was 
     eventually arrested and faces up to 10 years in prison if he 
     is convicted of failing to stop and render aid. Marcial's 
     death was typical among fallen cyclists and reflects a 
     reality about many people who ride bikes in this city.
       He was riding for transportation, not exercise. He was in 
     the street, not on a bike path.
       Marcial and his brother had recently gotten off work. Like 
     many undocumented workers, they didn't have cars or driver's 
     licenses, so they rode bikes.
       But his death also stands out.
       There were witnesses and charges were filed, although 
     authorities didn't know about Moritz until more than a week 
     after the incident when a lawyer for the car's owner called 
     police.
       He is not accused of breaking the law by killing Marcial, 
     but by not stopping afterward and calling for help. Moritz's 
     lawyer, J. Gordon Dees, declined comment.


                          `REALLY FRUSTRATING'

       The deaths cross the spectrum of circumstance, from 
     cyclists who were riding on sidewalks to others who tried to 
     roll across freeways.
       Mohammad Qureshi, then 19, was driving along the Southwest 
     Freeway in 2010, when he bolted across four lanes of the 
     highway to make the Hillcroft exit. He lost control of His 
     Honda Accord and hit a cyclist riding on the sidewalk of the 
     service drive.
       A year later, he pleaded guilty to criminally negligent 
     homicide in the death of Marcotulio .''Benjamin'' Tzul as 
     part of an agreement that requires him to serve 45 days in 
     jail in five-day chunks: nine days each year for five years, 
     through 2015. In 2010, Carmenza Arreaga, then 24, pleaded 
     guilty to a charge of ``accident involving death'' of Paul 
     Miller and was required to pay $18,000 in restitution to the 
     bike rider's family.
       She hit Miller in the early morning hours along the Loop 
     610 feeder road and drove away, leaving behind pieces of the 
     front bumper of her Honda Civic. An anonymous tip to Crime 
     Stoppers led to her arrest.
       Jonathan Turner pleaded guilty in 2010 to failing to stop 
     and render assistance after the death of Anthony Jones, who 
     was trying to cross Interstate 45 at 10:15 p.m. Turner was 
     given 30 days in jail and ordered to pay $5,199 in 
     restitution. A sheriff's deputy caught him at a gas station 
     trying to pull a mangled bicycle out from under his Chevy 
     Tahoe.
       Harris County prosecutor Alison Baimbridge said it is not 
     unusual for defendants to serve sentences in segments on the 
     anniversary of a victim's death to repeatedly remind them 
     they killed someone and didn't go to prison.

[[Page H5052]]

       ``There is no sentence that you can give anybody that would 
     actually justify losing somebody's life,'' she said. ``You 
     can't do that, you can't bring them back. You have to look at 
     the defendant's life, the circumstances and any potential 
     issues in the case.''
       Despite criticism from some cyclists who contend 
     authorities treat biker deaths as less than a priority, 
     Baimbridge said the cases are investigated as thoroughly as 
     the deaths of motorists or pedestrians.
       ``Their lives are just as valuable as anyone else's,'' she 
     said. She said many cases in which bikers have been killed in 
     car crashes are especially challenging because they often 
     involve both the motorist and the cyclist doing something 
     wrong.
       ``It is kind of a double-fault situation,'' she said of 
     cases such as when motorists should have steered clear of a 
     cyclist, but the cyclist was crossing the street 
     inappropriately or not having reflectors or lights.
       Among the toughest cases are hit and runs where no one saw 
     the incident, she said. ``It is really frustrating,'' she 
     said. ``Their families deserve to know what happened, if 
     nothing else. It is horrible.''


                              HIT AND RUN

       In the two hit-and-run crashes in recent weeks there have 
     been no arrests. Nabor Rosas, 40, was found in the bayou in 
     mid-January after he was hit riding over a bridge on 
     Harrisburg at night on the way home and landed in the water.
       Chelsea Norman, 24, was killed in the Montrose neighborhood 
     in early December as she rode home from her job at Whole 
     Foods, also at night.
       Each time a bike rider's death makes the news it hits hard 
     for Xenia Sanchez. Her daughter, Leslie Roman, 6, was riding 
     her bike in 2009 in her apartment complex parking lot when 
     she was hit and killed by a silver PT Cruiser that has never 
     been found.
       ``It comes back,'' she said at a table beneath three photos 
     of Leslie that were hung on the wall as part of a shrine of 
     sorts, along with her daughter's Barbie doll perched on a 
     shelf beneath them.
       ``I know exactly how his or her mom is feeling. It is 
     painful to see other people go through what we went 
     through.''
       Leslie's father, Leonardo Roman, who ran into the parking 
     lot and picked up his daughter, who was still barely alive, 
     found some peace in that though her body was badly battered, 
     she was not crushed.
       ``It could have been so much worse,'' he said quietly.
       Houston Police Sgt. Carlos Miller, of the vehicular crimes 
     division, said there are many reasons why motorists flee 
     after hitting a bike rider.
       ``A lot of times they are frantic over what just 
     happened,'' he said, noting that they can be motivated to 
     drive away by everything from fear, even if they have done 
     nothing wrong, to wanting to hide the tracks of other 
     criminality.
       Among the others to die was Cruz Riojas, 67, who worked in 
     sculpture repair. He was riding back to work in 2011 from an 
     Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. He had been on the sidewalk on 
     Sawyer Street, just outside the Heights neighborhood, but was 
     hit as he tried to cross an intersection.
       The car's driver, Ricardo Abonce, 30, said he was coming 
     back from a Target and drove through the intersection with a 
     green light. Riojas came over the car's hood and hit the 
     windshield.
       It was a moment of ``silent shock'' as the glass shattered, 
     then as he got out of the car and other motorists streamed by 
     honking at him.
       ``I feel bad because he didn't make it,'' Abonce said. ``I 
     can't have that over me all the time.''
       Police found that Riojas was at fault for crossing an 
     intersection when he had the red light. No charges were filed 
     against Abonce.


                              NEVER FORGET

       One of the few sport riders to be killed was Jonathan 
     Lennard. The 47-yearold aerospace engineer, known for being 
     meticulous, had once traveled to Europe to see the Tour de 
     France and cycled across that continent.
       He was killed last August, on Memorial, where it cuts 
     through Memorial Park, after being struck by a 19-year-old 
     motorist.
       The driver told police that he had the green light and 
     swerved to avoid Lennard. Police found that Lennard was at 
     fault.
       But Kevin Hood, a lawyer who is a cyclist and runner, said 
     he was watching Lennard and believes the driver was not 
     paying attention and ran a red light.
       Hood said he will never forget what he saw. ``It is 
     terrifying. You cannot unsee that stuff.''
       Back where Marcial lived, a few blocks from where there are 
     now flowers and a cross rising from the dirt beneath the tree 
     where he landed, his family waits for answers.
       They have adapted to Houston, but some struggle with 
     English and even Spanish, as they are from a rural region of 
     Mexico where an indigenous language is spoken.
       Marcial had been in Houston three weeks. He was proud of 
     his first paycheck and planned to save enough to one day go 
     back home and buy a house.
       Family in Houston who had not seen him since he was very 
     young was just getting to know him. The brothers went to the 
     store so they would be ready for a party at their apartment 
     later that Sunday.
       They decided to ride in the street because the sidewalk was 
     a minefield of cracks, telephone poles and trees. The road 
     was empty.
       ``There was no noise,'' Marcial's brother recalled, ``not 
     even any cars.''

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


    Amendments En Bloc No. 8 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 3 of 
House Resolution 445, and as the designee of the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 8 consisting of amendment Nos. 239, 240, 243, 
246, 247, 249, 255, 257, 259, 263, 265, and 274 printed in part B of 
House Report 116-119, offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina:

       amendment no. 239 offered by mr. meadows of north carolina

       Page 447, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 240 offered by mr. doggett of texas

       Page 464, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,500,000)''.
       Page 464, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,500,000)''.


         amendment no. 243 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

       Page 613, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by $2,000,000)' '''.


          amendment no. 246 offered by mr. graves of louisiana

       At the end of division E (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 422.  None of the funds made available by this 
     division may be used to issue rules or guidance in 
     contravention of section 1210 of Public Law 115-254 (132 
     Stat. 3442) or section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5155).


         amendment no. 247 offered by mr. lipinski of illinois

       Page 508, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 249 offered by mr. bost of illinois

       At the end of division E (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 13858.


         amendment no. 255 offered by mr. burchett of tennessee

       Page 447, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 479, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 480, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 257 offered by mr. spano of florida

       Page 464, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $8,089,000)''.
       Page 464, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,089,000)''.


         amendment no. 259 offered by mr. takano of california

       At the end of division E (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation in 
     contravention of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining 
     Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.).


        amendment no. 263 offered by ms. kuster of new hampshire

       Page 551, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 553, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 555, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 567, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 265 offered by miss rice of new york

       Page 469, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 274 offered by mr. garcia of illinois

       Page 519, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 519, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, the amendments included in 
this en bloc were made in order by the rule. They have been agreed to 
by both sides. I support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, first, I thank my friend, Chairman Price, 
for working with me to include a number

[[Page H5053]]

of provisions important to Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chair, I congratulate Mr. Meadows for his amendment to help 
unmanned aircraft manufacturers, one of our most important and 
innovative transportation sectors.
  I also thank Mr. Graves and Mr. Scalise on their tireless work on 
behalf of their constituents to help them recover from devastating 
hurricanes and floods.
  Mr. Burchett has a great amendment that increases funding for highway 
and bridge infrastructure.
  Also, Mr. Chair, I want to mention Mr. Calvert and Mr. Cook. They 
have cosponsored an amendment to address an issue that is critical to 
Amtrak employees in their districts.
  Finally, I congratulate Mr. Smith of New Jersey for his tireless 
advocacy for veterans housing, as he always does.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Miss Rice).

                              {time}  1545

  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Chair, my amendment supports the Federal 
Aviation Administration Airport and Airway Trust Fund. This program is 
responsible for the research, engineering, and development of aircraft 
technologies that reduce aviation noise.
  In my district, communities near JFK Airport and La Guardia Airport 
must endure the constant noise of overhead aircraft, and other 
communities farther away are beginning to experience significant 
airplane noise as a result of newly developed flight plans.
  I am disappointed that the FAA recently announced it would postpone 
important minimum altitude regulations for certain flight patterns 
coming into JFK Airport, and I call on the FAA to implement these 
regulations as soon as possible.
  While changing flight paths are no silver bullet to solving airplane 
noise, we must continue to adequately fund Federal efforts to discover 
new technologies that can retrofit existing airplanes to be quieter for 
the benefit of communities not just on Long Island, but airport 
communities across the country.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment to bring 
attention to the provision I fought to include in the Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development funding package.
  With support from the Amalgamated Transit Union, we were able to 
secure $5 million in technical assistance and training in this bill, 
with a specific $2.5 million set aside for frontline bus, rail, and 
transit workers.
  These critical funds would provide frontline workers with 
professional development and training to help bus and transit operators 
hone their professional skills. This funding will make our public 
transit safer, more efficient, and help workers better provide for 
their families as they climb up the professional ladder.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Price and Nita Lowey for supporting the 
inclusion of this provision, and I urge support for this en bloc 
amendment.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of En Bloc Amendment 
number eight, which includes my amendment to reaffirm Amtrak's legal 
obligations under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification 
(WARN) Act.
  The WARN Act was created to protect workers and their families by 
requiring certain employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of 
mass layoffs. As many of my constituents learned first-hand, having 
advance notice of a major staffing decision is essential for employees 
so they can make thoughtful and deliberate decisions about their future 
and the future of their families.
  Last year, Amtrak shuttered a reservation call center in my district. 
Hundreds of my constituents and their families had just 60 days' notice 
before having to decide whether to uproot their lives and accept 
another Amtrak job across the country--or accept a meager severance 
package and keep their families rooted in the community they grew up in 
and love. It was part of Amtrak's tactic to only meet the statutory 
requirement of providing 60 days' notice under the WARN Act and force 
attrition by applying pressure on its employees. Today, we must go 
further to protect these workers.
  Congress must reaffirm the legal requirements under the WARN Act, but 
also strengthen these protections to ensure that workers have more 
advance notice of executive decisions that will impact their lives. 
Congress must also ensure that the penalties for violating this law 
will send a clear message to employers that this anti-worker behavior 
will not be tolerated.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Representatives Ken Calvert, Brendan Boyle, and 
Paul Cook for joining me in putting forth this bipartisan amendment and 
I look forward to building on these protections for workers all across 
the United States.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 231 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 232 printed in part B of 
House Report 116-119.


                Amendment No. 233 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 233 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. 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 division E (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out section 4(b) of Executive Order 13868 or 
     to issue a special permit under section 107.105 of title 49, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, that allows liquified natural 
     gas to move by rail tank car.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, this is an extraordinary move to suddenly 
turn trains into liquid natural gas pipelines. Of course, liquid 
natural gas is not transported by pipeline. It brittlizes metal, and 
this would be a new and innovative way of moving liquified natural gas.
  Now, there are a few problems with this. We had the Administrator 
into the committee last week. It is going to be moved in DOT 113 tank 
cars.
  I said: Are those puncture-proof?
  He said: No, they are not puncture-proof.
  I said: Well, what happens?
  He said: Oh, we carry volatiles all the time.
  I said: You don't carry anything like liquified natural gas.
  There is something called the BLEVE; it is a boiling liquified 
explosive vapor explosion. So the BLEVE has an unbelievable blast 
impact. And this is just one rail car. These will be six trains a day 
going through the most populated parts of Florida, 100 cars in each 
train.
  Envision this: Here is Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This is the blast 
zone. And that is just one--one--of these tank cars. It is likely it 
will cause a chain reaction and explosion. It is going to be about as 
powerful as Hiroshima if it goes off.
  Now, this maybe will get someone's attention. This is the Brightline 
high-speed rail line. That is where they are going to run six trains a 
day with 100 cars of liquified natural gas--never, ever been done 
before; except in small containers, never been done before.
  And, oh, by the way, within the blast zone is Mar-a-Lago. Are they 
going to allow the trains to run while the President is there?
  All you need is someone with a .50 caliber to shoot a hole in one of 
those tank cars and you are going to have one humongous explosion that 
goes beyond Mar-a-Lago.
  So what is the foolishness?
  The Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Agency has not evaluated 
this. They are the ones who are supposed to do this. They haven't 
finished imposing laws that we put in place in

[[Page H5054]]

2011 for the safe movement of hazardous goods, but now they are rushing 
this through.
  The administration says, oh, no, we want this permit done in 12 
months. Well, maybe the President doesn't know he is in a blast zone. 
Maybe he wouldn't be ordering it be done in 12 months if he knew it was 
within the blast zone.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, liquefied natural gas is a major 
component of domestic U.S. energy growth, and it is facilitating the 
export of U.S. natural gas around the world.
  Railroads have been successfully moving flammable gases for 100 
years. As a matter of fact, Transport Canada already allows LNG on rail 
and tank cars. So this provision would put us at a huge disadvantage 
with our largest trading partner.
  Furthermore, DOT always conducts a thorough, comprehensive, and 
transparent safety evaluation, accounting for public input and, again, 
before allowing for transportation of any hazardous material.
  This amendment would block a proven process at DOT and would inhibit 
U.S. LNG from meeting growing markets, the demand from growing markets 
for cleaner--again, cleaner--and more affordable energy.
  And again, Mr. Chairman, this is another important point. Currently, 
this is moved by trucks. They are all over the country, trucks moving 
LNG. And so, obviously, the question is: Are rails less safe than 
moving this on trucks? Obviously, the answer, I would say, is no.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman referred to trucks. Actually, we are talking about very 
small quantities in special containers, not massive rail tank cars 
holding these amounts.
  Another thing is that there is no known company. You can't contact 
them. There is no publicly available contact information, no 
headquarters, but they have petitioned and they are going through a 
special permit process with--the gentleman says there is going to be 
public review and input--sure--to move six trains a day with 100 cars 
in each one, essentially, a liquid pipeline through these heavily 
populated areas.
  We saw what happened at Lac-Megantic up in Canada with just crude oil 
in tank cars killing dozens of people, obliterating a town. This is 10 
times more powerful than that.
  Yet the gentleman from Florida is advocating that this should happen 
in Florida, and the people living all along the Brightline--Fort 
Lauderdale, Hollywood, the President at Mar-a-Lago--just shouldn't 
worry their sweet little heads about it: It won't be a target of 
terrorists; there won't be an accident; it is never going to happen. 
Well, we have heard that before.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind everyone that 
there are trucks with natural gas right in Florida and in, pretty much, 
every State around the Nation.
  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern).
  Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the liquid natural gas revolution going on in this 
country is making us more energy secure, and it is revitalizing our 
local economies across the country.
  According to the Department of Energy, natural gas applies to nearly 
one-third of the United States' primary energy. It is the primary 
heating fuel for approximately half the U.S. households.

  The oil and gas industry generates more than $50 billion a year in my 
home State of Oklahoma. The industry has been the single largest 
contributor to Oklahoma tax revenues in recent years.
  The discovery of promising new natural gas formations in the Permian 
Basin of Texas and New Mexico along with the Marcellus shale formation 
in Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York 
show that the near-term future of our country's energy mix will be 
supplied by an abundance of natural gas.
  Natural gas is a cost-effective, reliable, and clean form of energy 
that has created thousands of high-paying jobs across the Nation, 
including in Oklahoma's First Congressional District. America is now 
the world's largest producer of natural gas. For the first time since 
1957, we are a net exporter of natural gas to the rest of the world.
  Recognizing the benefit that the natural gas revolution is having on 
our economy and energy security, President Trump issued an executive 
order in April of this year. Section 4(b) of the executive order 
requires the Department of Transportation Secretary to propose a rule 
for notice and public comment that would ``treat liquid natural gas the 
same as other cryogenic liquids and permit liquid natural gas to be 
transported in approved rail tank cars.''
  Mr. Chairman, no matter our production levels of natural gas, we 
cannot realize its full potential unless we have safe and reliable ways 
to transport it. That is what the President's executive order is all 
about.
  I believe this amendment unnecessarily takes away a vital 
transportation option for transporting our natural gas to both 
underserved markets on the mainland United States and to our ports so 
it can be exported around the world.
  With certain States making it more difficult to transport LNG by 
pipeline, we need all the available options at our disposal to 
transport these much-needed energy sources.
  We have been transporting oil by rail for decades, but since liquid 
natural gas is a relatively new energy commodity, Federal rules and 
regulations have not caught up to the need for flexibility in 
transporting LNG, which is why I was pleased to see section 4(b) 
included in President Trump's executive order.
  Instead of trying to inhibit this administration's effort to make our 
Nation more energy secure, I believe we should be assisting them in any 
way possible to benefit our economy and our energy security.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues join me in opposing 
this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Again, this has potential for massive explosions. This has not been 
done before.
  This is not natural gas. It is liquefied natural gas, 600 times as 
dense, and, if punctured, this is the blast zone. I hope the President 
is watching.
  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
raising this issue.
  I want to note that the underlying bill provides $1 million for the 
Transportation Research Board to conduct a study to review all aspects 
of the transportation of liquefied natural gas in rail tank cars, and 
it requires the Department to incorporate findings and recommendations 
from this study into any rulemaking on the transportation of LNG in 
rail tank cars before issuing a final rule authorizing such shipments.
  Mr. Chair, I plan to vote for this amendment, and I look forward to 
continuing to work with my colleague on this issue.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I find it ironic that some of the same folks who are 
concerned about climate change and global warming want to make it so 
difficult to transport things that actually lower emissions compared to 
other sources of energy.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, again, in closing, I think it would be wise 
to actually conduct a study before this is

[[Page H5055]]

permitted. That is not the intention of this administration, and that 
is why I offer this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 234 Offered by Mr. Duncan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 234 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. 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:

       Strike line 20 on page 642 and all that follows through 
     page 643, line 8.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense 
amendment that will allow the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Secretary Ben Carson to restore the longstanding, 
scientific definition of gender as it relates to federally subsidized 
same-sex housing.
  The underlying legislation strips the Secretary of that power, and my 
commonsense amendment simply gives it back to him. I ask the House to 
support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).
  Ms. WEXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.
  June is LGBT Pride Month, a time when people across the country are 
taking a positive stance against discrimination and violence against 
LGBT individuals, but this amendment seeks to allow discrimination 
against the LGBT community in HUD-funded housing and shelters.
  Make no mistake, this amendment will weaken protections for LGBT 
people, especially children, who are experiencing homelessness and 
fleeing natural disasters, as well as survivors of violence.
  These protections are important because nearly one-third of 
transgender and gender nonbinary people experience homelessness at some 
point in their life; about one-half of transgender people do.
  According to a Center for American Progress study done in 2015, only 
30 percent of shelter providers across four States, including my own of 
Virginia, were willing to properly accommodate transgender women. 
According to another recent survey, over half of transgender survey 
respondents who stayed in a shelter in the past year were verbally 
harassed, physically attacked, and/or sexually assaulted because of 
their gender identity.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), chairwoman of the House Values Action Team.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague's 
amendment to strike section 236 from this bill. This amendment will 
preserve the right of women to be protected in a domestic violence 
shelter designated just for them, free from the unexpected and 
unsettling presence of a man identifying as a woman sharing the same 
facility. Faith-based organizations and many community organizations 
segregate programs based on gender, but under the Obama administration, 
rules were changed allowing policies that forced domestic violence 
survivors into unwanted and unsafe coed housing arrangements.
  We can see how this is causing problems as already in Anchorage, 
Alaska, Downtown Hope Center's mission was providing overnight shelter 
for abused and battered women. However, the center is facing a lawsuit 
for not allowing a man, who identifies as a woman, access to the 
women's shelter.
  The core to the Downtown Hope Center's mission of providing women 
suffering from rape, physical abuse, and domestic violence as a safe 
place to sleep at night without the presence of men, is at risk.
  This nonsense must stop, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
very commonsense amendment for the protection of women.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).
  Ms. WEXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Some say that this amendment will negatively impact the safety and 
privacy of women in shelters. Service providers around the country who 
operate shelters every day disagree. These providers believe that 
nondiscrimination protections are necessary to ensure everyone in need 
can access shelters.
  Over 300 domestic and sexual violence organizations across the 
country signed a national consensus statement in support of full and 
equal access for the transgender community. These leaders agree that 
serving transgender women victims in shelters is appropriate and does 
not pose a safety issue.
  While housing transgender people according to their gender identity 
does not propose a safety risk to others, failing to do so puts 
transgender people in danger. Transgender people experience shockingly 
high rates of sexual and physical violence and forcing transgender 
people to use facilities that don't match their gender identity leaves 
them at risk for harassment, assault, and a host of harms that result 
when people avoid using the bathroom during the day.
  Allowing shelter providers to decide who is eligible for access to 
single-sex or sex-segregated shelters opens the door to discrimination. 
Make no mistake, this is incredibly dangerous. The consequences of 
being turned away from a shelter can be dire.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
yielding.
  In 2016, HUD published a final rule, the Equal Access in Accordance 
with an Individual's Gender Identity in Community Planning and 
Development Programs rule requiring Community Planning and Development-
funded single-sex projects ``to provide all individuals, including 
transgender individuals and other individuals who do not identify with 
the sex they were assigned at birth, with access to programs, benefits, 
services, and accommodations in accordance with their gender identity 
without being subjected to intrusive questioning or being asked to 
provide documentation.''
  This rule prohibits a HUD-funded shelter from providing for single-
sex facilities based on an individual's gender at birth. There are 
other rules that were put in place in the Obama administration, 
similarly. None of these rules recognize that housing programs, 
particularly faith-based facilities, ability to distinguish between 
genders and an individual's marital status; both rules placing 
vulnerable women at risk.

  This administration announced a proposed rule that ``permits shelter 
providers to consider a range of factors in making such determinations, 
including: privacy, safety, practical concerns, religious beliefs, any 
relevant considerations under civil rights and nondiscrimination 
authorities . . . `' I could go on. It is a commonsense rule.
  Yet, now, we are sitting here in an appropriations bill when we are 
supposed to be figuring out how to fund the important, ailing 
infrastructure of this country, housing and urban development, figure 
out how to solve the problems in this country, while we have got a 
border that is being overwhelmed every single day--yes, I am coming 
back to that because it is the crisis of our day--and now we are 
turning this into a gender-identity game.
  The gentleman from South Carolina is properly trying to protect the 
ability

[[Page H5056]]

of this administration to have a commonsense rule to ensure that people 
are safe when we have got facilities in place and the Federal 
Government has something to do it with. I applaud him for doing so.
  I would ask my Democrat colleagues why we are not getting back to the 
business of the day, making sure that we have strong infrastructure, 
strong border security, and doing the job the American people actually 
sent us to do instead of manufacturing social engineering and gender 
identities.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. 
It is important that we give the Secretary the ability to set this 
definition.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. May I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am baffled and 
distressed that my colleagues seem so intent on targeting such a 
vulnerable population.
  This Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual's Gender Identity 
in Community Planning and Development Programs rule simply ensures that 
all Americans have access to HUD services regardless of sexual 
orientation, gender identity, or marital status.
  This amendment strikes protections for homeless youth seeking help in 
shelters. It also strikes eligibility for other HUD programs and for 
FHA loans. Mr. Chairman, research shows that same-sex couples and 
transgender individuals experience significant discrimination when 
seeking housing.
  LGBTQ youth comprise up to 40 percent of the homeless population. Let 
me, again, remind my colleagues of the risks faced, as Ms. Wexton has 
stressed, the risks faced by transgender, homeless youth when they are 
living on the streets.
  This population is much more likely to experience physical, 
emotional, sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, sexual 
exploitation, or trafficking. LGBTQ youth have over twice the rate of 
early death compared to other youth experiencing homelessness.
  When these young people arrive at a shelter, they are not a safety 
risk for others. On the contrary, they are desperate. They are 
vulnerable. Many are homeless because their families rejected them for 
being transgender. We should be doing everything we can to ensure they 
have alternatives to living on the streets, and that when they ask for 
help, they are not turned away and revictimized.
  Secretary Carson assured our committee and our colleagues on the 
Financial Services Committee as well, that HUD would not revoke these 
protections. But right after he made those assurances, the announcement 
came that he was doing just that.
  Our subcommittee has repeatedly asked the Department to provide a 
report detailing their strategy for continuing to ensure that LGBTQ 
individuals have access to HUD programs, and that they plan for 
disseminating this information to housing providers. They have yet to 
provide such a strategy or such a plan, leaving us with no choice, Mr. 
Chairman, but to enshrine the Equal Access in Accordance with an 
Individual's Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development 
Programs rule in law, and to permanently reinstate the Department's 
guidance to ensure that providers have the tools they need to protect 
and to serve this vulnerable population.
  This heartless amendment would lead to more discrimination, more 
homeless LGBTQ youth, and more vulnerability to abuse and violence.
  We simply must vote ``no,'' and I urge my colleagues to do so, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 235 Offered by Mr. Duncan.

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 235 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. 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:

       Page 643, strike lines 9 through 14.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer another commonsense 
amendment that will allow the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Secretary Ben Carson to restore the longstanding and 
scientific definition of gender as it relates to federally subsidized 
same-sex homeless shelters.
  The underlying legislation strips the Secretary of that power, and my 
commonsense amendment simply gives it back to him. By doing this, we 
are working to protect at-risk homeless women and children in the 
shelters.
  I ask the House to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Price in 
strong opposition to this amendment. Two years ago, HUD removed 
guidance that was meant to ensure our transgender community members are 
able to access emergency housing or homeless shelters.
  House Democrats stood up against this assault on LGBTQ Americans, and 
HUD Secretary Ben Carson assured us that the removal of this guidance 
was only temporary.
  Later this spring, Secretary Carson testified that we should not be 
pressing for guidance or pressing him on this issue because we wouldn't 
like the answer that HUD would provide.

                              {time}  1615

  In other words, HUD stood ready to explicitly allow or promote LGBTQ 
discrimination.
  Discrimination in any form for any amount of time is reprehensible 
and unacceptable, and now we have an amendment before us that would 
make housing discrimination permanent. It would continue the 
uncertainty around LGBTQ protections and make vulnerable people's lives 
harder.
  Let's remember what is at stake. One in three transgender people have 
experienced homelessness, and we know that homelessness in the LGBTQ 
community overwhelmingly impacts our young people.
  Right now, there are approximately 350,000 transgender people under 
the age of 25 in the U.S., and it is estimated that over 20 percent of 
them lack secure housing.
  Through the appropriations process, House Democrats have put in place 
protections for transgender Americans and have taken the proactive step 
of protecting the rights of LGBTQ individuals in emergency housing 
intervention situations.
  No American seeking refuge and safety should be kicked to the curb. 
No one should be discriminated against, especially not in a time of 
dire need.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of this body to reject this 
amendment, reject discrimination, and reject the Trump administration's 
and Secretary Carson's cruel rollback of LGBTQ protections.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who heads up the Values Action Team which is 
an important voice for Americans.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Duncan offering this 
amendment which would strike section 237 from the underlying 
legislation because without this amendment, a February 2015 HUD notice, 
which is no longer applicable under this administration and which 
requires the placement of transgender persons in single-sex emergency 
shelters, would become law.

[[Page H5057]]

  Should this notice become Federal law, it would offer no protections 
for women facing harassment in the shelters' showering or sleeping 
areas. This bad policy is at the heart of the California emergency 
shelter lawsuit. Nine women were sexually harassed by a male by birth, 
a trans individual, while using the showering facilities. The women's 
shelter confessed that they would rather allow the abuse to continue 
than lose Federal grant funding. The shelter went as far as threatening 
the nine women out of the shelter if they continued to refuse to shower 
with their attacker. This is preposterous.
  We should not codify this notice. Instead, HUD must review and 
strengthen its resolution and notices governing shelters and housing so 
that these examples do not become the new normal.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. 
Duncan's amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support--
in strong opposition to this amendment.
  Our subcommittee has repeatedly asked the Department to provide a 
report detailing their strategy for continuing to ensure that LGBTQ 
individuals have access to HUD programs and the plan for disseminating 
that information to housing providers. HUD has yet to provide any 
strategy or any plan. So that is why we have acted. It has left us no 
choice but to act.
  This House took great strides a few weeks ago in passing the Equality 
Act, and we are certainly not going to turn around today and take those 
rights away. I am offended we have not one, not two, but three 
amendments designed precisely to take those rights away.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this discrimination and 
to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
Freudian slip because he knows we shouldn't allow men in the bathrooms 
with our female children.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina for yielding, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Missouri for her comments. I can't expound upon her eloquent comments 
much more or the gentleman from South Carolina about the concerns that 
we have with what has been put in this appropriations bill and why I 
support the gentleman from South Carolina's amendment to make sure that 
the Secretary of HUD has the ability to do his job and to do the right 
thing.
  I notice that my friend on the other side of the aisle mentioned the 
Equality Act. Well, what I am hearing from my constituents in Texas is 
they are concerned. They are concerned that were the Equality Act to be 
passed out of the Senate, it would undermine the ability of their 
daughters to compete. What we are seeing around the country is boys who 
decide to declare themselves females run in races and make it 
impossible for girls to compete. This is happening. We see it. It is 
happening in real time.

  I just wonder what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think 
is being accomplished with an Equality Act that turns on its head the 
very idea and the very notion of what we have got with respect to the 
differences between men and women and the ability to recognize that, 
embrace it, and be able to have women compete in sports.
  Here we are in this false name of equality blowing up the ability of 
secretaries and people in the administration to make commonsense 
determinations about how to house people, to make tough choices, and to 
be able to figure out what to do. Heaven forbid they rely upon 
biological sex to make that determination.
  This is why my wife and I, who have been products of public schools K 
through law school, have our children in a private school because we 
keep getting our values blown to heck and common sense blown to heck in 
schools where bathrooms suddenly become social engineering experiments.
  That is what we see happening as a result of what is happening in the 
body and what is happening in an appropriations bill.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for joining 
me on this.
  We all know that many of the homeless on our streets have mental 
issues, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are okay with 
allowing those homeless men in the bathrooms with our female children, 
and that is just wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. I ask my colleagues to 
support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this incredible amendment 
would target some of our most vulnerable people in our society today.
  A study by True Colors United found that among homeless transgender 
youth, 75 percent had been victims of physical, emotional, or sexual 
abuse; 25 percent had been victims of intimate partner violence; and 20 
percent had been victims of sexual exploitation or trafficking.
  Mr. Chairman, more than 300 domestic violence and sexual violence 
organizations have signed a national consensus statement agreeing it is 
appropriate to serve transgender women alongside other women according 
to their gender identity.
  They agreed there is no safety issue despite the rhetoric heard 
today. In fact, transgender women are much more likely to suffer abuse 
themselves.
  So let's not turn that safety issue on its head. Let's reinstate the 
guidance, let's enforce the rule, and let's make certain that in this 
society people are treated equally and fairly.
  Mr. Chairman, let's reject this amendment. I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of 
Chairwoman Lowey, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Price for yielding and 
discussing this issue with me regarding the FAA's recent threat to 
withhold over $250 million annually in FAA grants to California's 
airports and divert over $70 million in voter approved local general 
sales tax away from their voter approved purpose for transportation, 
police, fire, and the healthcare of our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, on May 17, California and Illinois were sent letters by 
FAA threatening to withhold Federal aviation funds because FAA believes 
the States have not followed a 2014 FAA policy change which would 
require State and local governments across the country--not just 
California and Illinois--to use general sale taxes collected on 
aviation fuel for airport purposes.
  Although FAA sent the first letters to California and Illinois, they 
have sent letters of inquiry to other States like Georgia, and this 
issue also has significant effects in Georgia and any State and local 
government that has aviation fuel as a part of their general sales tax.
  Mr. Chairman, California sent a letter to the FAA over a year and a 
half ago on December 8, 2017, explaining their plan of action for 
compliance with the FAA policy change. FAA did not respond to 
California's letter until last month when they gave California 30 days 
to change their compliance plan and seek burdensome tax information 
from all 58 State counties and over 100 cities in our State.
  This is further concerning in the State of California because our 
general sales taxes are voter approved by two-

[[Page H5058]]

thirds margin. FAA is trying to undermine the will of our California 
voters.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that you work with me and my colleagues who are 
concerned about FAA's action and with Representatives Alan Lowenthal, 
Jared Huffman, Adam Schiff, Harley Rouda,   John Garamendi, Salud 
Carbajal,   David Scott, and   John Lewis in addressing this situation 
regarding FAA's threat of unreasonable enforcement on many States and 
local governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman and 
the colleagues she mentioned for bringing up this important issue. It 
may impose legal and financial challenges to certain States. Certainly 
it is an important issue for my friend from California and for her 
State, so I will be happy to work with her and the FAA to find a 
mutually acceptable solution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, and I move 
to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share the frustrations of 
many of my constituents who are suffering from severe noise pollution 
caused by the FAA's NextGen program which has altered flight paths to 
Reagan National Airport. Montgomery County, Maryland, residents who 
live as much as 20 miles away from the airport have experienced a 300 
to 500 percent increase in air traffic over their homes. These flight 
path changes have significantly disrupted life below with relentless 
noise pollution.

  As 400 flights per day cross over Bethesda at low altitudes, many of 
my constituents are woken up in the middle of the night, others are 
interrupted and distracted at work by the onslaught of noise, and there 
are children complaining that they cannot hear their teachers speak 
over the noise occasionally caused by commercial jets flying over their 
schools.
  After more than 3 years of incessant disturbance of their peace and 
quiet, my constituents were stunned last month when the FAA announced 
that it would implement yet another change to flight paths at Reagan 
National Airport that would lead to even more air traffic over our 
communities. The FAA casually announced the change slated for an August 
2019 implementation date at a meeting with the Community Noise Working 
Group that works with FAA to address the problem of noise pollution at 
Reagan National Airport. Given the substantial consequences of this 
change and the complete lack of public input in its development, I urge 
the FAA to delay the implementation date and to engage seriously with 
our Community Noise Working Group, which is eager to evaluate the 
proposed changes and work towards alternative proposals or strategies 
to avert or at least mitigate the impact.
  It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that with the $17.7 billion that this 
bill appropriates to the FAA, the agency will take serious steps toward 
dramatically reducing the noise pollution in residential areas in my 
district, in Montgomery, and throughout the Nation.
  Thank you, Chairman Price, for your indulgence.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our 
colleague from Maryland for highlighting this issue of aviation noise 
and the need for the FAA to be responsive to community concerns.
  Noise we know is an unfortunate and unpleasant side effect of the 
investments, the jobs, and the mobility gained from aviation service. 
We received numerous requests about noise from colleagues this year, 
and we underscore the FAA should make every feasible effort to assist 
airports, airlines, and local communities mitigate noise for the health 
and benefit of those affected.
  Mr. Chair, I thank our colleague for raising this issue, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 237 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 241 Offered by Mr. Heck

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 241 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. 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:

       Page 582, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 584, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 612, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Heck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is about creating economic opportunities in Indian 
Country. It is about improving housing conditions, creating jobs, and 
helping Native communities meet their community development needs.
  It is a bipartisan amendment, and it provides an additional $5 
million for the Indian Community Development Block Grant program, which 
is one of the most flexible, most competitive grant programs of its 
kind and, might I add, one of the most effective.
  Frankly, I was disappointed to see the President's budget request 
attempt to eliminate the program, especially when the problem statement 
associated with the need to increase our investment in infrastructure 
is so clear.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again here today: We are in 
the middle of a housing crisis, in large part because we simply do not 
have enough homes.
  While it is true that housing shortages exist across the country, 
nowhere is the issue more pronounced than it is in Native American 
communities. Native Americans experience worse housing conditions and a 
higher incidence of homelessness than nearly every other demographic.
  One of the most important duties I have as a Member of Congress is 
ensuring the sovereignty of the four Tribes in my district that I have 
the privilege to represent, as well as the 29 Tribes in my State, and 
to help them as they work to provide better opportunities for Tribal 
members.
  That is our Federal trust responsibility. Cutting this program 
violates that trust responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the Indian Community Development Block Grant program and, in 
doing so, supporting the many Native American communities who will 
benefit from it.
  Finally, I thank my colleagues, Representatives Don Young, Gwen 
Moore, Jared Huffman, Deb Haaland, and Tulsi Gabbard, for joining me in 
offering this bipartisan amendment.
  I also sincerely thank Chairman Price and his staff for putting 
together such a comprehensive appropriations package that funds our 
Nation's vital transportation and housing programs.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise to support this 
amendment.
  The Indian Community Development Block Grant program provides Indian 
Tribes and Alaska Native Villages the opportunity to compete for a 
flexible source of funding to address pressing housing and community 
needs in Indian Country.
  We know the needs continue to exceed the funding available. In fiscal 
year 2017, HUD was able to fund only 62 percent of the eligible 
applications it received. That is why we provided in the bill $75 
million, a $10 million increase over last year, for the program. This 
amendment would further increase that to $80 million.
  Mr. Chair, I support this amendment and the strong investment it 
would

[[Page H5059]]

make possible, but I do want to express a note of concern about the 
offsetting cuts to HUD's Cybersecurity and Information Technology Fund.
  HUD is facing daunting challenges to upgrade its technology 
infrastructure. As we head into conference negotiations with the 
Senate, I am hopeful we can reach a comprehensive, bipartisan agreement 
that makes it possible to boost funding both for critical housing 
programs and for IT modernization at HUD.
  Again, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Chair, I thank the chair of the subcommittee, again, 
very much.
  It seems to me that often around here, we have solutions in search of 
problems. That is absolutely not the case in this instance. The problem 
statement here is clear. It is screaming in its need and the depth of 
the need.
  As a consequence, again, I thank the chair of the subcommittee and 
the bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 244 Offered by Mr. Grothman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 244 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, there is 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 division E (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this division 
     (other than an amount required to be made available by a 
     provision of law) is hereby reduced by 4.6 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I guess there is a series of amendments like 
this.
  It is well known that we have a huge deficit out here. Obviously, one 
way to deal with a deficit is to make sure that the appropriations 
bills are not excessive.
  We are approaching borrowing 20 percent of the Federal budget. That 
is just almost beyond belief.
  We just got done with an amendment in which some people out there 
felt we weren't spending enough on community block grants, which is 
appalling. I am much more in line with President Trump's opinion of 
that. I don't think we should be increasing things at this time.
  This amendment is a modest amendment. Rather than having decreases--
which, of course, we should have--we are taking a 4.6 percent across-
the-board cut on this overall provision.
  I realize it touches a variety of programs. We are still allowing a 2 
percent increase. Quite frankly, I think a 2 percent increase here is 
more than enough, but what I do here is I propose a 4.6 percent across-
the-board reduction.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, this amendment 
indiscriminately cuts programs in transportation and housing with, 
apparently, very little thought as to the relative merit of the 
programs contained in the bill.
  The amendment would result in less affordable housing and less 
support for Habitat for Humanity, public housing, homeless veterans, 
housing, the elderly, the disabled, and the Department of 
Transportation and its agencies responsible for the safety of our 
roads, our bridges, our aviation, our pipelines, and our waterways.
  It would reduce funds available to pay the bills submitted by State 
and local governments for their transportation programs. These programs 
are the legal responsibility of the Federal Government.
  The base bill enables us to continue to make progress in restoring 
our infrastructure. This amendment would roll that back.
  This amendment would not encourage DOT or HUD to do more with less. 
It would force them to do less with less.
  Our colleague describes this as a modest amendment. Well, let me just 
ask how modest these cuts are for his home State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. Chair, is $3.1 million for CDBG funding, which could have been 
used to rehabilitate housing or improve water mains and sewers, a 
modest cut?
  $12.4 million in Wisconsin funding for CDBG dollars, the money that 
would be generated, is that modest?
  Or is $1.5 million in HOME funding in Wisconsin, $1.8 million in 
funding for transit in Wisconsin, or $1.3 million in funding for 
highway infrastructure in Wisconsin?
  Our colleague may want to inquire back home as to how modest those 
cuts are.
  The amendment is particularly galling since the gentleman voted for 
the 2017 tax bill, a $1.5 trillion tax cut, most of which went to the 
top 1 percent.
  He is concerned about the deficit. That tax bill alone adds $1.9 
trillion to our deficit from 2018 to 2027.
  Why is it more important to give tax cuts to the wealthy than it is 
to build affordable housing and other infrastructure like roads and 
bridges that all of our citizens need and that they benefit from? It 
doesn't make sense.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge Members to oppose this damaging and 
indiscriminate amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I didn't come here to debate the tax cut, 
but I will point out one more time that the Republicans who voted 
against the tax cut did so at the request of the wealthier taxpayers in 
given States who felt that the tax cut unnecessarily didn't help the 
wealthier members of society.
  As far as the other things that were rattled off, the State of 
Wisconsin right now is running a significant surplus, unlike the 
Federal Government that continues to borrow substantially. Fiscally, if 
anybody should be increasing spending on these programs, it should be 
the States, not the Federal Government.
  Not to mention our Constitution--the gentleman rattles off a lot of 
things that really have nothing to do with interstate commerce and 
nothing to do with the Federal Government. We not only should be not 
increasing these programs, but we should be cutting them.
  Again, my amendment still allows a 2 percent increase. When I go back 
home and explain it to the folks, I think the major thing they will be 
saying is, ``Grothman, why are you so generous as to give a 2 percent 
increase?''
  I have no problem saying this amendment is responsible. On the floor, 
I will probably wind up voting for other amendments that have greater 
reductions than this.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, as to the tax cut, I will 
simply quote very reliable figures from the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities: The top 1 percent of the population received 34 percent of 
the benefits of the tax cut.
  As to the constitutional point, if I hear that correctly, the point 
is that these programs should be eliminated. Constitutionality raises 
the issue as to whether this should, perhaps, be zero funding, as 
opposed to these indiscriminate cuts that would do so much damage to 
the State of Wisconsin and to the entire country.
  Mr. Chair, I urge opposition of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have nothing more to add, and 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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H5060]]

the gentleman from Wisconsin will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 248 Offered by Mr. Bost

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 248 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. BOST. Mr. 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:

       Page 552, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 552, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Chair, the purpose of my amendment is to put the House 
on record in support of strengthening HUD's oversight of public 
housing.
  Many of my colleagues may have never heard of Cairo, Illinois, or 
what took place at the Alexander County Housing Authority, but they 
should.
  An investigation by The Southern Illinoisan newspaper discovered a 
public housing agency plagued with corruption and mismanagement.
  Residents lived in unsafe, unsanitary conditions, with mold, rodents, 
and broken air ducts that allowed for the creation of black mold--
public housing that was not suitable for any human being to live in. 
The problem was so bad that many of the buildings had to be demolished.

                              {time}  1645

  Residents were forced to move far from Cairo.
  All the while, the housing authority's senior leadership was cashing 
in. Officials received excessive pay and benefits, large pensions, 
lavish travel expenses, and a big consulting contract for a former 
director; all of this paid for with taxpayer money.
  These problems did not occur overnight. It took decades of corruption 
and neglect. The Federal regulators were asleep at the switch. Despite 
the terrible living conditions, HUD inspectors gave a passing grade to 
the Alexander Housing Authority on several occasions.
  HUD failed to properly audit the financials. If they did, they would 
have taken action before conditions became a crisis.
  Last year, HUD Office of Inspector General issued a report on 
failures in Alexander County. The report included four specific 
recommendations on improvement to the agency's regulations of public 
housing.
  The House Committee on Financial Services conducted a hearing on this 
report. I testified as a witness. I was glad to see the bipartisan 
outrage which occurred about the situation that occurred in Cairo.
  More recently, the HUD Inspector General issued a report on the 
specific criminal actions of Alexander County Housing Authority 
leadership. Charges have been filed against these officials. 
Unfortunately, it comes too late for most residents of the housing 
authority.
  But we can stop this from happening again. The purpose of my 
amendment is for HUD to implement the OIG improvements.
  In addition, it is my hope that the House Financial Services 
Committee continue its work to conduct oversight of public housing 
agencies. What happened in Alexander County may be the most extreme 
outcome, but it is not the only one of these types of issues that are 
occurring around this Nation today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to claim the 
time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly support 
this amendment and commend the gentleman for offering it. He is 
highlighting horrible conditions with the situation in Alexander 
County, Illinois.
  HUD's IG has concluded that HUD should have done more to oversee this 
decades-long situation, these deteriorating conditions at the Alexander 
County Housing Authority and has made multiple recommendations to 
address the situation and to ensure that something like this doesn't 
recur.
  In fiscal year 2018, our House THUD report requested that HUD work 
with the community to find adequate housing for displaced residents, 
and to quickly investigate the root causes of the situation.
  The base bill, I am happy to say, does fund the IG account above the 
request level, partly to help with work on this issue. And we have also 
increased funding in the Public Housing Operating and Capital Funds to 
provide more resources to public housing authorities for capital 
improvements and better management.
  Mr. Chairman, we are continuing to monitor this situation. We expect 
HUD to implement the Inspector General's recommendations as quickly as 
possible. So I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his support of the 
amendment. With this, it is our hope that things like what happened in 
Alexander County will not happen again; that proper oversight will be 
given.
  The effect that this has on people's lives is tremendous, and anyone 
that has worked with these situations knows and understands.
  I appreciate the fact that my colleague, the chairman, supports this, 
and I ask for my colleagues' support.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 251 Offered by Mr. Banks

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 251 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division E (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available in division E, except 
     those amounts made available to the Department of Defense, is 
     hereby reduced by 14 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Banks) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Another bloated spending 
deal that doesn't just bust the spending caps but spends more than ever 
before on this division. With a $22 trillion national debt, you would 
think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would show a little 
restraint.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, who I have enormous 
respect for, including the chairman, are proposing to spend $137.1 
billion in this division alone, which is $6 billion more than last 
year's enacted level.
  Mr. Chairman, we simply can't continue to go down this path. While 
both parties have contributed to Washington's $22 trillion national 
debt, my colleagues are recklessly proposing to bust the budget caps, 
trigger sequestration, and continue to mortgage our children's future. 
At some point, we have got to do something to confront this town's 
spending addiction.
  I acknowledge that reducing our national debt is a daunting 
challenge, and I am prepared to debate today how to best accomplish the 
goal of a balanced budget. But my friends on the other side of the 
aisle do not even want to have that discussion.
  Hoosier families in my district have these tough talks every day 
around their kitchen table. Why can't Washington, D.C., do the same?
  With these spending packages threatening to bust the budget caps and 
initiate sequestration, there appears to be an indifference from my 
Democrat colleagues as to the severe harm that this poses to our 
national security.
  I will not be silent about this, Mr. Chairman. This is my seventh 
time coming to this microphone offering the same amendment in the last 
couple of weeks alone. I am looking forward to having a substantive 
debate today about this particular amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5061]]

  

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I suppose if you liked a 
4.6 percent across-the-board, indiscriminate cut, you will love 14 
percent, even more draconian, and equally indiscriminate.
  I won't repeat what I said a few minutes ago about the drastic 
effects a cut of this magnitude would have on the range of housing and 
transportation priorities for this country. But I will look at a 
particular State, the gentleman's own State, Indiana, and just mention 
what some of the consequences would be. I hope this is useful 
information.
  The gentleman's amendment would cut $10.2 million in CDBG funding for 
Indiana, which could have been used to rehab housing, to repair streets 
and sidewalks, provide senior and youth programs. The amount of 
additional funding generated by CDBG dollars in Indiana is estimated to 
be--the cut, the effect is estimated to be $40.6 million in money taken 
out of the Indiana economy.
  Home funding, the most flexible affordable housing funding we have, 
$4.8 million taken out of that funding in Indiana.
  Transit projects in Indiana take a whopping loss of $23.8 million.
  Highways in Indiana, highway infrastructure, a loss of $5.1 million; 
and so it goes.
  These are cuts that would reverse the progress we have made.
  A lot of people are talking infrastructure these days, including our 
President. This bill is actually doing something about it. We are 
making long overdue investments in this country's infrastructure, and 
that includes the housing infrastructure.
  Yet, colleagues who--I don't know what they have said about this as a 
national priority. Certainly, if they offer an amendment like this, or 
vote for an amendment like this, they are marching back down the hill 
in terms of the progress we have made and hope to make.
  So this amendment, I would think, has very little to recommend it for 
any Member who wishes to invest in our country's future, and I urge its 
rejection.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chairman, a very wise former Governor of Indiana once 
said that you will never know how much government you will never miss. 
And these days, as we roll out spending package after spending package 
that spends more and more than ever spent before, I look back to those 
wise words of that former governor, because that former Governor, knew, 
just as I do, as a former State Legislator, that the States can always 
run these programs and do better with running government, administering 
programs like these than the Federal Government ever can.
  And while there is a difference of opinion between my colleague, 
again, who I respect and admire so much, it is clear that there is a 
difference of opinion between those who believe that Washington, D.C., 
should tax more hard-earned tax dollars out of the pockets of 
hardworking Hoosier families, just so that Washington, D.C., can spend 
more and more on spending packages just like these.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, President Ronald Reagan once said: ``We 
don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we 
have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.''
  Since then, we have added roughly $21 trillion to our Nation's debt. 
This simply cannot go on. If we do not begin to tackle this challenge 
now, it will be tackled for us by our creditors.
  We need to learn from the commonsense words of President Reagan and 
start to live within our means today. If we don't, we will be putting 
our troops at a disadvantage and our national security at risk because 
of sequestration and leave for our children a country with less freedom 
and less opportunity than the one that we inherited. That is 
unacceptable to me, and I plan to fight to prevent that future from 
becoming a reality. I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 253 printed in part B of 
House Report 116-119.


                Amendment No. 258 Offered by Mr. Vargas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 258 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division E (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 422.  None of the funds made available by this 
     division may be used to deny eligibility of a single family 
     mortgage for insurance under title II of the National Housing 
     Act on the basis of the status of the mortgagor as an alien 
     in deferred action status pursuant to the Deferred Action for 
     Childhood Arrivals (`DACA') Program announced by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Vargas) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Until recently, recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals, or DACA program, have been able to secure mortgage insurance 
from the Federal Housing Administration, or FHA.
  In 2018, lenders began reporting to news sources such as, HousingWire 
and BuzzFeed, that officials from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development had informed them that DACA recipients were not eligible 
for FHA insurance.
  HUD's conflicting responses to public inquiries on the matter left 
uncertainty in the market over the past year. Then HUD sent a letter to 
Representative Pete Aguilar 2 weeks ago confirming they had stopped 
providing FHA insurance for DACA recipients' mortgages.

                              {time}  1700

  DACA recipients are individuals living in the U.S. under the Deferred 
Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program. They were brought to the 
United States as children. They were children.
  As individuals even within this administration have expressed, the 
United States is the only place many of them know. It is their home.
  DACA recipients are taxpayers, students, teachers, and soldiers. They 
are our neighbors. They contribute to our economy and are pillars of 
our communities. Yet, individuals now seek to deny DACA recipients 
access to owning a home.
  Our government insures mortgages through FHA to help low- and middle-
income individuals buy a home. This program allowed DACA recipients to 
buy their first homes. HUD's move to deny these young people access to 
Federal insurance has already blocked people from homeownership.
  That is why my colleague, Representative Pete Aguilar, and I have 
offered the amendment here today. This amendment simply prohibits HUD 
from using funds to deny DACA recipients access to FHA-insured 
mortgages.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and provide 
these individuals with access to homeownership.
  Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Aguilar).
  Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Vargas) for his advocacy for decades on behalf of immigrants and his 
community.
  It has been nearly 2 years since the Trump administration arbitrarily 
ended the DACA program, throwing the lives of these thousands of young 
people into turmoil. Despite bipartisan efforts to provide Dreamers 
with a path

[[Page H5062]]

to citizenship and the certainty that they deserve, the Trump 
administration has done all it can to block progress on this issue.
  Earlier this year, we learned about Republicans' latest efforts to 
deny these young immigrants access to the American Dream. For years, 
FHA-backed loans have made it possible for borrowers with little 
savings and a low downpayment to become homeowners, giving young 
families a chance at building generational wealth.
  This critical resource helps to build our middle class, invigorates 
local economies, and gives families security to control their own 
future. Under the Trump administration, HUD has instructed lenders to 
deny this opportunity to DACA recipients by declaring them ineligible 
for FHA-backed home loans.
  Let me be clear: This new and cruel policy shift takes away a key 
tool to help Dreamers succeed in this country, allowing the President's 
anti-immigrant agenda to seep into our Nation's housing policy.
  DACA recipients are every bit as American as anyone in this Chamber 
today. They grew up in this country. They have started businesses and 
careers in this country. They are raising families in this country. If 
our government will not take the necessary steps to allow them to live 
freely as citizens in this country, the least we can do is to make sure 
that they will be successful here.
  That is why I am proud to support the amendment by Mr. Vargas, which 
would give Dreamers the opportunity to use FHA-backed loans to become 
homeowners and to build their futures in the only country that they 
have ever known.
  Mr. Chair, again, I thank Mr. Vargas for this amendment.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tonko). Without objection, the gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, again, I want to first thank Mr. Vargas, 
not for this amendment, but for his leadership and for his support of 
immigrants. He has done that for many, many years, and I thank him for 
that. But I want to make some things clear.
  There is no DACA policy related to FHA-backed mortgages. As a matter 
of fact, there has been no change in policy. FHA's published policy 
states that non-U.S. citizens without formal lawful residency are not 
eligible for FHA-insured loans.
  Again, this is not a new policy. This was the policy during the 
previous administration. This was the policy when Secretary Castro was 
Secretary of HUD. It has been in place since the previous 
administration. There has been no change.
  Mr. Chair, obviously, I don't question the motives of the gentleman, 
whom I have great respect for, and I once again thank him for his 
concern on this issue. If I have some concern, it is the fact that this 
may let some people believe, those folks out there who are DACA 
recipients, that, all of a sudden, they have this new protection, which 
this amendment does not give them.
  Mr. Chair, I have no real objection other than to the fact that this 
really doesn't do anything. But I do appreciate my friend for his years 
of leadership and of care. Again, I don't have a real objection. This 
amendment just doesn't do anything.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Chair, I do thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) for his kind words. I appreciate my good friend.
  Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I am happy to strongly 
support this amendment, and I thank my colleagues for offering it.
  I want to make a comment on what is going on over at HUD. Secretary 
Carson assured our committee that Dreamers were not being denied FHA 
loans, that there was no change to the policy, no plan to change the 
policy. Now, HUD has confirmed that FHA will no longer make loans 
available to Dreamers.
  This is the latest in what is becoming a disturbing pattern of HUD 
telling Congress one thing and then doing another. They haven't been 
forthcoming, to say the least, on this issue.

  This amendment reverses that decision, that HUD decision that would 
effectively block a key part of the American Dream, homeownership, to 
this population.
  Dreamers are already in limbo, Mr. Chair. Let's not make these young 
people pay a further price for our failure to act.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for the amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, the gentleman 
from California, and, again, my friend from Florida for their comments.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I want to add what I said before, that 
there has been no change in policy. This was the same policy that was 
there during the previous administration. Again, that does not take 
away my great respect for the gentleman who is introducing this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Chair, I would just close with saying this: Remember, 
these are children who were brought to the United States through no 
decision of their own. It was their parents'.
  So many of us have children, and they don't get to make their own 
decisions. We make the decisions when they are children on where they 
go, where they live.
  Mr. Chair, let's show some heart. Let's show some love to these young 
people and allow them to pursue the American Dream. I urge its support.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of 
Chairwoman Nita Lowey, and I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of entering into a 
colloquy.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) and let me thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) for their kindness. I wish to enter into a colloquy with 
the distinguished gentleman.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Price for the assistance and resources he 
has helped direct to my home State of Texas in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Harvey and for his commitment to revitalizing the Nation's 
infrastructure in a way that preserves our Nation's cultural heritage.
  In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the landmark 
National Historic Preservation Act, which, among other things, 
established the National Register of Historic Places.
  Independence Heights is just one of the dozens of communities 
throughout the United States that can trace its beginning to freed 
slaves. Since its beginning in 1915, it has survived economic hardship 
and natural disasters in the period of 1919 to 1921 called the 
burnings.
  Because of its historical significance, Independence Heights is 
included in legislation I have introduced, H.R. 434, that will create 
the Emancipation National Historic Trail, which begins at the location 
in Galveston, Texas, where General Gordon Granger announced President 
Lincoln's emancipation of slaves on June 19, 1865.
  Mr. Chair, I would inquire of the chairman if he agrees with me that 
the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA 
regarding the environment apply with respect to USDOT approval of the 
I-45 Highway project that may adversely impact historic buildings and 
neighborhoods in Independence Heights, Texas, which, in 1915, became 
the first African American municipality incorporated in Texas?
  Would it be appropriate for USDOT officials to consider the views and 
input of civic and community leaders of Independence Heights and others 
in

[[Page H5063]]

assessing whether Federal support of the I-45 transportation project 
complies with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation 
Act and NEPA?
  Mr. Chair, will the gentleman work with me to ensure that the 
approval process for this I-45 transportation project in my 
congressional district is conducted in a manner that complies with the 
law and preserves to the maximum extent feasible historic sites in 
Independence Heights, in compliance with NEPA, that have national, 
State, and local historic significance for the Nation?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from 
Texas for those questions, which highlight the issue of historic 
preservation and NEPA review.
  As part of its evaluation and approval process, the Department of 
Transportation must consider the effects of proposed projects on areas 
of historical significance. Under the law, the Department must make an 
assessment of any effects of a project on historic properties and 
evaluate options to avoid, minimize, and mitigate negative effects. 
This assessment must be completed in consultation with State and local 
partners, as well as civic and community leaders.
  Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on issues of historic preservation.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for any comments she 
might have.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much
  Mr. Chair, thank you, Chairman Price, for the assistance and 
resources you helped direct to my home state of Texas in the aftermath 
of Hurricane Harvey, and for your commitment to revitalizing the 
nation's infrastructure in a way that preserves our nation's cultural 
heritage.
  In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the landmark 
National Historic Preservation Act, which, among other things, 
established the National Register of Historic Places.
  Independence Heights is just one of dozens of communities throughout 
the United States that can trace its beginning to freed slaves and 
since its beginning in 1915 it has survived economic hardship, natural 
disasters, and the period of 1919-1921 called the ``Burnings.''
  Because of its historical significance, Independence Heights is 
included in legislation I have introduced (H.R. 434) that will create 
the Emancipation National Historic Trail which begins at the location 
in Galveston, Texas, where General Gordon Granger announced President 
Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves on June 19, 1865.
  Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1 minute and 
35 seconds remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much. If I 
might, I would like to thank the chairman again for an amendment that 
increases and decreases by $10 million funds for the National 
Infrastructure Investment Account to provide funding for urban bicycle 
and pedestrian safety programs.
  Let me say that, tragically, we lost a brilliant young man on May 30, 
2019, at the intersection of North Shepherd Drive and West 10th Street 
in the 18th Congressional District. When Lesha White was driving, it 
was Jesus ``Jesse'' Perez who was struggling to cross the intersection, 
and this caused him to lose his life.
  Let me also indicate that we know that, in Houston, there are 2,000 
deaths of bicyclists and pedestrians. We would like to make sure that 
we increase opportunities for safety.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman and the Rules Committee for this 
amendment being made in order.
  According to TxDOT, 1,400 Houston area pedestrians are injured, and 
275 of them are injured seriously.
  We hope that this will work for both pedestrians and bicyclists. 
Bicycling in Houston has taken off in the State of Texas and 
everywhere, and we certainly want to make sure that they are safe.
  Mr. Chair, let me also thank the gentleman for an amendment that 
gives $2 million for the Office of Inspector General account to 
investigate the Department of HUD's delay in releasing $4 billion in 
Hurricane Harvey disaster community block grant dollars.
  We are still desperate. Every day, people ask me when their homes are 
going to be able to be fixed. We do know that we are working to move 
that along, but we know what is important is to make sure that those 
dollars get to those individuals and that we can restore our 
communities.
  We are going into hurricane season again, and I thought it was very 
important that we work strongly to ensure that these citizens are made 
whole.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for including them in the en bloc 
and for allowing Houston to stand up again after a devastating 
hurricane, Hurricane Harvey.
  Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk; it is listed in the Rule 
as Jackson Lee #243.
  I wish to thank Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole of the 
Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  I thank Chairwoman Price and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart for their 
hard work in bringing Division E, the Transportation Housing and Urban 
Development portion of this omnibus appropriations legislative package, 
to the floor.
  I thank them all for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee 
Amendment, which makes a good bill even better by providing $2 million 
to an effort to explain why the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development has not released the funds appropriated almost two years 
ago to the State of Texas, the City of Houston and Harris County to 
rebuild following Hurricane Harvey.
  In August of 2017, Hurricane Harvey paralyzed the Houston region 
dumping nearly 60 inches of rain, claiming 88 lives and causing $113 
billion of damage.
  In February of 2018, Congress appropriated $4.383 billion to Texas 
through CDBG-DR funds. In June of 2018, HUD approved the State Action 
Plan Texas submitted by The General Land Office (GLO), which outlined 
how the CD BG-DR grants would be distributed throughout the state.
  This money still has not made it to Texas to help those in need.
  While the waters receded nearly two years ago, many Texans are still 
struggling to put their lives back together and rebuild.
  Homes and neighborhoods remain with visible damage from the flood 
waters.
  I, along with members of the Texas House and Senate Delegations have 
made numerous requests to HUD Officials to move the process of 
releasing funding forward, but without success.
  The last resort left is to seek the assistance of the Inspector 
General of HUD to determine the cause of the delay in distributing 
funds and to determine what needs to be done to release the funds.
  The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to prevent 
and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in the programs and operations of 
HUD by conducting independent audits, evaluations, and investigations.
  The OIG can get answers on why the process of releasing funds is 
taking so long and whether there is any waste, fraud or abuse 
associated with the delay.
  Hurricane Harvey was the most economically destructive hurricane to 
hit Texas in its history and the second-most expensive hurricane in 
American history.
  Hurricane Harvey and the resulting flood impacted over 1,000 square 
miles along the mid-to-upper Texas Gulf Coast, and into the state's 
interior.
  Congress immediately recognized the vast extent of the damage 
throughout the state and that federal action would be needed to help 
Texas start to rebuild and recover.
  Finally, it would be beneficial to Congress to know if there are 
other factors within the agency that may be hindering effective 
administration of the duty to distribute the Harvey Disaster Block 
Grant Development funds such as agency vacancies, skills and competence 
of personnel, or administration policy that may be contributing 
factors.
  As the lead state agency for administering CDBG-DR funds, GLO entered 
into an agreement with HUD and has worked closely with the agency to 
define the meaning of mitigation and to identify projects that would 
best help those impacted by Hurricane Harvey.
  Despite the collaboration between the GLO and HUD, the rules have not 
yet been published in the Federal Register.
  As a result, the GLO has been significantly delayed in implementing a 
State Action Plan for the funds, the critical next step needed before 
the grants can get to those who need them.
  I ask my colleagues to support this Jackson Lee Amendment that may 
pave the way for the funding appropriated in 2017 to reach those still 
in need of disaster recovery assistance.
  Additionally, funding is needed to make the needed changes to the 
intersections to improve pedestrian and bicyclists safety.
  We must come together to tackle this problem and work to ensure that 
we stem the tide in these fatalities.

[[Page H5064]]

  The rising death and injury toll of pedestrian and bicyclists is 
alarming and merits serious attention but as we know too tragically, 
behind the statistics are stories about people who are treasured and 
sorely missed by family, friends, and coworkers.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this Jackson Lee 
Amendment to help reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle 
fatalities in urban areas.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her 
kind words and also for her relentless efforts, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.


            Amendment No. 267 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 267 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. 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 division E (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 422.  None of the funds made available by this 
     division may be used in contravention of section 2635.702 of 
     title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment No. 267 and in 
support of H.R. 3055, legislation that includes robust funding for the 
Department of Transportation.
  Simply put, H.R. 3055 will bolster our infrastructure and increase 
the safety and security for citizens across the country, and I am proud 
to support it. But, Mr. Chair, when we use billions of dollars in 
taxpayer money to invest in our infrastructure, our constituents are 
relying on us to do so in a manner that is fair, transparent, and 
ethical.
  That is why I am introducing, today, amendment No. 267, which would 
prohibit any funding in the appropriations bill from being used in 
violation of section 2635.702 of title 5, which is the law mandating 
that no public office be used for private gain.
  In light of recent reporting alleging potential misconduct by the 
Secretary of the Department of Transportation, it is imperative that we 
remind Federal officials that public money cannot be used for private 
purposes. Government officials across agencies should not make policy 
decisions with the intent of benefiting family businesses. They should 
never use their position in an official capacity to promote their own 
personal financial interests, and when tasked with any decision where 
there are potential conflicts of interest, they must recuse themselves.
  Government officials should make decisions only for the public good, 
not private gain. Favoritism corrodes trust in government and in the 
vital institutions that have kept our democracy strong for over 200 
years. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ BALART. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ BALART. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in 
support of this amendment and commend my colleague and a number of 
colleagues, actually, for offering it.
  The recent news reports about the Secretary of Transportation are 
disturbing. It is critical that anyone who serves in public office 
follows the law, and if the law clearly states you can't use your 
public office for personal gain, that is what following the law 
requires. We expect all Federal employees to follow the law, and this 
amendment reminds them that it is their obligation to do so.
  So I thank the gentleman again for raising this issue.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment because we must operate in the 
public interest, not for private gain, as Federal employees and people 
in trust in the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 268 Offered by Ms. Jayapal

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 268 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 548, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 592, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank our Appropriations 
Committee chair, Mr. Price, as well as the members of the Rules 
Committee for making this amendment in order.
  This is a budget-neutral amendment that would increase the funds 
dedicated to Federal homeless assistance grants by $1 million. These 
grants fund programs that have been shown to play key roles in 
addressing homelessness. In my hometown, for example, these funds 
support providers like Catholic Housing Services, which supports people 
who are formerly homeless, and like Plymouth Housing, which offers 
housing using the highly effective evidence-based permanent supportive 
housing model.
  In my district, Mr. Chairman, we have 11,000 homeless folks, people 
who are experiencing homelessness, and they need help. We need more of 
these programs across the country.
  Across the country, neighbors are experiencing homelessness and 
housing instability, and that instability can take many forms. It can 
be the veteran sleeping under an overpass, the child whose family is 
staying with friends and relatives, the low-wage worker who just can't 
even earn enough to leave the shelter, or the former foster youth who 
bounces in and out of cheap motels.
  Some of these forms of homelessness are highly visible, others, like 
the housing instability experienced by families and by people living in 
rural areas, are often much harder to see, but every form of 
homelessness is deeply harmful.
  That housing instability harms children's health. Kids and families 
facing housing instability had an almost 20 percent increased risk of 
hospitalization. Being homeless exacerbates physical and mental health 
issues and causes illness where, before, people had been healthy. And 
women who are unstably housed face high rates of rape and sexual and 
physical violence.
  This suffering is cruel and unnecessary, and it is preventable. We 
all lose a piece of our humanity when we leave our unhoused 
neighborhoods behind. I hope we can do better with this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), 
our distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding and wish to express support for her amendment. I commend 
her for offering it.
  Our underlying bill provides $2.8 billion for HUD's Homeless 
Assistance Grants program. That is the highest funding level in that 
program's history. It includes more resources for Emergency Solutions 
Grants to rapidly rehouse and prevent homelessness, and the bill 
includes targeted investments for survivors of domestic violence and 
for youth experiencing homelessness.
  In addition, section 231 of the bill creates a mechanism that allows 
HUD to more readily use recaptured funds from the small number of 
projects that

[[Page H5065]]

might not utilize their resources. We expect this provision will give 
us an additional $90 million to use as grantees fight on the front 
lines to end homelessness.
  So we have added resources. More can and must be done, and our 
colleague's amendment reflects that reality. We are going to pair this 
with sustained investments in affordable housing, and we are determined 
to reduce housing insecurity across the Nation.
  So I am proud of what our bill accomplishes in this area. I commend 
the gentlewoman for her amendment additionally emphasizing our homeless 
challenge, and I urge adoption of our colleague's amendment.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 273 Offered by Ms. Wexton

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 273 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. WEXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 468, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000) (reduced by $7,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Ms. Wexton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Ms. WEXTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides $7 million for the 
FAA to continue its work developing the remote tower pilot program.
  Remote towers are a simple but revolutionary concept: Provide air 
traffic control services from any location. With remote tower 
technology, high-definition cameras and other sensors are installed in 
an airport and feed video and data in real time to a remote tower 
center.
  Remote towers offer a promising new way for the FAA and airports to 
address air traffic without breaking the bank, saving on construction 
and maintenance costs that come with building a traditional air traffic 
control tower.
  In addition to these cost savings, remote towers provide additional 
capabilities beyond the out-of-the-window view, such as integration of 
local weather information, tracking moving objects, and the overlay of 
radar and surveillance information about an aircraft.
  Remote tower systems can outline the edges of runways, taxiways, and 
airport structure, enhance visibility in fog, rain, and other adverse 
weather, and incorporate infrared cameras to provide night vision. The 
cameras can be filtered to minimize glare on a bright day or to add 
light when it is difficult to see at sunrise or dusk or on overcast 
days.
  I am pleased that the first remote tower in the system is undergoing 
testing in my district at Leesburg Executive Airport. The project was 
launched in 2014 to address the justified need for an air traffic 
control tower. The airport has more than 100,000 operations annually 
and is located in a complex airspace just miles away from Dulles 
International Airport.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for the opportunity.
  This amendment ensures adequate funding for the purposes of 
instructing the FAA to continue the remote tower pilot program. Remote 
towers provide air traffic control services through the use of cameras 
and/or other instruments that provide information to controllers not in 
the same location. This is an innovative way to provide ATC services, 
significantly decreasing the upfront costs of building a control tower, 
and it reduces the annual operating and maintenance costs, especially 
where one remote tower provides coverage for several small airports in 
the vicinity.
  A 2007 FAA study found that the technology in a remote tower actually 
improves surveillance capabilities at night and in inclement weather 
conditions. With more than 20,000 nontowered U.S. airports missing out 
on the benefits of an air traffic control tower, including streamlined 
access, reduced delays, and increased safety margins, remote towers 
provide a cost-effective way to enhance the safety and performance at 
these airports.
  It is vital that we continue to support the FAA's remote tower pilot 
program allowing for innovative ways to improve safety and reduce 
costs. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Virginia for her important 
amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of her 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WEXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I 
am happy to express support for her amendment and for highlighting this 
issue.
  Remote towers can be a cost-effective way to provide additional 
safety and operational benefits to the National Air Space program. The 
underlying bill, in fact, includes report language encouraging the FAA 
``to use remote tower technology as a means to enhance safety, reduce 
costs, and expand air traffic control services at rural and small 
community airports.''
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership on this issue. I urge 
adoption of her well-considered amendment.
  Ms. WEXTON. Mr. Chairman, the National Air Traffic Controllers 
Association agrees it would be shortsighted not to continue the remote 
tower pilot program at this point. If funding is not appropriated, the 
FAA's activities related to certifying remote towers would cease, and 
the valuable work that has been done to understand the technology, 
develop operations, train controllers, and conduct safety analysis will 
be put on hold. In addition, the FAA won't have the resources to 
install remote tower technology at other airports and evaluate future 
system improvements and innovations.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
to continue advancement of remote tower technology as a cost-effective 
alternative for providing air traffic control services.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1730


          Amendment No. 282 Offered by Mr. Garcia of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 282 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 450, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Garcia) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment that I offer, along with Congressman 
Cisneros of California, would set aside an additional $5 million to 
fund the design, planning, and preparation of innovative transit-
oriented development, or TOD, projects. TOD projects that incorporate 
better land use planning and design can be instrumental in preventing 
displacement and

[[Page H5066]]

gentrification in both urban and rural areas, leading to more equitable 
development.
  Without proper funding for planning, poor land use decisions can 
often increase the threat of displacement. Too often, it is communities 
of color and working-class families who suffer most, like the 23,000 
Hispanic and African American residents who have left the Logan Square 
neighborhood in my district, as well as the Pilsen part of my district 
in Chicago.
  My amendment would provide a modest increase to the funds available 
for transit-oriented planning and design and better provide access to 
jobs and affordable housing in communities across the U.S.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, first, I understand what the gentleman 
is trying to do, and I respect him for that. But I think Chairman Price 
has set the right threshold for BUILD planning grants.
  More money going to planning could potentially, frankly, mean less 
money for infrastructure for actual projects. That is particularly true 
if, as I fear, when there is a top-line number agreed to by the House, 
Senate, and the White House, the number that Chairman Price is going to 
have to work with might be less than what he is working with today, 
making his job a lot more difficult.
  Again, I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. I have said 
it publicly and I have said it privately: I think Chairman Price has 
done a great job and has got a good balance. Therefore, even though I 
understand what the gentleman is trying to do, I respectfully have to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that 
better planning could, in fact, save more money that would be available 
for infrastructure and development.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding and for offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept this amendment, take it to 
conference, and work out what the most appropriate level of funding is.
  I want to acknowledge strong support of this Chamber from both sides 
of the aisle for the BUILD program. That is the one discretionary 
program within DOT that allows States and local communities to seek 
funding for major multi-modal transportation projects.
  As our colleague has underscored, technical assistance and planning 
support is often essential to that process, especially for communities 
with more limited resources or expertise.
  These planning grants are important. The underlying bill provides $15 
million for competitive grants for planning, preparation, and design. 
The amendment sets that figure at $20 million. These resources are 
going to lead to increased investments in our communities, they are 
going to create jobs, and spur economic growth.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman's efforts to highlight the 
importance of planning grants, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, again, after hearing the chairman, who 
is always willing to work with colleagues--again, I just understand the 
difficult task that he has ahead of him, but it is an issue that, as 
the chairman himself has said, he will continue to work on and with 
that--I understand where Mr. Garcia is coming from. Also, I know that 
he understands that this is a very difficult balance that the chairman 
has to deal with. I look forward to continuing to work with the 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I urge colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to support 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 Illinois (Mr. Garcia).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 284 Offered by Mr. Malinowski

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 284 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 515, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 515, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding for the Low or No 
Emission Grant Program by $6 million, from $94 million to $100 million.
  The program, as the name implies, provides funding to State and local 
governments for zero- and low-emission transit bus programs.
  Using funds from the first and second round of the Volkswagen 
settlement, my State of New Jersey has begun our transition to electric 
transit and school bus fleets. This program, and others like it all 
across America, would benefit greatly from additional funds from the 
Low or No Emission Grant Program.
  The benefits to our country will be profound.
  First, we get reduced carbon emissions. The Department of 
Transportation has estimated that each zero-emission bus has reduced 
carbon emitted to the atmosphere by 1,690 tons over its 12-year 
lifespan, or the equivalent of taking 27 cars off the road.
  Second, we get healthier kids. Smog from diesel buses drives up rates 
of asthma with children and low-income communities suffering the most.
  Finally, it is good economics. While electric buses cost more up 
front, with their lower maintenance costs, they save around $39,000 per 
year over their lifetime, a savings to taxpayers of more than $150,000 
per bus.
  So I hope my colleagues will agree that this is a smart investment. 
It will speed our transition to a clean energy economy and it will do 
it in a fiscally responsible way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I don't object at all to the program 
that the gentleman is supporting with an increase. I think he has 
mentioned why, and I would agree with what he has stated.
  The problem that I have is not with the program he is trying to 
increase. The part that I object to is where the cuts are coming from, 
where he is obtaining the money, and that is cuts to transit bus and 
bus facilities.
  We have had a lot of Members who were supporting funding for transit 
bus and bus facilities. I believe it is over a dozen Members who have 
actually written support letters for that program that this amendment, 
unfortunately, reduces funding from. That provides vital resources and 
mobility in urban areas. It is crucial to a number of urban areas 
around the country.
  So, as I said before in other amendments, I think Chairman Price has 
struck the right balance in determining funding for this program. I 
think what the gentleman is trying to do in his amendment is 
meritorious. I would, however, say that taking it out of transit bus 
money and bus facility money is not the place to do it. Obviously, I 
know that Chairman Price will continue to work with the gentleman as 
the process goes along, regardless of what happens with this amendment.

[[Page H5067]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding and I wish to support his amendment, particularly to stress 
the emphasis he has given to low- and no-emission buses. They do 
improve the environment. They improve public health, they reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and also reduce long-term 
maintenance costs for transit.
  Our bill provides robust funding for these grants to State and local 
governments of $145 million. That is $94 million above the authorized 
amount.
  Meanwhile, we are offering strong support for the bus and bus 
facilities program. That provides vital resources that improve bus 
fleets in communities large and small. Between the transit 
infrastructure grants and funding provided via trust funds, the bill 
provides $678 million in competitive grants under that program.
  These are both important programs for transit grantees. I look 
forward to working with my colleague to ensure robust funding in public 
transit.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the amendment's adoption.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would add that we are not reducing 
the grants available for bus programs in this country. We are simply 
recognizing that there is a transition under way in our economy, a 
transition to clean energy. We want to speed that transition and we 
want to make sure that America leads that transition because, if we 
don't, somebody else will.
  We want American companies to be the world leaders in producing 
electric buses, for example. We know that there is an upfront cost. 
There is a long-term savings, but an upfront cost that the Federal 
Government can help with. It will be good for our economy, in addition 
to being good for the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, 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. Malinowski).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 288 Offered by Ms. Pressley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 288 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 548, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 548, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 549, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 578, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 578, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment 
which would provide increased funding to support the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development's Family Self-Sufficiency Program.
  Access to stable, safe, and affordable housing is a fundamental human 
right. In my district, the Massachusetts Seventh, one of the most 
diverse and unequal districts in our Nation, we are distinctly aware of 
the connection between housing and economic opportunity.
  Affordable housing promotes healthy living and provides low-income 
people a chance at upward mobility. Without it, families are 
destabilized, productivity suffers, and entire communities crumble.
  Recently, the Boston Housing Authority partnered with Metro Housing 
and Compass Working Capital, a nonprofit financial services 
organization which provides financial coaching services and support to 
Family Self-Sufficiency Program participants in my district.
  The Family Self-Sufficiency Program is a voluntary, 5-year program 
that provides participants in the federally-funded Housing Choice 
Voucher Program the opportunity to save part of their rent increase 
when they earn more money at work. The program provides participating 
families with an FSS savings account.
  My amendment provides $5 million in additional funding to the 
organizations working with individuals and families seeking to improve 
their financial standing. This partnership, under the auspices of the 
Family Self-Sufficiency Program, has supported low-income families to 
build assets, pay off debt, and save for their retirement.
  Participants have gone on to earn degrees, purchase their own homes, 
and start small businesses.
  This includes Julia, a woman who, after years of working as a tailor 
and taking on additional side work for friends, learned about the FSS 
program. Julia used Compass' financial coaching to launch JDLS Couture, 
a tailoring and design business in Boston.
  This includes Ernise, a resident of Cambridge, who graduated from 
Compass' program last year. Ernise joined the program while unemployed, 
saying that before she joined she was ready to give up. Ernise found 
full-time work, paid off debt and increased her credit score, and built 
enough savings to begin the home purchasing process.

                              {time}  1745

  My amendment will support a program rooted in financial empowerment 
and independence, a proven program.
  We must also work to enact policies to guarantee housing for all and 
leverage the resources to make it a reality.
  I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for 
yielding. I am happy to offer support for her amendment.
  Mr. Chair, the Family Self-Sufficiency program helps low-income 
families living in subsidized housing. It allows them to enhance their 
job skills and to increase earnings to improve their economic security.
  Currently, there are more than 75,000 families enrolled in FSS, which 
is just a fraction of the number that should be--the families living in 
assisted housing, many, many more than that.
  Mr. Chair, I am proud of the fact that our base bill already 
increases this program, providing $100 million for Family Self-
Sufficiency. That is a $20 million increase from current funding. This 
amendment would do even better, would make FSS available to even more 
families, so I applaud my colleagues for offering this.
  I want to register some concern about the offset in this and other 
amendments in terms of the Office of the Secretary and other 
departmental staff. They do have to do their work, and we have to 
consider the cumulative effect of amendments, but we will do that as 
the process moves along and we go to conference.
  Mr. Chair, the situation can be addressed. This is a useful and 
helpful amendment, and I am happy to support adoption.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 289 Offered by Ms. Pressley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 289 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. 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:

       Page 449, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 449, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which underscores the importance of investing in safe, efficient, 
people-centered transportation systems for all communities across the 
country.

[[Page H5068]]

  I view every issue through a lens of equity and health. Without 
access to safe, reliable, and inclusive modes of transportation, our 
collective well-being suffers; our families suffer; our communities 
suffer.
  For far too long, our Federal transportation funding and policies 
have created a landscape which has exacerbated inequities and 
disparities, particularly for low-income communities, people with 
disabilities, our youth and seniors.
  In my district, Black and Latino commuters are more likely to 
experience longer travel times than their White peers. These unequal 
burdens make the promise of economic mobility further out of reach.
  I recently rode the T back home with an advocate named Dianna, who 
was fighting for transit justice. We spent over 2 hours making a 
journey of just a little over 4 miles. Broken elevators and outdated 
infrastructure meant that the wheelchair Dianne uses to navigate ran 
into constant access barriers.
  Just 2 weeks ago, the red line train derailed twice in 1 week, 
causing massive gridlock across my district and impacting the ability 
of riders to commute to work, school, home, and everywhere in between.
  Unfortunately, this isn't new. MBTA trains have derailed 43 times 
over the last 5 years, the second highest total of any metro transit 
system in our country. Many of these derailments place a 
disproportionate burden on the shoulders of low-wage hourly workers who 
are rushing to their second- or third-shift jobs, parents or caregivers 
who are traveling with young children on overcrowded and delayed 
trains, and riders with disabilities who already experience the 
failures, daily, of a biased and discriminatory system with ableist 
privilege as a lens.
  Our chronic underinvestment in mass transit bus systems, bicycle-
accessible and pedestrian paths have caused income inequality and 
opportunity gaps in communities throughout the country.
  According to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
inadequate access to affordable, reliable transportation has 
exacerbated health disparities, forcing many low-income patients to 
miss appointments, oftentimes worsening medical problems.
  Mr. Chair, people do not live in silos. They live in 
intersectionality, and our policies at the Federal, State, and local 
levels should reflect this reality.
  We cannot spur economic development and tackle economic inequities in 
urban, suburban, and rural communities without modernized roads, 
bridges, and mass transit, which connects communities to jobs and 
higher education.
  We cannot tackle health disparities without reliable and affordable 
mass transit systems which enable low-income families, seniors, and 
people with disabilities to access care.
  We cannot tackle the existential threat of climate change without 
intentionally investing in mass transit systems that protect frontline 
communities and alleviate the environmental health hazards caused by 
traffic congestion.
  Transit equity is a civil rights issue and an economic justice issue. 
We must continue to invest in transit infrastructure, multimodal 
improvements that promote inclusivity and dependability.
  My amendment emphasizes the important role that Federal policy and 
investments make in equalizing access to reliable commuter rail and 
other mass transit options for all. The BUILD grant program helps to 
support these types of State and locally driven transit projects.
  From investing in bus or commuter rail systems or cycling and 
pedestrian path projects, the BUILD program helps to drive innovative 
projects, and it seeks to expand the system, and is people-centered.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Price for his efforts to ensure robust 
funding for this program, which I do believe gets us one step closer to 
addressing these inequities across the system, repairing our crumbling 
infrastructure, as well as expanding our investment in multimodal 
transit.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price), the chairman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for 
yielding. I am happy to offer support for her amendment and to take 
advantage of the opportunity this offers to say something about the 
BUILD program.
  Mr. Chair, it is unique, as our colleague has stressed. It provides 
the kind of flexible funding to States and localities that can address 
complex multimodal projects.
  My district has benefited greatly from this. The city of Raleigh has 
successfully built Union Station, a state-of-the-art rail and public 
transit facility that is already transforming that area of downtown.
  Unfortunately, despite the diverse set of eligible projects, the 
current administration has heavily favored road projects only when 
awarding BUILD grants. This has most significantly affected transit. On 
average, it received about 32 percent of the awards during the previous 
administration.
  Under the Trump administration, this has plummeted to less than 10 
percent, and at the same time, the Department has completely abandoned 
bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects and actually eliminated 
this as an option for primary project type for years 2017 and 2018.
  So, the underlying bill provides $1 billion for BUILD--that is a $100 
million increase--but it places greater emphasis on investments in 
transit, passenger rail, pedestrian improvements, and multimodal 
projects. It also maintains a 50-50 parity between urban and rural 
awards, while directing the Department to consider the full range of 
benefits from a project, regardless of location in an urban or rural 
area.
  Mr. Chair, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment. I am 
happy to support it and look forward to continuing to work with her on 
this issue.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Pressley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Tonko, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3055) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, 
Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2020, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________