of ticket revenue. that's amazing right there. seems to me amtrak ought to be rewarded rather than, as this bill does, punished. amtrak carries 31 million passengers every year. . 20,000 people need amtrak all over america. 47 states. yeah, we know about it here on the east. 46 states. one million daily commuters. this is our national railroad. nbelievable that we would be content to see every single nation in the world that

considers itself an advanced nation generation as i head of us on railroad. we are two generations behind, for example, on high speed. and there is zero dollars in this bill for high speed railroad. amtrak is very well managed. in the committee we had 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 a 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 per hour and we ought to understand who we're talking about. we're not just talking about the district of columbia to new york.

of the 25 busiest stations, amtrak stations, what about seattle? or harrisberg? or bakersfield, california? at a time when the airlines are in trouble and have reduced air operations, and amtrak keeps growing in ridership each and winning h, we have a operation here. we are sending 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, two of them in the district of columbia. t's do what we need to do in this bill. the chair: the gentlewoman's ime has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? the clerk: amendment offered by mr. guy yegow of texas -- galingow of texas. page three, line five, strike, not to exceed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gallego: thank you, 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 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. but 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. and frankly, as i look at the list and how the money is divided, we spent $24 million roughly, so nearly two times -- more than two times as much, or the assistant secretary for policy. all of that is more important than security. and for me, as a member of congress who represents some 59,000 square miles, including five ports of entry, 800 miles of the texas border with mexico, an area frankly where we have seen emergencies before, we have seen emergency response before, we have had several instances and frankly the congress is consistently concerned with security, it seems to me 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

he line items from the other items, if they don't spend the money from the office of public affairs or the office of government affairs or the office of general counsel, it gives them the ability, the flexibility to spend more money for intelligence, security and emergency response. and i think if you ask every single individual member of congress what's more important, the lawyers or the -- at the department of transportation, or emergency response, what's more important, the lawyers at the department of transportation or the office of security, all of these kind ches things, -- kinds of things, all of these things are more important. and it doesn't cost any more money, it doesn't appropriate any more money, per se. what it does is it gives the agency the ability to move money around, the flexibility to provide additional money should it become necessary. and frankly one never knows what kind of emergency is going to come up. one never knows what's going to happen, whether it's going to be a natural disaster or a

terrorist attack. and it always pays to have the emergency response have the level of flexibility they need. regardless of what happens they have the opportunity to do their jobs and to do their jobs well. additional budget flexibility in a time of limited dollars and limited budgets, additional flexibility i think is very key. and 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 $10 million that's allotted for them, the little over $10 million that's allotted to them for the whole year. mr. chairman, i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: mr. chairman, i want to say i'm not opposed to the amendment. i am going to call for a recorded vote. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? the gentleman is recognizes -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i support the gentleman's amendment. it ensures that the office of intelligence, security and emergency response would receive no less than $10,786 ,000. this office performs the important security functions of the department of transportation and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. latham: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the ayes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. he clerk: the clerk will read.

there is -- we are not -- the gentleman's not there. the gentleman from new york. >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to express my strong opposition to the draconian cuts to the community development block grant, cdbg program in this legislation. the cdbg program has a proven record of success in stabilizing and revitalizing communities across the country. mr. nadler: by directly providing funds to local communities and giving them flexibility to decide where the funding will have the greatest impact. in the last seven 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 dbg benefited from the c 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 for seniors and services for abused children. but the real impact of cdbg is not seen on the national scale, it's 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 new summer employment opportunities. it has preserved publicing housing and addressed vacant housing. provided support and guidance for small local businesses. because of the flexibility it 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 city, 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 rom the old way in which specific programs were specifically funded. and people in this house, mostly republicans, i must say, said, give more flexibility to local governments. instead of giving 20 categorical specific programs, fund them into one or two block grants, community development block grants, so they can be used more efficiently and 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 it has had, the bill we are debating on the floor today would cut funding o $1.6 billion, a 50% cut from this year. and the lowest funding level in the 40-year history of the program. lower than when president ford pported it, even without

inflation adjustments. 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 vital services and support that cdbg provides. how did we get here? why are we voting to gut this proven efficient flexible program? cut re we voting for a 50% 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 increase in defense spending while slashing funding for medicaid, food stamps and women and children's funding 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. speaker, on how to keep our economy strong, but we should all agree that we must stop piling these cuts on the backs of seniors, 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. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, 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 of the national highway traffic safety administration which

administers distracted dwrivinging prevention grants to the states. this is an area where we need to do more. every accident results in people texting and talking on their phones while driving. mr. engel: 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 handle. in 2011 3,331 people in the crashes killed in 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 2011 the last year of updated data, 10% of injury crashes resulted from distracted driving and it's clear that we must use every opportunity available to push for strong distracted driving laws. much of 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 distracted prevention driving -- prevention, driving prevention act withholds funding from states that do not make both texting and talking on the 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 making both texting and talking on the phone while driving a primary offense. my home state of new york does, followed by california, connecticut, delaware, washington, d.c., 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. 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 yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 4, line 3, research and technology, $14, 220,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i have an amendment at the desk, number 19. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. latham of iowa. mr. latham: dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. latham of iowa. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: mr. chairman, this is a technical amendment that provides existing $14.7 million in d.o.t. funding to the research and innovative technology administration rather than a new assistant secretary. this addresses the concerns. it does not affect the scoring of the bill.

i urge adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: mr. chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. e clerk: page 5, line 7, national infrastructure investments. of the funds made available under division f of public law 113-6, $270 million are rescinded. financial management capital, $4,990,000 to remain available through september 30, 2015. cybersecurity initiatives, $2 million to remain available through september 30, 2015. office of civil rights, $9,384,000. transportation planning, research and development, $6

million to remain available through september 30, 2015. working capital fund, $172 million. minority business resource center program, $333,000. in addition for administrative expenses, $589,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the rise? an from alaska mr. young: amendment at the desk. the clerk: $3,065,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. airport and airway trust fund, $100 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. young of alaska. page 1, line 6, after communities insert in the 48

contiguous states. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: thank you. i want to thank chairman latham for his leadership on this bill. it's difficult times. this is a very simple amendment. 1978 the congress deregulated the airline industry and it provided a means to protect rural communities. the essential air service program provides the continuous of service to communities that would loss all air service through deregulation. while this is a vital program, i respect the efforts of the chairman to find cost maintenance. the bill excludes communities from participating in the program if they receive per fasha subsidy of greater than $500. current law excludes communities if they receive $1,000 per passenger except alaska and hawaii. this recognizes the communities in alaska and hawaii are completely dependent on air travel. 82% of alaskan communities do not have a road system. and many communities the only thing is by air. my amendment clarifies that the

proposed reforms will not hinder the long standing efforts. my amendment has no score with c.b.o. and does not impact funding levels of the program. by amendment provides no cost -- the most remote are not excluded from this program. i'd like to remind colleagues, if you take all of the land east of the mississippi river to the atlantic ocean, maine to florida, that's alaska. you think about it in that area there's 253 congressman and hawaii has the same problem, not quite as large. we have one way and that's through air service. it's a is he simple amendment. i thank the chairman. -- it is a very simple amendment. i thank the chairman. mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i will be calling for a recorded vote. choipped for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii rise? ms. gabbard: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. gabbard: this will continue the air service program recognizing the characteristics unique to alaska and hawaii. the program was put in place to make sure that all communities, including 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 a 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 a community on

an isolated peninsula on the north shore of moll i couldy. when hanson's disease was first introduced to the hawaiian islands, all people inflicted with this disease were sent to this rural community, kalupapa. today it is a refuge for the remaining patients who now cured would still 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 million 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 impasseable 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 very unique geographical limitations. where many communities are accessible by vehicle, that's not the case in contiguous

states. 3 1/2 miles are not that far except the side of a mountain on the back of a mule. this amendment would help our geographical challenges. this amendment maintains the current practice of hawaii and alaska being exempt from restrictions on what communities are eligible for the essential air service program. currently only two communities n hawaii qualify, kalupapa and maluaua. this is critical important for all people who live in these areas. i'd also like to take a moment to recognize my colleague from hawaii, congresswoman coleen hanabusa. she's 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. if not for tropical storm flossy where she's stuck in hawaii across the pacific ocean away. i'd like to thank representative young for his leadership and strongly urge my colleagues to support the young

amendment and yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the question is on the -- the gentleman from florida. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment and 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 presented. arguably their argument is unasail able and i rise in -- unasailable and i rise in support of their amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise?

>> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. will the gentleman specify the amendment? mr. grayson: this is grayson number 190. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. page 9, line 7, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $250. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grayson: mr. chairman, the essential air 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 mussel shoals.

i don't see a sense of that at a time when we're cutting food stamps and block grants to communities. i think it's a poor way to spend taxpayer funds. this would reduce it to $250 per passenger because $500 per passenger is out ageous. if passengers don't want to pay for aviation routes, then they simply should not exist. for $500 per passenger, we could simply 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 and the necessary aspects of life like postal service, 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 the bill in half, the lowest level since the program began in 1975. it would cut home investment partnerships to the lowest level since that program began n 1992 and would drastically reduce section 8 rental assistance 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 as a support aviation routes that simply should not exist. i yield the balance of my time. sorry. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman cannot reserve. the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment.

we have in the bill restrained the growth of this program and keeping the total amount of $216 million -- $116 million of which is from fees and $100 million provided in discretionary appropriation for the fiscal year 2012 program levels. so it's at the same level as it was before. we have -- 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've 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 reforms so that isolated communities can be served and while restraining growth in this program, but i do urge a no vote, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i would agree with chairman latham that this reform needs to come about and it shouldn't be in an appropriation bill and hopefully the t.n.i. authorizing committee will look at this issue and come to a decision. it's 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'd tell you, as i explain to my colleague from florida, that this would probably cause 100, maybe a little bit more, smaller communities not be able to link to the national air service. so this is not the time to do

it, and so i would rise in opposition to this amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does -- mr. grayson: i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 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 requiring a 4% cut in the f.a.a. budget which the leadership immediately translated into a 40% flight delay until the public rebeled. the total sequester cut to the 243 million ghly to pay for empty and near empty flights from selected airports in tiny communities under this program that's laughingly called essential air service. it is in fact the least essential air service imaginable. since we last visited this issue, the f.a.a. re-authorization bill, made some minor reforms to the program. we're no longer subsidizing air travel from communities that are within a 90-mile radius from an airport and the subsidy has been capped at $500 per passenger. these minor reforms mean that one airport in nevada has been dropped from the program and two more are about to be.

that's a start, but still it's no excuse for shoveling as this appropriation does a total of $216 million of this program from direct taxpayer subsidies and fees into the next year. it was supposed to last for just a few years to give rural communities a chance to adjust. that was 35 years ago. it's true there are over a few ny communities in alaska who have no highway connections to

hub airports but they have plenty of alternatives. in the case of there, they enjoy year-round fairy service ferry service to juneau. rural life has great advantages and great disadvantages and is not the job of hardworking taxpayers who choose to live elsewhere to level out these differences. apologists tell us it's 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're taking it from are always going to be worse off to exactly the same extent. indeed, its economic drivers like this that has driven europe's economy right off a cliff. last year, one member rushed to the microphone 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. it actually had a passenger base, we wouldn't need in effect to hand $1,000 bills to the few passengers who use it, would we? an airline to wreckless with its funds would quickly bankrupt itselfs. the same 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, quote, ideally, essential air service would be zeroed out and the $200 million we waste on it would be 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, end of quote. there are many tough calls in setting fiscal priorities but this isn't one of them. if the house of representatives

were all -- where all appropriations begin, with the 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 chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: 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. and that's why we capped the per passenger subsidy at $500 current own from the

$1,000 cap per passenger. we have also cut the discretion '-- discretionary funding in this bill by $46 million, leaving the total program level of $216 million. $100 million of that is from discretionary spending but $116 million is from fees. this is an 18% reduction and we already have improsed -- imposed a significant cut to this program. we will continue to push the administration to reform the program and work with the ransportation-infrastructure committee. but the outright funding in this bill is a hit to rural communities that i cannot support. i urge repeal of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the essential air service program was designed to continue air service for small communities that had scheduled air service prior to airline deregulation. mr. pastor: it is funded through annual appropriations and overflight fees that are

collected when foreign air -- air carriers transverse through u.s. air space. 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, and others. reform not the way to this program and so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, as a co-sponsor of this amendment, i rise to speak in support of eliminating the central air service program. i thank my colleague from california, mr. mcclintock, for his work on this amendment. but another californian once said, there's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program. 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 central air service program. this program was intended to be temporary. it was created as a transition program in the 1970's after airline deregulation, to help rural airports adjust to a free market system. mr. hudson: we're now more than 25 years after the intended end date of 1988 and taxpayers are still footing the bill. this is yet another example of washington's spending problem, mr. chairman. it has to stop. and so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> 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. but that's why we passed reforms during the f.a.a. re-authorization last year, to improve efficiency and save taxpayer dollars. additionally, the underlying

bill today already includes a reduction in funding for the e.a.s. program. while there is room for savings in all programs, totally eliminating e.a.s. outright would be counterproductive. mr. smith: the eessential 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. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 9, line 8, administrative provisions, office of the secretary of transportation, section 101,

none of the funds may be obligated to approve assessment pertaining to funds appropriated to the modeled administrations. section 102, the secretary may engage in activities with states related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. section 103, the department's working capital fund is authorized to provide payments in advanced to vendors to carry out federal transit past transportation benefit program. section 104, the secretary shall post on the website a schedule of all meetings of the credit counsel. federal aviation administration operations, airport -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. speier: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. speier of california. page 11, line 4, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $500,000. page 11, line 10, after the

dollar amount -- ms. speier: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. chairman. july 6 of this year, asiana airlines flight 214 from south korea crashed on its final approach to san francisco international airport which is in my district. initial report it's made clear that low air speed 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. could have been an absolute catastrophe because there were over 300 people, including crew, that survived that horrific day. low air speed has been a concern for air safety for almost 20 years. in 1996, the f.a.a.'s human factor team concluded that

flight crews needed better warnings that the aircraft was reaching low air speeds. in 2003, following the crash that killed our congressional colleague, senator paul wellstone, the national transportation safety board recommended the f.a.a. study whether to require installation of low air speed, audible and visual alert systems. following the air crash in buffalo, new york, a recommendation was re-issue -- reissued in 2010 on installation of redundant audioble and visual warnings of impending low speed conditions now. , after almost two decades since the initial recommendation, and over three since the recommendation after new york, the f.a.a. has not addressed this question. of whether existing commercial aircraft should be required to install low air speed warning systems. i fear that without direction from congress, the f.a.a. could take years to complete the study. that is why i'm offering this amendment which provides the f.a.a. $500,000 to conduct and

complete a study on this important question within one year. low air speed alert systems that cry out "air speed low" are available and require a simple software change. these differ from the to only alerts that sound similar to other pilot alerts. the f.a.a. should investigate whether existing low air speed to only 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 737's provides a higher level of safety. when the alert signals to a pilot that they are traveling at too low air speed, 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 an air speed, because they are instantly recognizable to the

pilot. if a verbal warn something found to be more effective, the f.a.a. 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 solly sullenberger, the pilot of the measure cal of -- miracle of nd hudson river and he said that when a pilot is in a position of reacting during a crash, they need every one of their senses being alerted. the senses when you're holding the throttle, the senses when you hear low speed alert and the senses when you see stall. and i thought that was very compelling. we have a number of cases that suggest now that low air speed alerts that are verbal should be incorporated. the f.a.a. has dragged its feet and i believe that this

particular amendment would be very helpful and save many lives in the future. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman cannot reserve. the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: the committee accepts the amendment. it's a good amendment. and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: we believe that these moneys would expedite the studies to see how the better warnings could be given at low speeds so we approve the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, are we at the point in the reading of the bill? the chair: the gentleman is correct. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment. to h.r. 2610.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida. page 1 1, line 9, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $3,497,000. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. the good words of my colleagues, ranking members lowey and pastor, my good friend, the allocation provided for t h.u.d. appropriations under the ryan -- t-hud appropriations under the ryan budget, which was, quote, deemed passed, unquote, by my republican colleagues, is simply unworkable. from funding for the federal aviation administration tiger grants, public transcript 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 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 investments in our national air system. it cuts f.a.a. operations by $185 million below the president's budget request. t slashes $575 million, 21%, from the f.a.a.'s facilities and equipment account and casts doubt on the future hiring of air traffic controllers and inspectors. nexgen is a full multiyear effort to modernizes our nation's air traffic control system by traditioning to a

satellite-based navigation system. it is implemented, nexgen will help reduce delays, expand air traffic systems capacity and mitigation aviation's impact on the environment while ensuring the highest levels of safety. currently, the f.a.a. is moving from nexgen 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 nexgen's program currently under deployment, it forces the f.a.a. to greatly slow down its nexgen modernization of the air traffic control system. my amendment restores funding for nexgen programs to the fiscal year 2013 level within the operations planning account. it really represents a small

amount, $3.5 million over the f.y. 2014 house funding level of $56.6 million for a total of $60.1 million. the increased funding would help ensure that f.a.a. remains on schedule with regard to nexgen 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 nexgen our implementation. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition. the committee's opposed to the amendment. the committee shares the gentleman's support of nexgen

programs, however, this amendment increases one activity in the operations account and makes no further adjustments. the result is individual the m levels that exceed account level, which we cannot do. the subcommittee looked closely at all accounts and all programs. the subcommittee placed a high iority on f.a.a. operation for just a 2% cut below the budget request. within the operations account, the subcommittee balanced the number of high-priority areas, including nexgen, aviation safety and air traffic control. this amendment throws this account off balance. programs within the account would no longer add up to the top line, and the f.a.a. could simply ignore the subcommittee's direction on other program levels. so therefore we urge a no vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i

move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: the amendment increases funding for the f.a.a.'s nexgen office by $3.5 million, as my colleague, mr. it is for t is future development and i would agree with him that it's something we need to invest in. this would accelerate the implementation of nexgen which is greatly needed. our air traffic control system is aging and needs modernization. ut as mr. wolf has pointed out , moving money in the account will move some problems. my hope hopefully if there is a reconciliation with the senate that this would be given higher priority and the funding levels -- in the funding levels as we work with conference with the senate. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 13, line 16. facilities and equipment, airport and airway trust fund. $2,155,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. again, i'm going to talk about nextgen and i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be put into the record, mr. speaker. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. hastings: i do. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida. page 14, line 9, after the first dollar amount insert the following, reduce by $

870,031,000,000. -- $870,031,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be submitted in the record. the chair: that will be covered under general leave. mr. hastings: i point out that the bill before us makes cuts for f.a.a. facilities and equipment. make no mistake, 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 the f.y. 2013 enacted level. this increased funding would help ensure that the f.a.a. remains on schedule with regard to nextgen implementation. and 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'm troubled we might not get to full implementation if we continue the reductions that i see that are set forth. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. is there a member seeking recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 15, line 1. research, engineering and development, airport and airway trust fund, including rescission, $145 -- the chair: the clerk will

suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: i will be unrelenting in this effort to we deal ke sure that with the necessary -- the chair: does the gentleman from florida have an amendment at the desk? mr. hastings: i do. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida. 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 chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. my apologies for getting ahead of the necessary protocol. you know, in switzerland yesterday there was a collision of trains. one moving north and the other moving south. a good friend of mr. wolf and mr. pastor and mine served as

chairman and ranking member of the transportation appropriations committee, james oberstar, and in addition to many things that jim suggested during his tenure here -- and i think back to some of the things that would have put us in a better position than we are today, particularly on 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. extgen, in the air area of the to avoid those kinds of problems and to increase the efficiency and safety. ultimately delays and saves fuel. if we get on with what i'm asking for and that's $62 million for nextgen research and development activities from the f.a.a.'s research, engineering and development account. again, i'm not asking anything that i think would do anything less than help all of us. we don't just live in these places. we fly there. aviation industry contributes nearly $1.3 trillion to the united states economy. air ermore, the f.a.a.'s

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 real investment in our nation's transportation infrastructure by supporting this nextgen amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i rise and strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. we share the support of the nextgen. this could have the unintended consequences of forcing cuts to other priorities such as the 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 yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. any member seeking recognition?

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: again, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. the clerk will read. line 19, page 15, grants for airports, liquidation of contract authorization, limitation on obligations, airport and airway trust fund. $3,200,000,000. administrative provisions, federal aviation administration, section 110, none of the funds may be used to compensate in excess of 600 technical staffeers. section 111, none of the funds shall be used to prosue guidelines regarding airport sponsors. section 112, the administrator may reimburse amounts made

available to satisfy 49, united states code, 41742-a-1. section 113, amounts collected shall be credited to the appropriation current at the time of collection. section 114, none of the funds shall be available for paying premium pay under subsection 5546-a of title 5, united states code, unless such employee performed work during the time corresponding to such premium pay. section 115, none of the funds may be obligated or expended for an employee to purchase a store gift card through a government-issued credit card. section 116, none of the funds may be obligated for retention bonuses without prior written approval. section 117, none of the funds may be used to implement any limitation on the ability of any owner of a private aircraft to obtain a blocking of that

owner's aircraft registration number. section 118, none of the funds shall be available for salaries of more than seven political and presidential appointees. section 119, none of the funds may be used to increase fees pursuant to section 44721 of title 49, united states code, until the f.a.a. conducts a public outreach. . none of the funds may be used to change weight restrictions or rules at teater borrow airport in teater borrow, new jersey. federal highway administration limitation oned a misk expenses, highway trust fund, $417 million. federal aid highways, limitation on obligations highway trust fund, $40,256,000,000. iquidation of contract

authorization highway trust fund, $40,995,000,000. administrative provisions, federal highway administration, section 120, the secretary shall not distribute from the obligation limitation for federal aid highways. amounts authorized for administrative expenses by section 104-a of title 23, -- title es code, 23, united states code. section 121, funds received by the bureau of transportation statistics may be credited to the federal aid highways account. requirement ny for federal aid highway projects, the secretary shall make an informal public notice on the intent to issue such waiver. section 123 -- the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. wolf of virginia. page 29, beginning on line 23, strike section 123. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: current agreement with the authorizing committee, this amendment strikes section 123 under the administrator provision of the federal highway administration. this section has made certain unobligated balances to the contract authority available in 2014, is noncontroversial. i respectfully ask for a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: 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 expense of the agency's ability to do proper oversight will suffer. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 31, line 33, section -- line 3, section 13 124, none of the funds -- section 124, none of the funds shall be used on any highway in texas that, as of the date of enactment of this act is not olled. motor carrier safety operations and programs, liquidation of contract authorization, limitation on obligations, highway trust fund, $259 million. motor carrier safety grants, liquidation of contract authorization, limitation on obligations, highway trust fund, $313 million. administration provision, federal motor carrier safety

administration, section 130, funds appropriated shall be subject to terms and conditions. national highway traffic safety administration, operations and research, $117 million of which $20 million shall remain available until september 30, 2015. operations and research, liquidation of contract authorization, limitation on obligations, highway trust 175,088. 9, highway traffic safety grants, liquidation of contract authorization, limitation on obligations highway trust fund, 561,500,000. administrative provisions, national highway traffic safety administration, section 140, an additional $130,000 shall be

made available to pay for travel and related expenses for state management reviews. section 141, the limitations on obligations shall not apply to obligations for which obligation authority was made available in previous public laws. section 142, none of the funds shall be used to implement section 404 of title 23, united states code. federal railroad administration safety and operations, 184,500,000. railroad research and evelopment, $35,250,000. railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program, the secretary's authorized to issue direct loans and loan guarantees pursuant to sections

05202 through 504 of the railroad revitalization and regulatory reform act of 1976, public law 94-210. operating grants to the national railroad passenger corporation, $350 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the gentleman will specify the amendment. r. broun: it is number 75. the chair: the gentleman will submit the amendment to the esk.

mr. broun: where are we at? the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the chair: the reading is at line 43, line 3. mr. broun: page 43. the paragraph, operating rants.

the chair: the paragraph begins on page 39, line 22. broun prun mr. chairman, my next -- mr. chairman, -- mr. broun: mr. chairman, my a next amendment is on line 10. are we there? the chair: not yet. the cherk will -- clerk the he will -- the clerk will read. the clerk: national railroad passenger corporation, $600 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. broun of georgia. after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $600 million. age 150, line 8, insert, increased by $600 million. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would decrease the appropriations for amtrak 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 reports of 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. - million in losses. mr. chairman, the committee also takes note of amtrak's troubled food and besk raj service which has lost a total -- beverage service which has lost a total of $313 million just over the last three 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% on its expenses. despite these losses, amtrak pays the attendants who serve onboard food and beverages between $24 and $27 per hour. the committee itself points out that this wage is more than 20% higher than that of flight attendants. and these employees current --

employees' current labor agreement calls for an increase each year for the next two years. mr. chairman, this isn't the first time i've come to the floor to talk about amtrak. ky say with some confidence that -- 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 taxpayer 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 anymore. our nation is broke. we've got to stop spending money we don't have. we have to live within our means and urge support of my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. he may yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: thank you, mr.

chairman. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. as it would shut down amtrak. i can see that amtrak could be more efficient, 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 we have scrubbed every account in this bill. the committee worked very, very hard to achieve balance in the bill, within our funding limits. and i urge a no vote on the amendment and, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlelady from new york rise? >> i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady moves to strike the last word? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five 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

americans chose amtrak as means of transportation to get to business meetings, family gagget, and vacations -- 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. passenger eserve a rail system that is safe and reliable. this amendment also demonstrates how many members on the other side of the aisle will blindly cut programs, 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 five years due to the violation of labor agreements. this is a shortsighted

amendment. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. is there anyone else seeking recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 44, line 15, next generation high speed rail, $1,973,000 are hereby permanently rescinded. northeast corridor improvement program, $4,419,000 are hereby permanently rescinded. administrative provisions, federal railroad administration, section 150, funds provided for the national railroad passenger corporation shall immediately cease in the event that the corporation contracts to serious services

provided to any location outside the united states. section 151, the secretary may receive and expend cash and utilize spare parts from non-united states government sources to repair damages. section 152, the secretary is authorized to allow the issuer of any preferred stock sold to the department to redeem such stock. section 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. . administrative expenses 102 million. transit formula grants, liquidation of contract authority, limitation on obligations, highway trust fund, 900 billion.

research development demonstration and deployment program, $20 million. transat this time cooperative research program, $4 million. technical assistance and standards development, $4 million. human resources and training, $2 million. capital investment grants, -- the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. engel: i have an amendment at the desk. -- mr. nadler: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i reserve a point of order. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nadler of new york, page 49, ine 14, insert increase by $127,283,000. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. nadler: i rise in support to increase transit funding for capital investment grants 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, 100 members sent a letter to the appropriations committee requesting funding for transit at the level authorized -- in the authorizing legislation map-21 and in the president's request. in one of the few bright spots, they are funded at the authorized level in large part because the formula grants are funded out of the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. the new starts and small starts program which comes out of general revenue and funds the construction of fixed guideway it's cut 7% below the enacted level and 8% below the president's request.

this shows by the way, how important it is that the amendment or the provision in the republican bill that became in last year's republican bill that would have cut regular mass transit funds out of the highway trust fund and subjected to appropriations was defeated, because otherwise we would have a drastic cut there, too. this is out of step with the american people. a record 10.5 billion trips were taken last year, the second highest since 1957. this increase in ridership is occurring in places like michigan, ohio, south carolina, texas, tennessee, arizona, to name a few. federal transportation funding is not keeping up with demand. public transportation agencies all across the country are face ing job cuts, service reductions and fare hikes. the funding levels barely meet

our funding projects currently under construction and small thrown to small new starts. the policy framework in this bill is one of attrition and contraction, to provide just enough to close out the old projects with no money to invest in the future. it is not adequately in building new capacity and expanding transit service around this country, but i suppose that is the point. to starve these programs so they cease to be effective. i'm optimistic we will provide funding for transit. this has had bipartisan support. many of my republican frunds joined me in protecting the 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 labor, civil rights 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 in america and reduce dependence on foreign oil and spur economic growth. my amendment would increase the new starts program by $127 million which is a modest amount. it would at least, 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 raising a point of order and this shows the limitations under which we are working with under this impossible bill which there is grossly inadequate funding so

you can't ask for an offset without destroying mass transit or something else that is of great import in order to support expenditures. i ask them to increase transit funding for the f.y. 2014. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i insist on my point of order sm the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. he 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 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 21, end quote.

the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. it would increase budget authority by $127 million. and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair will rule. the gentleman of iowa makes a point of order that the amendment violates section 3-3-3 of house resolution 5. it establishes the point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill, the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 49, line 14, grants to the washington metro ransit authority $125 million. the chair: for what purpose does new jersey rise? mr. garrett: i have an amendment at the desk.

the clerk: page 49, line 18, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $125 million. increase by 9, $125 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: it was my impresenting that this house put an end to earmarks and we have the transportation-hud appropriations bill contains $125 million solely for the benefit of the washington metro transit authority. this is just a fraction of the $1.5 billion that congress fends to give the d.c. metro over a 10-year period. this isn't an average every day earmark. the heritage foundation has dubbed this the largest earmark in american history. i have an amendment that

eliminates this earmark that has received subsidies since 2008. at a time of record budget deficits and debt, the american people cannot afford to have a special subsidy, especially when you take into consideration that the d.c. metro receives funds from a variety of other federal sources, and grants and programs. and add to that, the the performance, i find it astounding that the american people should want to give more money to the this area agency. their lax management and poor general performance, it has a significant record of wasting money. right here in the "washington post," it was reported that metro spent $382 million to do what? to build cars to not om have them break down more often than the cars they didn't overhaul. the "washington post" pointed

out when attorneys wanted new offices, they spent over a quarter of a million dollars to accommodate. why not? it's our money, taxpayers' money being used. the office of inspector general uncovered unwanted expenses on $2,000 for cards, gift cards and camcorders valued at $7830. when they spend things, the facts are really disturbing. the federal government pays you, mind you, over half, 56% of their capital costs already. now i understand that we'll hear others say they save the nation's capital and a tour it destination and large population as well that utilize it to get to work, this is nothing unique about this study. same could be said for studies like in new york city, chicago,

philadelphia, boston, los angeles, should they get the same as well? what is unique about washington, d.c., 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 the 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. nd i yield back. mr. latham: mr. chairman, strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i rise in opposition to the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. connolly: i move to strike the last word. i understand our friend from new jersey apparently doesn't like metro or the clients it serves. so much of what he said, i think

distorts -- i will in a bit -- so much of what he said is distorted. the metro system in metro 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 is over 120 years old. we are less than 40. in addition, my friend talks about taxpayer money, not a dime of federal money sustains or subsidizes metro's operating costs. that's a problem, because 40% of the federal work force 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. i know, because i was chairman of one of them and i had to write that check every year for the subsidy of metro. not the federal government. fairfax county. we were happy to write the check because we saw the value. metro has the highest fare box recovery rates. subsidies? we recover 80% through the fare box. it's the most efficient recovery in the united states. it lacks a dedicated source of revenue and only 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 that you want to cut. tom davis was the chairman of the oversight and government reform committee. republican congressman from virginia, 11th district from virginia in a i'm privileged to represent. he and i saw eye to eye. we needed federal help and the

federal government had a special responsibility, because this is the nation's capital. 12 million visitors use that metro system during the course of the year, unsubsidized by the federal government. the only subsidy we ever get is every four years when there is an inauguration. other than that, we are on our own. tom davis, my republican predecessor felt as all of us did, there was a special obligation to help on capital improvement because it is an aging system. and with that aging system, evators need to be replaced, escalateors need to be improved. and we came up with a capital improvement idea. and 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 for

that capital improvement to get new cars that are safer and avoid the tragedy that occurred a few years ago in the system because we have original cars in the system from over 40 years ago. the local governments came up with that match, $150 million. 0 from our own, 50 for $and 50 for virginia. we amend the 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 with 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 even wronger to break a commitment we made several years

ago when my republican predecessor introduced this legislation. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i move to strike the last word. . . the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for whatever time he may consume. garrett garrett thank you. i only -- mr. garrett: thank you. i only do so because the gentleman failed to yield to me as he indicated he would. the gentleman first begins his comments by attacking my motives in this matter, saying that i do not care about, for lines such as metro or the people it serves. i would ask the gentleman who is not paying any attention to me, exactly what is it in my statement that would say i don't care about the people that it serves? because do i care about them, as much as i care about the subway system, the me row system -- metro system, in my metro area such as new york

city or down in newark, new jersey. i care about them as well. but 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 of 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, why d.c., let's get the facts straight as far as the subsidy of the cost of 65%, and why these -- our cities in our area, what is it 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 i do not care about the people who ride on these systems? mr. connolly: i would say to my friend from new jersey -- i

cannot question his motivation, i question his action. and 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 work force, the bulk of the federal work force, to work every single day. that is not a responsibility the new york subway system bears. it's not the responsibility oston bears or the bart system in san francisco bears. it is unique. and we bear the responsibility in this region of welcoming 10 million to 12 million americans a year to welcome -- to visit the nation's capital. many who use the metro system. something that is subsidized by the local taxpayer. that is unique to this area. mr. garrett: reclaiming my time, if i had some of the charts showing where some of the wealthiest districts are in the nation, where despite the turmoil of 2008 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 in 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 sub way systems and met -- subway systems and metro systems, you're not willing to help them out. but you want everybody, you want everyone else, mr. speaker, you want everybody else in america to help the residents who live here and subsidize their cost 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 fair to all the constituents in all those cities that are looking for a fair deal and for efficiency and an economy from our government and not for special deals. i'll end where i began, i thought washington had done away with earmarks. obviously with this legislation and the special interests that are being katered to here, we have not done so. and with that i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from oregon. the house will suspend. he gentleman will suspend. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on the 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 number 4 by mr. mcclintock of california, amendment by mr. hastings of florida, amendment about mr. hastings of florida,

amendment by mr. hastings of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes any electronic vote after the first electronic vote in this series. the the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gallego of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 317 and the nays are 92, it's amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, on which further roceed, were postponed and the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. elected end -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 239, the nays are 175, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, on which the further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 191, the nays are 224, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclinton, -- mr. mcclintock. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 248, the nays are -- the yeas are 166, the nays are 248, the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a record vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. . members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 154, the nays are 258, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, on which further proceedings were poponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida.

a record vote having been requested, those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. . members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 109, the nays are 300, he amendment is not adopted. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order.

the committee will come to order, please take all conversations from the house floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to waive the rules and speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection. >> i think most members of the body know that every year for the past 12 years there's been a golf match between the house republicans and the house democrats. it's become known as the first tee challenge because the money that's raised from event goes to help the first tee as they reach hundreds of thousands of young people across this country, using the game of golf to talk about honesty, integrity, hard work, and discipline. and it's patterned after the ryder cup. so this year's competition took

place last monday and after the matches were over, the score was tied. 10 points for the republicans, 10 points for the democrats. that's 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 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 one more year. i just want to thank all the member os they have team for their hard work, their dedication, their fine play, congratulate the first tee for all the work 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. so i'd like to yield a word to my democratic counterpart, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman will suspend for just a moment. the gentleman may continue. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. 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 we've had over the last two years but i can say that in all honesty, 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 and as my friend said, the most important thing is, we are

raising money for a very important charity that's done phenomenal work throughout the to ry so i want congratulate the republicans for retaining the cup, congratulate my own team for a valiant effort, i must remind everyone that we didn't lose, we tied, and we will get back at it next year and try to steal that cup if the republicans where it rightfully belongs but once again, thank you very much, republican team, and thanks also to the sponsors and primarily to the first tea for the great work they do. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. without objection, voting will continue. the unfin herbed business is the amendment on which the noes votes revailed.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. . members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 116, the nays are 295, he amendment is not agreed to. the house will come to order. the chair would ask all members to please take their onversations from the floor. the chair would ask all members to please take their conversations from the floor. please take their seats.

the chair would ask all members to please remove their onversations from the floor. and all members an staff to please take their -- and staff to auto please take their seats -- to please take their seats. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, metro,

it -- the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the chair would ask all members to please take their seats. all members and staff to please take their conversations from the house floor. the committee will come to order. the chair would ask all the members in the back of the room and staff to please take their conversations from the floor. so the committee can continue. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. 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 has been an extraordinary champion of transit systems and especially washington's metropolitan

transit system for years. because he gets it. he understands how important this transit system is. mr. chair, there were -- there was a previous discussion, a dialogue between mr. connolly the . garrett, and outcome of it was a suggestion that washington's metro system is somehow extraordinarily subsidized. the fact is it's subsidized but it's subsidized primarily but local governments. we have been trying on our side to provide subsidy to transit systems all over the country. including in the new york-emergency area. -- new york-new jersey area. apparently gibbon the results of some of the votes -- given the results of some of the votes, without much success. but the point i'm trying to make is the metro was our nation's transit system. it was created largely to serve

the needs of the federal government. 40% of metro's peak ridership are federal employees. a federal role is both necessary and appropriate. it is also the primary means of transportation for visitors to our -- to our nation's capital. whether they come to experience our historical legacy or participate in rallies on the mall or meet with their members of congress. they use our nation's metro system. now, in recognition of this special relationship, and the urgent need for additional capital fubbleds, the passenger rail investment improvement act of 2008 authorized $1.8 billion over 10 years for these projects. excuse me. it was bipartisan. as mr. connolly suggested, his predecessor, mr. davis, largely led much of the effort.

it was to be matched dollar for dollar by the jurisdictions that it serves. the district of columbia, the state of maryland, the commonwealth of virginia. that bill represented a compact between rimada and the federal government which was granted representation on the board. that was part of the legislation. you got to put federal representation on the board in return for the funding. and up to this point, the federal government has upheld its end of this compact. up to this point. that's why we object to strongly to the garrett amendment. currently this appropriations bill on the floor today provides $125 million, consistent with this compact, in funding for the metro system. it's a 16% cut already below the authorized level. which in fact has been fully funded in previous fiscal years. mr. garrett's amendment would

eliminate even that reduced funding level. the elimination of the funding would be deeply detrimental to the system and diminish the ability of thousands of employees to get to work. 2/5 of them federal employees. critically the further cuts mandated by mr. garrett's amendment would limit the ability to continue improving the safety of the system and full yimplement the recommendation of the -- fully implement the recommendation 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. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. wolf: i want to just speak briefly in support of what mr. moran said. this law that we're drastically changing was really the result of a bipartisan agreement with regard to the congress and 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 and it 243.ed by a vote of 160- 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 and now we come up with the garrett amendment. these funds are matched, as the gentleman said, mr. moran, by the regional partners, virginia, maryland and washington, d.c. and again, as i said, it was voted on before, overwhelmingly in the last congress, and failed by a vote of 160-243. eliminating this funding means that congress would be choosing to go back on its commitment to provide money needed to manage 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's being used to make the metro safe, as the other members said, many members have constituents come from all over

the country to use it. more than half of the metrorail system serves federal facilities. like the pentagon, the department of homeland security and many others. i would ask members, keep the commitment that was made in a bipartisan way and vote down the garrett amendment. mr. hoyer: would my friend 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 all the visitors almost that come to visit their capital. -- capitol. the that reason that gentleman is correct. we have an agreement. there is a compact that has been signed.

signed by republican governors and democratic governors, republican members of the house and democratic members of the house, republican members of the senate, democratic members of the senate. and i would hope that the house would reject this amendment. i adopt the remarks of the gentleman from virginia and my colleague, mr. moran, 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 the ranking member for their efforts on behalf of the metro as well and keeping the faith with the agreement that we have reached. i thank the gentleman for his leadership and his remarks and i yield back.

mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman and i also want to thank mr. latham for his opposition to this amendment. i thank mr. pastor for that and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, 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% of the land is owned by the federal government and a much larger percentage of the value. valuable land that is tax-exempt. 30% of the jobs are federal jobs. even in the -- in these difficult times. and they're not paying taxes to the district of columbia. or to metro. 40% of the rush-hour traffic, 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. but i speak from somebody who is representing a district 2,300 miles away. but i too have an interest in the federal government being a responsible partner and 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 rea would have been paralyzed. i suggest that this is, i hopewell 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. these are tea leaves that people read. i'm sad this bill underfunds infrastructure across this country on the very day the society of civil engineers puts out their report that gives us 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 that will be necessary just to bring our infrastructure up to standards. 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 chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i rise in opposition to the amendment. when we're in session, mr.

chairman, 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 1960's, early 1970's, when i first came to washington on other business, i saw where connecticut avenue was being dug up, the beginning of the red line. and so i can attest to you, mr. chairman, that every morning at the capitol stop, the south capitol stop, people who work in this complex on capitol hill , the lines of workers coming into work. nd so when the opposition came before the house, the compact that we, the federal government agreed with maryland, virginia, and the district, and 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. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from new jersey. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island eek recognition?

mr. langevin: i have -- i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, this appropriations measure fails at every level to meet our nation's transportation infrastructure needs, support our state's -- states' housing nichetives or further our community development goals. i'd 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 is being proposed here today. now, 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 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 transportation investment endanger the well being of america's cities and towns as well as our residents. expanding economic opportunities and creating jobs continuing to be my top priority in congress. that's exactly what this country needs right now, it's certainly what we need in rhode island given we have the fourth highest unemployment rate in the nation. this bill achieves neither of these goals, the congressional budget office estimates just last week that sequestration would result in up to 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-h.u.d. bill with the assumption that sequestration remains in effect. well, these cuts translate into real jobs and real benefits to

our communities. just two weeks ago, i celebrated a $10 million federal grant award to be used in rhode island to help replace the aging providence via duct, part of the i-95 corridor that goes through the cent over pove dense this bill eliminates the tiger grant program. in april, our state department of transportation unveiled plans to improve the providence amtrak station. it serves over 100 amtrak and commuter rail passengers each year, benefiting our entire state as well as neighboring ones with multimodal kecks from providence to the boston metropolitan area. this bill cuts amtrak fund big 33%, endangering further development to -- improvements to important interstate transportation infrastructure. in june, rhode island celebrated also the 100th anniversary of the amalgamated

transit union. their 1,000 members take us to school, to work, to the doctor, and to the grocery store quickly and safely every day. public transportation decreases congestion, pollution, fuel costs and 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 funding by -- transit funding by 17% from last year. it also delivers a 25% cut to housing assistance fund which helps 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% reduction from presequestration levels. a home is a critical resource

that is used to develop affordable housing for those who need it most and resulted in over 4,200 units in rhode island alone being created. meanwhile, homeless family, 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 thems homeless. 4,00. found theps homeless. one quarter of them children. 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 further jeprar di. by cutting the administrationive -- administrative funds this bill seeks to undermine the very integrity of that program. those seeking housing assistance vouchers will find agencies understaffed,

underfunded, unable to serve the millions who depend on section eight to stay in affordable housing. this is outrageous. finally, mr. speaker, this bill cuts the cdbg program by almost 50%, an unacceptable and draconian move that will triple -- crip they will neighborhoods that need the help the most. these grants are the cornerstone of local investment opportunities. for every dollar spent in cdbg grants, $3 are leveraged from private, nonprofit and other noncentral funding sources. the organizations working with cdbg funds use them for employment services, jobs, senior care, child care and countless other services. i'm sad to see that the committee has the sided this is not worth the investment. this bill is misguided -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. langevin: i urge my leagues to oppose this. thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise?

>> i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the motion is on the -- is that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: madam speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2610 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2610 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i present a privilege red port for printing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the lerk will report the report. the clerk: report making

appropriations for department of state for fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1 of rule 21, points of order are reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of h. reform 693. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. he clerk: h.r. 1092, an act to designate the air route as the patricia clark air route control center. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause of rule 20 the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under

clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2094. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the titetholve bill. the clerk: h.r. 2094, a bill to amend the service act to increase preference given in related certain asthma grants to allow trained school employees to administer epinephrine and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, and the gentleman, mr. butterfield, each will control 20 minutes. mr. burgess: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their rarblings and insert extraneous material into the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: i rise in support and encourage my colleagues to

vote for h.r. 2094, the school access to emergency epinephrine act. according to the c.d.c., one out of every 13 american children has a food allergy and that rate is rising. some of these children can experience a severe allergic reaction that can be deadly unless epinephrine is administered. 16% of children with food allergies have had allergic reactions while in school. if those reactions are severe, school personnel should be ready to manage students with known allergies and to be prepared for emergencies. in 2004, congress passed a bill to allow students with known allergies to bring their medication to school, however, there are many students who don't know they have a serious food allergy and they continue to be at risk. less than half the states have legislation concerning the stocking of epinephrine in school. even within these states there

are a broad range of different provisions about who can administer the epinephrine. keeping a stock of nonstudent specific epinephrine in schools a life-saving measure and h.r. 2094, the school access to emergency epinephrine act is an important step to protect children who do not know they are at risk for anaphylaxis. the bill would amend the act to allow a preference to states that permit school personnel to administer epinephrine to a student in an emergency. mr. speaker, i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ord. mr. butterfield: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: i rise in support of the school access to

epinephrine act. i am a co-spon or of this bill and urge its passage in the house this bill provides incentives for schools to stock a life-saving medicine that's critical to students and staff who experience a life-saving emergency. anaphylaxis is serious and life threatening. it can be caused by bee stings, and medications. treat ine is used to anaphylaxis. it comes in the form of an epi-pen. in nearly 30 states they're working on legislation to permit schools to keep a stock of epi pens not designated for a particular individual but available to students and staff who experience an allergic reacon