[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14671-14685]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569 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. 5850.

                              {time}  1738


                     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. 5850) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Snyder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 11 printed in part A of House Report 111-578 offered by 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) had been 
disposed of.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-578 on which 
further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 printed in part A by Mr. Boehner of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 8 printed in part A by Mr. Latham of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 10 printed in part A by Mr. Culberson of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Boehner

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 217, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 488]

                               AYES--206

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Himes
     Hodes
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page 14672]]


     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maffei
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Owens
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--217

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Andrews
     Carson (IN)
     Griffith
     Hoekstra
     Lynch
     McCarthy (CA)
     Moran (KS)
     Radanovich
     Shadegg
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Watson
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1808

  Ms. McCOLLUM, Mr. MELANCON, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. FILNER, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. 
CASTOR of Florida, Mr. BACA, Ms. DeLAURO, Messrs. KANJORSKI, BRADY of 
Pennsylvania, DINGELL, ACKERMAN, OBERSTAR, TOWNS, LARSON of 
Connecticut, LIPINSKI, CLEAVER, WU, LUJAN, Mrs. HALVORSON, Messrs. 
CUELLAR, THOMPSON of Mississippi and CARNEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FOSTER, YOUNG of Alaska, KISSELL, HIMES and SCHAUER changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Latham

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 225, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 489]

                               AYES--197

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Himes
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--225

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas

[[Page 14673]]


     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Akin
     Andrews
     Griffith
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Lynch
     McCarthy (CA)
     Moran (KS)
     Radanovich
     Shadegg
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Watson
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1817

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


               Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Culberson

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 252, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 490]

                               AYES--169

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hodes
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Murphy (NY)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

                               NOES--252

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Akin
     Andrews
     Connolly (VA)
     Griffith
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Lynch
     McCarthy (CA)
     Moran (KS)
     Radanovich
     Shadegg
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Watson
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in the 
vote.

                              {time}  1826

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


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chair, I was absent from the House and missed rollcall 
votes 488, 489, and 490.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 488, 
``yes'' on rollcall 489, and ``yes'' on rollcall 490.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-578.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Transportation or the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to pursue, adopt, or enforce 
     guidelines or regulations requiring a sponsor of a general 
     aviation airport to terminate an existing residential 
     through-the-fence agreement, or otherwise withhold funds from 
     a

[[Page 14674]]

     sponsor of a general aviation airport, solely because the 
     sponsor enters into an agreement that grants a person that 
     owns residential real property adjacent to the airport access 
     to the airfield of the airport for noncommercial uses.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Graves-Boswell amendment. I would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa 
for offering this amendment with me and for his support.
  Our amendment prohibits the FAA from using funds in this act to 
terminate an existing residential through-the-fence agreement at 
public-use general aviation airports. It also prevents the FAA from 
withholding funds from the sponsor of a GA airport, solely because that 
sponsor enters into a residential through-the-fence agreement.
  To kind of explain this, the sponsor can be the airport authority, it 
might be the community, it might be the municipality, it might be the 
county in many cases. What a residential through-the-fence agreement is 
is an agreement between the airport sponsor and a person who might own 
residential property adjacent to that airport. These agreements simply 
provide the property owner and their aircraft access to the airport.
  It is very important to note that this amendment does not require a 
GA airport to enter into one of these residential agreements. If an 
airport or that airport authority--city, county, municipality--if they 
feel that such an agreement is not beneficial to the airport or they 
simply don't like the idea, then they don't have to enter into an 
agreement. It's always been that way. It's up to those communities. 
Those communities, the municipalities, counties, they own the airport. 
The Federal Government doesn't. What this amendment simply does is keep 
that option out there on the table.
  Most recently the FAA began targeting public-use airports that have 
residential through-the-fence agreements. In some cases, the FAA has 
withheld annual Airport Improvement Program funds from GA airports 
solely because the airport has a residential through-the-fence 
agreement. Airport Improvement Program funds are those funds that are 
deposited into the general aviation trust fund from taxes on aviation 
fuel. That's where it comes from. They go to these airports to make 
improvements, to expand airports, whatever the case may be; but the FAA 
has withheld those funds simply because an airport has entered into one 
of these agreements.
  Residential through-the-fence agreements can safely coexist with GA 
airports. The FAA's policy banning all of these residential agreements 
remains, I think, misguided and unjustified. Rather than work through 
these on a case-by-case basis, the FAA finds it more convenient just to 
prohibit them altogether.
  Our amendment will prohibit the FAA from enforcing this policy just 
in fiscal year 2011. What I am trying to do is hopefully give us some 
time so we can find a more permanent, long-term solution. This 
amendment does not prohibit the FAA from deeming an airport to be out 
of compliance. If an airport violates any of the criteria that are out 
there, they could still hold them accountable. They simply can't do it 
solely because the airport has entered into a residential through-the-
fence agreement.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, just to try to put it in basic terms, these 
airports belong to the cities and the counties. They don't belong to 
the Federal Government, and I think it's wrong that the Federal 
Government would withhold funds from them simply because they entered 
into one of these agreements. It should be up to the city; it should be 
up to the community or whoever the airport authority is and not up to 
the Federal Government.
  I rise in support of the Graves-Boswell amendment. Again, I want to 
thank the gentleman from Iowa for helping out with this. He has been a 
strong general aviation advocate for many, many years and obviously 
very active in this issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Missouri, a strong advocate of 
general aviation, a great member of our committee, has expressed a very 
genuine concern and has introduced legislation; a bill that was 
introduced in March of this year, referred to our committee. We have 
asked for comments from the administration; that is, from DOT and FAA. 
Meanwhile, the FAA in January of this year initiated a process to 
address the issues created by the so-called ``through-the-fence'' 
agreements. They formed a policy review team to gather information, 
evaluate the concerns, decide what kind of action could be taken to 
address the concerns.
  And what are these concerns? Well, I know the former president of the 
Airport Owners and Pilots Association, Phil Boyer, retired, I think, to 
Florida, to a place where he has an airplane literally in his garage. 
He can roll it out onto a runway and fly wherever he needs to go. 
That's the kind of thing we're talking about here.
  Under these agreements, people have total access to runways, 
taxiways, sensitive operational parts of the airport. But people and 
pets have ventured onto airport property. Homeowners have hunted. 
They've thrown parties. They have buried pets on airport grounds. These 
are the reports we got from the FAA. These agreements have hamstrung 
airports in planning for the future, planning for safety and improving 
safety. With airport land encumbered by such agreements, airports may 
not be free to make the necessary safety improvements they require.
  I would propose to the gentleman that we allow the FAA to continue 
its policy review team, bring forth recommendations; I would schedule a 
hearing in the Aviation Subcommittee, with the concurrence of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the chairman of the 
subcommittee; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), schedule a 
hearing in committee, and air the issues.
  The provisions that the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, has included in the 
bill he has introduced are very beneficial suggestions. They don't deal 
specifically with the issues that I just cited but those will be the 
subject of this review by the FAA. We'll give them a deadline of 
reporting to us in mid September, schedule a hearing and fashion a 
legislative proposal which we could then bring to the floor on 
suspension of the rules pending an agreement. But I think the 
gentleman's introduced bill is a much more thoughtful approach to the 
issue than just a bludgeoning of the FAA, cutting off and saying they 
can't take action.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I very much appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on 
this and to move forward. This is going to be a process that is going 
to take some time. We need to come up with some thoughtful 
consideration.

                              {time}  1840

  What I'm trying to do today with this amendment, though, is just 
prevent us from doing some irreparable damage to these airports and to 
these agreements in the meantime, just this year. It's just for this 
fiscal year, just to slow this process down and to address some of the 
FAA's concerns.
  Mr. OLVER. I again yield such time as he may consume to the chairman 
of the authorizing committee, Mr. Oberstar.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I would just conclude that it's inappropriate for us to 
impose this penalty on the FAA through the appropriation process. A 
much more appropriate way would be to deal with it through our 
committee.

[[Page 14675]]

  I commit to the gentleman that we will work through to hopefully a 
legislative solution. Certainly, the FAA's committed to do that, and I 
will talk to the Administrator of the FAA, tell him we expect to hold a 
hearing on this issue mid-September, that they will be prepared to 
report to us whatever findings they have from the policy review team at 
that point.
  I am prepared to do that if the gentleman would consider withdrawing 
his amendment or at least not pressing it to a recorded vote. If the 
gentleman presses to a recorded vote, I'd be constrained to oppose it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I tell you what, I would rather not withdraw the 
amendment, but I would take just a voice vote. I would like to say if I 
can, I just appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on 
this, and I understand what he's saying, too, and I respect it. But 
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to me.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was rejected.


           Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-578.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $250,000)''.
       Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000)''.
       Page 2, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $175,000)''.
       Page 3, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $100,000)''.
       Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $100,000)''.
       Page 9, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $225,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, indeed, this Transportation 
appropriations bill is a jobs creations bill, and I am totally in 
support of that.
  My amendment here would modestly increase funding for the Department 
of Transportation's efforts to help small and disadvantaged businesses 
obtain transportation contracts. It would add funding beyond the 
$14,000 increase requested by the President for the Office of Small and 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization within the Secretary's office, and 
to increase the capacity for the department to reach out to small and 
disadvantaged businesses.
  When I talk about small and disadvantaged businesses, it's not just 
ethnic minority businesses. It's veteran-owned businesses. It's women-
owned businesses. This is an issue that affects every district, both 
Democrat and Republican.
  This amendment is about strengthening these small, but important, 
programs and the work that they do and sending a strong signal to small 
businesses and to the Secretary about the level of importance that we 
as a Congress place on creating opportunities for American businesses 
that are deserved.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. I'm very sensitive to the issues that the gentlewoman has 
raised, and I think these are very modest changes and I'm quite willing 
to accept the amendment that she has proposed.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-578.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $10,520,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, earlier this week the House voted 393-
24 to pass legislation that would cancel hundreds of millions of 
dollars in old earmarks that have been sitting unused, sometimes some 
of those for over 20 years.
  The Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and 
Accountability Act rescinded $713 million of Federal highway contract 
authority for 309 Member-designated projects for the Surface 
Transportation Authorization Acts of 1987, 1991, 1998 and 2005.
  After passage of this legislation, Members of Congress should be 
applauded for supporting these commonsense spending cuts. We said long-
term economic growth and recovery can't happen unless we cut wasteful 
government spending and tackle our exploding deficit. We agreed that 
these earmarks were a wasteful use of the taxpayers' money.
  The number of unused earmarks in these old transportation bills shows 
that Congress needs a better process of deciding how to spend the 
taxpayers' money. While many on the other side want to continue their 
practice of earmarking on their constituents' behalf, I cannot support 
this reckless spending. The bill before us today includes over 500 new 
earmarks that we cannot simply afford. More importantly, these earmarks 
are potentially causing even more government inefficiency.
  While I supported the bill on Tuesday, we also need to be honest that 
it did not actually reduce any spending. These projects have been on 
hold for a long time, and this money was never going to be used and 
never was allocated. I agree that Congress should repeal spending that 
is not going to be used, but we didn't reduce the deficit $700 million 
by taking out these old earmarks, even though we talked like that's 
what we were actually doing.
  Today, we get to vote on an amendment that actually cuts unspent 
funds. My amendment says that we should take the unspent money from the 
stimulus package and return it to the taxpayers. Most of us agreed that 
we should take unspent money out of the old transportation earmarks in 
the vote earlier this week. Most of us should agree then that with this 
bill we should take and give back to the American taxpayer the stimulus 
money that has not been spent.
  My amendment would reduce the FY 2011 spending bill by the same 
amount that's yet to be committed from the $61.7 billion included in 
the 2009 economic stimulus bill for transportation and housing 
programs. According to the Appropriations Committee report, $10.52 
billion went to programs that have not been committed to yet, and much 
less, the money has not been spent or is not out the door.
  If Americans go to recovery.gov and review the agency reports for the 
Department of Transportation or Housing and Urban Development, they 
will learn that we're once again double-dipping on the backs of their 
children and their grandchildren. Here are just a few examples of 
programs receiving more money in today's spending bill that has money 
left from the 2009 stimulus bill.
  One of those is the bill that is before us today, $2 billion for 
capital investment grants. While these grants may provide worthy 
investments in the infrastructure, there is still $800 million

[[Page 14676]]

left from the stimulus that has not been spent.
  Today's bill includes $3.5 billion in grants for airports. However, 
there's more than $1 billion left from the stimulus bill.
  Grants to the Amtrak system that were slated to receive $563 million 
already has almost $1.3 billion ready to go out the door as we so often 
hear but actually not spent.
  Moving on to housing, we still have $2.2 billion in the Home 
Investment Partnership Program to spend from the stimulus, but today, 
we're poised to add another $1.8 billion on top of the 2.2 that hasn't 
been spent.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. Chairman, as we learned on Tuesday, we can raise up, rise above 
the partisan differences and put a stop to these projects that aren't 
working, won't be funded and aren't completed and ready to be taken off 
the books. Today we have an opportunity once again this time to vote to 
actually reduce spending and the deficit.
  I recall the proponents arguing about this stimulus bill and how it's 
going to create new jobs for the American people. We were going to 
spend nearly a trillion dollars. We were going to create all these 
jobs. Unfortunately, unemployment was not going to go above 8 percent. 
Today 9.5 percent of the American people are out of work. We have lost 
2.7 million jobs since this stimulus bill has passed.
  Mr. Chairman, let's give the American people a break here. Let's give 
them their money back. This is money we don't have. We don't have a lot 
of money that's in this bill. For every dollar we are going to spend we 
are going to borrow 43 cents. We are going to charge it to our children 
and our grandchildren.
  Quite honestly, it is not sustainable. Our national debt is $13 
trillion today. We are headed to $20 trillion. We are headed to having 
debt almost equal to 90 percent of our total economy.
  Mr. Chairman, let's give the American people a break. Let's give them 
their $10 billion back. A lot of people say, well, it's just $10 
billion; but that's the problem around here. People don't take money 
seriously because it's not real money to them because we are charging 
it to our children and our grandchildren.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment, both as the 
gentleman has described it and also as it is written. As the amendment 
is written and in our hands, it is a straight across-the-board 
amendment of a couple of billion dollars difference from the one that 
was offered by Mr. Culberson earlier and has been defeated by roll call 
vote in the last round of roll calls.
  As described by the gentleman, he is dealing with monies that are not 
yet expended in the Recovery Act.
  And those monies in the Recovery Act are ones that are, in the 
Recovery Act, those are monies, some of which are under high-speed rail 
or TIGER Grants, those monies have not yet been fully obligated, but 
they were not expected ever to have expended out in this first couple 
of years of the Recovery Act's life.
  They were expected to be expended within the next 2 or 3 years at our 
given time until the end of fiscal 2012 to be expended. Others are 
being expended and really going into jobs right now, day after day 
after day. Every day, more of the monies that spend out more rapidly 
get used and get counted as having been expended at the end of every 
month.
  But the amendment that is in our hands is specifically merely a sum 
of money taken off the bottom line of the bill on all appropriated 
funds, which is all of the discretionary $67 billion, and $10 billion 
off $67 billion would be about 16 or so, 15 or 16 percent of that 
appropriated money that the bill involved. But it has nothing to do 
with monies that are related to the ARRA.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you.
  In the particular category you are talking about, $116 million is 
still available. You only spent $6.9 million, yet you are asking for 
$1.4 billion. We were told that this money was going to go out the door 
real quickly to create jobs for the American people, yet we have a lot 
of these categories that still have a substantial amount of money.
  We are plussing up with new money when we haven't even spent the 
money we had before. And I think this sense of urgency must have gone 
away because these projects, the money has not been spent.
  Mr. OLVER. Reclaiming my time, but the gentleman is not talking about 
the amendment that is before us. He is talking about a different issue, 
about money that has not been expended in ARRA funds or money that has 
not yet been expended in the 2010. I am not quite sure which it is.
  But the amendment that is before us, at least as we have understood 
it, as we have it given to us, is an amendment that simply takes from 
the bottom line of the bill before us from the discretionary amount a 
total of $10.5 billion, and I must oppose that proposal.
  In closing, I just want to repeat again that our bill is already $1.3 
billion below the President's request that, as I had said earlier 
today, and have said at least twice, that we have used the President's 
request. We have not funded, in the base bill that is here today, 
several items that have never been authorized and really require 
authorization that total $4.8 billion.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Neugebauer).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, on that I request a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


             Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Braley of Iowa

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-578.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 77, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 78, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 98, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Braley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
amendment that I have offered to increase funds within the Community 
Development Block Grant by $20 million to be used for disaster relief 
and recovery in the Midwest by reducing funding for the administration 
operations and management and nonpersonnel expenses in the bill.
  This past weekend, heavy rains caused major flooding in parts of my 
district. Lake Delhi, which you see on this illustration, was a 
treasured summer retreat. It's gone. The 9-mile long lake disappeared 
after sudden flood waters breached its 92-year-old dam on Saturday 
morning. I was standing at the south end of the dam watching this 
happen at 1 o'clock in the afternoon.
  Over a dozen other communities in my district are also experiencing 
major flooding this week.
  This $20 million increase to CDBG will be used to help aid flood 
relief and recovery in the Midwest. The eligibility requirements for 
CDBG clearly state that grant funds can be used for particularly urgent 
community development needs because existing conditions pose a serious 
and immediate threat to the public.

[[Page 14677]]

  Due to the flooding, parts of my district are currently experiencing 
serious and immediate threats to the public. Piles of flood-polluted 
garbage are piling up and raising serious public health concerns.
  You can see the damage that has been caused as the lake has drained. 
The stench of rotting fish permeates the air around Lake Delhi. Many of 
the homes are experiencing major flood damage while values are expected 
to plummet as the lake has disappeared.
  The CDBG funds have been used in the past to aid in disaster relief 
and recovery. In 1997, they were used to aid communities in the upper 
Midwest affected by severe flooding.
  In 2002, emergency CDBG funds were awarded to the State of New York 
for assistance for properties and businesses damaged by the terrorist 
attacks of 9/11. These emergency funds helped these businesses with 
economic revitalization.

                              {time}  1900

  I look forward to working with the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, as well as the State of Iowa, to ensure that the CDBG 
funds are properly used to aid in flood recovery and relief. I urge 
everyone to support flood relief for the Midwest.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, though I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman.
  I certainly rise in support of the amendment. It is a disaster that 
happened, and like the gentleman from Iowa said, just to watch that dam 
collapse and all the damage that went through afterwards was 
devastating to so many folks. And so I think this is a good amendment, 
and I'm very proud to support it.
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and I agree with 
him totally. These kinds of disasters need to be taken care of as soon 
as can be possible after they occur.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Braley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Turner

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-578.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 420.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to establish, issue, implement, administer, or 
     enforce any prohibition or restriction on the establishment 
     or effectiveness of any occupancy preference for veterans in 
     supportive housing for the elderly that (1) is provided 
     assistance by the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, and (2)(A) is or would be located on property of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs, or (B) is subject to an 
     enhanced use lease with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Turner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TURNER. I want to thank the Rules Committee for ruling my 
amendment in order and for providing this opportunity to assist low-
income seniors and our Nation's veterans with obtaining safe and 
quality housing.
  This amendment is a narrowly tailored, pro-veteran amendment which 
allows the VA to maintain its requirement of a veteran's preference on 
HUD-financed housing on VA campuses. Unfortunately, HUD has rules that 
don't allow for a veteran's preference for people who live in 
facilities built with HUD funds, even if they are built on VA property. 
My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill could go toward 
enforcing these rules against a facility that is built on a VA campus 
or is utilizing a VA-enhanced use lease.
  Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. We carried this amendment last year. We accepted this 
amendment last year, and I am perfectly happy to accept the amendment 
again this year if that is acceptable to the gentleman.
  Mr. TURNER. I would greatly appreciate that. It certainly goes to 
help our veterans and our low-income seniors.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-578.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 5 percent.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my 
amendment to cut by 5 percent all of the discretionary spending in the 
Fiscal Year 2011 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations Act. I offer this amendment because it is imperative 
that Washington finally take notice and start acting to combat this 
year's record budget deficit and fast-growing national debt, which at 
last count amounted to an astounding $13.2 trillion.
  Just 2 weeks ago, the cochairs of the nonpartisan Debt and Deficit 
Commission, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Chief of 
Staff to President Bill Clinton, Erskine Bowles, said that if the 
government fails to take action, our debilitating Federal debt will 
destroy the country from within. Bowles further described the debt as a 
cancer on our Nation.
  There are plenty of folks in my district and all across the country 
who are finding ways to raise families, run small businesses, and pay 
their bills despite having lost their jobs or taking deep pay cuts in 
this economic downturn. If the families in my district have been able 
to tighten their belts, then surely the Federal Government can do the 
same.
  Congress should be leading by example when facing tough economic 
decisions. My proposed 5 percent congressional pay cut is just one way 
Members can show they are serious about tackling the looming fiscal 
crisis. That is why I have previously supported budget cuts to Federal 
programs and will continue to support such cuts as our economy 
recovers, and that is why I am offering this amendment.
  I strongly support building our national infrastructure--roads and 
bridges, affordable housing, quality education, and expanding 
broadband--but our long-term fiscal health depends on Congress making 
hard choices today to protect our ability to provide critical 
infrastructure tomorrow.
  This amendment makes a 5 percent cut to the programs funded in this 
bill, but ordinary families are seeing much bigger cuts to their 
income. I have to believe that if those families can continue to make 
ends meet in these tough times, the Transportation and Housing 
Departments can keep the important programs going with 95 cents out of 
each dollar.
  We are here to represent the folks back home, the folks who 
understand

[[Page 14678]]

that the old ways of Washington no longer work for the American people. 
Please join me in supporting this cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment as 
presented by the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides a new wrinkle on 
what we have been dealing with earlier. Again, this is somewhat 
different from what the gentlewoman has expressed, but as written, it 
reads, ``Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
act that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available 
by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 5 percent.'' Now, what that 
means is it's not just discretionary expenditure, but it also applies 
to the nondiscretionary part of this bill. It is not just on the $67 
billion of discretionary expenditure that is part of this underlying 
bill, but the whole $126 billion, which covers all of the contractor 
authority for all of the small safety agencies that get money out of 
the Highway Trust Fund, and also applies to the moneys that go to the 
FTA that come out of the transit portion of the Highway Trust Fund. So 
that is the way that is written.
  There is a provision at the end, the part that I read, ``or otherwise 
made available by a provision of law,'' which leaves CBO unable to 
score this amendment at all, and they cannot tell us what it really is 
meant to do. It says it cannot be implemented in this form.
  So I must oppose this amendment for all of those reasons, because it 
goes far beyond the discretionary expenditure. That is different. Each 
of the earlier large cut amendments have been ones that purported to 
take only from the discretionary expenditure, and this one covers all 
of what is involved in this legislation, both the discretionary and the 
contract authority supported parts of the legislation, plus apparently 
some other things.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I will be glad to yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Chairman Olver, the intent is to cut 
only discretionary spending by 5 percent. I will be happy to work with 
you to clarify that language.
  Mr. OLVER. Well, we cannot change the language of the amendment at 
this point. I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman to find out 
exactly what was intended to be done here and try to work with you, but 
for the moment, I must oppose this amendment.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. I agree to work with you.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I think enough has been said. It cannot be 
amended. It cannot be implemented. It cannot even be scored to know how 
much is really involved in it.

                              {time}  1910

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).
  The amendment was rejected.


             Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-578.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Appropriations made in this Act are hereby 
     reduced in the amount of $18,579,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, who would have thought we would 
have witnessed the things we have witnessed in this country over the 
last 2 years?
  Who would have ever thought the President of the United States would 
fire the CEO of General Motors?
  Who would have ever thought in this great country we would see the 
taxpayers bail out the financial industry and bail out the auto 
industry?
  Who would have ever thought in this country we would have a pay 
czar--a pay czar--telling private American citizens how much money they 
can make?
  Who would have ever thought in this country we would have a major 
policy change, done in a completely partisan fashion, when the health 
care bill passed and when the majority of Americans opposed it?
  Who would have ever thought, as OMB pointed out this past week, that 
we would have a $1.4 trillion deficit--the largest deficit in American 
history--and a $13 trillion national debt? On the path we are on 
currently, by 2020, we will have a $26 trillion deficit.
  Who would have thought those things would take place?
  I would argue, although the other side is going to say, ``Oh, this is 
terrible. We can't reduce the spending level in this bill to the amount 
that the gentleman wants,'' this is a modest first step. This is a 
modest initial step towards providing some fiscal sanity to this town 
and to this Congress.
  My amendment is real simple. It says this bill should go back and we 
should spend it at 2008 baseline levels. After all, a lot of families 
are living on something less. A lot of families have had to live on 
what they were functioning on in 2008. A lot of small businesses are 
functioning on what they had to in 2008.
  Why in the heck can't the Federal Government do the same thing?
  This amendment takes us back to 2008 levels, which was before the 
bailouts, before the so-called ``stimulus,'' before the out-of-control 
spending. Remember, since 2008, there has been a 38 percent increase in 
this bill. So this takes it back to a reasonable level, and I would 
argue this is a modest first step that the American people want us to 
take.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not a modest one by any 
means. It is a double ax taken to the legislation that is involved. It 
takes $18 billion out of only the discretionary amount of funding that 
is provided in the underlying bill. As such, that is between 20 and 25 
percent of the reduction in all of the discretionary accounts from the 
underlying bill.
  Who would have ever thought that we would have gotten so deep in 
deregulation and had our major financial services regulating agencies 
so asleep at the switch that we would have ended up in a housing 
crisis, a foreclosure crisis, that has been raging to the point where 
there are 6 or 8 million foreclosed homes? It almost brought, not only 
the American financial system to its knees, but almost the whole 
world's financial system to its knees. It ended up with the Secretary 
of the Treasury, under the administration of the previous President, 
coming to Congress and asking for us--begging us, begging the 
Congress--to bail out the biggest banks in this country, the banks 
which caused the housing crisis by running a casino on Wall Street.
  In that process, by that time, by the time they came to Congress to 
ask for that bailout, we were already four quarters into a recession in 
this country, a recession that raged throughout the whole of the year 
of 2008 and on into at least the first two quarters of 2009.
  We have begun to come back out of that recession. We passed a 
stimulus bill within 1 month of the new President's being inaugurated, 
which, within another month, turned job losses to job gains--or at 
least to a reduction of job losses for a series of months. Now, in the 
last 6 months or so, there have been job gains. We have been out of the 
recession, but it is not a recovery that is happening very quickly.
  Whoever would have thought that all of those things would have 
happened?

[[Page 14679]]

  We have a series of economists who pointed out we had to do exactly 
those things--first, the bailout of the banks, which most of us in 
Congress, I think from both sides, voted for, and there were people on 
the other side of the aisle who voted for that legislation. Most of us 
expected that there would be some kind of evenhanded handling of the 
largest investment banks and also of those who had been bilked out of 
their money in the housing crisis and who had gone through 
foreclosures, but the foreclosure crisis has gone on and gone on and 
gone on much farther than it should have been allowed to go.
  Whoever would have thought that all of those things would have 
happened in America?
  We are now coming out of this recession. If an amendment were 
implemented, such as the one the gentleman from Ohio has proposed, it 
would send us right back into the recession. We cannot do this. Though, 
I wonder, as I think I may have asked you earlier, Mr. Chairman: Is 
this a deliberate effort to put us back into a double-dip recession 
that would be so similar to the Great Depression?
  This was exactly what happened in 1937, which was 4 years after the 
inauguration of FDR. Four years later, we went back into a recession, 
which took another 4 years of experiencing a really very, very bad 
economy. We are coming out with the rather prudent actions that have 
been taken by Congress and by this administration, and we must continue 
on that path.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Just a couple of quick responses to the 
chairman's comments.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I voted against the bank bailout, the 
TARP bailout. If my memory serves me correctly, the gentleman voted for 
that proposal.
  Second, the chairman's comments about how this is such a dramatic cut 
is a great example of how out of touch this town is with the American 
people. All this amendment does is say let's spend what we spent just 2 
years ago, in 2008. Go talk to average Americans. They think that's 
probably something the Federal Government could do--spend what we were 
spending 2 years ago.
  Also, remember that this bill is a 38 percent increase over 2008. 
That's on top of the transportation spending that was in the stimulus 
bill. So it's even bigger than 38 percent, this increase over 2008.
  Finally, I would say this: If big government spending, if big 
government taxation, if big government regulation were going to get us 
out of this economic mess, well, heck, we'd have been out of it a long 
time ago because that's all this government has been doing for 2 years.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. Chairman, I will just close with this. How bad does it have to 
get before we can begin to reduce some spending around here? Do we have 
to have a $2 trillion deficit? Do we have to get to $30 trillion in 
debt? I mean, how bad does it have to get before we can start to do 
those things that make sense and that will guarantee a prosperous 
future for our kids and our grandkids?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.
  It is the Chair's understanding that amendment No. 19 will not be 
offered.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-578.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer the amendment on behalf of 
Congresswoman Bachmann.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 53, line 3, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,203,500,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply reduce funding 
for capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation for capital investments by $1.2 million.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who is the chairperson of the 
authorizing committee for rail.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I encourage my colleagues to oppose 
this terrible amendment.
  Rail in America is experiencing a renaissance that we haven't seen in 
50 years. All forms of passenger rail, including Amtrak, are seeing 
increased ridership numbers. In fact, in 2009 Amtrak welcomed aboard 
over 27 million passengers, the second largest annual total in Amtrak 
history. An average of more than 74,000 passengers ride more than 300 
Amtrak trains per day. And with gridlocked roadways and ever increasing 
prices in gas, ridership will only increase.
  Amtrak provides a majority of all intercity passenger rail in the 
United States, with more States and localities across America turning 
to passenger rail to meet the transportation needs of their citizens.
  Amtrak reduces congestion and improves our energy independence. One 
full passenger train can take 250 to 350 cars off the road. Passenger 
rail also consumes less energy than both automobiles and commercial 
airlines.
  Moreover, Amtrak plays a vital role in emergency preparedness and 
recovery during Hurricane Katrina. In fact, Amtrak was the only entity 
that could get into New Orleans to evacuate victims and deliver food, 
water, and supplies.
  Amtrak has made significant improvements in its system over the last 
several years, has steadily increased ridership numbers, plays a vital 
role in disaster recovery, and has an ambitious agenda for future 
growth.
  Indeed, it was Congresswoman Bachmann and her Republican colleagues 
that put this country in this terrible debt and financial situation 
that we're in right now by rubber-stamping the Bush tax cut for the 
rich year after year, what I call ``reverse Robin Hood.'' We're robbing 
from the poor and working people to give tax breaks to the rich.
  I encourage my colleagues to support your constituents, support 
Amtrak, and vote ``no'' on this terrible amendment.
  I have a letter that I want to submit for the Record from the 
chairman of Amtrak, Joe Boardman.
  And I just want to give one statement. The lack of capital funds 
would deny intercity passenger rail service to 29 million people in 
over 500 communities in 46 States.
  And remember, folks, if it's Flake, it's ``no.''

                                                 National Railroad


                                        Passenger Corporation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.
     Hon. Member of Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I am writing to advise you what the 
     impact to Amtrak would be if Representative Bachmann's 
     amendment to eliminate $1.2 billion in capital funding is 
     adopted during today's floor debate of the FY11 
     Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 
     Agencies bill. If enacted, Amtrak would have no capital 
     investment program for FY11. The lack of a capital funding 
     program would deny intercity passenger rail service to 29 
     million people in over 500 communities in 46 states. Amtrak 
     is on track to have the highest ridership year ever, carrying 
     more people, more places than we did two years ago when the 
     country was experiencing record high gas prices. This 
     amendment would require us to furlough nearly all of our 
     20,000 employees who live in nearly every state in the Union. 
     It would hamper the operation of key commuter rail

[[Page 14680]]

     services in major metropolitan areas including much of the 
     Northeast, Chicago, Seattle, and Northern and Southern 
     California, and we would default on commercial loans which 
     finance most of our equipment.
       Just under two years ago, Congress recognized the 
     importance of intercity passenger rail and approved a 
     reauthorization of Amtrak in the Passenger Rail Investment 
     and Improvement Act. Amtrak's appropriations request for FY11 
     is in line with this congressionally-approved authorization.
       Investment in Amtrak's capital program creates jobs, 
     provides energy efficient mobility, and allows us to keep 
     America's passenger railroad safe and reliable.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Joe Boardman,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I misspoke earlier; I left 
off three zeros. This amendment would save $1.2 billion, not $1.2 
million. It's easy to mess that up these days, given all the zeros 
we're talking about.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation calculates that the average 
Amtrak passenger receives a $210 Federal subsidy for their ticket. 
Larger subsidies obviously go to underperforming routes and those 
traveling in first class or sleeper cars. In fact, the Federal 
Government says that it could actually save money by buying a plane 
ticket for every passenger on some of the worst performing routes, like 
that from Orlando to L.A., for example. This has been going on for a 
long, long time, and we're always told that Amtrak will be self-
sufficient just around the corner, or that something else will happen; 
and it simply never does. It's kind of the transportation version of 
corn ethanol subsidies. So, I don't want to anger another group here.
  But anyway, it just seems to never, never end; and we keep 
subsidizing on and on. It might be one thing if we were running a big 
surplus to do this. We're not: 42 or 41 cents on every dollar we spend 
this year will be borrowed from future generations, from the Chinese, 
from other bond holders. When we're spending, when we're borrowing 42 
cents on every dollar, I think it behooves us to look for areas where 
we can save; and this is a modest area here, to cut some, just a small 
portion, of the subsidy that we currently provide.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to express that this amendment 
for a program which is totally authorized, and we are not running above 
the authorization number on Amtrak by any means at all, but this is a 
killer amendment for Amtrak to remove all of their capital funds, as 
this amendment purports to do. So I oppose the amendment, and urge a 
``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment eliminates all of Amtrak's capital and debt 
service grants but the $132 million that Amtrak receives from state and 
local agencies for capital improvements.
  This amendment is nothing more than a re-hash of the Bush 
Administration's numerous yet unsuccessful attempts to force Amtrak 
into bankruptcy.
  Let's be clear: This is a shut-down amendment. A shut-down of Amtrak 
will strand millions of rail passengers, disrupt commuter operations, 
add to our already congested roads and airports, eliminate well over 
20,000 jobs nationwide, and jeopardize local economies and businesses 
that depend on Amtrak's service.
  The gentle lady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) must know that without 
capital funding provided by the federal government, Amtrak won't be 
able to maintain its own rail network. Amtrak is then left with two 
choices: shut-down or jeopardize the safety of millions of Amtrak 
riders, passengers on the commuter railroads that operate along the 
Northeast Corridor, and the crewmembers of at least two freight 
railroads--Norfolk Southern and CSX, which rely upon Amtrak's 
infrastructure and dispatching services in the Corridor.
  Amtrak won't be able to replace any ties; fix any track, tunnels, or 
bridges; make station improvements; overhaul equipment; or invest in 
much-needed safety and security improvements. Further, the railroad 
won't be able to make any of the capital improvements necessary to make 
the 481 Amtrak-served stations, platforms, parking facilities, and 
other structures accessible to persons with disabilities, as required 
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
  Funding for Amtrak's fleet plan would be decimated. The fleet, both 
locomotives and railcars, are the only means for Amtrak to provide 
service. If Amtrak's fleet can't be maintained, then Amtrak can't 
provide service--certainly not safe and reliable service.
  Right now, the average age of Amtrak's passenger car fleet is 25. The 
mainstay of the Amtrak fleet are 412 ``Amfleet I'' passenger cars 
commonly used on the Northeast Corridor; these cars were built between 
1974 and 1977 and are presently beyond their assumed 30-year commercial 
life cycle. Amtrak's Heritage Equipment railcars were built as far back 
as 1948. Baggage cars, used on long distance trains, were built between 
1950 and 1961. Dining cars, also used on long distance trains, were 
built between 1948 and 1958. The locomotive fleet fares no better. 
Amtrak's locomotives average 21 years of age. Based on the 20-year 
commercial life cycle of a locomotive, replacement locomotives are 
already overdue.
  Amtrak plans to overhaul its fleet and purchase new equipment over 
the next several years. Amtrak is already in discussions with General 
Electric to purchase new locomotives, and with other companies to 
purchase new rail cars and parts for maintenance for the existing 
fleet, which in turn will provide hundreds if not thousands of jobs for 
an entire industry (railway suppliers) that is rapidly declining in 
America. But without capital funding, that won't happen.
  No funding for capital means no jobs.
  According to the Association of American Railroads, if Amtrak 
shutdown, the freight rail industry would lose an estimated $5.3 
billion over the next six years at a time when the freight railroads 
are just starting to recover from the economic crisis and bring people 
back to work.
  I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendments printed in part B of House 
Report 111-578.


              Part B Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 2, Part 
B.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Federal Highway Administration--Federal-Aid 
     Highways (Limitation on Obligations)'' shall be available for 
     the Blackstone River Bikeway project in Rhode Island, and the 
     aggregate amount otherwise provided under such heading is 
     hereby reduced by $1,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would prohibit $1 million from going to the 
Rhode Island Department of Transportation for the Blackstone River 
Bikeway, and it would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a 
commensurate amount.
  This particular earmark would fund a project to construct a 3\1/2\ 
mile route or portion of a bikeway in North Smithfield, and Woonsocket, 
including the construction of sections that would connect a public 
library, a planned middle school complex, and several bridges.
  Here we have a project that is described as a cyclist's paradise of 
mill villages and farming communities in Massachusetts and Rhode 
Island. According to the Web site of the project, the bikeway is being 
developed thanks largely to Federal transportation funding, and it's an 
effort among Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management to 
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and on and on, 
some other entities as well.

                              {time}  1930

  Well, certainly Federal transportation funding is right. There is a 
lot of

[[Page 14681]]

it going here. And a lot of earmarks have gone this way as well. Over 
the past several years, this project has received several earmarks. In 
fact, Citizens Against Government Waste has in their waste Pig Book 
this project has received five earmarks in transportation 
appropriations bills worth nearly $7 million since 2002, including, 
last year, same project received a $475,000 earmark; in 2005, a 
$500,000 earmark; 2004, a $1.5 million earmark; 2003, a $3 million 
earmark; 2002, a $1.5 million earmark. Why are we doing this?
  Here we are, as we just mentioned, running a deficit of about $1.4 
trillion this year. We have a national debt north of $13 trillion. 
Forty-two cents of every dollar we spend this year will be borrowed. 
Yet we can't wean ourselves off these kind of earmarks.
  Bike paths. I love biking. I will go home this weekend and bike. But 
why in the world should the taxpayers at the Federal level be on the 
hook for an earmark for a bike path in Rhode Island? Why did we just 
choose this one? That's part of the problem of this system of 
earmarking that we have.
  I look at this chart. The contemporary practice of earmarking is very 
much a spoils system. And if we look at the bill that we are 
considering right now, THUD, this is actually one of the least 
egregious offenders. If you look at the red area, that's the percentage 
of earmark dollars that are claimed by members of the Appropriations 
Committee or members of leadership or chairmen of committees. They 
represent about 13 percent of this body, yet they claim, look at this, 
look at the red, some bills, in the ag appropriations bill 76 percent 
of all earmarks will go to these 13 percent of powerful members. In 
this bill, 42 percent.
  That's the problem. How do we choose this bike path as opposed to one 
in Utah or one in Alaska or somewhere else? It's a spoils system that 
has to stop. And if we can't stop it this year, when we're running a 
deficit of $1.4 trillion, when will we stop it?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, to hear the gentleman talk, you would think 
that this bill is being gobbled up by a huge number of earmarks, 
causing the deficit to explode. The gentleman used a chart. I've got a 
chart too. This bar represents the total spending in this bill, $67 
billion. This bar represents the portion of that bill represented by 
earmarks. Mr. Chairman, I have a tough time finding it. Oh, yeah, with 
this magnifying glass I can almost see the bar that represents the 
earmarks. Less than one-half of 1 percent of this bill are represented 
by earmarks.
  And you know what? The last time I looked, the Constitution gave the 
Congress the power of the purse. No Congress has ever changed any 
President's budget by more than 3 percent in all the time I have been 
here. And that 3 percent difference is the difference between having a 
President and having a king. And whether the President is Republican or 
Democratic, I want a President. I don't want a king.
  So all I would suggest to the gentleman from Arizona is that he keep 
this in perspective. Keep it in perspective. Or as my old friend Archie 
the cockroach said once long ago, ``Perspective is everything. Of what 
use is it for a queen bee to fall in love with a bull?''
  Mr. FLAKE. I don't think we want to talk about bull. I don't know how 
it is in Wisconsin, but in Arizona, to have a bill that has more than 
400 earmarks worth more than $300 million is not an insignificant sum.
  Now, you can have a chart that takes the overall amount that the bill 
spends and then make $300 million look pretty small. But only in 
Washington will people say, yeah, that looks pretty small. Anywhere 
else in the country they're going to say that's a pretty big amount. 
And everybody knows how the game works here. Earmarks are, as has been 
said by many, the gateway drug to spending addiction. Once you start 
getting earmarks, you start approving bloated appropriations bills 
worth $67 billion. And if you didn't have your earmark in there, you 
wouldn't be likely to keep increasing the amounts that we spend every 
year.
  Now, some may point out, hey, we are down this year from last year, 
but we were up 28 percent last year from the year before. That is what 
has got us into this problem where we have a deficit of $1.4 trillion 
and we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar, and then we dismiss $300 
million as insignificant.
  I mean you can use a magnifying glass and try to make it sound like 
it's small, but it's $300 million. And people across the country are 
saying if we don't start here, where do we start? If we can't do this, 
will we ever reform the entitlement programs we have to reform?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. It seems like my colleagues, as the saying goes, know 
the cost of everything but the value of nothing. I think the gentleman 
is exactly right, entitlements. That's where the money is. We all know 
it. And yet my colleagues have not seen fit to increase research, 
biomedical research that could show enormous offsets in the cost of 
care for people with Alzheimer's, autism, Parkinson's, epilepsy. But 
that's just the costs. Think about the difference in people's lives 
that research in helping people live more functional lives, the cost in 
their quality of life that could make.
  But are they talking about savings in those respects? No, they're 
just talking about dollars and cents that seem to fit on a piece of 
paper, but not in a difference in people's lives. Here they're talking 
about a couple million dollars on a bike path. They say that that is 
something we shouldn't care about. I'm the Congressman from that 
district. I know what dollars come back home. I know the value of this 
bike path. It helps get people to enjoy the quality of their life.
  In case people don't understand, there is a public health epidemic. 
It's called diabetes. It's called lack of exercise. I think we actually 
ought to be encouraging people to be outdoors. It is a public health 
issue. We will be paying for this public health problem if people don't 
exercise. But this gentleman seems to dismiss the cost of a bike path. 
The point is that once again, cost of everything, value of nothing.
  So we'll hear a bunch of these amendments come on down the pike. I 
just ask people to keep in mind this is coming up on the silly season, 
election time. People will sound like they care a lot about your bottom 
line. But the real issue is, do they really care about the other kinds 
of deficits? The deficits in education.
  You can only make first grade once in your life, second grade once, 
third grade once. And if your kid's in the classroom with 35 kids that 
year because we decide to save money, guess what? Too bad for your kid. 
They have no dress rehearsal in their life. No dress rehearsal. So if 
we decide to save money this year, too bad for that kid because we all 
of a sudden got serious about our deficit.
  Forget their deficit that they're going to live with for the rest of 
their life in terms of human potential because that wasn't on their 
balance sheet, ladies and gentlemen. That GNP never factored into their 
timetable, into their value system. That's not the GNP they were 
looking at. So let's start changing the way we value what our economy 
is and what it is that we value when we're looking at dollars and 
common sense.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.

[[Page 14682]]



                              {time}  1940


              Part B Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as No. 4, part B.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Federal Highway Administration--Federal-Aid 
     Highways (Limitation on Obligations)'' shall be available for 
     the Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project in 
     Washington, and the aggregate amount otherwise provided under 
     such heading is hereby reduced by $1,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Before I start on this amendment, let me address what was 
just said here.
  We're told by challenging these earmarks, $300 million in this bill, 
that we, those who want to save some money here, know the cost of 
everything and the value of nothing. I think we better translate that 
into Chinese. And the next time we try to auction our bonds and we have 
no takers and the Chinese won't buy this paper, say, ``Hey, you know 
the cost of everything but the value of nothing.'' See where that gets 
us.
  It does matter what kind of deficits we run and what kind of debt we 
have. It matters. It matters a lot. We may say that it doesn't around 
here or that we'll get serious about it later or that we can fund all 
of the bike paths we want this year or streetscapes or whatever we're 
doing because we'll get serious about it next year, but we never seem 
to do it.
  I've been doing this for several years now, and I hear that all the 
time. ``Yeah, we'll get to it later. This year we've got to do this,'' 
and we never seem to get to it.
  So I would just challenge the cost of everything, the value of 
nothing, those sayings. Yeah, they're nice to hear, but when you're 
running a deficit of $1.4 trillion, I think there's a little too much 
cost there, and I think people across the country would agree.
  This amendment would prohibit a million dollars going to the downtown 
Tacoma streetscape improvements in Tacoma, Washington, and reduce 
spending in the bill by a commensurate amount. According to the 
sponsor's Web site, the recipient will be the City of Tacoma, and the 
funding would be used toward streetscape improvements along Pacific 
Avenue in downtown Tacoma.
  The City of Tacoma, I believe, has received a similar earmark in 2010 
for $800,000 to develop complete streets, including new bike paths, 
widening sidewalks, installing medians, street trees, and other 
amenities.
  When do we stop here? Why do we choose this one and say the City of 
Tacoma deserves another earmark, this time to use for streetscapes. 
There are a lot of cities around the country that need streetscapes, a 
lot of them that are probably deserving. But why in the world did we 
choose this one?
  Again, it goes back to the spoils system I talked about. Powerful 
Members on certain committees get the spoils, a huge, disproportionate 
percentage of it.
  So you can talk all high and mighty about how Members know their 
districts better than those faceless bureaucrats, but apparently, 
unless you're a chairman of an important committee or you're on the 
right committee or you're in leadership, you don't know your district 
very well. So it's a spoils system that shouldn't be done. We ought to 
be saving money where we can.
  And let me just remind Members here that people across the country, 
it's all well and good to say we couldn't take 1 percent or one-half of 
1 percent from that bill because that's indiscriminate; it would cut 
out all programs. Here, we're talking about one specific project. And 
you're going to have to justify voting against amendments to remove 
funding for a streetscape in Tacoma, Washington, that was picked for 
who knows why.
  So I would just caution those who want to support this kind of 
earmarking that people across the country are fed up with it, and they 
know when Members vote specifically on amendments to strike funding for 
these projects that they would rather fund a project like this than 
actually help pay down the deficit we have.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Today I rise in opposition to the amendment from the 
gentleman from Arizona. The Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement 
Project is a vital economic recovery tool for the City of Tacoma.
  The Tacoma area has an unemployment rate of 9 percent. In addition, 
the largest downtown employer has recently announced their plans to 
move. In response, the community came together and created a 
revitalization plan to redevelop the downtown corridor.
  The overall plan is estimated to create 500 new jobs and help 
transform the local economy. This plan has strong local support through 
partnerships with the Tacoma-Pierce County Economic Development Board, 
the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber of Commerce, the Executive Council for 
a Greater Tacoma, and the State of Washington. The local business 
community and other stakeholders have come out in favor of the project.
  The city is doing their part by investing approximately $35 million 
in local funds to implement the downtown revitalization plan. Federal 
investments serve as an important catalyst to allow the leveraging of 
public and private dollars.
  This specific funding will be used to develop complete streets, which 
will involve transitioning existing right-of-ways for multimobile use, 
including new bike paths, widening sidewalks, and installing medians 
along the city's main downtown corridor.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important economic development project in my 
district, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask that 
the Members vote against it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Again, this bill has 461 earmarks, $328 million in those 
earmarks. I wish we could challenge them all. We can't. We've only been 
allowed the opportunity to challenge four of them. So we will have a 
rollcall vote on four amendments to strike these earmarks. So Members 
will have to go from this body back to their districts this next month 
and say why they voted against an amendment to strike an earmark for 
downtown beautification in one city that was just picked by the 
Appropriations Committee and why in the world it's better to borrow 42 
cents of every dollar we're spending here from our kids and our 
grandkids and our foreign debtors, why that is a good plan for economic 
development, why it wouldn't be better to actually pay down the debt to 
lessen this deficit a bit. That's what this is about.
  So don't think we can hide behind, well, these were indiscriminate 
cuts. This is a specific cut to cut a certain earmark from the bill, in 
this case, that would cut a million dollars. It's not insignificant not 
to anyone outside of the Beltway. This is a specific amendment to 
strike a million dollars in spending for a streetscape for 
beautification in a certain city.
  I think we ought to beautify the appropriations process a little bit 
by actually having fewer earmarks and saving a little money.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the

[[Page 14683]]

amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


              Part B Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as No. 10, part B.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--
     Community Planning and Development--Community Development 
     Fund'' shall be available for the Restoration and 
     Improvements to the Historic Darwin Martin House Home and 
     Complex project of the Martin House Restoration Corporation, 
     New York, and the aggregate amount otherwise provided under 
     such heading (and the portion of such amount specified for 
     the Economic Development Initiative in the second paragraph 
     under such heading) are each hereby reduced by $1,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would prohibit $1 million from being used 
for a restoration and improvement project at the historic Darwin Martin 
House Home and complex and would reduce the overall cost of the bill by 
a commensurate amount.
  According to the sponsors of the Web site, the entity that would 
receive the earmark is called the Martin House Restoration Corporation, 
whose purpose is to restore a structure designed by Frank Lloyd Wright 
at the turn of the 19th century. The MHRC's Web site says that it was 
formed in 1992 with a clear mandate. First part of this mandate: Raise 
the money to restore the complex to its 1907 grandeur.
  There are a lot of historic buildings around the country, a lot of 
them, that need a lot of restoration. My own home needs a lot of it. A 
lot of people are losing their homes. Those homes need a lot of 
restoration. A lot of them are losing them because of the Federal 
Government's spending ways.

                              {time}  1950

  Yet here we are designating one project to receive a million dollars. 
Again, let me say it one more time. This is not as if every Member 
comes here and is designated a million dollars to take home and spend 
in their district on restoring homes. They aren't. The spoils system 
runs well here. If you're on the Appropriations Committee or you're in 
leadership, you get the spoils. That's why 42 percent of the earmarked 
dollars in this bill are going to just 13 percent of the Members of 
this body. In that sense, you can't justify it nor can you justify 
spending a million dollars in this way when we're borrowing 42 cents of 
every dollar that we'll spend this year.
  We have a deficit of $1.47 trillion. We have a debt of $13.2 
trillion. How in the world can we continue to do this, to earmark money 
for projects like this, when we have that kind of deficit and we have 
that kind of debt?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the way I see it, we're watching a let's 
pretend attack on the deficit tonight by singling out these items that 
cost about a million bucks.
  If Members are concerned about the deficit, I would ask, why did they 
vote for two tax cuts, primarily aimed at rich people, that spent more 
than $2 trillion? Why are they continuing to insist that we provide 
further tax cuts for people who make over $250,000 a year, again paid 
for with borrowed money? Why did they vote to go into two wars on 
borrowed money that cost over a trillion dollars? That's where the real 
money is.
  Mr. OLVER. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, 
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, Buffalo, New York, is the third poorest city in the 
United States. No one in their right mind would ever accuse Buffalo of 
getting spoils. This complex is a very important economic development 
tool for us. This amendment would strike an important lifeline to a 
place of cultural and economic significance in a struggling region that 
has been hit hard by the recession.
  This house was completed in 1905. I won't go into all that. I simply 
want to say that Mr. Martin was the patron of Frank Lloyd Wright. He 
kept him going in good times and bad. Mr. Wright did his best work on 
this complex. It has been allowed to degenerate over the years because 
of a lack of money. The community has raised almost all the money to 
restore this by themselves.
  Now, let me tell you, Mr. Flake, we estimate that when this is 
finished, consultants tell us that 42,000 to 83,000 visitors a year 
would come to see that house. It would generate $17 million in economic 
impact annually. For this million dollars, Mr. Flake, you probably 
would not get a better return on your money, and additionally the tax 
return would be significant.
  Of this $17 million, $8.34 million will be the earnings and wages of 
198 workers who would otherwise be jobless. This is not the time to be 
striking those jobs from these persons.
  One of the reasons that we are anxious to get it finished is that in 
October 2011, there will be a national conference convening in Buffalo 
with Martin House at its center bringing in more than 2,000 people. It 
is our aim to try to make this magnificent structure and we invite you 
to come up. I know you would love it. We want to have it finished.
  We believe that this will be a significant destination for everybody 
in America who loves the finest architect that America ever produced--
Frank Lloyd Wright.
  And, Mr. Flake, I do appreciate you. As you remember, it was my 
committee that put this in order. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Flake 
Amendment eliminating funding for restoration of the historic Darwin 
Martin House and complex in Buffalo, New York.
  This amendment would strike an important lifeline to a place of 
cultural and economic significance in an already struggling region hit 
hard by the recession.
  The Darwin Martin House and complex was completed in 1905 in the 
historic Parkside neighborhood of Buffalo and is a testament to the 
genius of famed American architect Frank Lloyd Wright.
  The Buffalo community has rallied behind this historic landmark, 
spearheading an ambitious effort to complete its full restoration after 
years of neglect and disrepair, turning into source of jobs and tourism 
revenue.
  Consultants predict visitation levels at 42,000 to 83,000 visitors 
per year, which would generate $17 million in economic impact for the 
region annually.
  Of this $17 million, $8.34 million will be the earnings and wages of 
198 workers who would otherwise be jobless.
  I hardly think now is the time to be striking jobs from hard working 
folks, during a period of economic hardship we have not seen since the 
Great Depression.
  Additionally, The National Trust for Historic Preservation will be 
convening its October 2011 national conference in Buffalo, a city of 
architectural masterpieces, including Frank Lloyd Wright's Martin House 
Complex, a lynchpin of the region's architectural and cultural tourism 
sectors.
  Over 2,000 practitioners and opinion makers from the fields of 
historic preservation, architecture and design will be coming to see 
the Martin House.
  Richard Moe, former president of the National Trust, called the 
Martin House, ``the most ambitious and well executed restoration effort 
in his 15 years at the helm of the Trust.''
  He went further to say he believed the Martin House holds the promise 
of becoming ``the signature Frank Lloyd Wright site in America.''
  This is a national success story that will bring millions of visitors 
to the Buffalo Niagara region and will be an anchor for the burgeoning 
cultural tourism industry.
  New York State will have ``book-end'' Wright sites with the 
Guggenheim Museum in NYC and the Martin House to the west, in the 
shadow of Niagara Falls and all its international tourism appeal.

[[Page 14684]]

  Please join us in opposition to this amendment.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair 
and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. OLVER. I now yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Buffalo, New York (Mr. Higgins).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Flake 
amendment. The best way to reduce deficits is to create jobs.
  The Darwin Martin House in Buffalo is one of Frank Lloyd Wright's 
singular architectural masterpieces and is currently undergoing an 
ambitious project to restore it from a period of neglect to its 
original grandeur.
  The reason for its inclusion in the bill before us today is because 
restoration of the Martin House is important to the economic future of 
Buffalo and western New York. The Martin House currently attracts 
tourists from all over the world. This investment will help create 200 
jobs and $18 million in annual economic activity for a million-dollar 
investment.
  Urban areas like Buffalo are leveraging our vast historical and 
architectural resources to create a new economy in cultural tourism. 
This project will play an important role in enhancing the economy and 
life quality of western New York.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support western New York and 
join me in opposition.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I do thank the gentlelady on the Rules Committee for making this 
amendment in order, at least a few of mine. I do appreciate that. But I 
am just baffled that the other side would continue to talk about--let's 
gain perspective here--we're just talking about a little money, and to 
basically belittle any attempt to save a million here or a million 
there. I just think that says we're out of touch completely with what 
the country is going through, to say, hey, we've got a $1.4 trillion 
deficit this year, we've got a $13.2 trillion debt that we're going to 
need to pay off, our kids and grandkids will be doing this forever, but 
we say, ``Well, we can't start here because it's just too big. We 
really need to tackle those entitlements.'' Although I don't see a plan 
of anybody here on this side of the aisle who has presented this bill 
to actually tackle the entitlement programs. Some of us have presented 
something. This road map that the gentleman from Wisconsin, the 
colleague of the gentleman who spoke before, has introduced is a great 
plan to actually address entitlement spending as well.
  But we're here today to vote on four specific amendments to save 
specific money from specific projects; and that's what you'll have to 
go and answer to specific constituents about: whether you voted yes or 
no on amendments to strike a million dollars that could be saved from a 
project like this one, from an earmark like this one. I would venture 
to guess that your constituents and my constituents would want you to 
do that. And it will be tough to explain by saying, ``This is just a 
little part of the budget. We can't save here. We're not addressing 
entitlement spending, so we're not going to address discretionary 
spending, either.''
  I would urge support of the amendment. And, remember, people are 
watching here. They're watching what we're doing. When you go home, 
you'll need to explain, if you vote against this amendment, why you 
didn't want to save the taxpayer a million dollars when we have a 
deficit of $1.4 trillion and a debt of $13.2 trillion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


              Part B Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as No. 11 in part B made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--
     Community Planning and Development--Community Development 
     Fund'' shall be available for the Construction of a 
     Children's Playground project of the Municipality of Yauco, 
     Puerto Rico, and the aggregate amount otherwise provided 
     under such heading (and the portion of such amount specified 
     for the Economic Development Initiative in the second 
     paragraph under such heading) are each hereby reduced by 
     $150,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes,
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
  This amendment would prohibit $150,000 from being spent on the 
construction of a child's playground. Now I am the father of five 
children. I understand the importance of having a place for kids to 
play. Believe me, kids need to let loose and expend some energy 
somewhere. But Federal spending has been let loose, far too loose, so 
loose that we have this year a $1.4 trillion deficit. We are borrowing 
42 cents on every dollar that we spend.

                              {time}  2000

  When we are doing this, we can't just all of a sudden say we are 
going to build playgrounds anywhere as a model for economic development 
or anything else. We can't continue to spend money this way. This is 
one of the smaller earmarks. We have to start somewhere.
  I would urge those of you who want to oppose this amendment to go 
home to your constituents and say, I wanted to put you $150,000 more in 
debt because I thought it was important that we spend money; the 
Federal Government, mind you. Municipal governments, State governments, 
if they want to spend money on playgrounds that's great. But why is the 
Federal Government doing it here?
  Why are we doing it when in May of 2010 the national debt hit $13 
trillion. It's now 13.2. According to The Washington Post, that works 
out to be more than $40,000 in debt for every U.S. resident; $40,000 of 
debt for every U.S. resident.
  Then we are saying, ``Well, this is just small. We can't save this 
money; we can't go at the deficit this way. We have to deal with those 
entitlement programs.'' We certainly do, but we need to start 
somewhere. This is a great place to start.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. 
Pierluisi from Puerto Rico.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I requested $150,000 
to purchase equipment for a community and recreational park for low-
income children in Yauco, Puerto Rico, a city in the southwestern part 
of the island. The park will be constructed so that it is compliant 
with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  This funding will supplement funding already provided for the project 
by the city of Yauco. This is one of the smallest earmarks in this 
bill. It is unquestionably an appropriate and viable use of Federal 
funds.

[[Page 14685]]

  There currently is no recreational park in Yauco, which is home to 
approximately 50,000 residents, has a poverty rate of 56 percent and 
has an unemployment rate of over 17 percent. Furthermore, although 
there are over 75,000 children in Puerto Rico, I am advised that there 
is not a single recreational park in the entire southwestern region of 
Puerto Rico that is ADA compliant and thus meaningfully accessible to 
children with disabilities.
  Earlier this week, Mr. Chairman, this House proudly commemorated the 
20th anniversary of the ADA's passage. What better way is there to 
promote the goals of this landmark Federal law than to provide a 
reasonable amount of funding to help equip a recreational park that 
children with disabilities can enjoy side by side with their able-
bodied friends.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development states that a core 
part of its mission is to build inclusive and sustainable communities 
free from discrimination, and HUD's EDI program regularly funds 
acquisition of equipment for public facilities like the recreational 
park in Yauco.
  In closing, I would gently remind my friend from Arizona that a State 
with Puerto Rico's population would benefit from congressionally 
directed spending requests from six Representatives and two Senators. 
However, because Puerto Rico is a territory, I alone am responsible for 
protecting the interests of 4 million American citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Again, you have got to have a Federal nexus somewhere. If 
you are spending taxpayers' money, it helps to say why in the world 
should the Federal Government be involved at all. I would submit that 
if you argue that the Federal Government should be paying for 
playgrounds around the country, where does it stop?
  Where is there no Federal nexus? What is the Federal Government not 
responsible for? How in the world would our deficit stay at $1.47 
trillion this year if we say the Federal Government is in charge of all 
playground-building around the country?
  I would remind my colleagues, when we vote on these amendments, these 
are specific amendments to save specific money on specific earmarks. 
And you can't get by with saying, well, that was indiscriminate cuts 
and it would have affected this program or that. We are talking about 
here on these four amendments saving money on street beautification. 
Where is the Federal nexus there?
  On a bike path in Rhode Island, where is the Federal nexus? Why is 
the Federal Government doing that when we have a deficit of $1.47 
trillion and a debt of $13.2 trillion? Why in the world, when every 
citizen of this country is in debt more than $40,000, why in the world 
are we saying we are going to pile more on you simply because we can't 
control ourselves here?
  I would urge you again, you are going to have to go home and not say, 
well, I voted against an amendment that would have cut that program 
indiscriminately. This is specific amendments for specific programs, 
specific earmarks that the country knows the Federal Government should 
not be doing or that the Congress should not be directing money toward.
  With that, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. I yield the gentleman from Puerto Rico 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. Let me just say that 
there are 435 Members of this House; there are five Delegates 
representing the territories. Each and every one of these districts and 
the territories has its own peculiar needs, and the Members should be 
entitled to do something like what I am trying to do, help a town in 
Puerto Rico with the highest poverty rate in the region where kids do 
not even have a place to play, particularly meeting the needs and the 
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  There cannot be a more justified earmark than this one. The amount at 
stake is $150,000.
  So I urge my friend from Arizona to withdraw this amendment because, 
clearly, it has no merit.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. OLVER. May I inquire how much time remains.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes, and 
the time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in this conversation. 
The gentleman from Arizona, who is usually so rational about this whole 
effort that he puts forward, he is going to earn a reputation as a 
grinch for trying to take the one Member representing 4 million people 
in Puerto Rico, taking a program that would provide ADA compliance in a 
very small park in a community that's done for children and teens, and 
he wants to deny the representative for those 4 million people the 
opportunity to have a very small earmark.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Schrader) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snyder, 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. 5850) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and 
Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________