[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12528-12574]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014


                             General Leave

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 2610.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 312 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2610.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1505


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2610) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Messer in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Pastor) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I present H.R. 2610, a bill providing fiscal year 
2014 appropriations for the Department of Transportation, the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies.
  The T-HUD bill conforms with the 302(b) allocation of $44.1 billion 
in budget authority, and is in line with the House budget of $967 
billion. Under such an allocation, we prioritized programs and spending 
and were able to achieve three very important funding goals: first, 
meet the ``ob lim'' funding levels for the MAP-21, the highway 
authorization bill; keep the commercial airspace running smoothly; and 
preserve and renew the housing option for all HUD-assisted families 
under lease in fiscal year 2014.
  Mr. Chairman, I imagine today we're going to hear a lot about the 
budget and the sequester, and I'll tell you, I agree. We need a deal. 
We need a deal that resolves the irresponsible meat-ax approach to the 
sequester and provides a top-line budget number that addresses concerns 
about taxes and spending.
  But the Budget Control Act is the law, and no matter what number we'd 
like to write this to, the law gives us $967 billion to fund the 
government. You get there either by across-the-board cuts or by 
prioritizing the funds available. I think we all agree that continuing 
across-the-board cuts is not the answer. We've seen examples why.
  Earlier this year, across-the-board cuts caused air traffic 
controllers to be furloughed, consumer convenience to be sacrificed, 
and air safety to be endangered. In April, the House voted on a 
strongly bipartisan basis 361-41 to tap unspent FAA funds and put these 
air traffic controllers back to work.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that across-the-board cutting is no way to run 
a government. Considering there still isn't an agreement on the 
sequester or a top-line budget number, it's imperative that we realign 
the funds we have available to ensure DOT and HUD have the resources 
they need to care for the population and infrastructure of this Nation. 
This is a chance to make sure the ``must-do'' priorities are addressed.
  I assume we're going to hear a lot about infrastructure investment, 
and I will tell you we fund the authorized programs at the authorized 
program levels.
  I assume we're going to hear a lot about housing needs, and I will 
tell you, we retain the housing option for HUD families currently 
receiving assistance, protecting the most vulnerable.
  We are operating under an open rule, and I hope we can keep the 
debate and amendment process moving along today. We will be taking 
points of order against amendments that would increase our allocations 
or authorize on an appropriations act. Let me reemphasize to people who 
are going to be offering amendments that we will enforce points of 
order.
  I'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), 
the T-HUD ranking member, for his comity and willingness to discuss 
what would be possible under a $44.1 billion allocation.
  I'd also like to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, plus 
the members of the committee, and especially the subcommittee, for 
their hard work and commitment to this bill.
  And speaking of subcommittee members, I'd like to give a special word 
of congratulations to a new and valued member of the Appropriations 
Committee. The gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Jamie Herrera Beutler, 
and her husband, Daniel, recently welcomed their first child, a 
beautiful baby girl, into their family. This sweet girl is a miracle 
and a testament to the faith and hope that her parents have carried 
over recent months. We offer our continued praise for their strength, 
the wisdom of their doctors, and the joy of this new family.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 12529]]





[[Page 12530]]



[[Page 12531]]



[[Page 12532]]



[[Page 12533]]



[[Page 12534]]



[[Page 12535]]



[[Page 12536]]



[[Page 12537]]



[[Page 12538]]


  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The devastating impacts of the Ryan budget are on full display in the 
fiscal year 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies bill.
  My good friend, Chairman Tom Latham, was given an impossible 
allocation of $44.1 billion. This is $4.4 billion below the fiscal year 
2013 sequestration level and $10 billion below the level included in 
the Senate bill. As a result, the FY 2014 bill makes deep cuts to a 
number of critical transportation and housing programs.
  Within the Department of Transportation, the bill cuts the programs 
and activities of the Federal Aviation Administration by $756 million 
below the FY 2013 CR level. While the bill provides enough funds to 
avoid additional furloughs, it is unclear whether FAA will be able to 
completely lift the hiring freeze that has been in place during this 
fiscal year.
  The FAA's NextGen program will also be impacted by delaying the 
important developmental work on many of the program's emerging 
technologies.
  Amtrak's capital program is cut by more than $350 million, which will 
jeopardize long distance service and some short haul routes. At these 
funding levels, Amtrak will have to suspend mechanical overhauls on 
equipment, which will result in slow orders and furloughs of hundreds 
of mechanical employees and engineers.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development sustained even deeper 
cuts. The bill reduces funding for the CDBG, the Community Development 
Block Grant, program to $1.6 billion, which is the lowest level since 
the program was created in 1975. The HOME program is funded at $700 
million, which is the lowest level since the program began in 1992.
  The bill funds the Public Housing Capital Fund at its lowest level 
since 1987, adding more than $1 billion in deferred capital maintenance 
to an existing $26 billion maintenance backlog.
  In closing, I do want to commend the chairman, Tom Latham, for 
funding the critical safety missions of the Department of 
Transportation and for honoring the obligation limitations in the 
surface and aviation bills. The chairman has also included sufficient 
funding to move 10,000 more homeless veterans off the street and into 
housing.
  Despite the chairman's efforts, I have great concerns with the bill 
as it is currently written. I remain hopeful that we can achieve a more 
realistic allocation as the appropriations process moves forward this 
year.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a great member of the committee.
  Mr. COLE. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2014 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act. I 
want to commend my good friend, Chairman Latham, for making some tough 
choices, but making those choices in a manner that was fair, 
transparent, and rational. I also want to thank my good friend, Mr. 
Pastor, the ranking member on the other side of the aisle. He's always 
a pleasure to work with. He's always a delightful Member and he always 
contributes. I know while this bill may not be everything that he would 
like, he certainly added a great deal in the course of our 
deliberations.
  The reality is that because of sequestration, the allocation this 
subcommittee was given is meager. The bill provides $44.1 billion in 
discretionary spending--a reduction of many billions below the fiscal 
year 2013 enacted level. But let's be clear: that reduction is due to 
the Budget Control Act and the mechanism of sequestration, not the Ryan 
budget, which simply recognizes the realities that have been agreed 
upon and passed into law. It's worth noting that our friend, the 
President of the United States, recommended the sequester, which we're 
trying to enact in this budget.
  At the same time, even with these cuts, the bill has maintained 
funding for the FAA Contract Tower Program, a program which is vitally 
important to maintaining safe national airspace.
  The bill also provides funding to continue assistance to all families 
anticipated to hold section 8 and public housing vouchers at the 
beginning of fiscal year 2014. I know that was a tough mark to make, 
Mr. Chairman, and one that I appreciate that you did make because you 
put people first.
  Additionally, this bill fully funds the President's request for 
veterans housing vouchers at $75 million, a point that my friend, Mr. 
Pastor, made.
  Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Latham and every member of this committee 
would like to spend more money on infrastructure; but because of our 
$17 trillion crushing debt and because of unrestrained growth and 
entitlement spending, this is where we are and this is where we will be 
until we confront out-of-control entitlement spending.
  Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to reject this 
hard reality. Some believe we will never have to balance our budget. 
Some believe that trillions of dollars in additional tax increases are 
the solution. And some think that we don't need to make any changes in 
our entitlement programs. That approach, in my view, simply won't work.
  The deficit we have is far too high, but it is less than half of what 
it was when Republicans retook the House in 2010. That's progress. But 
more progress will need to be made until America actually balances its 
books. And that, I believe, will set the stage for faster, more robust 
economic growth.
  I pledge to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle to find a 
compromise that will allow us to make vitally important investments 
while still lowering the deficit, but that compromise must involve 
entitlement reform. Until then, we frequently will continue to see 
important programs, such as the ones in this bill, starved for 
investments that they need.
  So we need to get on to that bigger deal that my friend, Mr. Latham, 
talked about. I think the product of that deal will be much more robust 
appropriations for this particular subcommittee.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their 
hard work on this bill. But no amount of hard work could redeem this 
bill, and I am rising in strong opposition. We call it the THUD bill. 
Well, the bill makes about the same sound as it spells--thud.
  The majority's bill says of our transportation and infrastructure 
commitments, We don't care if the wheels fall off. It says of our 
housing and development commitments, We don't care if the roof caves 
in. Thud.
  While I appreciate the hard work of the members of this subcommittee 
and of the dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle, the funding 
levels included in this bill are just unacceptable. They're impossible. 
The 302(b) allocation received by this subcommittee is 15 percent lower 
than it was last year. And that was already low. It's 19 percent below 
the Budget Control Act. It's nearly $10 billion below the level that 
the Senate is considering in the same bill.
  This funding level reflects the reckless discretionary spending caps 
adopted by the House majority in the Ryan budget resolution, which not 
only locked in sequestration; it doubled down on sequestration in order 
to shelter defense and homeland security bills from some of the cuts. 
This made allocations for our domestic investments even worse--far, far 
beyond the usual zone of political disagreement. The Transportation and 
Housing bill we're considering today is a prime example of this 
impossible tradeoff.
  On the transportation side, the bill makes deep cuts to the capital 
programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, Amtrak, and the 
Federal

[[Page 12539]]

Transit Administration's New Starts program. It zeroes out funding for 
the TIGER program, which has been enormously successful at advancing 
critical surface transportation projects in communities across the 
country, and yet has had to leave thousands of meritorious proposals 
unfunded. Once again, the bill includes no funding for the development 
of high speed rail.
  Funding for our housing needs is even worse. The bill reduces funding 
for the Community Development Block Grant program, a program that over 
the years has been known for its bipartisan support, to $1.6 billion. 
That's the lowest level since this program was created in 1975. The 
HOME program is funded at $700 million, the lowest level since that 
program began in 1992. And the bill rescinds funding for the Choice 
Neighborhoods program, the successor program of Hope VI. That means the 
bill lacks funding for any comprehensive revitalization program 
whatsoever.
  During the Appropriations Committee markup of this bill, Democrats 
offered a series of amendments to restore these damaging cuts and 
produce a bill that more adequately meets our Nation's critical housing 
and infrastructure needs. All of those amendments were rejected on 
party-line votes.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most tragic and disappointing fact about 
this bill is that the cuts it imposes could be avoided if the 
Republican leadership would only appoint budget conferees to go 
negotiate, with their Senate counterparts, a long-term deficit 
reduction deal that would lift sequestration and preserve vital 
investments in our future.
  Alternatively, Republican leaders could reconsider their refusal to 
talk with the President. That offer from December still stands. They 
should work with him to address the real drivers of the deficit--tax 
expenditures and entitlements--thus, lifting sequestration, along with 
the drag it represents on our economy and the mockery it makes of the 
appropriations process.
  The bill before us is exhibit A of this travesty. I urge my 
colleagues to raise their voices and their votes against it.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my 
distinguished friend from Chicago (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I became a member of the Appropriations 
Committee this Congress to make the tough funding choices that 
determine our national priorities, but this year's budget allocations 
have taken those choices away from us.
  This bill is being touted as a budgetary tradeoff, but there are no 
tradeoffs in this bill. There are only cuts. Investments in our 
infrastructure are needed more than ever. Yet this bill makes some of 
the most significant cuts to vital transportation programs in decades.
  We all remember the Recovery Act. An interesting fact about the 
Recovery Act is about 6 or 7 percent of that bill dealt with 
infrastructure, but that 6 or 7 percent of that bill created about two-
thirds of the jobs that the act created.
  Unfortunately, in this bill there's no funding for TIGER grants, 
which fund infrastructure projects like the Elgin-O'Hare Western Access 
Project in my district, and no funding for Core Capacity Grants to fund 
desperately needed improvements to transit systems like the Chicago 
Transit Authority. Instead of increasing safety and capacity in air 
travel, we're slashing funding to the FAA's air traffic control 
modernization program. Instead of expanding rail service, we're cutting 
Amtrak's capital program by 37 percent.
  The housing numbers are even worse. This bill cuts funding to housing 
programs that not only work but have a proven track record of saving 
the taxpayer money. There's no funding for the Choice Neighborhoods 
program, which helps communities revitalize distressed neighborhoods. 
There are significant cuts to the Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with AIDS program, which is used to house some of the most vulnerable 
among us, and also another program which saves money. Community 
Development Block Grants, used by communities across the country, have 
been cut in half and are at their lowest levels since the Ford 
administration.
  We're cutting investments in our future and essential services to 
those in need to pay for bloated defense spending the Pentagon often 
itself says it doesn't need. In the final analysis, countries that 
succeed invest in research, education, and infrastructure. Mr. 
Chairman, we're cutting all three.
  I joined this committee to make the smart funding choices that will 
propel our Nation forward, but this bill does just the opposite. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. LATHAM. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I, first of all, want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the ranking member, and all of the members of the 
subcommittee for their very good work. Given the allocation they have, 
they have done their very best.
  I would follow up on a number of remarks by my colleagues, including 
the chairman, and that is we need a deal. And my plea to the membership 
is we cannot continue to go on like this.
  This process no longer is on time. Our year starts October 1. In 
2007, we finished in February. In 2008, we finished in December. In 
2009, we finished in March. In 2010, we finished in December. In fiscal 
year 2011, we finished in April. In 2012, we finished in December. This 
year, we finished on March 26.
  Since 2007, we should have enacted 84 individual appropriation bills. 
We have enacted nine individually--about 10 percent of our work. 
Unfortunately, the body has made the work of this subcommittee, the 
full committee, and the other 11 subcommittees very difficult.
  For fiscal year 2013, our committee was given a target in the summer 
of 2011, under the Budget Control Act. The target was changed under a 
resolution passed by the House for the budget in the spring of 2012. 
The target was changed again on January 1, 2013. Subsequently, we have 
sequestration. My plea to the general membership is, please, just give 
this exceptional committee one target and let us do our work.
  I also am fearful because we are operating most agencies, including 
the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, under a continuing resolution that, for the vast 
majority of my colleagues, makes no difference. You wouldn't run your 
house or your business exactly the way you did last year.

                              {time}  1530

  We made these agencies wait 7 months to tell them they can keep doing 
the same thing for another 5 months, and on October 1 of this year 
we're going to do it again.
  Some people say we're spending too much money. I agree, which is why 
I have actually brought a chart to the floor. We balanced a budget 
under President Nixon in 1969 for 1 year. We balanced a budget for 4 
years under President Clinton. During those years, Federal spending was 
about 18.9 percent of GDP. For fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013, it was 
about 22.7. The response of this body is: we will do the Budget Control 
Act, and we will have mindless sequestration and treat all 
discretionary accounts the same.
  Some people say we don't have enough revenue. They're absolutely 
right. When President Nixon and President Clinton balanced a budget for 
those 5 years, revenue was 20.1 percent of GDP. Today, it is 16.2.
  We had a bill passed on January 1 that effectively now has limited us 
as far as any future revenue. I would point out 204 Members of this 
body voted for that bill in a bipartisan fashion, and 219 Members of 
this body today, in a bipartisan fashion, voted for the Budget Control 
Act, even though most of them complain about sequestration.
  Today, we have the allocations this great subcommittee is faced with, 
and

[[Page 12540]]

we are pounding our discretionary accounts. The fact is, in 1963 over 
67 percent of what we spent as a national government was an investment 
in the future, in our children's future. In fiscal year 2012, that was 
down to 26 percent.
  For those who want to continue this madness of going after 
discretionary spending, and particularly domestic discretionary 
spending--Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development--
I would point out that year, if we had eliminated the Government of the 
United States, eliminated the Congress and the Presidency and every 
agency except the Department of Defense and the entitlement programs, 
and did nothing on taxes, our deficit last year was $472 billion. It is 
estimated this year, if we got rid of the Department of 
Transportation--which I think some people are trying to do with this 
allocation--if we got rid of HUD, if we got rid of the government, 
except for defense, except for entitlements, and did nothing on taxes, 
this year's deficit would be $153 billion.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers this year gave our country--
the United States of America, the greatest country on Earth--a D-plus 
for our infrastructure. I have a bridge that was blown up in my 
district next to ArcelorMittal and BP. That's not helping create jobs.
  They claim we are about $1.6 trillion short between now and 2020 
investing in infrastructure. That's what this bill is about, investing 
in the future.
  We do need a deal; and the chairman mentioned it, the ranking member 
mentioned it. We do have to talk about entitlements for the sake of our 
children. What about our children when Social Security is insolvent in 
2033? What about our children when Medicare is insolvent in 2024? We 
need to address those issues; and we need to address the issue of 
revenue to make sure we have enough to invest in those highways, in 
those classrooms, in those research institutes so that we can have a 
full and vibrant economy going forward.
  For those who want to balance the budget and are about this madness 
of sequestration and crushing domestic discretionary spending, hurting 
defense discretionary spending, I would also point out that the 
Congressional Budget Office indicated in October of 2011 that for 
fiscal year 2012, one-third of the deficit would have gone away if we 
simply were at full employment.
  So it is time to talk to each other. It is time to put everything on 
the table. It is time to invest in this country. And I would hope we do 
that sooner rather than later.
  I appreciate very much the gentleman yielding me time.
  Mr. LATHAM. I would inquire of the gentleman from Arizona if he has 
any more speakers.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, we're waiting for the ranking 
member of the full committee. She is on her way. So I will fill in the 
best I can.
  Mr. LATHAM. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I want to thank my colleague, 
Mr. Visclosky, who is the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations, 
for his excellent presentation. Also, I join him in making that request 
to our leadership, both the majority and the minority, that we begin 
the conversation. We only have a few days before September 30 rolls 
around. So I would hope that we take his comments seriously and get to 
work and continue the process of the appropriation and lift the 
sequestration.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield such time as she may consume 
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished 
ranking member of the full committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, what a difference a year makes. Last year, 
Chairman Latham put forward a responsible bill that invested in our 
Nation's infrastructure and the housing needs of our most vulnerable 
citizens. The bill we consider today, which is $7.7 billion below the 
FY 2013 CR level and $13.9 billion below the President's request, is a 
stark contrast. For example, last year's bill funded Amtrak's capital 
program at the highest level ever. This year's bill funds Amtrak at the 
lowest level in a decade, which will likely cause furloughs of 
mechanical employees and slower service.
  Last year, the chairman spoke out against an amendment offered by Mr. 
Chaffetz to cut the CDBG program to $2.95 billion--still $1.3 billion 
higher than the level in this bill. Member after Member on the majority 
side spoke out against the cut, noting how important CDBG was to 
economic development in cities and States across the country. In fact, 
17 Republican appropriators, including Chairman Rogers and Chairman 
Latham, helped to defeat this wrong-headed cut by a vote of 157-267.
  What changed? Have these programs become ineffective? Have local 
infrastructure needs and homelessness disappeared? Or do House 
Republicans simply support raising local taxes to fund affordable 
housing and infrastructure investments? Because that will be the 
result.
  Unfortunately, what has changed is that the reckless Republican Ryan 
budget guts investments in domestic priorities that increase American 
prosperity. In fact, this bill alone would mean the loss of between 
125,000 and 140,000 Tenant-Based Rental Vouchers, cause 146,000 people 
who are now housed to become homeless, and result in 7,110 fewer jobs 
created, and $1.4 billion in lost economic output due to the $237 
million recision to the TIGER program.
  Instead of investing in affordable housing to help people make the 
transition from dependency to independence and investing in 
infrastructure to fix deficient transportation systems and create jobs, 
Republicans would rather defund the Affordable Care Act, block-grant 
Medicaid, privatize Medicare, while protecting subsidies for Big Oil 
and tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans.
  The Senate is currently marking up bills at the level to which 
Democrats and Republicans agreed in the bipartisan Budget Control Act. 
The Senate T-HUD bill provides a more responsible path that invests in 
job creation and assistance to families suffering in this economy. For 
example, the Senate provides nearly $10 billion more than the bill we 
consider today for infrastructure investments that have received strong 
bipartisan support and would create jobs, including $1.45 billion to 
fund Amtrak, more than $3 billion for the Community Development Block 
Grant program, $550 million for the TIGER grant program, and $1 billion 
for the HOME program.
  If we are to avert a developing crisis and make progress on long-term 
fiscal challenges, Senate Democrats need a partner in the House 
majority to conference the budget. The American people, local 
governments, and small business owners want this budget standoff to end 
so that we can avoid shutting down the government in October and help 
them build a stronger economy.
  When will Republicans stop holding their livelihoods hostage to the 
Ryan budget? House Democrats are ready to work with our Republican 
colleagues to responsibly address our fiscal challenges. However, if 
they continue to move farther away from consensus by turning once 
bipartisan bills like this one, T-HUD, into red meat messaging bills 
for their base, Congress will have a difficult time reaching a balanced 
agreement before the CR expires in 2 months.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, as 
we start this amendment process, I want to thank and commend the staff 
of the subcommittee. These are the individuals who worked very hard to 
bring this bill forward. They worked many hours and put in a lot of 
time and effort, so before we start the amendment process I want to 
recognize their hard work.
  So I'd like to thank, from the minority staff, Kate Hallahan and Joe 
Carlile; from the majority staff, Dena Baron, Doug Disrud, Carl 
Barrick, Cheryle Tucker, and Brian Bernard because they spent countless 
hours bringing this bill to us.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Latham for doing what he could with

[[Page 12541]]

this bad allocation, and I look forward to the amendment process
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. I intend to yield back here, but let me associate myself 
with the comments of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) about 
commending the staff. He named everyone. I just wanted to, again, 
associate myself with that and thank him for being such a great partner 
through all this. It has been difficult, but the product we have is, I 
think, as good as we could possibly have with our allocation this year.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, the base bill contains divisive policy riders 
that would pointlessly prohibit federal investment in high-speed rail 
in California.
  Rail has a long history in CA going back to 1869. Prior to ``the last 
spike'' joining Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads, CA was 
isolated from the rest of the country.
  Once the transcontinental railroad was completed, CA started to 
develop into the urbanized, industrialized economic and political 
powerhouse that it is today--the 12th largest economy in the world.
  What we're talking about here is jobs. Connecting LA and San 
Francisco will generate 66,000 jobs annually for 15 years and 2,900 
permanent operations jobs for Phase 1. In the Central Valley, initial 
construction will produce 20,000 jobs annually for five years.
  If you want to talk about Return on Investment, the initial state 
investment of $2.6 billion from state bond funds will produce a net 
economic impact of $8.3 to $8.8 billion--a 3 to 1 return.
  Every year, auto congestion drains $18.7 billion in lost time and 
wasteful fuel from the state's economy.
  Our auto congestion is not something we can build ourselves out of . 
. . travel on CA's interstate system is increasing at a rate 5 times 
faster than capacity is added.
  Now is the time to invest in High Speed Rail in CA. This bill 
prohibits federal investment in high-speed rail in California, and 
fails to make other critically needed investments in our nation's 
failing infrastructure: a 37% cut in Amtrak capital funds which will 
result in deferred maintenance; and a $139 million cut to Federal Trust 
Transit Administration capital investment grants that will cancel 
scheduled projects in California and other states.
  America's sense of itself as an exceptional nation was true when we 
were investing in our national infrastructure, whether it was: 
electrification of our rural communities, building our interstate 
highway system, or connecting the East Coast to the West Coast by rail.
  We need to dream big again and not be afraid to make those same kinds 
of investments in our national infrastructure, like high speed rail, 
and NextGen for a 21st century air traffic control system.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers recently issued their report 
card for our nation's infrastructure and the United States got a grade 
of D+.
  This bill should be increasing our grade from a D+ to an A+.
  We just need the political will.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, to build a vibrant economy, we must invest 
in building our nation's infrastructure in a strategic and cost-
effective way. Our businesses and communities need efficient 
transportation and goods movement; our aging neighborhoods need help to 
eliminate blight and to encourage additional private investment and 
business growth; and, our country needs to invest in job creation.
  H.R. 2610 does not meet any of these needs. The uncompromising 
austerity of this bill strips our economy of its footing and imparts 
damage that will be felt for generations.
  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) programs--critical 
investments in our infrastructure--will be cut in half by H.R. 2610. 
These grants are used to stabilize low income neighborhoods with tools 
that support and stimulate economic vitality. For every federal dollar 
spent in CDBG funds another $3 in private and public investment is 
leveraged.
  In Long Beach, CA last year, these grants provided services for 384 
new and existing small businesses, creating many new jobs; provided 
comprehensive services to 18,000 Long Beach community members, 
promoting progress towards permanent housing and self-sufficiency--
lifting people out of poverty and off government assistance; and, 
completed exterior repairs and upgrades at 115 business sites 
revitalizing Long Beach neighborhoods.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2610 eliminates TIGER (Transportation Investment 
Generating Economic Recovery Program) grants and it eliminates all 
funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative--both are models of 
collaborative and efficient government. These two models support 
sustainable regional transportation systems and land use planning to 
promote economic health and workable communities, respectively.
  America cannot afford to divest in its infrastructure. I ask for a 
``no'' vote on H.R. 2610.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the Fiscal Year 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, THUD, appropriations bill being considered before the 
House. This bill fails in almost every regard to prioritize our 
Nation's crumbling infrastructure, expand affordable housing 
opportunities for low- and moderate-income Americans, and strengthen 
local economies through direct investment and job creation.
  The House bill cuts $7.7 billion from the enacted level for FY2013, 
slashing funds for vital community development programs, TIGER grants 
and high-speed rail projects, and even key assistance grants for our 
most vulnerable segment of the population: homeless individuals and 
families. This bill already cuts more than $4 billion below the post-
sequester amounts for FY2013, consistent with the terrible assumptions 
included in the Ryan Budget that the Defense Department will be spared 
from this shared sacrifice. Simply put, this bill will place the burden 
of these cuts squarely on the backs of low- and moderate-income 
Americans.
  The FY2014 THUD appropriations bill is just another example of House 
Republicans' refusal to work across the aisle to develop a sensible and 
bipartisan budget agreement that does not threaten our economic growth 
and competitiveness. Instead, my Republican colleagues have 
deliberately chosen to ignore the demands of the American people by 
developing a budget that makes drastic cuts to public programs without 
any deliberation on the basis of need or the public good.
  Mr. Chair, the FY2014 THUD appropriations bill is simply unworkable 
in its current form. The drastic and indiscriminate cuts found in this 
bill will undermine critical investments in our Nation's 
infrastructure, hollow out vital housing programs, and destroy jobs.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Amtrak passenger 
rail service, which carried 31.2 million riders in 2012 and provides a 
vital transportation alternative for commuters and travelers in our 
Nation's busiest corridors.
   More people are taking Amtrak today than ever before, a sign that 
passenger rail is making a comeback. Ridership has grown substantially 
during the last decade, with another 3.5 percent gain last year. This 
year, Amtrak had the highest monthly ridership of its 43-year history 
with 2.9 million riders in March. Amtrak now covers 88 percent of its 
operating expenses with ticket sales and other revenue, with government 
funding needed mostly for capital projects.
   I represent the southwest side of Chicago and neighboring suburbs 
where passenger and commuter rail boost our economy. Chicago's Union 
Station is Amtrak's fourth-busiest station. In Illinois, 56 Amtrak 
trains run each day carrying 5 million passengers. In addition, the 
Illinois Department of Transportation has partnered with Amtrak on 
three corridors between Chicago and downstate Illinois, and has teamed 
with Wisconsin to support service between Chicago and Milwaukee. Total 
ridership on these routes has increased 85 percent since the State 
doubled its investment in Amtrak service in 2006.
   In the bustling Northeast Corridor from Washington, DC up to Boston, 
Amtrak carried a record 11.4 million passengers in fiscal year 2012. 
That helps keep vehicles off our congested highways and relieves some 
of the pressure at our busy airports.
   Investment in passenger rail also benefits our economy. In 2012, 
Amtrak spent more than $1.3 billion on domestically-manufactured goods 
and services in 48 states and the District of Columbia. The vast 
majority of Amtrak's spending is right here in the U.S.; less than one 
percent of Amtrak's procurement money is spent to purchase products 
from foreign countries. In Illinois, Amtrak employs nearly 1,500 
residents.
   I am encouraged to see Amtrak ridership growing, and I think 
maintaining our only national intercity passenger rail network will be 
critical as fuel prices rise and Americans demand more transportation 
options. I look forward to finding smart ways to improve passenger rail 
service for my constituents and others.
   I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Amtrak and opposing the 
proposed deep cuts to passenger rail funding in the current 
transportation appropriations bill that was pulled from the floor 
Wednesday.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
devastating funding cuts to the

[[Page 12542]]

Transportation and Housing initiatives in this appropriations bill, and 
particularly the cuts to the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG).
  Established nearly forty years ago, the CDBG program provides State 
and local governments across the country with the funding and 
flexibility to most effectively target resources to local community 
development needs.
  The only Federal program of its kind, since 1974, the CDBG program 
has invested $135 billion in local communities.
  And, in addition to being a critical factor in national economic 
growth, this program has assisted States and local governments in 
achieving the kinds of infrastructure projects, job creation and 
poverty elimination that our communities so desperately need.
  In this Chamber, there is often talk of the need to make government 
more efficient, and reduce wasting taxpayer dollars.
  Well, I'm happy to report that this program does just that--it 
continues to be one of HUD's most efficient programs--with grantees 
devoting on average 94 percent of CDBG funds directly to efforts that 
provide benefits to low- to moderate-income families.
  Within my district in Franklin County Ohio, CDBG funding has been 
used for housing rehabilitation, micro-enterprise assistance, ADA 
compliance, and revitalization of downtown Columbus. These developments 
have made a real difference in my community.
  The City of Whitehall has removed and replaced about thirty-three-
hundred feet of curb and gutter along Bernhard Road, enhancing water 
runoff management in the area--preventing pooling water and possible 
disease or outbreak.
  Recent projects have provided 650 households with access to public 
transit--public transit that many families use to get to and from work 
and stores all of which improves the local economy as a whole.
  And CDBG funds have given 1400 families in Franklin County, Ohio 
access to clean, safe drinking water--a project that would have been 
nearly impossible otherwise because local revenues were just not 
available.
  I'm proud to say that Franklin County continues to leverage $5.30 for 
infrastructure development for every dollar of CDBG funding it 
receives, but with the draconian cuts to CDBG contained in this bill, 
there's simply no way that we can make up the difference.
  That's why the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the National 
Housing Trust, the Community Development Finance Authority, the 
National Association of Counties, the National Association of 
Development Organizations, the YWCA, Rebuilding Together, the National 
Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the American 
Planning Association, and the Council of State Community Development 
Agencies have all written in strong support of CDBG funding and the 
programs it sustains.
  And yet, here we are considering an appropriations bill that would 
literally cut the program in half.
  The proposed funding level would be less than when CDBG was first 
authorized in 1974.
  This would tip many low- to moderate-income Americans over the brink 
into poverty and would negatively impact our communities and our 
country.
  So I stand here today--with my colleagues--strongly opposed to the 
funding level cuts contained in this appropriations bill.
  The Chairman of the T-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, Representative 
Latham, has said ``cutting over $7 billion in programs was very 
challenging.''
  I say this to my Republican colleagues, if cutting these programs was 
hard--I can assure you, the children, seniors, and families directly 
helped by CDBG programs will have a much more challenging time dealing 
with the effects of over $7 billion in cuts.
  I urge opposition to this bill.
  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
proposed cuts to Amtrak in the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development (THUD) Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2014.
  Amtrak is a vital need for constituents from my home state of New 
Jersey and to people all along the eastern seaboard. Each day, 
thousands of passengers take to the railways and ridership on Amtrak 
has continued to grow over the past several years. Now is not the time 
to cut their funding.
  These proposed cuts in THUD could cripple the railroad system, 
requiring cuts to maintenance and equipment replacement, which could 
jeopardize the safety of the thousands of Amtrak riders each day.
  Once again, I would like to reiterate how heavily my constituents 
rely on Amtrak for their traveling needs and I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to come together and oppose the cuts included 
in this legislation.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has 
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional 
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2610

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2014, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary, 
     $102,481,000, of which not to exceed $2,618,000 shall be 
     available for the Immediate Office of the Secretary; not to 
     exceed $984,000 shall be available for the Immediate Office 
     of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $19,867,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to 
     exceed $10,107,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed 
     $11,572,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed 
     $2,500,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $23,376,000 
     shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
     for Administration; not to exceed $2,020,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed 
     $1,595,000 shall be available for the Office of the Executive 
     Secretariat; not to exceed $1,369,000 shall be available for 
     the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization; 
     not to exceed $10,778,000 for the Office of Intelligence, 
     Security, and Emergency Response; and not to exceed 
     $15,695,000 shall be available for the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated 
     for any office of the Office of the Secretary to any other 
     office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided further, That 
     no appropriation for any office shall be increased or 
     decreased by more than 5 percent by all such transfers: 
     Provided further, That notice of any change in funding 
     greater than 5 percent shall be submitted for approval to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $60,000 shall be for allocation 
     within the Department for official reception and 
     representation expenses as the Secretary may determine: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, excluding fees authorized in Public Law 107-71, there 
     may be credited to this appropriation up to $2,500,000 in 
     funds received in user fees: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds provided in this Act shall be available for the 
     position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Today's bill is part of the House majority's 
irresponsible charade of a budget process. The sequester cuts affecting 
2013 spending levels are having a tangible impact on American families 
and hurting our economy: 70,000 children losing access to Head Start; 4 
million fewer Meals on Wheels delivered; $1.5 billion in cuts to the 
National Institutes of Health's lifesaving medical research and jobs; 
degraded military readiness; furloughs and reduced paychecks for 
hundreds of thousands of Federal employees; and delayed safety 
modernization at airports.

                              {time}  1545

  My friends on the other side of the aisle want it both ways. They 
adopted a budget resolution that endorses the sequester levels for next 
year, locking in a top-line figure $92 billion below the Senate's and 
the President's budget levels, while they pretend they fixed the 
sequester for defense. They cut more than required on the domestic side 
and did nothing to shield defense programs from legally mandated cuts 
under sequestration. If the House bills are enacted, defense will be 
cut $48 billion in January as a result of the sequester because the 
majority has not enacted legislation to stop it--$48 billion when 
General Dempsey has made

[[Page 12543]]

it very clear to those of us who have had recent talks with him that 
our readiness is at stake.
  The Republicans allocated more adequate funding to the initial bills 
to fund military construction, veterans affairs, defense, and homeland 
security. The remaining bills have quickly revealed the Republicans' 
thoroughly inadequate investments to sustain job creation and invest in 
America's future prosperity.
  Perhaps no other bill's programs mean as much to the communities in 
our districts as the bill we are considering today, yet it guts 
affordable housing and community development and underfunds rail, air, 
and road transportation networks.
  The same majority wrote a very different bill last year that 
reflected an understanding of the impact these programs have on our 
economy and Americans' livelihoods.
  Compare the House bill to the Senate version, which is almost $10 
billion higher. Seventy-three Senators, including 19 Republicans, voted 
to proceed to floor debate. The House bill, on the other hand, was 
reported from committee on a straight party-line vote.
  I would be hard-pressed to find a better example of fiddling while 
Rome burns than the House majority's budget and appropriations process 
this year. They continue to trot out bills despite White House veto 
threats and despite even worse sequestration cuts right around the 
corner.
  I have asked at our committee to suspend our markup until we 
conference a budget resolution with the Senate so that we can negotiate 
a reasonable top line for the appropriations process. There is no sense 
in the House proceeding alone with levels totally unacceptable to the 
White House and the Senate, yet we will be here late into the evening 
again considering amendments to a bill that is going nowhere.
  When the House returns after the August recess, we will have only 9 
legislative days until the end of the fiscal year: 9 days to negotiate 
a path forward, 9 days to avert a government shutdown, 9 days to do the 
jobs we were sent here to do--work together to invest in America and 
build up our economy.
  I genuinely hope our majority will be prepared in the fall for the 
necessary compromise these negotiations require, because this bill 
shows they are not prepared for responsible governance today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the report for this year's 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill, the ``THUD'' bill, 
as I noted earlier, states:

       The Nation is in desperate need for infrastructure and 
     investment.

  I am glad we can agree on that. We are indeed in desperate need, yet 
the bill before us hardly reflects that. It chooses to prioritize 
spending cuts over putting Americans back to work. It is part of a 
budget process that places antitax ideology above all and refuses to 
address the main drivers of the deficit. Instead, it simply doubles 
down on sequestration, making sequestration even worse with respect to 
the domestic bills so as to give some measure of protection to defense. 
It is an atrocious process, and this bill is Exhibit A for this 
travesty.
  We all know America's surface transportation network is essential for 
moving goods and services, as well as people, in an efficient manner. 
Unfortunately, that transportation system is becoming increasingly 
outdated and ineffective. The American Society of Civil Engineers 
recently gave America's infrastructure a cumulative grade of ``D.''
  Congestion, aging trains and roads, and thousands of structurally 
deficient bridges are imposing real costs on the American people and on 
the American economy. It is estimated that Americans spend 4.2 billion 
hours a year stuck in traffic. I can testify to sharing that experience 
last Sunday. This costs the economy $78.2 billion annually. The poor 
condition of our roads costs motorists another $67 billion a year in 
repairs and operating expenses.
  The civil engineers stated that ``current spending amounts to only 
about half of the needed investment.'' Instead, similar to the proposed 
Ryan budget, this Republican fiscal year 2014 THUD bill would underfund 
programs that provide critical investments in transportation 
alternatives and smart growth, providing about $2 billion in total for 
transit programs, which is about a 17 percent cut from last year.
  The bill would completely eliminate funding for the overwhelmingly 
popular and successful TIGER grant program, which invests in multimodal 
projects, including roads and bridges, transit, high-speed and 
intercity passenger rail, freight rail, bicycle and pedestrian 
facilities, and ports--these things that promise to achieve critical 
national objectives and make our communities more livable and 
sustainable. On top of that, the bill would even rescind funding for 
the fiscal year 2013 TIGER grant process that is already under way.
  The bill also decreases funding for the Federal Transit 
Administration's New Starts and Small Starts program, which is the 
primary source of Federal support for major transit capital projects 
that are locally planned, implemented, and operated. They are critical 
for leveraging local investment to implement transit alternatives.
  And then for yet another year, the bill provides zero dollars for 
development of high-speed rail corridor development. I speak as a 
representative of a State where high-speed rail development between 
Raleigh and Charlotte is well under way and holds great promise. Yet 
this bill denies further resources, denies that kind of support for 
other parts of the country. Our Nation has a major competitiveness gap 
in this area. These investments make sense. Sometimes you have to spend 
some money to make some money, and high-speed rail investments have a 
synergistic impact. They upgrade our rail infrastructure, they improve 
the mobility of goods and people, and they create jobs.
  Finally, Amtrak. This bill is pathetic with respect to Amtrak--only 
$950 million total. Of this, only $600 million goes to the capital 
account. That is a 37 percent reduction from last year and more than $1 
billion less than the administration's request for capital.
  You can figure out how this is going to work. You subtract from that 
amount Amtrak's required mandatory debt service, that is $200 million; 
safety-critical work and inspections and maintenance mandated by 
Federal law, that is another $200 million; and new equipment expected 
to be delivered this year that will add capacity and improve returns on 
long-distance trains, that is $100 million. So you see where that money 
is going. It leaves almost nothing for capital investment in the 
national system, including improving accessibility for passengers with 
disabilities.
  When you are cutting things this closely, it means the work you are 
going to do is going to be done less efficiently. Amtrak will have to 
fix problems only as they occur. It will defer major work. That is bad 
policy. It is bad economics. If Amtrak deteriorates, service will 
suffer, revenue will suffer, Amtrak's costs will go up, and that will 
eventually be reflected in higher appropriations needs in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, transportation investments help improve the mobility of 
millions of Americans and provide alternatives to congested roadways. 
They foster the development of more livable communities and are proven 
job-creators. It is absolutely penny wise and pound foolish to 
shortchange these investments. I urge defeat of this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, by gutting investments in transportation 
and housing, the majority is proposing to bring our Nation backward at 
a time when we must be building the infrastructure needed to compete 
and win in a competitive global economy.

[[Page 12544]]

  For example, with today's legislation, the majority is proposing to 
slash the Community Development Block Grant program by almost half. 
These cuts would be devastating to the working poor in communities like 
Rochester, New York, which I represent, where block grants provide 
housing assistance and investments in neighborhoods that are woefully 
underserved.
  Furthermore, the majority is proposing to gut investments in 
infrastructure projects, and particularly passenger rail. They do so at 
a time when rail ridership continues to grow across the country.
  In Rochester, the Amtrak ridership has been increased by 89 percent 
since 2008, despite the fact that decades of underinvestment have 
resulted in aging rails, delayed trains we have to sidetrack to let the 
freight go by, and a crumbling train station.
  I want to say something about this train station. It was built over 
45 years ago as a temporary train station. It has not, in all these 
years, been ADA compliant. You cannot imagine what it is like to get 
somebody in a wheelchair from the station up onto the train, or to 
watch a mother with a stroller struggle to get up there because it is 
impossible to do. 144,000 people went through that railroad station 
last year, and they deserve something more like the 21st century.
  I have fought years to improve train travel; and we are finally 
getting to build, with a TIGER grant, a new intermodal station in the 
heart of the city. Like countless other cities and towns, our work has 
been supported by Federal TIGER grants, which have provided vital 
support in modernizing our city's infrastructure. The funding is 
allowing Rochester and countless other communities to build the roads, 
rails, and runways we need to compete for the jobs of the future. But 
we cannot allow that to happen if we cut out the very means by which we 
fund them.
  Ridership, as I have said, on Amtrak's high-speed Acela, which I wish 
we had--we only have one sort-of-high-speed rail in New York--continues 
to reach record highs, and states like California and Illinois and 
North Carolina are already building high-speed rail lines. That is 
terribly important.
  As cochair of the bicameral Congressional High-Speed Passenger Rail 
Caucus, I will soon be joined today by fellow members who realize the 
incredible value of Amtrak and nationwide passenger rail to our 
country.
  The truth is that our rail system reaches throughout our economy and 
supports tens of thousands of jobs. The bill before us today endangers 
these jobs, including the jobs of 20,000 Amtrak employees and the 
private businesses who sold $1.3 billion worth of domestic goods and 
services to Amtrak last year.
  As my colleagues will tell you, endangering jobs today and our 
economy is a recipe for failure, especially at a time when our 
infrastructure really needs to be upgraded. As we rebuild places like 
Afghanistan, it always makes me so angry. If they are going to be 
building high-speed rail there, I want to build it in New York, in 
America somewhere.
  Let me tell you this story, which I think will bring it home to all 
of you.
  In 1893, the president of New York Central Railroad, for reasons I'm 
not really clear, lived way out in upstate New York. He had to commute 
to New York City every day during the week and spent the weekends at 
home. In 1893, they decided they would have a race with steam engines, 
so they raced the few miles between Buffalo and Rochester to see which 
one of those engines were the fastest. Mr. Chair, they set a world 
record by traveling at 112\1/2\ miles an hour between Rochester and 
Buffalo.
  Today, we are on the same track. It hasn't been improved any, but we 
can't go anywhere near like that. There is no way we can get even close 
to 80 miles an hour. We can't do that. Mostly it is about 40. It takes 
a lot longer now to travel from Rochester to Buffalo than it did in 
1893.

                              {time}  1600

  Crumbling infrastructure like this is not only harmful to our economy 
but is an embarrassment to a Nation that has never been scared to dream 
big, and while it is true that our Nation has faced challenges over the 
past few years, we need big answers.
  The proposed bill fails our country now and into the future. Now is 
not the moment to stop investing in our country nor is it the time to 
resign ourselves to a future of diminished success. Instead, it is a 
time to roll up our sleeves and to put our country back to work.
  We can answer the call of a generation by investing in the future, 
and we can build a better, more prosperous America one road, one 
runway, and one rail line at a time. So I urge my colleagues to reject 
the cynical and backwards-looking legislation that is before us.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                [From the New York Times, May 12, 1893]

                       Great Speed on the Central


 EMPIRE STATE EXPRESS ENGINE TRAVELS AT THE RATE OF 112\1/2\ MILES AN 
                                  HOUR

       Buffalo, NY, May 11.--If the New-York Central officials 
     wanted a record for their new engine, No. 999, preparatory to 
     exhibiting her at the World's Fair, they have got one now 
     that beats the world. It is 112\1/2\ miles an hour.
       On Tuesday the Empire State Express, drawn by this 
     marvelous machine, made 102 miles an hour, a great record in 
     itself, but Engineer Charles Hogan said she was not feeling 
     well that day and could do better. She was given a night's 
     rest here, and yesterday morning was brought out, looking 
     ponderous, trim, and stately, and sent down to Syracuse for 
     another trial.
       The Empire State Express arrived in Syracuse on time, and 
     Hogan and No. 999 were ready to take her. The engine was 
     coupled on and the train left Syracuse on time. Hogan let her 
     out a few times on the way to Rochester, just to see if she 
     was feeling good, and finding that she responded to every 
     touch of the throttle he contentedly bided his time. He did 
     not want to get ahead of his schedule and he brought her into 
     the Rochester depot at just the right moment. The test of 
     speed was to come between Rochester and this city. Soon after 
     leaving Rochester Hogan slowed her down a little, for he 
     intended to make up the time at the western end of the trip. 
     Passing Batavia, the train was rushing along at an easy gait 
     of a mile a minute. Then Hogan let her out. The speed 
     increased as the engine flew along, and just before reaching 
     Crittenden the record of Tuesday of a mile in thirty-five 
     seconds was equaled. But this was exceeded just this side of 
     that station, when the new world's record of a mile in 
     thirty-two seconds was made.
       This is equivalent to 112\1/2\ miles an hour. A speed 
     nearly as great was kept up until Forks Station was reached, 
     and then Hogan slowed her down and allowed her to enter 
     Buffalo at her customary speed, arriving on time.
       The passengers on board said that the train flew along with 
     the same steadiness that would have accompanied a slower rate 
     of speed. There was no unusual swaying or jolting, and only 
     persons who were looking out for manifestations of 
     extraordinary speed would have noticed that the clickety-
     click of the rails sounded like the roar of musketry, and the 
     telegraph poles along the track seemed like pickets in a 
     fence.
       At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the New-York 
     Central Railraod yesterday the determination was reached to 
     begin the running of the twenty-hour train to Chicago on the 
     28th inst. The train will be know as the ``Exposition 
     Flier.'' The question of fare has not yet been definitely 
     settled. Doubtless the action of the Trunk Line Presidents 
     to-day will have some effect on the rate. An advance of from 
     $5 to $10 on the regular fare will probably be charged. The 
     speed of this fast train will be about fifty miles an hour.

  Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the FY14 
Transportation-HUD appropriations bill.
  This bill is the perfect illustration of the majority's cruel and 
misguided priorities. We hear a lot from the other side about how we 
need to cut the budget, reduce the deficit and rein in spending, but, 
clearly, that's just rhetoric. Last week, the majority put a bill on 
the floor that increased defense spending substantially, including 
extra funding for programs the administration and the military didn't 
want and have no intention of using. The reality is that the majority 
in this House is perfectly willing to increase spending for things they 
care about, like military contracts, but not for ensuring adequate 
housing, investing in economic and community development or even in 
transportation infrastructure.
  The bill before us today is so bad that it's hard to imagine how it 
can be fixed. The House bill is fully $10 billion

[[Page 12545]]

less than the Senate bill, and it's virtually impossible to find 
offsets for amendments to improve the bill, but it's important for us 
to highlight some of the egregious cuts, such as the drastic cuts to 
the Amtrak capital and operating budget. Just a few years ago, Congress 
passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, PRIIA, which 
authorized a total of $9.8 billion for Amtrak for the fiscal years 2009 
through 2013, but the actual appropriations for Amtrak over this time 
period was $2.5 billion below the authorized amount.
  There is no question we need to invest more in our railroads. A 
working group for the National Surface Transportation Policy and 
Revenue Study Commission reported that the total capital cost estimate 
of establishing a national intercity passenger rail network between now 
and 2050 would be about $357 billion, or a little over $8 billion 
annually. We are nowhere near that, and the bill before us today takes 
us in exactly the wrong direction. This bill slashes Amtrak's capital 
program by 37 percent and Amtrak's operations by 25 percent from last 
year's enacted level.
  These funding levels would have a drastic impact on Amtrak's ability 
to maintain service. Once you take into account Amtrak's financial 
obligations, such as contract payments and federally mandated safety 
work, Amtrak would have only $100 million to cover the investment needs 
of the entire system. The Northeast corridor alone requires about $780 
million per year to address longstanding state of good repair needs, 
and Amtrak will have to defer maintenance, which will cause service 
delays and interruptions, and increased costs in the long run.
  This is idiotic. I know some people are Amtrak haters no matter the 
facts, but here are a few more facts that are noteworthy.
  Commuter lines on the Northeast corridor carry 235 million passengers 
every year. These are mostly business travelers who rely on the 
reliability of Amtrak's rail in order for them to get to work and 
foster economic growth. If Amtrak cannot maintain the rails adequately, 
all of these commuter rail systems around all of our major cities will 
stop being efficient, will stop being able to transport their people.
  Amtrak employs nearly 20,000 people in 46 States. Amtrak employees 
paid more than $64 million in State and local taxes last year. Amtrak 
did business for suppliers equaling about $1.3 billion last year. 
Cutting funding for Amtrak jeopardizes all of this economic activity 
and all of the good-paying jobs associated with it. It will ultimately 
cost taxpayers a lot of money in the long run.
  Amtrak provides a vital service for communities all around the 
country. We should be increasing investments in Amtrak and developing 
intercity and high-speed rail. This bill includes no funds whatsoever 
for the TIGER grant program. In fact, it rescinds $237 million in 
previous TIGER funds. The bill also includes no funding for the 
Projects of National and Regional Significance account, which is 
authorized under the MAP-21 bill that we passed last year but that is 
now subject to general fund appropriations. The New Starts program will 
fund some new transit programs, but that account is cut as well, and 
there is only enough funding to maintain commitments to projects 
currently in the pipeline. So there are, essentially, no programs to 
fund any new construction of major transportation projects.
  The majority has offered no solutions for how to invest in future 
economic growth, to facilitate interstate commerce and to maintain our 
global competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to reject these disastrous 
cuts to Amtrak, these disastrous cuts to TIGER and to general 
infrastructure, and to support moving us back toward an intelligent 
transportation policy. I have to urge a ``no'' vote on the FY14 
Transportation-HUD appropriations bill.
  Later in this debate, I will discuss the equally disastrous cuts in 
Community Development Block Grants. It's just another example of how 
this bill is dismantling the United States.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of New York). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I come to address the House, the Congress 
of the United States.
  We are the wealthiest country in the world. We are the most powerful 
country in the world. We have one program that focuses on improving the 
lives and life chances of people in our lower-income communities across 
our country. It's called the Community Development Block Grant. It was 
created under Republican President Richard Nixon in 1974.
  Since its inception, we have invested about $132 billion in some 
1,209 communities across our country. Over the life of this program, we 
have invested about the same amount as we took to build the 
International Space Station. In 1 year, we spent approximately the same 
amount in Afghanistan. This year, we are spending $3.3 billion on the 
Community Development Block Grant, which is the lowest amount in the 
history of our Nation.
  What the majority, my friends on the other side, are proposing in 
this appropriations bill is to spend the least amount ever on this 
effort. They want to slash it from $3.3 billion to $1.6 billion. Now, 
it's not that they are mean-spirited. It is because the allocation for 
this bill is fatally deficient. It is too low to meet the needs of the 
greatest country on Earth in so many respects that we could be here all 
day in pointing out the deficiencies, but I want to focus on just this 
one program.
  Because it was created by a Republican President, it operates in the 
most, I think, approving way for those on the other team. That is to 
say that these are grants for which all of the decisions are made at 
the local level by Republican and Democratic Governors, by Republican 
and Democratic local officials. They decide what the priorities are 
going to be to help uplift these communities. So it's unfortunate that 
they would single out this particular program--the only program that we 
have to help the neediest communities across our country. I've seen it. 
It has worked in local business districts, encouraging small business 
development. I've seen its work in helping seniors put in major systems 
repair and heating and windows or roofing so that they can be protected 
in the winter.
  This is a great program, even though it was developed by a President 
of the other party. It operates through local decisionmaking. It's 
already at the lowest level ever, and if you added up what we've 
invested in it in all of these years, it wouldn't add up to what we've 
spent in building the International Space Station. If we added up all 
that we've spent on it in all of these years, it barely gets to the 
number we spend in 1 year in Afghanistan, but we still think somehow we 
should cut it in half.
  It's a wrongheaded decision. I would ask that we reconsider it. I 
know the allocation is tough, but it's going to be a lot tougher on so 
many more Americans who live in communities, in being reminded of what 
Jay-Z said, that have their shades on and are just waiting on the Sun 
to shine their way. I would ask my colleagues to think about that as we 
go forward. Think about the wrongheadedness of this and how unworthy it 
is for the greatest country on Earth to say to its citizens who need 
our help that somehow we can spend money in Afghanistan--in some far 
off place--or that we can build a great International Space Station, 
which I support, but that we can't do anything about the challenges in 
these neighborhoods. I ask the entire House to live up to our 
responsibilities in a much different way than we are doing now.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Griffin of Arkansas

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

       Page 2, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 56, line 25, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.


[[Page 12546]]


  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, on March 29, 2013, the 
ExxonMobil Pegasus pipeline in Mayflower, Arkansas, spilled thousands 
of gallons of oil into the homes and onto the properties surrounding 
the ruptured pipelines. I am committed to making things right for the 
people of Mayflower by ensuring that another spill like this doesn't 
occur again in Arkansas.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, is responsible for regulating 
and ensuring the safe and secure movement of oil and petroleum products 
to industry and consumers through our Nation's interstate pipelines. As 
an interstate pipeline, the inspection of the Pegasus pipeline was 
PHMSA's responsibility.
  Pipelines move nearly two-thirds of the oil and petroleum products 
transported annually. Interstate pipelines deliver over 11.3 billion 
barrels of petroleum each year. The cost to transport a barrel of 
petroleum products from Houston to the New York Harbor is about a 
dollar. American pipelines are indisputably the safest way to move oil, 
and I remain supportive of the pipeline infrastructure as it will 
provide important jobs and energy to Americans, but we've got to make 
sure these pipelines are safe. Every year, pipelines transport more 
than 11 billion barrels of oil, and last year, less than five ten-
thousandths of 1 percent of it was lost to spills.
  We've got to do what we can to make sure spills that did occur don't 
happen again. Although the number of spills is a minimal fraction of 
what we safely transport throughout the country, I know that we can 
still make more certain the safety of our Nation's pipelines. I 
continue to support the safe transport of our Nation's oil and 
petroleum products, and I have introduced my amendment to increase the 
budget for PHMSA's operational expenses by $500,000 to further ensure 
the safety of our Nation's pipelines.
  This appropriation finances the operational support costs for PHMSA, 
including agency-wide functions of administration, management, policy 
development, legal counsel, budget, financial management, civil rights, 
human resources, acquisition services, information technology, and 
governmental and public affairs.
  I ask that the House support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. I think it is very well thought out. The gentleman does 
have it offset, so the committee position on this side would be to 
support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who talked 
about the underfunding of so many important programs in this bill but, 
in particular, of the Community Development Block Grant program.
  When we talk about our national security, it means more than the 
number of missiles that we possess, and it means more than the number 
of military bases we have overseas. It means as well--and just as 
importantly--many of the priorities that are contained in the 
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.
  That is why it pains me to come to the floor today to lament about 
how woefully underfunded key transportation, infrastructure and housing 
programs are in this bill--programs that revitalize our communities, 
help our neighbors secure affordable housing, and support smart 
economic development.

                              {time}  1615

  The bill, as it is before us today, simply put, is unfixable at its 
current allocation level. There are programs like the HOME program, 
which is at its lowest funding level in its history. Just so my 
colleagues understand, the HOME program is a critical Federal 
investment utilized by States and localities to provide affordable 
rental and homeownership opportunities for low-income households. As we 
recover from a damaging recession, these cuts in this program will put 
further strain on affordable housing opportunities.
  This bill also severely underfunds tenant-based rental assistance, 
project-based rental assistance, and the Public Housing Capital Fund. I 
continue to hear from housing advocates in my home State of 
Massachusetts, and their message is consistent and clear: we need more 
funding in these accounts to ensure that all families have access to 
affordable, comfortable, and stable housing.
  The families that we're talking about aren't losing sleep overnight 
wondering whether they're going to be attacked from some country 
overseas. They're losing sleep overnight because they don't know 
whether they're going to have shelter to protect their own families. 
They're worried about their own security in this country, and yet we 
are underfunding these programs so significantly.
  I'm especially concerned, as my colleague from Pennsylvania stated, 
about the proposed reduction in Community Development Block Grant 
funding. This bill cuts CDBG formula grants by nearly 50 percent and 
funds this program at its lowest level since its creation in the 1970s.
  In April, I joined with 143 bipartisan Members on a programmatic 
request letter to appropriators in support of $3.3 billion for this 
program. In July, after the subcommittee's legislation was released, 
101 bipartisan Members wrote to the Appropriations Committee again 
expressing support for effective funding levels. There is demonstrated 
bipartisan support for Community Development Block Grants, Mr. 
Chairman, because these dollars are at work in communities in each of 
our districts.
  Last week, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts announced that 38 
communities in Massachusetts will receive over $31 million in CDBG 
funding. These dollars will fund housing rehabilitation, child care 
centers, cityscape improvements, and social services, just to name a 
few. I also want to point out that every $1 in Community Development 
Block Grants leverages an additional $3.55 in funding to revitalize our 
communities. Investing these Federal dollars in our cities and in our 
towns spurs redevelopment efforts and provides a high return on our 
investment. These funds also create and save jobs. Since fiscal year 
2005, these funds have created or retained over 300,000 jobs. If my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about job creation, 
CDBG is not the place to cut.
  Realizing the need for effective funding, the Senate appropriations 
bill funds the program at $3.15 billion. So, should this bill go to 
conference, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to reject these cuts in the House bill and support robust 
funding for Community Development Block Grants, a program with a proven 
record of supporting community development efforts across our country.
  Let's stop these reckless and harmful cuts to our communities. We 
ought to be on the floor today fixing sequestration. My colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle should be on the floor today appointing 
conferees on the budget so that we can negotiate more reasonable 
allocations on these appropriations bills.
  I would remind my colleagues that this is not some abstract debate 
that we're having here today on the floor. These cuts will hurt real 
people. They will pave the way for more deterioration of our cities and 
towns. They will cost jobs and they will hurt our economy. Enough is 
enough. We're supposed to be helping people, not hurting people. It's 
time for Congress to get its priorities straight.

[[Page 12547]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the CDBG program, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my 
colleague, Mr. Latham, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. I would be happy to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I know that you know that our Nation 
suffers from a spending-driven debt crisis and the only real remedy is 
to quit spending money that we don't have. But because the President 
would not work with us to enact meaningful, targeted spending 
discipline, his sequester has been enacted.
  Mr. Chairman, we are stewards of the taxpayers' dollars; and with the 
President's sequester in place, I believe that it's more critical than 
ever that our Nation's transportation funding be spent wisely, 
including funding for the FAA's Contract Tower Program because, Mr. 
Chairman, in Washington, it's not always how much money you spend that 
counts; it's how you spend the money.
  I would ask the distinguished chairman to work with me and other 
Members to ensure that this critical funding is allocated to the 
facilities that represent the greatest cost benefit to the taxpayer.
  Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue. I 
look forward to working with him and the FAA to ensure that our limited 
Federal dollars go to towers that provide the greatest benefit to the 
taxpayer.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the chairman, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
2610. This bill, which was crafted to conform to the strangling and 
senseless limits of the Ryan budget, would cut the total discretionary 
funding for the Transportation-HUD appropriations measure by $7.7 
billion below the enacted fiscal year 2013 appropriation and by more 
than $4 billion below the level of funding provided after sequestration 
took effect.
  These cuts would devastate programs like the Community Development 
Block Grant program and the HOME program, which are essential to 
supporting development in cities throughout our Nation and to providing 
housing and other services to our most vulnerable citizens.
  This bill would also be devastating to our national passenger rail 
service, Amtrak; and that is the specific issue I will address today.
  The bill before us would cut the capital grant provided to Amtrak by 
some $352 million and cut the operating grant by $119 million below the 
enacted fiscal year 2013 levels. Such cuts would likely force Amtrak to 
reduce its maintenance levels and furlough maintenance personnel. Such 
cuts may even lead to reduced service on the Northeast corridor, the 
critical link on the eastern seaboard among Washington, D.C., 
Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
  In their views on the Transportation-HUD appropriations measure, the 
minority noted that this bill is out of touch with reality and that it 
is nowhere more evident than in the proposed funding level for Amtrak.
  While the House majority has undertaken a relentless effort to 
destroy Amtrak, the traveling public has made it clear they consider 
Amtrak to be an essential part of our Nation's transportation network.
  Amtrak finished fiscal year 2012 having carried more than 31 million 
passengers--the highest number of passengers in any year since Amtrak 
was created. This total included more than 11 million passengers who 
traveled on the Northeast corridor. Together, the long-distance routes 
had their highest passenger volumes in 19 years and Amtrak set 12 
consecutive monthly ridership records in fiscal year 2012. To put this 
number in perspective, if Amtrak were an airline, it would be the sixth 
largest in the country.
  Americans have voted with their ticket purchases, and they are 
choosing to ride Amtrak in greater numbers. In fact, record ridership 
growth is continuing in fiscal year 2013. Rather than seeking to 
destroy a service critical to our Nation's mobility, we should be 
investing in this system to ensure it can continue to meet increased 
passenger demand with increased speed and efficiency.
  Significant infrastructure improvements are needed all along the 
Northeast corridor to create truly high-speed rail service. In 
Maryland, for example, the B&P tunnel, which carries every train 
traveling into Washington, D.C., from all points north of the city, 
must be replaced. This tunnel was opened in 1873 and its design limits 
train speeds to 30 miles per hour. We would not think of relying on 
technology from the 1870s in other aspects of our lives. We wouldn't 
want medical technology or communications technology from the 1870s. 
And we should not be content to rely on transportation infrastructure 
from the 1870s.
  The President has rightly threatened to veto this bill; and rather 
than waste the House's time on legislation like this that threatens to 
degrade our transportation networks and delay passengers and commerce, 
we should be considering bills that will make long overdue investments 
to expand our mobility and support our economic growth. Rather than 
cutting investments in Amtrak, we should be investing in the 
development of truly high-speed rail on the Northeast corridor and 
throughout the northeastern United States.
  And before we consider this or any other appropriations measures, the 
House and Senate should follow regular order by appointing conferees 
who can resolve a budget that can be adopted by both bodies and that 
can then guide the development of appropriations measures for fiscal 
year 2014.
  I urge Members to oppose this misguided legislation, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this Transportation-Housing and Urban 
Development bill before us today is the latest in a long series of 
appropriations bills from the House majority that grossly underfunds 
the fundamental priorities of American families. Every time we see a 
new appropriations bill come from this majority, the vital national 
needs that are meant to be covered in that legislation have been cut to 
the bone.
  In this case, this bill makes deep cuts in everything from the upkeep 
of the traffic control system to Amtrak to Community Development Block 
Grants and HOME grants. This bill endangers our infrastructure, our 
public safety, and our communities. It is yet another example of the 
problems created by the majority's obsessive fixation on slashing all 
nondefense spending programs to the detriment of the priorities we were 
elected to uphold.
  Let's step back for a moment and look at the big picture. The Budget 
Control Act of 2011 placed strict limits on appropriations--defense as 
well as domestic--that are scheduled to remain in place through 2021. 
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that these 
caps will reduce spending by a total of $840 billion over 10 years, 
compared to the policies previously in place.
  Now, on top of these Budget Control Act caps, we also have the deep 
and indiscriminate across-the-board cuts caused by sequestration. 
Despite claims to the contrary by this majority, the effects of the 
sequester cuts are real. They're real and they are damaging. We are 
talking about children losing access to Head Start and

[[Page 12548]]

the opportunities for their growth and development that early childhood 
education provides. Low-income women will lose access to the cancer 
screenings that could save their lives. Seniors will be hungry because 
Meals on Wheels distribution has been pared back.
  When the new school year starts in September, school districts 
already struggling to make ends meet will face an additional across-
the-board 5 percent cut in Federal aid. And in terms of medical 
research, the National Institutes of Health will be supporting the 
smallest number of research project grants this year in more than a 
decade.
  These cuts will have profound and lasting consequences for families, 
for students, for the pace of scientific research. But despite that, 
the majority apparently thinks that the problem with sequestration, at 
least when it comes to domestic spending, is that the cuts were too 
small. They have been assembling a series of bills for 2014 that cut 
the resources for nondefense programs by a total of almost $47 billion 
below the 2013 postsequester level. That is not the right direction for 
this country. That's not what we ought to be doing.
  In total, the majority's 2014 budget bills will bring funding for 
nondefense appropriations to their lowest level on record as a share of 
GDP, with records on this basis going back to 1976. In other words, the 
majority proposes to spend less, relative to the economy, on things 
like infrastructure, scientific research, education, environmental 
protection--the key investments that grow our economy--than at any time 
in nearly the last 40 years.
  Within the total, some bills are targeted for larger cuts than 
others. Sequestration already cuts the transportation, housing, and 
infrastructure programs covered in today's bill by more than $3 
billion, and this legislation would slash another $4.4 billion.

                              {time}  1630

  That's bad enough, but the largest cuts of all come in the Labor-
Health and Human Services-Education bill, which the majority seems to 
consider the very lowest priority. The allocation to that bill starts 
with this year's $7 billion in sequestration cuts, and then cuts $28 
billion more. Think about it for a moment. For programs like education, 
medical research, job training, public health, the majority does not 
just want to double down on sequestration; they want to quadruple down.
  This is not about saving money or reducing the deficit. This is about 
ideology, pure and simple. The majority's approach is not required by 
the Budget Control Act. On the contrary, in total, their bills are 
$47.7 billion below the Budget Control Act cap on non-defense spending, 
and that is the cap with sequestration in place.
  Because this bill is already far leaner than even the BCA and 
sequestration require, there are no offsets to be had to ameliorate the 
deep and dangerous cuts to Community Development Block Grants, housing, 
Amtrak, or mass transit. The bottom line is the majority is very 
explicitly trying to underfund the priorities in this legislation. They 
have put forward a budget that sets our government and our Nation up to 
fail.
  This is not the right choice for America, for our kids or our future. 
Responsible budgeting means making key investments that grow the 
economy and improve American families' quality of life. This is just 
not a responsible budget. I urge defeat of this grossly inadequate 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my 
colleagues in strong support of the Community Development Block Grant 
program and the tremendous benefits that this program has afforded 
millions of low- and moderate-income Americans since its inception in 
1974 under Republican leadership. The Community Development Block Grant 
is a vital tool that the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
uses to provide for new developments and affordable housing in local 
communities all across the country.
  The fiscal year 2014 House Transportation-Housing and Urban 
Development appropriations bill indiscriminately slashes the grants by 
almost half, or $1.6 billion less than the current $3.3 billion for 
fiscal year 2013. These cuts do not reflect a change in need or have 
any basis in reality, and they would do incredible harm to local 
communities across the entire Nation.
  The House version of this bill is simply unworkable in its current 
form, and it plainly ignores many of the benefits that the CDBG program 
provides for the 1,209 State and local governments that receive these 
grants. Since 1974, CDBG has invested over $135 billion in local 
economies. Every dollar that has been invested leverages an additional 
$3.55 in non-CDBG funding, which can go toward improving existing 
infrastructure, new jobs, and housing repairs, as well as homeownership 
assistance. By slashing CDBG funding, the House majority will 
invariably bring harm to countless low- and moderate-income Americans. 
I'm not prepared to do that, and neither are many of us, even many 
Republican colleagues.
  Cuts from years prior have already had devastating consequences. The 
city of Dallas, for example, is considering another round of cuts or 
eliminating certain programs entirely in light of projected budget 
reductions. For Dallas, this could mean eliminating grants for 
affordable housing developers, shrinking the Mortgage Assistance 
Program, and decimating new home construction in areas targeted by CDBG 
revitalization.
  Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2014 Transportation-Housing and Urban 
Development appropriations bill will bring considerable harm, and 
considering it this week is just another example of the misguided 
policies of the current Republican majority. As long as the current 
majority Republicans refuse to work together with House Democrats to 
develop a sensible budget framework, the American people will continue 
to suffer the consequences of draconian cuts to invaluable social 
programs.
  When we shut down everything, it does not help us economically. It 
shuts us down. It moves us backwards. There is a right way and a wrong 
way, and we cannot continue to do it the way this current Republican 
majority is pushing.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my colleagues today 
in advocating for critical investments to rebuild our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure. The bill we are considering this week 
makes devastating cuts that will have serious consequences on our 
ability to compete in the global economy and ensure the stability and 
well-being of local communities.
  The fact of the matter is that our infrastructure is crumbling, with 
the American Society of Civil Engineers grading the United States with 
a D-plus on their annual report card assessing the condition of 
America's infrastructure. In my home State of Rhode Island, 21 percent 
of our 757 bridges are structurally deficient and in need of repairs.
  In the short-term, supporting our Nation's roads, rails, and airports 
will generate job growth in a construction sector that remains hard hit 
from the recession--employing the talented, capable men and women of 
the building trades to rebuild America.
  In a rapidly changing global economy, the ability to quickly and 
safely transport goods, services, and information is a real advantage. 
To compete successfully, every American business, from energy companies 
and manufacturers to technology companies and farmers, must have access 
to a world-class connected transportation system. transportation 
system.
  But to maintain this edge, virtually every expert has said we must 
continue to invest in rebuilding America. If you don't believe me, look 
at the strategic

[[Page 12549]]

decisions being made by competing nations. Just last week, China's 
Ministry of Rails announced plans to invest another $32 billion to 
upgrade their rail system. In June, President Putin proposed investing 
$43 billion to build a new superhighway in Moscow, modernize the Trans-
Siberian Railway, and construct a brand-new 500-mile high-speed rail 
line.
  While Russia and China are betting on their economic future, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a bill that would 
unquestionably set us back. This bill guts investments in our 
railroads, cutting more than $468 million in funding for Amtrak 
compared to fiscal year 2013 enacted levels and eliminates all funding 
for high-speed rail.
  This bill cuts intercity passenger rail despite recent reports 
demonstrating how rail has been an area of growth. According to a 
report from the Brookings Institution last year, Amtrak was our 
Nation's fastest growing mode of transportation in the last 15 years.
  My local train station in Providence, Rhode Island, has seen 
ridership totals increase by more than 137 percent, and Amtrak is not 
just used by tourists.
  So, demand for intercity passenger rail service has grown 
exponentially in the last decade and our competitors abroad have 
noticed, investing billions in their rail systems. But here, some of my 
colleagues have decided to slash funding and put our rail system at 
risk. This is clearly the wrong approach.
  Of course, this legislation does not only jeopardize our Nation's 
rail system; it also slashes funding for municipal and State 
governments hoping to invest in critical local projects.
  This bill eliminates all funding for the TIGER grant program in 
fiscal year 2014, and it rescinds $237 million of the $500 million 
appropriated for the current fiscal year.
  The TIGER program invests in innovative, multimodal transportation 
projects, providing for upgrades of bridges, roads, ports, and other 
transportation infrastructure that are critical to regional economies. 
But perhaps most importantly, this is a program that encourages local 
stakeholders to plan for their future and think about innovations to 
local transportation infrastructure that will spur growth and create 
jobs. This is exactly how Federal investments are supposed to work.
  Unfortunately, this bill once again leaves our State and local 
partners without the resources needed to help strengthen local 
communities. Sadly, it gets worse. This bill also jeopardizes the 
still-fragile recovery of our housing market and communities at risk.
  For example, this bill decimates funding for the Community 
Development Block Grant program, which was signed into law by a 
Republican President who recognized the importance of assisting 
communities by providing flexibility to invest in everything from 
wastewater treatment facilities to housing and economic development. 
This critical program is a lifeline for families facing difficult 
economic challenges and provides critical resources to promote economic 
development and improve quality of life.
  Today, this bill cuts CDBG funding levels almost in half compared to 
current enacted levels, the lowest level of funding since it began, and 
a billion dollars less than President Ford requested for the program in 
1975. Let that sink in. This bill cuts our investments in local 
projects so drastically that we have reduced programs to less than 60 
percent of what they were nearly four decades ago.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly does not reflect our values and 
priorities as a Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject this reckless 
and shortsighted bill, and to work together on a plan to respond to our 
urgent transportation and infrastructure needs and a plan that 
dedicates resources to strengthening local communities. Our ability to 
promote growth, create jobs, and compete in a global economy depends on 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong opposition of the underlying 
bill, as it makes damaging cuts to Community Development Block Grants. 
A cut of $1.6 billion--a nearly 50 percent reduction from the previous 
year--is not smart policymaking. These draconian cuts will no doubt 
have lasting harmful effects on our communities throughout the country.
  Since 1974, over 1,200 communities relied on CDBG funds to support 
development projects and make other important improvements. These funds 
are used in providing social services for the poor and senior citizens, 
improving dilapidated housing facilities, supporting local food banks, 
and maintaining local parks. CDBG funds are critical investments made 
by the Federal Government to bring important benefits to local 
communities.
  My district, for example, stands to lose almost $2.2 million next 
year if these cuts go into effect. That's nearly half of what they got 
last year. And it's on top of hundreds of thousands cities in my 
district have already lost due to the poorly designed automatic cuts 
known as sequestration. The city of Pasadena will see their funding 
drop from $1.7 million to under $1 million. The city of Alhambra will 
see their funding drop from around $800,000 down to only $430,000.
  These cuts are more than lines on a piece of paper. They will have 
real impacts on my neighbors and my community. Take People for People, 
a food bank run by the West San Gabriel Valley Church Council for the 
last 25 years. People for People provides the homeless and needy 
families with clothes and boxes of food. During the recession, they saw 
a 20 percent spike in the numbers of families who came to them for 
help. Last year, they were able to support hundreds of families that 
are suffering right now. Hundreds of families stay afloat with local 
donations and a $27,000 grant through CDBG. But this year, because of 
Federal Government cuts, they will receive 75 percent less, merely 
$7,000.
  But People for People isn't the only program that will get hit. 
Countless other nonprofit service organizations around the San Gabriel 
Valley will be forced to serve fewer low-income residents at a time 
when they need it the most. CDBG funds have helped fund tutoring, 
health services, small business assistance, senior services, food 
assistance, and fair housing services. Cities will have to cut back on 
home rehabilitation programs that improve blighted neighborhoods and 
public facilities, improvements that make cities safer and more 
accessible. And fewer construction projects mean fewer construction 
jobs, too.
  During this time of economic recovery, we cannot pull out the rug 
from programs that are vital to helping our constituents. Our cities, 
our communities, and our constituents cannot afford these drastic cuts 
to CDBG funding. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise today because our 
Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act is insufficient to maintain our 
national transportation infrastructure and invest properly in community 
development and safe, affordable housing.
  This Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act really guts investments 
critical to strong, sustainable communities. And, in particular, it 
decimates the Community Development Block Grants program, slashing it 
in half to the lowest level since the program began in 1975.
  This isn't just something that hurts Democrats. It hurts Republicans, 
it hurts everybody. It's across the board. And so, for the Community 
Development Block Grant program to work and ensure access to decent, 
affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our 
communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of 
businesses, we've got to reject this proposal before us.

[[Page 12550]]

  Communities across the country rely on the Community Development 
Block Grant to provide critical services for low-income people and 
their families, as well as economic development assistance to small 
businesses and infrastructure improvements.
  To this day, the Community Development Block Grant remains the 
principal source of revenue for localities to use in devising flexible 
solutions to prevent economic and social deterioration in lower-income 
neighborhoods and communities throughout the Nation.
  These grants are an important tool for helping local governments 
tackle serious challenges facing their communities, making a difference 
in the lives of millions of people and their communities across the 
Nation.
  Now, Detroit is a longstanding Community Development Block Grant 
grantee, receiving an average of $33 million in annual funding, while 
Wayne County, which Detroit is in, receives an additional $5.3 million. 
Yet, this proposal in the appropriations bill would drastically cut 
these funds.
  The CDBG program in Detroit and Wayne County, includes preserving 
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, offering a range of housing 
choices, constructing urban infrastructure, improving the appearance of 
urban and rural communities, increasing the quality of neighborhood-
based living, and decreasing negative environmental impacts.
  For my conservative friends to continue to focus solely on reducing 
the deficit, in particular doing so on the backs of the most vulnerable 
Americans, is unnecessary and not appreciated. Although deficit 
reduction is an important task, Congress can't balance the budget on 
the backs of working families. And sharply reducing programs like the 
Community Development Block Grant and HOME is going the wrong 
direction.
  I would say, this is the second major cut for the Community 
Development Block Grant funding since the Great Recession. The CDBG 
Coalition, consisting of national organizations representing local 
elected officials, State and local government practitioners, 
development organizations, and nonprofit organizations, all strongly 
oppose these cuts.
  These are individuals working daily in their communities, with the 
most acute awareness of what their communities need. So, in support of 
them and our constituents, we must fund CDBG formula grants at no less 
than the $3.3 billion in FY14.
  So, Mr. Chairman, once again I ask the Congress to stop trying to 
balance the budget on the backs of working families.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Mr. Chairman, during the appropriation process, 
over 100 Members and I expressed our concern about the low funding 
level for Community Development Block Grants.
  These grants are one of the most successful, cost-effective Federal 
programs that encourage economic growth in our cities and communities 
across the country. According to the United States Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, every $1 of CDBG investment leads to an 
additional $3.55 of investment from outside sources.
  In California's 35th Congressional District, the cities of Pomona, 
Chino, Ontario, Fontana, and Rialto, where people of all parties 
reside, currently receive Community Development Block Grant funding. 
This funding is used to build affordable housing, construct sidewalks, 
and invest in energy efficiency, water conservation, gang prevention, 
and after-school programs.
  These programs maintain strong neighborhoods and promote a higher 
quality of life for residents in the district. With the proposed cuts 
in this bill, it is estimated that they will lose 50 percent of funding 
for next year.
  I strongly oppose these devastating cuts. I ask that other Members 
consider their communities and oppose these cuts too.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Let me start with the fact that I choose to believe that 
Mr. Latham does not like this bill. Mr. Latham's not listening to me. 
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say that I start my debate, that I choose to 
believe that you do not like this bill. I know you. I've worked with 
you over a long period of time.
  This bill is insufficient to meet the obligations of this 
subcommittee. It is unworthy of the support of this House.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many things wrong with the 2014 
Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriation bill, but 
perhaps none more egregious than its severely painful cuts to the 
Community Development Block Grants.
  Now, let me start with this observation. This is not about a poor 
people's program. It helps some poor people, but it helps communities--
rich, moderate, and poor.
  This is not about the 47 percent. This is about the 100 percent.
  The Community Development Block Grant program was enacted on a 
bipartisan basis in 1974 and signed into law by the President, Gerald 
Ford, former minority leader of this House, President of the United 
States. From its beginning, it has served as a model of how bipartisan 
compromise in Congress can help tackle important challenges on the 
local level.
  For nearly 40 years, these grants have been awarded on a formula 
basis to State and local governments for infrastructure development, 
the creation and maintenance of affordable housing units, anti-poverty 
initiatives.
  It makes communities better. It empowers Members of Congress to be 
able to help their local communities who elect them. These grants save 
lives in our largest cities and in our smallest towns, in Alaska, in 
Hawaii, and in Maryland.
  The cuts in this bill would reduce Community Development Block Grants 
by more than half. America is not bankrupt. America need not claim 
defeat and retreat. America has the resources, if it has the will, to 
grow our economies, to grow our communities, and to make them better.
  We appropriated around $3.8 billion for these grants in fiscal year 
2012, while this bill would cut that figure to just $1.6 billion. To 
put this into perspective, in 2001 we spent $4.7 billion under George 
Bush II on Community Development Block Grants.
  After years of whittling away at those critical grants which empower 
our States, counties, and cities to help the most vulnerable have a 
chance at finding jobs and putting roofs over their heads, it would be 
devastating to communities whose budgets are already pushed to the 
limit and rely on these grants to serve all of their residents.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk a great deal about 
fiscal responsibility. But what about social responsibility?
  Now I'm a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility. But if fiscal 
responsibility is not coupled with social responsibility, it is not 
worthy of this House or this country.
  Community Development Block Grants are an instrument of our common 
citizenship and, yes, our common humanity. In this case, however, they 
are a poignant example of the Republican strategy of disinvestment in 
America and abandonment of our communities and their people. Surely 
we're better than that, Mr. Chairman.
  When we considered the Veterans Affairs, military construction, and 
Defense appropriations bills that included robust funding, we knew 
those funds had to come from somewhere. Here it comes.
  Like our Republican friends, we believe we must invest in a strong, 
national defense, as Chairwoman Mikulski has been doing on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. But we do not share the Republican majority's 
view that we ought to abandon our domestic priorities in the process. 
We're better than that.

[[Page 12551]]

  None of us are surprised that their strategy to deal with the 
sequester is to ignore its consequences and impose cuts even deeper, 
even deeper, even deeper than the sequester calls for. In fact, I know 
of a number of our colleagues on the Republican side who see the folly 
in such strategy but cannot or will not speak up, for fear of the 
political consequences from the radical right. This bill is proof that 
such a strategy is underway.
  It's not only an abdication of responsible leadership, it is a recipe 
for gridlock, as Democrats in the House and Senate could never agree to 
it. Reject this bill. We can and must do better.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, this is a slash-and-burn budget. I don't know 
why we bother.
  Whether you're looking at the community block grant or the section 
I'm going to say a few words about, the Amtrak section, you can see 
what we're about--we're supposed to reauthorize a highway bill this 
year and a railway bill this year. That certainly won't matter if the 
Transportation and HUD appropriations bill simply ignores authorized 
infrastructure spending and building.
  The federal government has Amtrak because the private sector insisted 
that we take it. They showed, they proved that you can't run a railroad 
without public subsidy.
  Amtrak has done an amazing job considering how little public subsidy 
it has gotten. The private sector gave it to us because they couldn't 
handle the operating expenses, and they couldn't handle the capital 
costs.
  Now, Amtrak, by the ticket, is basically handling the operating 
expenses. Shame on us that we will not come forward to do our part with 
the capital expenses. With a 37 percent cut in capital expenses, that 
is the way, Mr. Chairman, to run a railroad into the ground that 
otherwise is doing very well on its own dime.
  There is a thirty-five percent difference between the House and 
Senate bills. The Republican bill is bipartisan. Yet, we're about to 
pass a bill here that nobody would consider in the Senate, and that the 
President would have to veto.
  Why are we going through these appropriations exercises that amount 
to nothing?

                              {time}  1700

  Amtrak is more than sustaining itself. Virtually each month this 
year, it has had record ridership. Amtrak actually recovers almost 80 
percent of its operating costs out of ticket revenue. That's amazing. 
It seems to me Amtrak ought to be rewarded rather than, as this bill 
does, be punished.
  Amtrak carries 31 million passengers every year, and it keeps 
increasing. Travellers are preferring rail and 20,000 people across 47 
states work for Amtrak. Yes, we know about it best here in the East, 
where Amtrak also has 1 million daily commuters.
  This is our national railroad. It's unbelievable that we would be 
content to see every single nation in the world that considers itself 
an advanced nation be generations ahead of us on railroad development. 
We are two generations behind, for example, on high-speed rail. Yet 
there are zero dollars in this bill for high-speed rail.
  Amtrak is very well managed. In the committee we have heard what they 
have done and how they have done it. But they can't manage without at 
least some recognition from the Congress that we, too, have a role to 
play in the railroad. No railroad in the world is unsubsidized. This 
one is subsidized very little. It is still able to run most of its 
trains over 100 miles an hour.
  We ought to understand who we're talking about. We're not just 
talking about the Acela from the District of Columbia to New York. 
Among the 25 busiest Amtrak stations are Seattle, Harrisburg, and 
Bakersfield, California.
  At a time when the airlines are in trouble and have reduced their 
operations, Amtrak keeps growing in ridership each month. I have a 
winning operation here. But this bill sends it back into losing for us. 
We don't need to do that. We have a railroad that offers middle class 
jobs to 20,000 people, 200 of them in the District of Columbia. Let's 
do what we need to do in the T-HUD bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

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

       Page 3, line 5, strike ``not to exceed''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment. 
It simply strikes three words, ``not to exceed,'' with respect to the 
budget of an office that I consider to be pretty important, and that is 
the Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.
  As you look through the bill, every single part of the Office of the 
Secretary has a separate line item, and in looking at the bill, I 
noticed, for example, that for emergency response and security we have 
budgeted a little over $10 million. On the other hand, we have budgeted 
about twice as much for the lawyers for the Office of General Counsel. 
The lawyers somehow get twice as much as emergency response and 
security. Frankly, as I look at the list and how the money is divided, 
we spend $24 million roughly, which is nearly more than two times as 
much for the Assistant Secretary for Policy--all of that being more 
important than security.
  For me, as a Member of Congress who represents some 59,000 square 
miles, including five ports of entry and 800 miles of the Texas border 
with Mexico, an area, frankly, where we have seen emergencies and 
emergency response before, frankly, where the Congress is consistently 
and rightfully concerned about security, it seems to me that we would 
give the Department of Transportation some additional flexibility.
  This doesn't raise per se the amount of money that's available to 
them. What it does is give them additional flexibility so that in the 
event they don't spend the line items from the other items like the 
Office of Public Affairs or the Office of General Counsel, it gives 
them the flexibility to spend more money for intelligence, security, 
and emergency response.
  I think if you ask every single individual Member of Congress what is 
more important, the lawyers or the Department of Transportation Office 
of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response; what is more 
important, the lawyers at the Department of Transportation or the 
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, all of these 
kinds of things, especially for a Member from the border, I think 
security is more important.
  Again, it doesn't cost more money. It doesn't appropriate any more 
money, per se. What it does is gives the agency the ability to move 
money around and the flexibility to provide additional money, should it 
become necessary. Frankly, one never knows what kind of emergency is 
going to come up. One never knows what is going to happen, whether it's 
going to be a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. It always pays to 
have the emergency response folks have the level of flexibility that 
they need in order to understand that regardless of what happens, they 
have the opportunity to do their jobs and to do their jobs well.
  Additional budget flexibility in times of limited dollars and limited 
budgets, I think, is very key. So what this amendment would propose to 
do is simply strike those three words, ``not to exceed,'' so that there 
would potentially be an opportunity for the Department of 
Transportation to spend more money on emergency response and security 
than the little over $10 million that's allotted to them for the whole 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I am not opposed to the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 12552]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's 
amendment. It ensures that the Office of Intelligence, Security, and 
Emergency Response would receive no less than $10.778 million. This 
office performs important security functions of the Department of 
Transportation.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the draconian cuts to the Community Development Block 
Grant, or CDBG, program in this legislation.
  The CDBG program has a proven record of success in stabilizing and 
revitalizing communities across the country by directly providing funds 
to local communities and giving them the flexibility to decide where 
the funding will have the greatest impact. In the last 7 years, CDBG 
has assisted over a million low- and moderate-income homeowners to 
rehabilitate their homes, keeping neighborhoods and communities safe 
and stable.
  More than 30 million people have benefited from CDBG-funded public 
improvement programs, including senior and child care centers, homes 
for persons with disabilities, safe streets, and shelters for victims 
of domestic violence. Funds have also been used to provide public 
services to millions of low- and moderate-income households, including 
employment training, meals to seniors, and services for abused 
children.
  But the real impact of CDBG is not seen on the national scale. It is 
seen on the streets and in the neighborhoods of the communities that 
receive these funds. In my district, CDBG funds have established adult 
literacy programs, legal support for immigrant victims of domestic 
violence, and youth summer employment opportunities. It has preserved 
public housing and addressed vacant housing and lots in at-risk 
neighborhoods, providing support and guidance for small, locally owned 
businesses.
  Because of the flexibility CDBG provides, the city government has 
been able to identify the most pressing needs and the most at-risk 
communities and allocate funds as they are needed. When we invest CDBG 
funds in our cities, we see an immediate impact in the neighborhoods as 
nonprofit and private entities follow, bringing new development and 
opportunities for residents.
  Mr. Chairman, CDBG was a change from the old way in which specific 
programs were specifically funded. People in this House--mostly 
Republicans, I must say--said, Give more flexibility to local 
governments; instead of giving to 20 categorical-specific programs, 
fund them into one or two Community Development Block Grants so they 
can be used more efficiently. We have done that. We have combined a lot 
of categorical programs into CDBG, and now we want to tear it to 
pieces.
  Despite the success that CDBG has had, the bill we are debating on 
the floor today would cut funding to $1.6 billion, which is a 50 
percent cut from this year, and the lowest funding level in the 40-year 
history of the program--lower than when President Ford supported it, 
even without inflation adjustments.
  In New York, CDBG funding would fall from $164 million to $82 
million. These funding levels will leave hundreds of thousands of New 
Yorkers and millions of Americans without access to the vital services 
and support that CDBG provides.
  How did we get here? Why are we voting to gut this proven, efficient, 
flexible program? Why are we voting for a 50 percent cut in an already 
much too small allotment? The answer is simple: the slash-and-burn 
Republican budget. The same budget that provides tax breaks for the 
wealthy and large corporations and unneeded increases in defense 
spending while slashing funding for Medicaid, food stamps, and WIC has 
left appropriators with such small funding allocations that this bill 
was unworkable and unrealistic from the start.
  So here we are, slashing programs that serve and protect the most 
vulnerable among us--programs that are proven to save us money in the 
long run and programs that support flexibility and accountability in 
our communities.
  We may disagree, Mr. Chairman, on how to keep our economy strong, but 
we should all agree that we must stop piling these cuts on the backs of 
seniors and the working poor, women, kids, and the middle class. Stop 
these cuts to our communities. We should reject this bill unless it's 
grossly increased in the aggregate, which it won't be, as we know. So 
we should reject this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague from New York. 
This bill has too many cuts, and I will oppose final passage. But it 
does have comparable funding levels between the House and Senate for 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which administers 
distracted driving prevention grants to the States. This is an area 
where we need to do more.
  Every year thousands of accidents, many fatal, result from people 
texting or talking on their phones while driving. I'm not just talking 
about using a hands-free device. I'm talking about someone driving with 
one hand while talking on a cell phone or texting with the other hand.
  In 2011, 3,331 people in the U.S. were killed in crashes involving a 
distracted driver--up from 3,267 in 2010. And in 2011, more than 
387,000 people were injured in an accident involving a distracted 
driver, and 416,000 were injured in 2010. In 2012, the last year of 
updated data, 10 percent of injury crashes resulted from distracted 
driving. It's clear that we must use every opportunity available to 
push for strong distracted driving laws, much the same as we did for 
drunk driving, which worked.
  So I encourage my colleagues to renew their commitment to address the 
deadly issue of distracted driving. My Districted Driving Prevention 
Act, H.R. 1664, withholds funding from States that do not make both 
texting and talking on a phone while driving a primary offense, and 
goes further than the U.S. Department of Transportation's efforts to 
raise awareness and provide grants. These are important efforts, and 
they should be funded adequately; but they don't go far enough.
  To date, only nine States make both texting and talking on a phone 
while driving a primary offense: my home State of New York, followed by 
California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Nevada, 
New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia. That's a start, but it falls 
short of establishing a national highway safety baseline that saves 
lives.

                              {time}  1715

  In conclusion, let me say, when study after study shows us that 
distracted driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving, Congress 
cannot continue to ignore the problem when only nine States have taken 
action that meets a reasonable standard of safety. Anything less leaves 
our roads unsafe, our constituents in danger, and more unnecessary 
deaths as a result.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.

[[Page 12553]]

  The Clerk read as follows:


                        research and technology

       For necessary expenses related to the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, $14,220,000, 
     of which $8,218,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2016: Provided, That there may be credited to this 
     appropriation, to be available until expended, funds received 
     from States, counties, municipalities, other public 
     authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 
     training: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the powers and duties, functions, 
     authorities and personnel of the Research and Innovative 
     Technology Administration are hereby transferred to the 
     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology 
     in the Office of the Secretary, including the authority to 
     accept funding from modal administrations for support of 
     Global Positioning System activities pursuant to reimbursable 
     agreements with the Assistant Secretary for Research and 
     Technology in the Office of the Secretary; Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 102 and 5 U.S.C. 5315, there 
     shall be an Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology 
     within the Office of the Secretary, appointed by the 
     President with the advice and consent of the Senate, to lead 
     such office; Provided further, That any reference in law, 
     regulation, judicial proceedings, or elsewhere to the 
     Research and Innovative Technology Administration shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Research and Technology of the Department of 
     Transportation.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Latham

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 19.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 4, beginning on line 4, strike all through page 5, 
     line 6 and insert the following:
       For necessary expenses of the Research and Innovative 
     Technology Administration, $14,220,000, of which $8,218,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided, 
     That there may be credited to this appropriation, to be 
     available until expended, funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
     private sources for expenses incurred for training.

  Mr. LATHAM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that provides 
the existing $14.7 million in DOT funding to the Research and 
Innovative Technology Administration, rather than a new Assistant 
Secretary.
  This amendment is noncontroversial and addresses concerns of the 
Science and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. It does 
not affect the scoring of the bill.
  I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  national infrastructure investments

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in division 
     F of Public Law 113-6, $237,000,000 are permanently 
     rescinded.

                      financial management capital

       For necessary expenses for upgrading and enhancing the 
     Department of Transportation's financial systems and re-
     engineering business processes, $4,990,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2015.

                       cyber security initiatives

       For necessary expenses for cyber security initiatives, 
     including necessary upgrades to wide area network and 
     information technology infrastructure, improvement of network 
     perimeter controls and identity management, testing and 
     assessment of information technology against business, 
     security, and other requirements, implementation of Federal 
     cyber security initiatives and information infrastructure 
     enhancements, implementation of enhanced security controls on 
     network devices, and enhancement of cyber security workforce 
     training tools, $2,000,000, to remain available through 
     September 30, 2015.

                         office of civil rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $9,384,000.

           transportation planning, research, and development

                    (including rescissions of funds)

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning and research, $6,000,000, to remain available 
     through September 30, 2015: Provided, That of the unobligated 
     balances made available by Public Law 111-117 and designated 
     for a single project in the accompanying conference report, 
     $750,000 are hereby permanently rescinded: Provided further, 
     That of the unobligated balances made available by Section 
     195 of Public Law 111-117, $2,000,000 are hereby permanently 
     rescinded.

                          working capital fund

       For necessary expenses for operating costs and capital 
     outlays of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed 
     $172,000,000 shall be paid from appropriations made available 
     to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That such 
     services shall be provided on a competitive basis to entities 
     within the Department of Transportation: Provided further, 
     That the above limitation on operating expenses shall not 
     apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That no funds 
     appropriated in this Act to an agency of the Department shall 
     be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without majority 
     approval of the Working Capital Fund Steering Committee and 
     approval of the Secretary: Provided further, That no 
     assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

               minority business resource center program

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $333,000, as authorized 
     by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $18,367,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, $589,000.

                       minority business outreach

       For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center 
     outreach activities, $3,068,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2015: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 
     332, these funds may be used for business opportunities 
     related to any mode of transportation.

                        payments to air carriers

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       In addition to funds made available from any other source 
     to carry out the essential air service program under 49 
     U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, $100,000,000, to be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That in determining between or among 
     carriers competing to provide service to a community, the 
     Secretary may consider the relative subsidy requirements of 
     the carriers: Provided further, That no funds made available 
     under section 41742 of title 49, United States Code, and no 
     funds made available in this Act or any other Act in any 
     fiscal year, shall be available to carry out the essential 
     air service program under sections 41731 through 41742 of 
     such title 49 in communities in the 48 contiguous States 
     unless the community received subsidized essential air 
     service or received a 90-day notice of intent to terminate 
     service and the Secretary required the air carrier to 
     continue to provide service to the community at any time 
     between September 30, 2010, and September 30, 2011, 
     inclusive: Provided further, That basic essential air service 
     minimum requirements shall not include the 15-passenger 
     capacity requirement under subsection 41732(b)(3) of title 
     49, United States Code: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act or any other Act shall be used to provide 
     essential air service to communities that require a rate of 
     subsidy per passenger in excess of $500.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

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

       Page 9, line 6, after ``communities'' insert ``in the 48 
     contiguous States''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to thank Chairman Latham for his 
leadership on this bill. It's difficult times.
  This is a very simple amendment. In 1978, when Congress deregulated 
the airline industry, it also provided a means to protect rural 
communities. The Essential Air Service program ensures the continuation 
of service to communities that would have lost all air service through 
deregulation. While

[[Page 12554]]

this is a vital program, I respect the efforts of the chairman to find 
cost savings.
  The bill excludes communities from participating in the program if 
they receive a per-passenger subsidy of greater than $500. Current law 
excludes communities if they receive over $1,000 per passenger, with 
the exception of communities in Alaska and Hawaii. This recognizes that 
communities in Alaska and Hawaii are completely dependent on air 
travel.
  Alaska has limited road infrastructure. Eighty-two percent of Alaskan 
communities do not have a road system. In many of these communities, 
everything has to come in by air. My amendment clarifies that the 
proposed reforms will not alter the longstanding recognition of the 
realities in Alaska and Hawaii--no roads, no alternatives, complete 
dependence on aviation.
  My amendment has no score per CBO and does not impact funding levels 
of the program. My amendment provides a no-cost solution to ensure the 
most remote areas of our Nation are not excluded from participating in 
this program. I'd just like to remind my colleagues if you take all the 
land east of the Mississippi River to the Atlantic Ocean, from Maine to 
Florida, that's Alaska. And you think about it, in that area, there's 
253 Congressmen and 52 Senators. That's really different. Hawaii has 
the same problem--not quite as large, but we have only one way to 
communicate, and that's with air service.
  I urge the passage of this amendment. It is a very simple amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. I just will stand up in favor of the amendment and I will 
be calling a recorded vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Young 
amendment. This amendment will continue the administration of the 
Essential Air Service program, recognizing the unique characteristics 
of both Hawaii and Alaska.
  The Essential Air Service program was put into place to guarantee 
that small communities, like the communities in our States, will 
continue to maintain a minimal level of scheduled air service with 
access to the national air transportation system. Especially in times 
of medical emergencies or natural disasters, this literally is the 
difference between life and death for the people in our communities.
  In a State like Hawaii, where I'm from, where island communities are 
separated by the Pacific Ocean, access to air service is oftentimes the 
only transportation option available if service needs to be provided 
with any regularity or within specific time constraints.
  One example is Kalaupapa, a community on an isolated peninsula on the 
north shore of Molokai. When Hansen's disease was first introduced to 
the Hawaiian Islands, all people afflicted with this disease were sent 
to this rural community, Kalaupapa. Today, it is a refuge for the 
remaining residents and patients who, now cured, would still like to 
live there. If not for the assistance of the Essential Air Service 
program, the only way to get in and out of that community is a 3.5 mile 
trail down a 1,700-foot sea cliff used by mule riders and hikers. This 
trail is extremely steep and challenging and has been made impassable 
in the past because of heavy rains. This is just one example of why 
this continued air service is critical to the people who continue to 
live in this community.
  Hawaii and Alaska, as illustrated, have unique geographical 
limitations and challenges. Whereas other communities are generally 
accessible by vehicle, that's not always the case in the noncontiguous 
States; 3\1/2\ miles doesn't sound very far until you're looking up the 
side of a steep cliff from the back of a mule.
  The amendment being offered by Representative Young would continue 
this program's recognition of our exceptional geographic challenges. 
This amendment maintains the current practice of Alaska and Hawaii 
being exempt from restrictions on what communities are eligible for the 
Essential Air Service program.
  Currently, only two communities in Hawaii qualify--Kalaupapa and 
Kamuela--but maintaining this air service is critically important for 
all people who live in these areas.
  I would also just like to take a moment to recognize my colleague 
from Hawaii, Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa. She has worked very 
closely with Congressman Young on this amendment and would have liked 
to have been here to speak in strong support of it today were it not 
for Tropical Storm Flossie, where she is stuck in Hawaii, across the 
Pacific Ocean away.
  I would like to thank Representative Young for offering this 
amendment and for his leadership, and strongly urge my colleagues to 
support the Young amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. I want to make sure that my friends who live far, far away 
from where I live do understand that many of us understand the dynamics 
that they've presented. Arguably, their argument is unassailable, and I 
rise in support of their amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       Page 9, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $250)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, the Essential Air Service program is an 
expensive government handout. It is, in effect, welfare for airplanes.
  Page 9 of the bill expressly states that the per passenger subsidy 
extended to rural communities--and by the way, we're not talking about 
Hawaii and Alaska here; we're talking about places like Muscle Shoals--
for a flight that would not otherwise exist is capped at $500. I think 
that's too high. I don't know why we should be, in effect, paying 
people $500 to fly to Muscle Shoals. I don't see the sense of that at a 
time when we're cutting food stamps and cutting block grants to 
communities. I think it's a poor way to spend taxpayer funds. My 
amendment would reduce this subsidy to a still-very-high $250 per 
passenger because $500 per passenger is simply outrageous.
  If passengers don't want to pay for aviation routes, then they simply 
shouldn't exist. For 500 bucks per passenger, we could literally rent a 
limousine for every single person aboard each flight and drive them to 
the single nearest commercial airport.
  I understand the need for rural services in necessary aspects of 
life, like Postal Services, telephones, and even the Internet; but I 
cannot understand the need to subsidize regular airline flights that 
would otherwise not exist to the tune of $500 per passenger.
  The bill before us today would cut community development funds in 
half--to the lowest level since the program began in 1975. It would cut 
HOME Investment Partnerships to the lowest level since that program 
began in 1992. And it would drastically reduce the amount of section 8 
rental assistance

[[Page 12555]]

and increase homelessness. Under these circumstances, I cannot stand by 
in good conscience and allow a subsidy like this to continue.
  I offer this amendment today because it's more important to put a 
roof over the heads of the poor than it is to hand out corporate 
welfare to United Airlines and to support aviation routes that simply 
should not exist.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  We have, in the bill, restrained the growth of this program, keeping 
the total amount at $216 million--$116 million of which is from fees 
and $100 million provided in discretionary appropriation for the fiscal 
year 2012 program level. So it's at the same level as it was before; we 
don't have any increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I really urge the administration, the authorizers, if 
they want to reform this program, to actually get to work, do it--not 
on an appropriation bill where we have had no discussion, no debate. It 
is an issue that should be handled by the authorizers rather than on 
this appropriation bill.
  We need the comprehensive reform so that isolated communities can be 
served while restraining growth in this program. But I do urge a ``no'' 
vote, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with Chairman 
Latham that this reform needs to come about, and it shouldn't be in an 
appropriation bill. Hopefully, the T&I authorizing committee will look 
at this issue and come to a decision.
  It was interesting that the amendment before this amendment, we 
basically waived Hawaii and Alaska. And here we are now limiting the 
Essential Air Service to $250. I would tell you, as we tried to explain 
to my colleague from Florida, that this would probably cause 100--maybe 
a little more--smaller communities not to be able to link to the 
national air service. So this is not the time to do it.
  So I would rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 150, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply continues the good 
work started by the amendment of the gentleman from Florida and pulls 
the plug on this tired old program.
  Recently, the much-maligned sequester required a 4 percent cut in the 
FAA budget, which its leadership then immediately translated into a 40 
percent flight delay until the public rebelled.
  The total sequester cut to the FAA was roughly $636 million, and they 
took that out on the traveling public; yet they had $243 million to pay 
for empty and near-empty flights from selected airports in tiny 
communities under this program that is laughingly called ``Essential 
Air Service.'' It is, in fact, the least essential air service 
imaginable.
  Since we last visited this issue, the FAA reauthorization bill made 
some minor reforms to the program. For example, we are no longer 
subsidizing air travel from communities that are within a 90-mile 
radius of a major airport, and the per passenger subsidy has been 
capped at $1,000 per passenger.
  These minor reforms mean that one airport in Ely, Nevada, has been 
dropped from the program and two more are about to be. That's a start. 
But still, it is no excuse for shoveling, as this appropriation does, a 
total of $216 million at this program between direct taxpayer subsidies 
and fees into next year.
  In other words, in this austere age of sequestration, when the White 
House is shuttered to the public and soldiers are being told to pay for 
their own Internet access, the House of Representatives proposes at 
best a token reduction in this wasteful, unfair, and outdated program 
while cutting real essential air services like air traffic control. 
With all due respect, what in the world are we thinking?
  Remember, this was supposed to be a temporary program when we 
deregulated commercial aviation. It was supposed to last for just a few 
years to give rural communities a chance to adjust. That was 35 years 
ago.
  It is true there are over a few tiny communities in Alaska--like 
Kake's 700 hearty souls--who have no highway connections to hub 
airports, but they have plenty of alternatives. In the case of Kake, 
they enjoy year-round ferry service to Juneau. In addition, Alaska is 
well served by a thriving general aviation market and the ubiquitous 
bush pilot. Rural life has great advantages and great disadvantages, 
and it is not the job of hardworking taxpayers who choose to live 
elsewhere to level out these differences.
  Apologists for this wasteful spending tell us it is an important 
economic driver for these small towns, and I'm sure that's so. Whenever 
you give away money, the folks you are giving it to are always going to 
be better off. But the folks you are taking it from are always going to 
be worse off to exactly the same extent. Indeed, it is economic drivers 
like this that have driven Europe's economy right off a cliff.
  Last year, one Member rushed to the microphones to suggest this was 
essential for emergency medical evacuations. We heard an echo of that a 
moment ago. It has nothing to do with medical evacuations. This program 
subsidizes regular, scheduled, commercial service that practically 
nobody uses. If it actually had a passenger base, we wouldn't need, in 
effect, to hand out $1,000 bills to the few passengers who use it, 
would we? An airline so reckless with its funds would quickly bankrupt 
itself. The same principle holds true for governments.
  The Washington Post is not known as a bastion of fiscal conservatism, 
but I cannot improve upon the Post's recent editorial when it said:

       Ideally, Essential Air Service would be zeroed out, and the 
     $200 million we waste on it devoted to a truly national 
     purpose: perhaps deficit reduction, military readiness, or 
     the social safety net. Alas, if Congress and the White House 
     were capable of making such choices, we probably never would 
     have had sequestration in the first place.

  There are many tough calls in setting fiscal priorities, but this 
isn't one of them. If the House of Representatives--where all 
appropriations begin, with a Republican majority pledged to stop 
wasting money--cannot even agree to cut this useless program off from 
the trough, how does it expect to be taken seriously on the much 
tougher choices that lie ahead?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  The Essential Air Service program ensures that small and rural 
communities have access to the national air transportation system. The 
program plays a key role in the economic development of many rural 
communities by ensuring that air service continues.
  Does the program need reform? Absolutely, it does, yes. That is why 
we cap

[[Page 12556]]

the per passenger subsidy at $500, which is down from the current 
$1,000 cap per passenger.
  We have also cut the discretionary funding in this bill by $46 
million, leaving a total program level of $216 million--$100 million in 
discretionary funding and $116 million from fees. This is an 18 percent 
reduction. We already have imposed a significant cut to this program.
  We will continue to push the administration to reform the program and 
work with the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, but an outright 
elimination of the funding in this bill is a hit to rural communities 
that I cannot support.
  I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
to speak in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. The Essential Air Service program was designed 
to continue air service for small communities that had scheduled air 
service prior to airline deregulation. It is funded through annual 
appropriations and overflight fees that are collected when foreign air 
carriers traverse through U.S. airspace.
  This amendment cuts the overall program in half. Many small 
communities would lose their air service, including, we believe, four 
communities in the State of California: Crescent City, El Centro, 
Merced, and Visalia.
  This is not the way to reform this program. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this amendment, I rise to 
speak in support of eliminating the Essential Air Service program.
  I thank my colleague from California (Mr. McClintock) for his work on 
this amendment.
  Another Californian once said, ``There's nothing more permanent than 
a temporary government program.'' Mr. Chairman, I'm sure all my 
colleagues recognize that famous line from former President Ronald 
Reagan. His statement was accurate then, just as it is accurate now, 
regarding the Essential Air Service program.
  This program was intended to be temporary. It was created as a 
transition program in the seventies after airline deregulation to help 
rural airports adjust to a free market system. We are now more than 25 
years after the intended end date of 1988, and the taxpayers are still 
footing the bill.
  This is yet another example of Washington's spending problem, Mr. 
Chairman. It has to stop.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment. I certainly understand all Federal programs should be 
prepared and subjected to cost-saving measures, and Essential Air 
Service is actually no different. That is why we passed reforms during 
the FAA reauthorization last year to improve efficiency and save 
taxpayer dollars.
  Additionally, the underlying bill today already includes a reduction 
in funding for the EAS program. While there is room for savings in all 
programs, totally eliminating EAS outright would be counterproductive.
  The Essential Air Service program serves an important purpose in 
rural and remote areas. Businesses in rural America actually compete 
more effectively with even the limited air service that might be 
available.
  Last year, the House rejected this amendment, and I encourage my 
colleagues to do so once again.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


  ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

       Sec. 101.  None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Transportation may be obligated for the 
     Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve 
     assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds 
     appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except 
     for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     unless such assessments or agreements have completed the 
     normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
       Sec. 102.  The Secretary or his designee may engage in 
     activities with States and State legislators to consider 
     proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities.
       Sec. 103.  Notwithstanding section 3324 of title 31, United 
     States Code, in addition to authority provided by section 327 
     of title 49, United States Code, the Department's Working 
     Capital Fund is hereby authorized to provide payments in 
     advance to vendors that are necessary to carry out the 
     Federal transit pass transportation fringe benefit program 
     under Executive Order 13150 and section 3049 of Public Law 
     109-59: Provided, That the Department shall include adequate 
     safeguards in the contract with the vendors to ensure timely 
     and high-quality performance under the contract.
       Sec. 104.  The Secretary shall post on the Web site of the 
     Department of Transportation a schedule of all meetings of 
     the Credit Council, including the agenda for each meeting, 
     and require the Credit Council to record the decisions and 
     actions of each meeting.

                    Federal Aviation Administration

                               operations

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities, 
     the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and 
     maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made 
     available by Public Law 108-176, $9,521,784,000, of which 
     $6,484,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $7,182,664,000 shall be 
     available for air traffic organization activities; not to 
     exceed $1,199,777,000 shall be available for aviation safety 
     activities; not to exceed $14,160,000 shall be available for 
     commercial space transportation activities; not to exceed 
     $777,198,000 shall be available for finance and management 
     activities; not to exceed $56,637,000 shall be available for 
     NextGen and operations planning activities; and not to exceed 
     $291,348,000 shall be available for staff offices: Provided, 
     That not to exceed 2 percent of any budget activity, except 
     for aviation safety budget activity, may be transferred to 
     any budget activity under this heading: Provided further, 
     That no transfer may increase or decrease any appropriation 
     by more than 2 percent: Provided further, That any transfer 
     in excess of 2 percent shall be treated as a reprogramming of 
     funds under section 404 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section: Provided 
     further, That not later than March 31 of each fiscal year 
     hereafter, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall transmit to Congress an annual update to 
     the report submitted to Congress in December 2004 pursuant to 
     section 221 of Public Law 108-176: Provided further, That the 
     amount herein appropriated shall be reduced by $100,000 for 
     each day after March 31 that such report has not been 
     submitted to the Congress: Provided further, That not later 
     than March 31 of each fiscal year hereafter, the 
     Administrator shall transmit to Congress a companion report 
     that describes a comprehensive strategy for staffing, hiring, 
     and training flight standards and aircraft certification 
     staff in a format similar to the one utilized for the 
     controller staffing plan, including stated attrition 
     estimates and numerical hiring goals by fiscal year: Provided 
     further, That the amount herein appropriated shall be reduced 
     by $100,000 per day for each day after March 31 that such 
     report has not been submitted to Congress: Provided further, 
     That funds may be used to enter into a grant agreement with a 
     nonprofit standard-setting organization to assist in the 
     development of aviation safety standards: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for new 
     applicants for the second career training program: Provided 
     further, That none of the

[[Page 12557]]

     funds in this Act shall be available for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to finalize or implement any regulation that 
     would promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically 
     authorized by law after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act: Provided further, That there may be credited to this 
     appropriation as offsetting collections funds received from 
     States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred 
     in the provision of agency services, including receipts for 
     the maintenance and operation of air navigation facilities, 
     and for issuance, renewal or modification of certificates, 
     including airman, aircraft, and repair station certificates, 
     or for tests related thereto, or for processing major repair 
     or alteration forms:  Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not less than $140,000,000 
     shall be for the contract tower program, of which $10,350,000 
     is for the contract tower cost share program: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act for aeronautical 
     charting and cartography are available for activities 
     conducted by, or coordinated through, the Working Capital 
     Fund.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier

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

       Page 11, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 11, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

  Ms. SPEIER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, on July 6 of this year, Asiana Airlines 
Flight 214 from Incheon, South Korea, crashed on its final approach to 
San Francisco International Airport, which is in my district. Initial 
reports made clear that low airspeed was a crucial factor in that 
crash. It was a horrible accident. Three Chinese 16-year-old girls on 
their way to a summer camp in southern California lost their lives. It 
could have been an absolute catastrophe, because there were over 300 
people, including crew, that survived that horrific day.
  Low airspeed has been a concern for air safety for almost 20 years. 
In 1996, the FAA's Human Factors Team concluded that flight crews 
needed better warnings that the aircraft was reaching low airspeeds. In 
2003, following the crash that killed our congressional colleague 
Senator Paul Wellstone, the National Transportation Safety Board 
recommended the FAA study whether to require installation of low 
airspeed audible and visual alert systems. Following the Colgan Air 
crash in Buffalo, New York, a recommendation was reissued in 2010 on 
installation of redundant audible and visual warnings of impending 
hazardous low speed conditions.
  Now, after almost two decades since the initial recommendation and 
over 3 years since the recommendation after Colgan, the FAA has not 
addressed this question of whether existing commercial aircraft should 
be required to install low airspeed warning systems. I fear that 
without direction from Congress, the FAA could take years to complete 
this study. That is why I am offering this amendment, which provides 
the FAA $500,000 to conduct and complete a study on this important 
question within 1 year.
  Low airspeed alert systems that cry out ``airspeed low'' are 
available and require a simple software change. These differ from the 
tonal alerts that sound similar to other pilot alerts. The FAA should 
investigate whether existing low airspeed tonal warnings, such as those 
in a Boeing 777, provide a sufficient level of pilot warning or if, 
instead, a verbal warning, such as those in the newer 737s, provides a 
higher level of safety.
  When the alert signals to a pilot that they are traveling at too low 
of an airspeed, they have at best a few seconds to react. It is vital 
that planes have alerts that are instantly recognizable, clear, and 
unambiguous.
  Airline safety advocates argue that verbal alerts are more effective 
at alerting a pilot that they are flying at too low of an airspeed 
because they are instantly recognizable to a pilot. If a verbal warning 
is found to be more effective, the FAA should take expedient action to 
require both new aircraft and existing aircraft to incorporate a verbal 
warning.
  Mr. Chairman, I had the pleasure just last week to talk to Sully 
Sullenberger, the pilot of the ``Miracle of Hudson River,'' and he said 
something very compelling to me. He said that when a pilot is in a 
position of reacting during a crash, they need every one of their 
senses being alert: the senses when you are holding the throttle, the 
senses when you hear low speed alert, and the senses when you see 
``stall.'' I thought that was very compelling.
  We have a number of cases that suggest now that low airspeed alerts 
that are verbal should be incorporated. The FAA has dragged its feet. I 
believe that this particular amendment would be very helpful and save 
many lives in the future.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the committee accepts the amendment. It is a 
good amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, we believe that these moneys 
would expedite the study to see if better warnings could be given at 
low speeds, so we approve the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1745


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

       Page 11, line 9, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $3,497,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, to echo the words of my 
colleagues, Ranking Members Nita Lowey and Ed Pastor, my good friend, 
the allocation provided for T-HUD appropriations under the Ryan budget, 
which was ``deemed passed'' by my Republican colleagues, is simply 
unworkable.
  From funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, TIGER grants, 
public transit programs, Amtrak, high-speed rail, Community Development 
Block Grants, and the HOME affordable housing program, House 
Republicans are offering a bill that not only makes devastating cuts to 
our Nation's transportation infrastructure but to vital programs in 
housing, health care, education, labor, and other services that 
millions of Americans rely on, in order to spare defense spending from 
sequestration.
  In particular, this bill makes detrimental cuts to aviation programs 
and investments in our national air system. It cuts FAA operations by 
$185 million below the President's budget request. It slashes $575 
million, 21 percent, from the FAA's Facilities and Equipment account, 
and it casts doubt on the future hiring of air traffic controllers and 
inspectors.
  NextGen is a full, multiyear effort to modernize our Nation's air 
traffic control system by transitioning from a ground-based navigation 
system to a satellite-based navigation system. As it is implemented, 
NextGen will help reduce delays, expand air traffic system capacity, 
and mitigate aviation's impact on the environment while ensuring the 
highest levels of safety. Currently, the FAA is moving from NextGen 
program development into baseline and operational programs, and 
passengers and operators are beginning to experience the benefits of 
these investments. However, while the bill preserves funding for the 
NextGen programs currently under deployment, it forces the FAA to 
greatly slow down its NextGen modernization of the air traffic control 
system.

[[Page 12558]]

  My amendment restores funding for NextGen programs to the fiscal year 
2013 level within the Operations Planning account. It really does 
represent a small amount, approximately $3.5 million, over the FY 2014 
House funding level of $56.6 million for a total of $60.1 million. The 
increased funding would help ensure that the FAA remains on schedule 
with regard to NextGen implementation while giving it the flexibility 
to decide how best to move forward in this challenging budget 
environment.
  I do recognize that the chairman and ranking member were given a 
difficult task, and I respect that, but we cannot fail to recognize the 
future of our NextGen implementation, so I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The committee shares the gentleman's support of NextGen programs. 
However, this amendment increases one activity in the operations 
account and makes no other further adjustments. The result is 
individual program levels that exceed the account level, which one 
cannot do.
  To meet our allocation, the subcommittee looked closely at all 
accounts and at all programs. The subcommittee placed a high priority 
on FAA operations with just a 2 percent cut below the budget request. 
Within the operations account, the subcommittee balanced the number of 
high priority areas, including NextGen, aviation safety and air traffic 
control. This amendment throws this account off balance. The programs 
within the account would no longer add up to the top line, and the FAA 
could simply ignore the subcommittee's direction on other program 
levels in the account. So, therefore, we urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. The amendment increases funding for the FAA's 
NextGen office by $3.5 million. As stated by my colleague from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings), it is for future development. I would agree with him 
that it is something that we need to invest in and that this would 
accelerate the implementation of NextGen, which is greatly needed. Our 
air traffic control system is aging and needs modernization. Yet, as 
Mr. Wolf has pointed out, the allocation is so tight that moving money 
in the account will cause some problems.
  My hope would be that if there is a reconciliation with the Senate 
that this would be given a higher priority in the funding levels as we 
work in conference with the Senate.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        facilities and equipment

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, technical support services, 
     improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of national 
     airspace systems and experimental facilities and equipment, 
     as authorized under part A of subtitle VII of title 49, 
     United States Code, including initial acquisition of 
     necessary sites by lease or grant; engineering and service 
     testing, including construction of test facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; 
     construction and furnishing of quarters and related 
     accommodations for officers and employees of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration stationed at remote localities where 
     such accommodations are not available; and the purchase, 
     lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds available under 
     this heading, including aircraft for aviation regulation and 
     certification; to be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund, $2,155,000,000, of which $458,000,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2014; $1,697,000,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided, 
     That there may be credited to this appropriation funds 
     received from States, counties, municipalities, other public 
     authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in 
     the establishment, improvement, and modernization of national 
     air space systems: Provided further, That upon initial 
     submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2015 
     President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital investment 
     plan for the Federal Aviation Administration which includes 
     funding for each budget line item for fiscal years 2015 
     through 2019, with total funding for each year of the plan 
     constrained to the funding targets for those years as 
     estimated and approved by the Office of Management and 
     Budget.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

       Page 14, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $870,031,000) (increased by 
     $870,031,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to point out that 
the bill before us today makes deep cuts to FAA facilities and 
equipment. Make no mistake that these reductions will directly impact 
and delay the implementation of NextGen. I've spoken to this issue. 
This particular amendment makes available approximately $870 million 
for NextGen capital programs, which is at the FY 2013 enacted level. 
This increased funding would help ensure that the FAA remains on 
schedule with regard to NextGen implementation.
  Let me make it very clear. I fought very hard, along with my 
colleagues, both current and former--Republican and Democrat--to bring 
the NextGen facilities to the West Palm Beach airport. We were very 
successful in that regard, but I am troubled that we might not get to 
full implementation if we continue the reductions that I see that are 
set forth.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise once again to offer an additional amendment to 
H.R. 2610, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies (T-HUD) Appropriations Act for FY 2014.
  According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by the end of 
the NextGen mid-term in 2020, NextGen improvements will:
  Reduce delays by 41 percent;
  Cumulatively save 1.6 billion gallons of fuel and reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions by 16 million metric tons; and
  Provide $38 billion in cumulative benefits to aircraft operators, the 
traveling public, and the FAA through delay reduction, fuel savings, 
and other efficiency improvements.
  However, the bill before us today makes deep cuts to the FAA's 
Facilities and Equipment account in the amount of $575 million, or 21 
percent.
  Make no mistake. These reductions will directly impact and delay the 
implementation of NextGen.
  Certain NextGen activities currently underway face significant 
reductions in this bill.
  One example is the Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the 
Metroplex (OAPM) program, which is the FAA's fast-track initiative to 
implement new navigation procedures and airspace improvements to reduce 
fuel consumption and aircraft emissions in some of the United States' 
busiest airspace.
  This could delay the completion of their designs and the beginning of 
the implementation phase.
  My amendment makes available approximately $870 million for NextGen 
capital programs, which is the FY 2013 enacted level.
  This increased funding would help ensure that the FAA remains on 
schedule with regard to NextGen implementation, while giving it the 
flexibility to decide how best to move forward in this challenging 
budget environment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 12559]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 research, engineering, and development

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                         (including rescission)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     including construction of experimental facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant, 
     $145,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2016: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation as 
     offsetting collections, funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private 
     sources, which shall be available for expenses incurred for 
     research, engineering, and development: Provided further, 
     That, of the unobligated balances from prior year 
     appropriations available under this heading, $26,183,998 are 
     rescinded.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

       Page 15, line 16, strike ``That,'' and insert ``That 
     $61,960,000 shall be available for NextGen research and 
     development, as authorized by section 48102(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code: Provided further,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in Switzerland yesterday, 
there was a collision of trains--one moving north and the other moving 
south. A good friend of Mr. Wolf's and of Mr. Pastor's and mine served 
as chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, James Oberstar. In addition to the many things that Jim 
suggested during his tenure here, I think back to some of the things 
that would have put us in a better position than we are today, 
particularly with regard to overall infrastructure, roads and rail.
  I can't understand--and I was saying to the young staffer working 
with me--what it is that causes the rail industry, both abroad and 
here, to not have the necessary equipment that would allow one train on 
the same track to let the other train coming from the opposite 
direction, and vice versa, know that they are both on the same track. 
There just seems to be something wrong with that when we have the kind 
of sophisticated equipment that we do.
  NextGen, in the air area of the world, allows for us to avoid those 
kinds of problems and to increase efficiency and safety. It ultimately 
reduces delays and saves fuel, particularly if we get on with what I'm 
asking for, which is $62 million for NextGen research and development 
activities from the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development 
account.
  Again, I am not asking for anything that I think would do anything 
less than help all of us. We don't just live in these places. We fly 
there. The aviation industry contributes nearly $1.3 trillion to the 
United States economy. Furthermore, the FAA's air traffic controllers 
manage nearly 70,000 flights per day, which, on an annual basis, carry 
more than 730 million passengers.
  With such a vital role in our economy, now is not the time to 
underfund our Nation's air traffic control system. I urge my colleagues 
to make a real investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure 
by supporting this NextGen amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we share the gentleman's support of the NextGen 
programs. However, fencing off this amount for NextGen could have the 
unintended consequences of forcing cuts to other priorities, such as to 
aviation safety research and programs to improve air traffic control in 
the near term, including programs to reduce noise and carbon emissions.
  I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       grants-in-aid for airports

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and under other law authorizing such 
     obligations; for procurement, installation, and commissioning 
     of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at 
     airports of such title; for grants authorized under section 
     41743 of title 49, United States Code; and for inspection 
     activities and administration of airport safety programs, 
     including those related to airport operating certificates 
     under section 44706 of title 49, United States Code, 
     $3,200,000,000 to be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds under this heading shall be available 
     for the planning or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $3,350,000,000 in fiscal year 2014, 
     notwithstanding section 47117(g) of title 49, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That none of the funds under this 
     heading shall be available for the replacement of baggage 
     conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas, 
     or other airport improvements that are necessary to install 
     bulk explosive detection systems: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, of funds limited 
     under this heading, not more than $106,600,000 shall be 
     obligated for administration, not less than $15,000,000 shall 
     be available for the Airport Cooperative Research Program, 
     and not less than $29,500,000 shall be available for Airport 
     Technology Research.

       administrative provisions--federal aviation administration

       Sec. 110.  None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 600 technical staff-years under the 
     federally funded research and development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     2014.
       Sec. 111.  None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport 
     sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration 
     without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities 
     and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for 
     services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or 
     weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in 
     this section does not apply to negotiations between the 
     agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
     market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that 
     require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the 
     FAA for air traffic control facilities.
       Sec. 112.  The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may reimburse amounts made available to 
     satisfy 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) from fees credited under 49 
     U.S.C. 45303, and any amount remaining in such account at the 
     close of that fiscal year may be made available to satisfy 
     section 41742(a)(1) for the subsequent fiscal year.
       Sec. 113.  Amounts collected under section 40113(e) of 
     title 49, United States Code, shall be credited to the 
     appropriation current at the time of collection, to be merged 
     with and available for the same purposes of such 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 114.  None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for paying premium pay under subsection 5546(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, to any Federal Aviation Administration 
     employee unless such employee actually performed work during 
     the time corresponding to such premium pay.
       Sec. 115.  None of the funds in this Act may be obligated 
     or expended for an employee of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to purchase a store gift card or gift 
     certificate through use of a Government-issued credit card.
       Sec. 116.  None of the funds in this Act may be obligated 
     or expended for retention bonuses for an employee of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration without the prior written 
     approval of the Assistant Secretary for Administration of the 
     Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 117.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available

[[Page 12560]]

     under this Act or any prior Act may be used to implement or 
     to continue to implement any limitation on the ability of any 
     owner or operator of a private aircraft to obtain, upon a 
     request to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, a blocking of that owner's or operator's 
     aircraft registration number from any display of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration's Aircraft Situational Display to 
     Industry data that is made available to the public, except 
     data made available to a Government agency, for the 
     noncommercial flights of that owner or operator.
       Sec. 118.  None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than 7 political and 
     Presidential appointees in the Federal Aviation 
     Administration.
       Sec. 119.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to increase fees pursuant to section 44721 of 
     title 49, United States Code, until the FAA conducts a public 
     outreach that is designed to elicit feedback from aviation 
     stakeholders, and until the FAA has reported the 
     justification of its fees on paper and digital products to 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 119A.  None of the funds appropriated or limited by 
     this Act may be used to change weight restrictions or prior 
     permission rules at Teterboro airport in Teterboro, New 
     Jersey.

                     Federal Highway Administration

                 limitation on administrative expenses

                          (highway trust fund)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Not to exceed $417,000,000, together with advances and 
     reimbursements received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, shall be paid in accordance with law from 
     appropriations made available by this Act to the Federal 
     Highway Administration for necessary expenses for 
     administration and operation. In addition, not to exceed 
     $3,248,000 shall be paid from appropriations made available 
     by this Act and transferred to the Appalachian Regional 
     Commission in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 104.

                          federal-aid highways

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Funds available for the implementation or execution of 
     programs of Federal-aid highways and highway safety 
     construction programs authorized under titles 23 and 49, 
     United States Code, and the provisions of Public Law 112-141 
     shall not exceed total obligations of $40,256,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2014: Provided, That the Secretary may collect 
     and spend fees, as authorized by title 23, United States 
     Code, to cover the costs of services of expert firms, 
     including counsel, in the field of municipal and project 
     finance to assist in the underwriting and servicing of 
     Federal credit instruments and all or a portion of the costs 
     to the Federal Government of servicing such credit 
     instruments: Provided further, That such fees are available 
     until expended to pay for such costs: Provided further, That 
     such amounts are in addition to administrative expenses that 
     are also available for such purpose, and are not subject to 
     any obligation limitation or the limitation on administrative 
     expenses under 23 U.S.C. 608.

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For the payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     authorized under title 23, United States Code, 
     $40,995,000,000 derived from the Highway account of the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), to 
     remain available until expended.

       administrative provisions--federal highway administration

       Sec. 120. (a) For fiscal year 2014, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall--
       (1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways--
       (A) amounts authorized for administrative expenses and 
     programs by section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code; 
     and
       (B) amounts authorized for the Bureau of Transportation 
     Statistics;
       (2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation 
     for Federal-aid highways that is equal to the unobligated 
     balance of amounts--
       (A) made available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid highway and highway 
     safety construction programs for previous fiscal years the 
     funds for which are allocated by the Secretary (or 
     apportioned by the Secretary under sections 202 or 204 of 
     title 23, United States Code); and
       (B) for which obligation limitation was provided in a 
     previous fiscal year;
       (3) determine the proportion that--
       (A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways, 
     less the aggregate of amounts not distributed under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), bears to
       (B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     (other than sums authorized to be appropriated for provisions 
     of law described in paragraphs (1) through (11) of subsection 
     (b) and sums authorized to be appropriated for section 119 of 
     title 23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to 
     in subsection (b)(12) for such fiscal year), less the 
     aggregate of the amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of this subsection;
       (4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     highways, less the aggregate amounts not distributed under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), for each of the programs (other than 
     programs to which paragraph (1) applies) that are allocated 
     by the Secretary under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 
     21st Century Act and title 23, United States Code, or 
     apportioned by the Secretary under sections 202 or 204 of 
     that title, by multiplying--
       (A) the proportion determined under paragraph (3); by
       (B) the amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such 
     program for such fiscal year; and
       (5) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     highways, less the aggregate amounts not distributed under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) and the amounts distributed under 
     paragraph (4), for Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
     construction programs that are apportioned by the Secretary 
     under title 23, United States Code (other than the amounts 
     apportioned for the national highway performance program in 
     section 119 of title 23, United States Code, that are exempt 
     from the limitation under subsection (b)(12) and the amounts 
     apportioned under sections 202 and 204 of that title) in the 
     proportion that--
       (A) amounts authorized to be appropriated for the programs 
     that are apportioned under title 23, United States Code, to 
     each State for such fiscal year; bears to
       (B) the total of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     for the programs that are apportioned under title 23, United 
     States Code, to all States for such fiscal year.
       (b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation 
     limitation for Federal-aid highways shall not apply to 
     obligations under or for--
       (1) section 125 of title 23, United States Code;
       (2) section 147 of the Surface Transportation Assistance 
     Act of 1978 (23 U.S.C. 144 note; 92 Stat. 2714);
       (3) section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 (95 
     Stat. 1701);
       (4) subsections (b) and (j) of section 131 of the Surface 
     Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2119);
       (5) subsections (b) and (c) of section 149 of the Surface 
     Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 
     (101 Stat. 198);
       (6) sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2027);
       (7) section 157 of title 23, United States Code (as in 
     effect on June 8, 1998);
       (8) section 105 of title 23, United States Code (as in 
     effect for fiscal years 1998 through 2004, but only in an 
     amount equal to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years);
       (9) Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation 
     authority was made available under the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107) or subsequent Acts 
     for multiple years or to remain available until expended, but 
     only to the extent that the obligation authority has not 
     lapsed or been used;
       (10) section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2012, only in an amount 
     equal to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years);
       (11) section 1603 of SAFETEA-LU (23 U.S.C. 118 note; 119 
     Stat. 1248), to the extent that funds obligated in accordance 
     with that section were not subject to a limitation on 
     obligations at the time at which the funds were initially 
     made available for obligation;
       (12) section 119 of title 23, United States Code (but, for 
     each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014, only in an amount equal 
     to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years).
       (c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall, after 
     August 1 of such fiscal year--
       (1) revise a distribution of the obligation limitation made 
     available under subsection (a) if an amount distributed 
     cannot be obligated during that fiscal year; and
       (2) redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to 
     obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed 
     during that fiscal year, giving priority to those States 
     having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under 
     sections 144 (as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
     Century Act) and 104 of title 23, United States Code.
       (d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to 
     Transportation Research Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways shall apply to 
     contract authority for transportation research programs 
     carried out under--
       (A) chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code; and
       (B) division E of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
     Century Act.
       (2) Exception.--Obligation authority made available under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) remain available for a period of 4 fiscal years; and

[[Page 12561]]

       (B) be in addition to the amount of any limitation imposed 
     on obligations for Federal aid highway and highway safety 
     construction programs for future fiscal years.
       (e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the distribution of obligation limitation under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds 
     (excluding funds authorized for the program under section 202 
     of title 23, United States Code) that--
       (A) are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year 
     for Federal-aid highway programs; and
       (B) the Secretary determines will not be allocated to the 
     States (or will not be apportioned to the States under 
     section 204 of title 23, United States Code), and will not be 
     available for obligation, in such fiscal year due to the 
     imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year.
       (2) Ratio.--Funds shall be distributed under paragraph (1) 
     in the same ratio as the distribution of obligation authority 
     under subsection (a)(5).
       (3) Availability.--Funds distributed to each State under 
     paragraph (1) shall be available for any purpose described in 
     section 133(b) of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 121.  Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received 
     by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of 
     data products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 
     chapter 63 of title 49, United States Code, may be credited 
     to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of 
     reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses: Provided, That such 
     funds shall be subject to the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction 
     programs.
       Sec. 122.  Not less than 15 days prior to waiving, under 
     his statutory authority, any Buy America requirement for 
     Federal-aid highway projects, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall make an informal public notice and comment opportunity 
     on the intent to issue such waiver and the reasons therefor: 
     Provided, That the Secretary shall provide an annual report 
     to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on any 
     waivers granted under the Buy America requirements.
       Sec. 123.  From the unobligated balances of funds 
     apportioned among the States prior to October 1, 2012, under 
     sections 104(b) and 144 of title 23, United States Code (as 
     in effect on the day before the date of enactment of Public 
     Law 112-141), the amount of $13,248,000 shall be made 
     available in fiscal year 2014 for the administrative expenses 
     of the Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That this 
     provision shall not apply to funds distributed in accordance 
     with section 104(b)(5) of title 23, United States Code (as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of Public Law 
     112-141); section 133(d)(1) of such title (as in effect on 
     the day before the date of enactment of Public Law 109-59); 
     and the first sentence of section 133(d)(3)(A) of such title 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 
     Public Law 112-141): Provided further, That such amount shall 
     be derived on a proportional basis from the unobligated 
     balances of apportioned funds to which this provision 
     applies: Provided further, That the amount made available by 
     this provision in fiscal year 2014 for the administrative 
     expenses of the Federal Highway Administration shall be in 
     addition to the amount made available in fiscal year 2014 for 
     such purposes under section 104(a) of title 23, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That the amount made available by 
     this provision in fiscal year 2014 for the administrative 
     expenses of the Federal Highway Administration shall have the 
     same period of availability and characteristics of the 
     contract authority made available under section 104(a) of 
     title 23, United States Code.

                              {time}  1800


                     amendment offered by mr. wolf

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

       Page 29, beginning on line 23, strike section 123.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Per an agreement with the authorizing committee, this 
amendment strikes section 123 under the administrative provision of the 
Federal Highway Administration. This section made certain unobligated 
balances of contract authority available in 2014.
  This amendment is noncontroversial and will have no budgetary scoring 
effect.
  I respectfully ask for a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. The amendment strikes $13.25 million in 
additional funds for the administrative expenses for the Federal 
Highway Administration.
  While I will not object to my friend's amendment, I do have concerns 
that the more we cut on the administrative expenses, the agency's 
ability to do proper oversight will suffer.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 124. (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (b), none of the funds made available, limited, or otherwise 
     affected by this Act shall be used to approve or otherwise 
     authorize the imposition of any toll on any segment of 
     highway located on the Federal-aid system in the State of 
     Texas that--(1) as of the date of enactment of this Act, is 
     not tolled; (2) is constructed with Federal assistance 
     provided under title 23, United States Code; and (3) is in 
     actual operation as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) Number of toll lanes.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     to any segment of highway on the Federal-aid system described 
     in that subsection that, as of the date on which a toll is 
     imposed on the segment, will have the same number of nontoll 
     lanes as were in existence prior to that date.
       (2) High-occupancy vehicle lanes.--A high-occupancy vehicle 
     lane that is converted to a toll lane shall not be subject to 
     this section, and shall not be considered to be a nontoll 
     lane for purposes of determining whether a highway will have 
     fewer nontoll lanes than prior to the date of imposition of 
     the toll, if--(A) high-occupancy vehicles occupied by the 
     number of passengers specified by the entity operating the 
     toll lane may use the toll lane without paying a toll, unless 
     otherwise specified by the appropriate county, town, 
     municipal or other local government entity, or public toll 
     road or transit authority; or (B) each high-occupancy vehicle 
     lane that was converted to a toll lane was constructed as a 
     temporary lane to be replaced by a toll lane under a plan 
     approved by the appropriate county, town, municipal or other 
     local government entity, or public toll road or transit 
     authority.

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

              motor carrier safety operations and programs

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in the implementation, 
     execution and administration of motor carrier safety 
     operations and programs pursuant to section 31104(i) of title 
     49, United States Code, and sections 4127 and 4134 of Public 
     Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, $259,000,000, 
     to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account) together with advances and 
     reimbursements received by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration, the sum of which shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That funds available for implementation, 
     execution, or administration of motor carrier safety 
     operations and programs authorized under title 49, United 
     States Code, shall not exceed total obligations of 
     $259,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations and 
     Programs'' for fiscal year 2014, of which $9,000,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2016, is 
     for the Research and Technology program, and of which 
     $1,000,000 shall be available for commercial motor vehicle 
     operator's grants to carry out section 4134 of Public Law 
     109-59: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 
     4127(e) of Public Law 109-59, none of the funds under this 
     heading for outreach and education shall be available for 
     transfer.

                      motor carrier safety grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 
     sections 31102, 31104(a), 31106, 31107, 31109, 31309, 31313 
     of title 49, United States Code, and sections 4126 and 4128 
     of Public Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-41, 
     $313,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) and to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That funds available for the 
     implementation or execution of motor carrier safety programs 
     shall not exceed total obligations of $313,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 2014 for ``Motor Carrier Safety Grants''; of which 
     $218,000,000 shall be available for the motor carrier safety 
     assistance program, $30,000,000 shall be available for the 
     commercial driver's license improvements program, $32,000,000 
     shall be available for border enforcement grants, $5,000,000 
     shall be available for the performance and registration 
     information system management program,

[[Page 12562]]

     $25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial vehicle 
     information systems and networks deployment program, and 
     $3,000,000 shall be available for the safety data improvement 
     program: Provided further, That, of the funds made available 
     herein for the motor carrier safety assistance program, 
     $32,000,000 shall be available for audits of new entrant 
     motor carriers: Provided further, That $95,956,883 in 
     unobligated balances are permanently rescinded.

 administrative provision--federal motor carrier safety administration

       Sec. 130.  Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall 
     be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section 
     350 of Public Law 107-87 and section 6901 of Public Law 110-
     28.

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

                        operations and research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety 
     authorized under chapter 301 and part C of subtitle VI of 
     title 49, United States Code, $117,000,000, of which 
     $20,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2015.

                        operations and research

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, and chapter 303 of title 49, 
     United States Code, $139,175,088, to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That none of 
     the funds in this Act shall be available for the planning or 
     execution of programs the total obligations for which, in 
     fiscal year 2014, are in excess of $139,175,088, of which 
     $133,801,093 shall be for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 
     403, and of which $5,373,995 shall be for the National Driver 
     Register authorized under chapter 303 of title 49, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That within the $133,801,093 
     obligation limitation for operations and research, 
     $20,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2015 
     and shall be in addition to the amount of any limitation 
     imposed on obligations for future years: Provided further, 
     That $20,675,088 of the total obligation limitation for 
     operations and research in fiscal year 2014 shall be applied 
     toward unobligated balances of contract authority provided in 
     prior Acts for carrying out the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, 
     and chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code.

                     highway traffic safety grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405, section 2009 of Public 
     Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, and section 
     31101(a)(6) of Public Law 112-141, to remain available until 
     expended, $561,500,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust 
     Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account): Provided, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     planning or execution of programs the total obligations for 
     which, in fiscal year 2014, are in excess of $561,500,000 for 
     programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405, section 2009 
     of Public Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, and 
     section 31101(a)(6) of Public Law 112-141, of which 
     $235,000,000 shall be for ``Highway Safety Programs'' under 
     23 U.S.C. 402; $272,000,000 shall be for ``National Priority 
     Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 405; $29,000,000 shall be 
     for ``High Visibility Enforcement Program'' under section 
     2009 of Public Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141; 
     $25,500,000 shall be for ``Administrative Expenses'' under 
     section 31101(a)(6) of Public Law 112-141: Provided further, 
     That none of these funds shall be used for construction, 
     rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, or for office 
     furnishings and fixtures for State, local or private 
     buildings or structures: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $500,000 of the funds made available for ``National Priority 
     Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 405 for ``Impaired Driving 
     Countermeasures'' (as described in subsection (d) of that 
     section) shall be available for technical assistance to the 
     States: Provided further, That with respect to the 
     ``Transfers'' provision under 23 U.S.C. 405(a)(1)(G), any 
     amounts remaining available to carry out any activities 
     described in subsection (b) through (g) to increase the 
     amount made available under section 402, shall include the 
     obligational authority for such amounts: Provided further, 
     That of the prior year unobligated balances of contract 
     authority for ``Highway Traffic Safety Grants'', $152,281,282 
     is rescinded.

      administrative provisions--national highway traffic safety 
                             administration

       Sec. 140.  An additional $130,000 shall be made available 
     to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, out of 
     the amount limited for section 402 of title 23, United States 
     Code, to pay for travel and related expenses for State 
     management reviews and to pay for core competency development 
     training and related expenses for highway safety staff.
       Sec. 141.  The limitations on obligations for the programs 
     of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set in 
     this Act shall not apply to obligations for which obligation 
     authority was made available in previous public laws but only 
     to the extent that the obligation authority has not lapsed or 
     been used.
       Sec. 142.  None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.

                    Federal Railroad Administration

                         safety and operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $184,500,000, of 
     which $12,400,000 shall remain available until expended.

                   railroad research and development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $35,250,000, to remain available until expended.

       railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue 
     direct loans and loan guarantees pursuant to sections 502 
     through 504 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 
     Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as amended, such 
     authority to exist as long as any such direct loan or loan 
     guarantee is outstanding: Provided, That, pursuant to section 
     502 of such Act, as amended, no new direct loans or loan 
     guarantee commitments shall be made using Federal funds for 
     the credit risk premium during fiscal year 2014.

    operating grants to the national railroad passenger corporation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly 
     grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for the 
     operation of intercity passenger rail, as authorized by 
     section 101 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement 
     Act of 2008 (division B of Public Law 110-432), $350,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     amounts available under this paragraph shall be available for 
     the Secretary to approve funding to cover operating losses 
     for the Corporation only after receiving and reviewing a 
     grant request for each specific train route: Provided 
     further, That each such grant request shall be accompanied by 
     a detailed financial analysis, revenue projection, and 
     capital expenditure projection justifying the Federal support 
     to the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided further, That not 
     later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     Corporation shall transmit, in electronic format, to the 
     Secretary, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 
     the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 
     the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     the annual budget and business plan and the 5-Year Financial 
     Plan for fiscal year 2014 required under section 204 of the 
     Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008: 
     Provided further, That the budget, business plan, monthly 
     performance reports, and the 5-Year Financial Plan shall also 
     include a separate accounting of ridership, revenues, and 
     capital and operating expenses for the Northeast Corridor; 
     commuter service; long-distance Amtrak service; State-
     supported service; each intercity train route, including 
     Autotrain; and commercial activities including contract 
     operations: Provided further, That the budget, business plan 
     and the 5-Year Financial Plan shall include a description of 
     work to be funded, along with cost estimates and an estimated 
     timetable for completion of the projects covered by these 
     plans: Provided further, That the budget, business plan and 
     the 5-Year Financial Plan shall include annual information on 
     the maintenance, refurbishment, replacement, and expansion 
     for all Amtrak rolling stock consistent with the 
     comprehensive fleet plan: Provided further, That the 
     Corporation shall provide semiannual reports in electronic 
     format regarding the pending business plan, which shall 
     describe the work completed to date, any changes to the 
     business plan, and the reasons for such changes, and shall 
     identify all sole-source contract awards which shall be 
     accompanied by a justification as to why said contract was 
     awarded on a sole-source basis, as well as progress against 
     the milestones and target dates of the 2012 performance 
     improvement plan: Provided further, That the Corporation's 
     budget, business plan, 5-Year Financial Plan, semiannual 
     reports, and all subsequent supplemental plans shall be 
     displayed on the Corporation's Web site within a reasonable 
     timeframe following their submission to the appropriate 
     entities: Provided further, That these plans shall be 
     accompanied by a comprehensive fleet plan for all Amtrak 
     rolling stock which shall address the Corporation's detailed 
     plans and timeframes for the maintenance, refurbishment, 
     replacement, and expansion of the Amtrak fleet: Provided 
     further, That said fleet plan shall establish year-specific 
     goals and milestones and discuss potential, current, and 
     preferred financing options for all such activities: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds under this heading may be 
     obligated or expended until the Corporation agrees to 
     continue abiding by the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 9, 
     and 11 of the summary of conditions for the direct loan 
     agreement of June 28, 2002, in the

[[Page 12563]]

     same manner as in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in 
     this Act may be used to support any route on which Amtrak 
     offers a discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the 
     normal peak fare: Provided further, That the preceding 
     proviso does not apply to routes where the operating loss as 
     a result of the discount is covered by a State and the State 
     participates in the setting of fares: Provided further, That 
     the Corporation shall submit to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations a budget request for fiscal year 
     2015 in similar format and substance to those submitted by 
     executive agencies of the Federal Government.

  capital and debt service grants to the national railroad passenger 
                              corporation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for capital 
     investments as authorized by section 101(c), 102, and 219(b) 
     of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 
     (division B of Public Law 110-432), $600,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That after an initial 
     distribution of up to $50,000,000, which shall be used by the 
     Corporation as a working capital account, all remaining funds 
     shall be provided to the Corporation only on a reimbursable 
     basis: Provided further, That the Secretary may retain up to 
     one-half of 1 percent of the funds provided under this 
     heading to fund the costs of project management oversight of 
     capital projects funded by grants provided under this 
     heading, as authorized by subsection 101(d) of division B of 
     Public Law 110-432: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall approve funding for capital expenditures, including 
     advance purchase orders of materials, for the Corporation 
     only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for each 
     specific capital project justifying the Federal support to 
     the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided further, That except 
     as otherwise provided herein, none of the funds under this 
     heading may be used to subsidize operating losses of the 
     Corporation: Provided further, That none of the funds under 
     this heading may be used for capital projects not approved by 
     the Secretary of Transportation or on the Corporation's 
     fiscal year 2014 business plan: Provided further, That in 
     addition to the project management oversight funds authorized 
     under section 101(d) of division B of Public Law 110-432, the 
     Secretary may retain up to an additional $3,000,000 of the 
     funds provided under this heading to fund expenses associated 
     with implementing section 212 of division B of Public Law 
     110-432, including the amendments made by section 212 to 
     section 24905 of title 49, United States Code.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       Page 43, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $600,000,000)''.
       Page 150, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $600,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the 
appropriations for Amtrak's capital and debt service grants by $600 
million and increase the spending reduction amount by the same amount. 
It would have the effect of entirely defunding this account.
  Amtrak was created by Congress in 1970 to provide nationwide 
passenger rail service. It currently operates more than 40 routes 
across the United States. Unfortunately, the majority of these routes 
operate at a huge loss to taxpayers. The committee report for the 
underlying bill details just how big that loss is. In fiscal year 2011, 
Amtrak's long-distance routes ran a deficit of $554 million. By next 
year, that amount is projected to grow to $610 million in losses.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee also takes note of Amtrak's troubled food 
and beverage service, which has lost a total of $313 million just over 
the last 3 years. This year alone, Amtrak is projected to lose nearly 
$75 million on its food and beverage service, reflecting just a return 
of only 64 percent on its expenses. Despite these losses, Amtrak pays 
the attendants who serve on board food and beverages between $24 and 
$27 per hour. The committee itself points out that this wage is more 
than 20 percent higher than that of flight attendants, and these 
employees' current labor agreement calls for another 3 percent increase 
each year for the next 2 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this isn't the first time I've come to the floor to 
talk about Amtrak, and I can say with some confidence that this 
probably won't be the last.
  We as a country are broke; yet we continue to offer hundreds of 
millions of taxpayers' dollars each year to a passenger rail line which 
refuses to make meaningful reforms. The waste here is rampant, and we 
just cannot afford it anywhere. Our Nation is broke. We've got to stop 
spending money we don't have. We have to live within our means.
  I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment as it 
would shut down Amtrak.
  I can see that Amtrak could be more efficient. There is no doubt 
about that. However, it has made significant improvements in this area 
recently, and it is moving in the right direction.
  The bill does not include arbitrary funding decisions. We held 
hearings and scrubbed each. This committee worked very hard to achieve 
a balanced bill within our limited funding.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. This amendment is just another example of how the 
Republican majority is limiting transportation options for the American 
people.
  Last year, more than 31 million Americans chose Amtrak as the means 
of transportation to get to business meetings, family gatherings, and 
vacations. They chose Amtrak to avoid crowded airplanes, congested 
highways, and for the opportunity to view the wonderful and majestic 
scenery of this great Nation. Americans deserve a passenger rail system 
that is safe and reliable.
  This amendment also demonstrates how many Members on the other side 
of the aisle will blindly cut funding without any idea of the real 
ramifications. For instance, I sincerely doubt that the gentlelady from 
Tennessee understands that in addition to handing out 20,000 pink 
slips, her amendment would cost the government $4.5 billion over the 
next 5 years due to the violation of labor agreements.
  This is a shortsighted amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    next generation high-speed rail

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available for Next Generation High Speed 
     Rail, as authorized by sections 1103 and 7201 of Public Law 
     105-178, $1,973,000 are hereby permanently rescinded: 
     Provided, That no amounts may be cancelled from amounts that 
     were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                 northeast corridor improvement program

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available for the Northeast Corridor 
     Improvement Program, as authorized by Public Law 94-210, 
     $4,419,000 are hereby permanently rescinded: Provided, That 
     no amounts may be cancelled from amounts that were designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

       administrative provisions--federal railroad administration

       Sec. 150.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds provided in this Act for the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation shall immediately cease to be available 
     to said Corporation in the event that the Corporation 
     contracts to have services provided at or from any location 
     outside the United States. For purposes of this section, the 
     word ``services'' shall mean any service that was, as of July 
     1, 2006, performed by a full-time or part-time Amtrak 
     employee whose base of employment is located within the 
     United States.
       Sec. 151.  The Secretary of Transportation may receive and 
     expend cash, or receive and

[[Page 12564]]

     utilize spare parts and similar items, from non-United States 
     Government sources to repair damages to or replace United 
     States Government owned automated track inspection cars and 
     equipment as a result of third-party liability for such 
     damages, and any amounts collected under this section shall 
     be credited directly to the Safety and Operations account of 
     the Federal Railroad Administration, and shall remain 
     available until expended for the repair, operation and 
     maintenance of automated track inspection cars and equipment 
     in connection with the automated track inspection program.
       Sec. 152.  Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, 
     rule or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is 
     authorized to allow the issuer of any preferred stock 
     heretofore sold to the Department to redeem or repurchase 
     such stock upon the payment to the Department of an amount 
     determined by the Secretary.
       Sec. 153.  None of the funds provided to the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation may be used to fund any 
     overtime costs in excess of $35,000 for any individual 
     employee: Provided, That the president of Amtrak may waive 
     the cap set in the previous proviso for specific employees 
     when the president of Amtrak determines such a cap poses a 
     risk to the safety and operational efficiency of the system: 
     Provided further, That Amtrak shall notify House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of granting 
     waivers and delineate the reasons for granting such waiver in 
     the Corporation's monthly report: Provided further, That 
     Amtrak shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations on November 1, 2013, a summary of the total 
     number of employees that received such waivers, the total 
     overtime payments the Corporation paid to employees receiving 
     waivers, the total the Corporation paid in overtime payments 
     in the prior three fiscal years, and a description of the 
     factors that contributed to an increase or decrease from the 
     prior year.

                     Federal Transit Administration

                        administrative expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $102,713,000, of which up to 
     $3,000,000 shall be available to carry out the provisions of 
     49 U.S.C. 5329 and not less than $1,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5326: 
     Provided, That none of the funds provided or limited in this 
     Act may be used to create a permanent office of transit 
     security under this heading: Provided further, That upon 
     submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2015 
     President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     transmit to Congress the annual report on New Starts, 
     including proposed allocations for fiscal year 2015.

                         transit formula grants

                  (liquidation of contract authority)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in the Federal Public 
     Transportation Assistance Program in this account, and for 
     payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5310, 5311, 5318, 
     5322(d), 5329(e)(6), 5335, 5337, 5339, and 5340, as amended 
     by Public Law 112-141; and section 20005(b) of Public Law 
     112-141, $9,500,000,000, to be derived from the Mass Transit 
     Account of the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That funds available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs authorized under 49 
     U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5310, 5311, 5318, 5322(d), 5329(e)(6), 
     5335, 5337, 5339, and 5340, as amended by Public Law 112-141, 
     and section 20005(b) of Public Law 112-141, shall not exceed 
     total obligations of $8,595,000,000 in fiscal year 2014.

      research, development, demonstration, and deployment program

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5312, 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                  transit cooperative research program

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5313, 
     $4,000,000, to remain available until expended.

             technical assistance and standards development

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5314, 
     $4,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                      human resources and training

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5322(a), (b), 
     and (e), $2,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       capital investment grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5309, 
     $1,815,655,000, to remain available until expended.

                              {time}  1815


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

       Page 49, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $127,283,000)''.

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to 
increase transit funding for Capital Investment Grants, also known as 
the New Starts program, by $127 million, which would bring it to the 
same level as the bill currently being considered in the Senate.
  Earlier this year, almost 100 Members joined me in sending a letter 
to the Appropriations Committee requesting funding for transit, at a 
minimum, at the levels authorized in MAP-21 and in the President's 
request. In one of the few bright spots in this bill, transit formula 
grants are funded at the MAP-21 authorized level, in large part because 
the formula grants are funded out of the mass transit account of the 
highway trust fund. Unfortunately, the New Starts and Small Starts 
program, which comes out of general revenue and funds the construction 
of new fixed guideway systems, such as new subway lines, bus rapid 
transit, and light rail is cut 7 percent below the enacted level and 8 
percent below the President's request. This shows how important it is 
that the provision in last year's Republican bill that would have cut 
regular mass transit funds out of the highway trust fund and subject it 
to appropriations was defeated because otherwise we would have a 
drastic cut there, too.
  This bill is out of step with the demands of the American people. 
According to the American Public Transportation Association, a record 
10.5 billion trips were taken last year, the second highest annual 
ridership since 1957. This increase in ridership is occurring all over 
the country, in places like Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, 
Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, and Utah, to name just a few. Despite the 
increase in ridership, Federal transportation funding is not keeping up 
with demand. Public transportation agencies all across the country are 
facing possible job cuts, maintenance backlogs, service reductions, and 
fare hikes.
  The funding levels in this bill provide barely enough to meet our 
existing commitments to projects currently under construction, and 
there is a small amount of money for only a few new Small Starts. The 
funding level is too low to adequately finance planning and development 
of additional transit projects. The policy framework in this bill is 
one of attrition and contraction: to provide just enough money to close 
out the old projects, with no plans to invest in major new transit 
systems in any meaningful way in the future. We are not adequately 
investing in building new capacity and expanding transit service around 
this country, but I suppose that is the point--to slowly starve these 
programs to the point that they cease to be effective and then argue 
that they are not necessary.
  But I am optimistic that we will ultimately provide greater funding 
for transit. This is an issue that historically has had bipartisan 
support. Many of my Republican friends joined me in protecting the 
transit funding guarantees during consideration of surface 
transportation legislation last year and in defeating the leadership's 
attempt to eliminate it. The business community and the real estate 
industry support funding for public transportation, along with a wide 
range of labor, civil rights, environmental, and civic organizations. 
Public transportation has broad support all over the country because 
people understand that investing in transit is one of the smartest 
things we can do to create jobs right here in America, reduce 
congestion and dependence on foreign oil, and spur economic growth.
  My amendment would increase the New Starts program by $127 million, 
which is a modest amount considering how much we should be investing in 
our infrastructure, but at least it would put the House bill on equal 
footing with the Senate. Unfortunately, there is no account to use as 
an offset that wouldn't cause significant harm to other important 
programs, and, therefore, I have offered none. I understand the 
chairman may insist upon

[[Page 12565]]

raising a point of order, and this just shows the limitations under 
which we are working in this impossible bill in which there is grossly 
inadequate funding all around so that you can't responsibly ask for an 
offset without destroying mass transit or something else that is of 
great import in order to support adequate expenditures.
  I urge my colleagues to support increasing transit funding in 
whatever final product for FY14 appropriations becomes law.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget 
authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 
3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states:
  It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in the budget authority in 
the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments 
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority 
pursuant to clause 2 (f) of rule XXI.
  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section. It would increase budget authority by 
$127,383,000.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair will rule.
  The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York violates section 3(d)(3) of 
House Resolution 5.
  Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment 
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
  As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Iowa, the amendment 
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the 
point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

      grants to the washington metropolitan area transit authority

       For grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority as authorized under section 601 of division B of 
     Public Law 110-432, $125,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall approve grants 
     for capital and preventive maintenance expenditures for the 
     Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority only after 
     receiving and reviewing a request for each specific project: 
     Provided further, That prior to approving such grants, the 
     Secretary shall determine that the Washington Metropolitan 
     Area Transit Authority has placed the highest priority on 
     those investments that will improve the safety of the system: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary, in order to ensure 
     safety throughout the rail system, may waive the requirements 
     of section 601(e)(1) of title VI of Public Law 110-432 (112 
     Stat. 4968).


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

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

       Page 49, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert (reduced 
     by $125,000,000).
       Page 150, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     (increased by $125,000,000).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, it was my impression that this House had 
put an end to earmarks, and yet the Transportation-HUD appropriations 
bill contains $125 million solely for the benefit of the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, also known as WMATA.
  This is just a fraction, mind you, of the $1.5 billion that Congress 
intends to give the D.C. Metro system over a 10-year period. This is 
not just your everyday average earmark. The Heritage Foundation has 
dubbed this subsidy ``the largest earmark in American history.''
  So I have an amendment here at the desk, and it is very simple. It 
simply eliminates this earmark that has received subsidies since 2008.
  At a time of record budget deficits and debt, the American people 
cannot afford to provide yet again another earmark, another special 
subsidy, especially when you take into consideration the fact that the 
D.C. Metro already receives funds from a variety of other Federal 
sources, from other Federal Transit Administration grants and programs.
  Also, you add to that, given the performance of this agency, I find 
it absolutely astounding that the American people should want to give 
even more of their hard-earned cash to this agency. In addition to 
daily service interruptions, lax management, and poor general 
performance, Metro has a significant record of wasting money. Right 
here in The Washington Post, it was reported that Metro spent $382 
million to rebuild cars, only to have them break down even more often 
than the cars that they didn't overhaul. The Post also pointed out that 
when senior agency attorneys wanted new offices for themselves, they 
spent over a quarter of a million dollars to accommodate them. And why 
not? It's simply our money, taxpayer money being used.
  Last year, it was reported that the Office of Inspector General 
uncovered several personal and unwarranted expenses on Metro's credit 
cards, such as $2,000 worth of gift cards, things like camcorders 
valued at $730, and even $180 for headphones. So even when they spend 
this money on things it should be spending on, the facts are really 
disturbing. The Federal Government pays, mind you, over half--
specifically, 56 percent--of their capital costs already.
  Now, I understand that we'll hear others who say, D.C., the Nation's 
Capital, it's a tourist destination and it has a large population that 
utilizes it as transportation to get to work, but this is nothing 
unique. The same can be said for cities back in my neck of the woods 
like New York City or over in Chicago or Philadelphia, Boston, and Los 
Angeles. Should they get the same earmarks as well? What is it that is 
unique about Washington, D.C., that they are the only ones that get 
this type of earmark?
  Congress should not be forced to make the taxpayers use their hard-
earned money to subsidize a transportation system that has failed over 
the years to get its fiscal house in order. We owe it to the American 
people to be better than that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I understand our friend from New Jersey 
apparently doesn't like Metro or the clientele it serves. So much of 
what he said I think is, in fact, distorted.
  The Metro system in metropolitan Washington is one of the great 
success stories of regional cooperation in the United States of 
America. In less than 40 years, this system has created the second 
highest transit utilization in the United States. New York's is well 
over 120 years old; we're less than 40.
  In addition, my friend talked about taxpayer money. Not a dime of 
Federal money sustains or subsidizes Metro's operating costs. That's a 
problem because 40 percent of the Federal workforce uses Metro every 
day; and it is subsidized not by the Federal Government, I say to my 
friend from New Jersey, but by local governments in the metropolitan 
area. And I know because I was chairman of one of them, and I had to 
write that check every year for the subsidy for Metro--not the Federal 
Government, the government of Fairfax County. And we were happy to 
write the check because we saw the value in Metro.
  Metro also has the highest fare box recovery rate in the United 
States of any transit system. Subsidies, we recover 80 percent through 
the fare box. It's the most efficient recovery in the

[[Page 12566]]

United States. It lacks a dedicated source of revenue. It's the only 
major transit system in the United States that lacks a dedicated source 
of revenue.
  That's why I say to my friend from New Jersey, my Republican 
predecessor introduced this legislation you want to cut. Tom Davis was 
the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He was a 
Republican Congressman from Virginia, from the 11th District of 
Virginia I now am privileged to represent, and he and I saw eye to eye 
on this subject. We needed Federal help, and the Federal Government has 
a special responsibility because this is the Nation's Capital.
  Twelve million visitors use that Metro system at some point or 
another during the course of a year, unsubsidized by the Federal 
Government. In fact, the only subsidy we ever get is every 4 years when 
there's an inauguration, there's some consideration made. Other than 
that, we're kind of on our own.
  And so Tom Davis, my Republican predecessor felt, as did all of us in 
the region, that there was a special obligation to at least help on 
capital improvements because it's an aging system. And with that aging 
system, elevators need to be replaced, escalators need to be improved, 
canopies need to be replaced.

                              {time}  1830

  And so we came up with a capital improvement idea. The deal was this: 
in a Republican Congress, that if the local governments would come up 
with a match, dollar for dollar, we, the Federal Government, would 
provide $150 million a year for that capital improvement, to get new 
cars that are safer so we can avoid the kind of tragedy that occurred a 
few years ago in the system, because we have original cars still in the 
system from almost 40 years ago.
  So the local governments came up with that match, $150 million, 50 
for Maryland, 50 for D.C., 50 for Virginia, and we amended the compact, 
the contract that created Metro, to put Federal representatives on the 
board for the first time with voting privileges.
  If we adopt this amendment today, we turn our back on that Republican 
idea, that Republican legislation, and we turn our back on the faith 
that the local jurisdictions have expressed in keeping their commitment 
as part of this bargain.
  Metro is a very important part of our Nation's Capital, and it is 
wrong to disinvest in it, and it's even wronger to break a contract, a 
commitment we made several years ago when my Republican predecessor 
introduced this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman first begins his comments by 
attacking my motives in this matter, saying that--what did he say? I do 
not care about lines such as Metro or the people it serves.
  I would ask the gentleman, who's not paying any attention to me, 
exactly what is it in my statement would say that I do not care about 
the people that it serves? Because I do care about them, as much as I 
care about the subway system or the metro system in my metro area, such 
as New York City or in my metro area, such as down in Newark, New 
Jersey. I care about them as well.
  But you know, when I go back and I talk to those people who use those 
services, whether they be residents of New Jersey or residents of New 
York, or maybe they're residents from Virginia, from your neck of the 
woods up here, who come to visit the financial capital of the world, 
New York City, or the Garden State of New Jersey, who want to use our 
metro systems, they ask me why it is that D.C. gets a special deal, why 
D.C. gets $1.5 billion over 10 years for their system.
  Let's get the facts straight as far as the subsidy for the capital 
cost of 65 percent, and why our cities in our area, what is it that's 
so unique and special about this area and not about Chicago or 
Philadelphia or the other areas.
  So I go to my first question. What is it in my statement that you 
said, you could slander me, sir, by saying that I do not care about the 
people who ride on these systems?
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I would say to my friend from New Jersey, I do not 
question his motivation; I question his action. His action suggests, 
just as he just said, we're no different than any other transit system.
  Well, we are different. This is the Nation's Capital, and we bear the 
full responsibility of moving the Federal workforce, the bulk of the 
Federal workforce to work every single day. That is not a 
responsibility the New York subway system bears. It's not the 
responsibility Boston bears, or the BART system in San Francisco bears. 
It is unique.
  And we bear the responsibility in this region of welcoming 10 to 12 
million fellow Americans every year to visit the Nation's Capital, many 
of whom use that Metro system, again, something that is subsidized on 
an operating basis, by the local taxpayer. That is unique to this area.
  Mr. GARRETT. If I had some of the charts showing where some of the 
wealthiest districts are in the Nation, where, despite the turmoil of 
'08 and the financial crisis, where prices of real estate continue to 
rise, where revenues continue to go up, it would be in this section of 
the country, not in Boston, not in Philly, not in New York or Newark. 
But this is one of the wealthiest portions of the country.
  And you're right, sir. If this is an area that should look for 
subsidies, it should look for subsidies from some of the wealthiest 
people in America that live right here, not under the underlying bill.
  It's not asking for people from your district to pay their fair 
share, or the people from Maryland or Virginia to pay their fair share. 
It's asking for people from all across the country to chip in to pay 
for here, when you're not allowing the people from New York, Newark, 
Philadelphia, Chicago, out in California--those other areas have subway 
systems and metro systems. You're not willing to help them out.
  But, Mr. Speaker, you want everyone else in America to help the 
residents who live here and subsidize their costs, but you're not 
willing to help out the people who live in my neck of the woods.
  And that, sir, is unfair to my constituents. That's unfair to all the 
constituents in all those cities that are looking for a fair deal and 
for efficiency and economy from our government, and not for special 
deals.
  I'll end where I began. I thought Washington had done away with 
earmarks but, obviously, with this legislation and the special 
interests that are being catered to here, we have not done so.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Gallego of Texas.
  Amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska.
  Amendment by Mr. Grayson of Florida.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. McClintock of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gallego) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page 12567]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 317, 
noes 92, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 419]

                               AYES--317

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gowdy
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                                NOES--92

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barr
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Conaway
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kingston
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McClintock
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Radel
     Ribble
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Royce
     Runyan
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Smith (MO)
     Southerland
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Wagner
     Weber (TX)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Campbell
     Clarke
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Farr
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Labrador
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Schrader
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1901

  Messrs. COFFMAN, AMASH, ROKITA, SMITH of Missouri, STOCKMAN, FRANKS 
of Arizona, BURGESS, and HALL changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. CICILLINE, McKINLEY, RYAN of Wisconsin, BENTIVOLIO, LEVIN, 
SHUSTER, RICE of South Carolina, VALADAO, TERRY, MAFFEI, RUSH and 
RUPPERSBERGER, and Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mrs. ROBY changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 175, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 420]

                               AYES--239

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)

[[Page 12568]]


     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--175

     Alexander
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Daines
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Kingston
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Smith (MO)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walorski
     Walz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Campbell
     Dingell
     Gohmert
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Labrador
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1905

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Grayson) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 224, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 421]

                               AYES--191

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Cummings
     DeGette
     DeSantis
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Lee (CA)
     Lofgren
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--224

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Moore
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Campbell
     Dingell
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Labrador
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Young (FL)

[[Page 12569]]



                              {time}  1910

  Messrs. ROKITA and CRAWFORD changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 248, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 422]

                               AYES--166

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cotton
     Culberson
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Doggett
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--248

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gosar
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Campbell
     Dingell
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Labrador
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Rokita
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1913

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


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154, 
noes 258, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 423]

                               AYES--154

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     King (NY)
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Owens
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Quigley
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

[[Page 12570]]



                               NOES--258

     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Aderholt
     Campbell
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Labrador
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Simpson
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1917

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


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109, 
noes 300, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 424]

                               AYES--109

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castro (TX)
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Payne
     Pocan
     Posey
     Quigley
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                               NOES--300

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Campbell
     Cole
     Cramer
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa

[[Page 12571]]


     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Labrador
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1920

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Crenshaw was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                    The Congressional Challenge Cup

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think most Members of this body know 
that every year for the past 12 years there has been a golf match 
between the House Republicans and the House Democrats. It has become 
known as The First Tee Challenge, because the money that is raised from 
this event goes to help The First Tee, as they reach nearly hundreds of 
thousands of young people across this country using the game of golf to 
talk about honesty, integrity, hard work, and discipline. It is 
patterned after the Ryder Cup.
  This year's competition took place last Monday. After the matches 
were over, the score was tied--10 points for the Republicans and 10 
points for the Democrats. That is the ultimate in bipartisanship.
  But the rules of The First Tee Challenge Cup provide, just like the 
Ryder Cup, that the team that is in possession of the coveted Roll Call 
Cup, which I have right here in my hand, the team that is in possession 
of the cup must be defeated for the cup to change hands. So, therefore, 
the fact that the match was a tie this year, the coveted Roll Call Cup 
will stay in possession of the Republican team for 1 more year.
  I just want to thank all the members of the team for their hard work, 
their dedication, their fine play, and congratulate The First Tee for 
all the work that they do. And a special word of thanks to the 
sponsors, who have raised over $2 million over these years to help 
support The First Tee.
  I would like to yield to my Democratic counterpart, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Florida for 
his kind remarks.
  It was a wonderful competition. I would like to blame redistricting 
on the reversal of fortune that we've had over the last 2 years; but I 
can say in all honesty that it was a phenomenal competition and, more 
importantly, it was a very civil and friendly competition with a great 
deal of mutual respect and a great deal of humor and fun in a day that 
was documented last night on Golf Central on the Golf Channel. As my 
friend said, the most important thing is that we are raising money for 
a very important charity that has done phenomenal work throughout the 
country.
  I want to congratulate the Republicans for retaining the cup and 
congratulate my own team for a valiant effort. I must remind everyone 
that we didn't lose, we tied, and that we will get back at it next year 
and try to steal that cup from the Republicans where it rightfully 
belongs.
  Once again, thank you very much to the Republican team. Thanks also 
to the sponsors, and primarily to The First Tee for the great work that 
they do.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116, 
noes 295, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 425]

                               AYES--116

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     King (NY)
     Kuster
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Payne
     Pocan
     Posey
     Quigley
     Richmond
     Runyan
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                               NOES--295

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton

[[Page 12572]]


     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Campbell
     Carney
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Labrador
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Meadows
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1929

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


            Continuation of Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my close 
friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who not only called the House to 
order but who has been an extraordinary champion of transit systems for 
years, especially of Washington's metropolitan transit system, because 
he gets it. He understands how important this transit system is.
  There was a previous discussion, a dialogue, between Mr. Connolly and 
Mr. Garrett. The outcome of it was a suggestion that Washington's Metro 
system is somehow extraordinarily subsidized. The fact is that it's 
subsidized but that it's subsidized primarily by local governments. We 
have been trying on our side to provide subsidies to transit systems 
all over the country, including in the New York-New Jersey area--
apparently, given the results of some of the votes, without much 
success on this bill.
  The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that Metro is our Nation's 
transit system. It was created largely to serve the needs of the 
Federal Government. Forty percent of Metro's peak ridership are Federal 
employees, so a Federal role is both necessary and appropriate. WMATA 
is also the primary means of transportation for visitors to our 
Nation's Capital. Whether they come to experience our historical 
legacy, to participate in rallies on The Mall or to meet with their 
Members of Congress, they use our Nation's Metro system.
  Now, in recognition of this special relationship and of WMATA's 
urgent need for additional capital funds, the Passenger Rail Investment 
and Improvement Act of 2008 authorized $1.5 billion over 10 years for 
WMATA's capital and preventative maintenance projects. It was 
bipartisan. As Mr. Connolly suggested, his predecessor, Mr. Davis, 
largely led much of the effort, and it was to be matched dollar for 
dollar by the jurisdictions that WMATA serves--the District of 
Columbia, the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  That bill represented a compact between WMATA and the Federal 
Government, which was granted representation on the WMATA board. That 
was part of the legislation, that you've got to put Federal 
representation on the board in return for the funding. Up to this 
point, the Federal Government has upheld its end of this compact. 
That's why we object so strongly to the Garrett amendment. Currently, 
this appropriations bill on the floor today provides $125 million, 
which is consistent with this compact in its funding for the Metro 
system. It's a 16 percent cut already below the authorized level, 
which, in fact, has been fully funded in previous fiscal years, but Mr. 
Garrett's amendment would eliminate even that reduced funding level.
  The elimination of WMATA funding would be deeply detrimental to the 
system and would diminish the ability of thousands of employees to get 
to work--two-fifths of them Federal employees. Critically, the further 
cuts mandated by Mr. Garrett's amendment would limit WMATA's ability to 
continue improving the safety of the system and fully implement the 
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board that 
resulted from the 2009 Red Line crash. That's what we need to 
implement. We wouldn't be able to do it with this amendment. 
Eliminating Federal funding would also jeopardize State capital funding 
for the Metro system by breaking the matching compact that has been 
agreed to by all the parties.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this 
unnecessary amendment, which would irreparably harm America's most 
critical transit system.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I just want to speak briefly in support of what Mr. Moran 
said.
  Mr. Chairman, this law that we are drastically changing was really 
the result of a bipartisan agreement with regard to the Congress, and 
it was authored by former Congressman Tom Davis from northern Virginia. 
We voted on this one other time. A similar amendment was offered by Mr. 
Garrett last year. It failed by a vote of 160-243.
  In 2008, the Congress made a 10-year commitment as the Federal 
partner to provide capital funds for the needs of the Metro system. It 
was a commitment. It's in the law. We voted on it. We worked on it. It 
was bipartisan. Now we come up with the Garrett amendment. These funds 
are matched, as said by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), by 
WMATA's regional partners--Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. 
Again, it was voted on before, in the last Congress, and it failed 
overwhelmingly by a vote of 160-243.
  Eliminating this funding means that Congress would be choosing to go 
back on its commitment to provide the money needed to maintain a safe 
and reliable system used by many of your constituents--the people who 
visit. Metro is currently using Federal funds to improve a 30-year-old 
system to address the critical safety recommendations made by the 
National Transportation Safety Board. People died on the Metro. This 
money is being used to make the Metro safe. As the other Member said, 
many Members have constituents who come from all over the country to 
use it. More than half of the Metro rail system serves Federal 
facilities like the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and 
many others.
  I would ask Members to keep the commitment that was made in a 
bipartisan way and to vote down the Garrett amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
  He and I spent literally a decade working together, shoulder to 
shoulder, in a bipartisan way because this is America's subway. This is 
a subway that is used by almost all of the visitors who come to visit 
their capital. It is for that reason that the Federal Government has 
participated in building this extraordinary system.
  The gentleman is correct. We have an agreement. There is a compact 
that has been signed by Republican Governors and Democratic Governors, 
by Republican Members of the House and Democratic Members of the House, 
by Republican members of the Senate and Democratic members of the 
Senate. I would hope that the House would reject this amendment.
  I adopt the remarks of the gentlemen from Virginia. My colleagues Mr. 
Moran and Mr. Wolf, I think, speak for all of us, and, of course, Mr. 
Connolly has spoken very strongly for himself, but I would hope that 
the House would continue to keep the faith with the agreement that has 
been made for what is America's subway, used by all of our people when 
they come here to their Nation's Capital.
  I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank the ranking member 
for their efforts on behalf of the Metro as well as for keeping the 
faith of the

[[Page 12573]]

agreement that we have reached. I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership and his remarks.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  I also want to thank Mr. Latham and Mr. Pastor for their opposition 
to this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                          THUD Appropriations

  In 2008, the Congress made a 10-year commitment, as the federal 
partner, to provide capital funds for the needs of the Metro system.
  These funds are matched by WMATA's regional partners, Virginia, 
Maryland and Washington, D.C.
  This amendment would eliminate $125 million in capital funds for 
Metro, which has already been cut from $150 million last year.
  A similar amendment offered to last year's THUD bill failed by a vote 
of 160-243.
  Eliminating this funding means Congress is choosing to go back on its 
commitment to provide money needed to maintain a safe and reliable 
system used by many of your constituents.
  Metro is currently using federal funds to improve its 30-year-old 
system to address the critical safety recommendations made by the 
National Transportation Safety Board, which Metro has made its highest 
priority.
  WMATA operates the second largest rail system and sixth largest bus 
system in the U.S.
  It provides 1.3 million trips a day--many of these trips carry 
employees to and from work every day.
  More than half of the Metrorail stations serve federal facilities, 
like the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.
  Metro is critical to the economic growth of this region.
  It has spurred $37 billion in economic development at or near to 
Metro's property.
  I represent the Dulles airport and Loudoun County and since 1999, I 
have supported extending metro rail to Dulles.
  The funding provided in this bill for Metro is critical to the 
success and safety of the rail project along the Dulles Corridor, which 
is the single greatest economic engine for Northern Virginia.
  Congress must continue to uphold its commitment to provide a safe and 
reliable metro experience for the American people that we serve.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we may take advantage 
of revisiting this yet again to have a teachable moment here.
  My good friend from New Jersey talked about some of the problems of 
the Metro system. As a practical matter, many of those problems are the 
result of 40 years of an accumulated maintenance deficit and a lack of 
a long-term, reliable partnership with the Federal Government, 
exemplified by the irresponsibility of this amendment that is being 
proposed.
  The Federal Government is the primary beneficiary of Metro. Bear in 
mind these 68 square miles that represent the District of Columbia: 21 
percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government, and a much 
larger percentage of the valuable land is tax-exempt; 30 percent of the 
jobs are Federal jobs even in these difficult times, and they're not 
paying taxes to the District of Columbia or to Metro; 40 percent of the 
rush-hour traffic is of Federal employees, and we suffer some of the 
worst traffic congestion in the United States in this region.
  We have a serious accumulated deficit for maintenance, and this was 
part of a bipartisan, long-term agreement to solve this problem and 
improve service and meet the Federal responsibilities. I appreciate the 
advocacy and the eloquence of my friends from Virginia and Maryland who 
have come to the floor and pointed out this responsibility. I speak as 
somebody who represents a district 2,300 miles away, but I, too, have 
an interest in the Federal Government's being a responsible partner in 
helping Metro function properly.
  Many of us were on the floor of the House during 9/11. That was a 
horrible week in our Nation's Capital. But for the Metro system, the 
area would have been paralyzed.

                              {time}  1945

  I suggest that this is, I hope, well intentioned; but I think it's 
shortsighted, and it underscores the problems we have had in the 
district to deal with long-term capital investments. As has been 
pointed out, the local governments surrounding are part of the 
partnership and are contributing money.
  I would hope that the Federal Government understands its 
responsibility and not only do we reject this misguided amendment, but 
hopefully we can use this as an opportunity to reaffirm the 
partnership, the role that the Federal Government plays, the benefit 
that the Federal Government obtains for our employees, for our 
visitors, for the land that is located here that occupies Federal 
activities.
  Mr. Chairman, these are tea leaves that people read. I am sad that 
this bill underfunds infrastructure across the country on the very day 
that the American Society of Civil Engineers puts out their report that 
gives us a D-plus rating for infrastructure in this country, that we 
need increased private investment, local government funding. We have 
$2.2 trillion over the next 10 years. It will be necessary just to 
bring our infrastructure up to standard. And this will be the quickest 
way to put Americans to work at family-wage jobs from coast to coast. I 
would hope at some point we get back to our responsibilities overall 
for infrastructure, but in the meantime we should reject this effort to 
undermine the partnership and the Federal responsibility.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, when we're in session, I have 
the opportunity--and I take it--to ride the metro. That's the way I get 
around in this great city. I have to tell you that in the late sixties, 
early seventies when I first came to Washington on other business, I 
saw where Connecticut Avenue was being dug up, the beginning of the Red 
Line. So I can attest, Mr. Chairman, that every morning at the South 
Capitol stop, people who work in this complex on Capitol Hill, that 
there are lines of workers that are coming into work.
  So when the proposition came before the House, the compact that the 
Federal Government agreed with Maryland, Virginia, and the District, to 
maintain the metro and the particular States and District had the 
matching funds, I was very supportive because I knew of the benefit 
that Metro brought to our employees here on Capitol Hill, as well as to 
the Federal employees throughout this metro area. So I have to tell you 
that I support the Metro system, and I oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this appropriations measure fails at 
every level to meet our Nation's transportation infrastructure needs, 
support our States' housing initiatives, or further our community 
development goals.
  I would like to take a moment to highlight a few of the most 
egregious cuts in the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill before us today because it's important for my 
constituents in Rhode Island to hear exactly what's being proposed here 
today.
  We all recognize clearly that some cuts in Federal spending are 
unavoidable. In certain cases, they're even desirable in the current 
budgetary environment. But this bill goes far beyond what's reasonable 
by reneging on the

[[Page 12574]]

spirit of the agreed-to spending levels in the Budget Control Act. The 
cuts in this bill to the Community Development Block Grant program, the 
HOME grant, and transportation investments endanger the well-being of 
America's cities and towns, as well as our residents.
  Expanding economic opportunities and creating jobs continue to be my 
top priorities in Congress. It's exactly what this Nation needs right 
now. It's certainly what we need in Rhode Island, given the fact we 
have the fourth highest unemployment rate in the Nation. Regrettably, 
this bill achieves neither of these goals. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimated just last week the sequestration would result in 1.6 
million fewer American jobs by the end of September 2014. Yet my 
Republican colleagues have decided to double down on this reckless 
policy by crafting the T-HUD bill with the assumption that 
sequestration remains in effect.
  These cuts translate into real jobs and real benefits to our 
communities. Just 2 weeks ago, I celebrated a $10 million Federal TIGER 
grant award that will be used to help Rhode Island replace the aging 
Providence Viaduct. It's part of the I-95 corridor that goes right 
through the center of Providence. This bill eliminates the TIGER grant 
program.
  In April, our State Department of Transportation unveiled plans to 
improve the Providence Amtrak station. The station serves over 1 
million Amtrak and commuter rail passengers each year, benefiting our 
entire State, as well as neighboring ones with multimodal connections 
from Providence to the Boston metropolitan area. This bill cuts Amtrak 
funding by 33 percent, endangering further improvements to important 
interstate transportation infrastructure.
  In June, Rhode Islanders celebrated the 100th anniversary of the 
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 618. Their 1,000 members take us to 
school, work, to the doctor, and to the grocery store quickly and 
safely every day. Public transportation decreases congestion, 
pollution, and individual fuel costs; it connects us to recreation, 
family, and community; and it creates jobs in the short term, while 
supporting careers over the long term. This bill cuts transit funding 
by 17 percent from last year.
  It also delivers a 25 percent cut to the Housing Counseling 
Assistance Fund, which helped over 2,000 Rhode Island families last 
year stay in their homes, avoid foreclosure, or refinance their 
mortgage. This bill would cut the HOME program by $300 million, a 30 
percent reduction from pre-sequestration levels. HOME is a critical 
resource that's used to develop affordable housing for those who need 
it most. It has resulted in over 4,200 units in Rhode Island alone 
being created.
  Meanwhile, homeless families, the most vulnerable among us, once 
again will feel the full brunt of the majority's misplaced priorities. 
In 2012, over 4,800 Rhode Islanders found themselves homeless, one-
quarter of them children. The State homeless assistance programs depend 
on Federal support to operate shelters to help move people to a 
permanent housing solution; yet H.R. 2610 does not come close to 
adequately funding these programs, placing thousands of Rhode Island 
families in even further jeopardy.
  By cutting the administrative fund for section 8, this bill seeks to 
undermine the very integrity of that program. Those seeking housing 
assistance vouchers will find agencies understaffed, underfunded, and 
unable to serve the millions who depend on section 8 to stay in 
affordable housing. This is outrageous.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill cuts the CDBG program by almost 50 
percent, an unacceptable and draconian move that will cripple the 
neighborhoods that need the most help. These grants are the cornerstone 
of local investment opportunities. For every dollar spent on CDBG 
grants, $3 is leveraged from private, nonprofit, and other non-Federal 
funding sources. The organizations working with CDBG funds use them for 
employment services, homeless assistance, child care, senior care, 
mental health outreach, and countless other services. I'm sad to see 
that the committee has decided that this is not worth the investment.
  This bill is misguided, and I hope we will rethink this. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Capito) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2610) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________