that such an employee is using official time. as the author of h.r. 107, the federal employee accountability act, this amendment is a continuation of the work i've done over the last three congresses to repeal the governmentwide use of official time. under current law federal employees can use official taxpayer-funded time to perform union functions or to participate in union activities when they would otherwise be on official duty status. madam chair, according to a four-year request by the americans for limited government, there are 35 employees at the department of transportation alone making an average by the way of almost $140,000 a year, who spend 100% of their work day working on behalf of a union. these employees were hired to perform duties on behalf of the taxpayer. several are engineers or air

traffic controllers, yet they are working exclusively for the union at the taxpayers' expense. in fiscal year 2011, the most recent year for which we have official time data, the department of transportation spent more than $17 million on official time. in the same year, the department of housing and urban development spent more than $2 million on official time. across the entire federal government more than three million official time hours were used in collective bargaining or arbitration of grievances against an employer who, by the way, is us, in fiscal year 2011. these union activities were performed at taxpayer expense to the tune of $155 million for the same time period. while we are not voting on veterans' funding today, it is timely, given recent events, to mention the impact that the use of official time has on the

department of veterans affairs. the v.a. is one of the largest abusers of official time, spending more than $42.5 million on this cost in fiscal year 2011. in 2012, more than 250 v.a. employees worked 100% of their day for the union rather than working on behalf of our nation's heroes. over 100 of those same employees were health care professionals, including nurses, technicians and mental health therapists. in the wake of the nationwide scandal at the v.a., it is unthinkable that employees there are allowed to work on behalf of the union rather than focusing on serving our veterans. it's particularly shocking that the use of official time by medical professionals and others at the v.a. continues when the v.a. claims shortage of health care professionals is what's contributing to the problems, like the long wait lists for people that are

suicidal, because of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress syndrome. madam chair, we must demand accountability at the v.a. and across government to ensure ivil servants are foe -- focusing on their position, not serving unions at taxpayers' expense. that's why the stand alone legislation i introduced would appeal the governmentwide use of official time, saving over $1.5 billion over 10 years. while we are not considering my stand-alone legislation on the floor today, i'm proud to offer this amendment as a small step toward reining in the use and abuse of official time. simply put, a federal employee hired to work as an air traffic controller should spend his or her time at work performing his or her duties as an air traffic controller, not serving as a taxpayer-funded union official. madam chairwoman, i want to

make it clear i don't want to do away with unions. i want to increase the efficiency of the federal work force. this amendment limits federal activity during normal business hours to simply working, not carrying out union activities. we should not be forcing taxpayers to support private and often very politically active organizations. federal employees should spend their days performing the duties for which taxpayers hired them at $140,000 a year. while families all over the nation are tightening their belts and cutting their own spending, it should not be the practice of the federal government to allow expensive special interest handouts. rather, the federal government should be reining in their spending and looking for ways to save money and function more efficiently. this amendment is an important first step. and i urge my colleagues to support the gingrey-bridenstine amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: madam chair woman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to this purely ideological amendment by my colleague from georgia which eliminates the official time for activities from employees covered by this t-hud bill before us. this is yet another attempt to accelerate a race to the bottom and to deny workers their fundamental right to bargain collectively. specifically, this amendment aims to prevent effective union representation by attacking the use of official time by employees. use of reasonable amount of official time has been supported by government officials of both parties for 50 years. in exchange for the legal obligation to provide the same services to those who pay as those who choose not to pay, the civil service reform act of 1978 allowed federal employee unions to bargain with agencies

over official time. under this law, federal employees who volunteer to serve as union representatives are permitted to use official time to engage in negotiations and perform representational activities while on duty status. using official time increasing efficiency and it's beneficial to both federal employees and the federal government. these types of informal meetings save the government money by allowing the parties to avoid costly arbitrations and other less efficient means of dispute resolutions. at the f.a.a., for example, official time is essential for the collaborative process between employees and management. at a time when we are overhauling our nation's air traffic control system, eliminating official time is inappropriate, it's fiscally irresponsible and an unnecessary violation of workers' basic rights. at a time when we face so many challenges, when we are in

massive need of infrastructure improvements, i would wish that the majority would find something more constructive to do than attack the fundamental right to bargain collectively. i urge a no vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: madam chair woman, i -- chairwoman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the agencies within the department of transportation and h.u.d., for example, there are three groups at f.a.a. that utilize official time. air traffic controllers, inspectors and the technicians that repair the air traffic control system. official time has been helpful in allowing controllers and

technicians to participate in work groups with the f.a. management time to advance -- to advance ment nextgen. it is critical we help our air traffic control mission. i oppose this amendment because it would affect collective bargaining agreements and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the

following -- section -- none of the funds -- ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the reading of the amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: madam chair, my amendment would prohibit federal contracts issued by the agencies under the jurisdiction of this bill, namely the departments of transportation and housing and urban development from going to entities that were incorporated in the united states but reincorporated in the most notorious tax havens, bermuda and the dayman islands. according to a report, 70% of the companies in the fortune 500 use tax havens last year. these companies stash nearly $2 trillion offshore for tax purposes with almost 2/3 of that total, 62% being hidden

away by just 30 companies. according to that same study, approximately 64% of u.s. companies with substidyears and tax havens registered at least one in bermuda or the kayman islands. the profits -- cayman islands. he profits in 2010 totaled 1,600% of these countries entirely yearly economic output. of course, it defies logic to believe these companies conducted such a large amount of business there. what these companies are really doing is avoiding u.s. taxes by stashing profits in these tax havens. according to a 2009 g.a.o. report, 63 of the 100 largest publicly traded u.s. federal contractors reported having subsidiaries in tax havens in 2007. i and others have long fought for and succeeded in passing through the appropriations process a ban on federal

contracts for inverted corporations. these are u.s. companies that acquire a business in a lower tax jurisdiction and claim that their headquarters there despite still being a u.s. company. yet, u.s. companies can still simply claim to the i.r.s. that their profits were made in places like bermuda and the cayman islands and companies incorporated in these and other tax havens still find ways to receive federal contracts. we need to stop allowing companies to game our system. they take advantage of our education system, our research and development incentives, our skilled work force and our infrastructure all supported by u.s. taxpayers to build their businesses and then turn around and invert or otherwise avoid paying taxes by abusing these tax havens. these companies should not be allowed to pretend they are an american company when it is time to get a contract then claim to be an offshore company when the tax bill comes.

we can stop putting an end to this right here, right now with this amendment. it will ensure future contracts are not awarded to u.s. companies that incorporate in the most egregious tax havens, bermuda and the cayman islands. madam chairman, in 2010, u.s. companies earned $129 billion on three tiny island nations, bermuda, the cayman islands and the british virgin islands. "the new york times" said they have a total population of 147,400 individuals. that means if you believe u.s. companies really rn that much in these locations, their profits worked out to be $873,000 per person. this is, of course, nonsense. some of my colleagues may echo the cries of these tax-avoiding companies and say the real need here is for corporate tax reform. but many of these companies are currently paying a tax rate of

0%. 0%. so unless you believe corporate tax reform should eliminate taxes for u.s. companies, the argument simply does not hold water. again, the amendment simply bans corporations. once incorporated in the united states, but have since incorporated in bermuda or the cayman islands, a maneuver that is undertaken to avoid taxes from receiving federal contracts. we need to send a clear message. if a company is going to abuse tax loopholes at the expense of businesses that are paying their fair share, they will not be rewarded with government contracts. i urge my colleagues to make this stand with me and to pass this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut yields back. the question is on the amendment offered -- for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word in favor of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five

minutes. mr. doggett: thank you. i'm hopefully from the silence that we heard, there is bipartisan support for this amendment because i know there's a bipartisan commitment here to competition is very much being the american way. if you have two companies, happens all over america, on different government contracts that are competing, we usually come out with best result from that competition. but the question that this amendment, which i'm pleased to join the gentlelady from connecticut in offering today is whether we ought to advantage companies that renounce their american citizenship in favor of finding an office on the beach in bermuda or iningland house in the cay -- or in uggland house in the cayman islands. not only when it's time to put their hand out for a government

contract or when it's time to put their hand out to pay the taxes that they've earned on their american business, which one of these companies should have a competitive advantage? well, i think it's the one that stayed home and was an american patriotic company and did not dodge its part of the responsibility for paying for our national security that is so important to international commerce and for other vital services. . america companies that stay and contribute to building america that keep her secure at home and abroad deserve a level playing field and that's all this amendment does. if the cayman's company doesn't have to pay taxes on some of its income, of course it can underbid the company that stayed in america, that made it in america, paid its taxes and then asked to have a level playing field to compete for american business. the history in this congress

unfortunately is that many companies, many very large companies pay their lobbyists more to lobby this congress than they pay to the treasury in taxes, and it's been a very wise investment, because they have been able to have one loophole, one special preference, one advantage, one exception, one more bit of complexity to our tax code in order to avoid paying their fair share. and the companies that are operating in the cayman islands and in bermuda are reporting huge amounts of income earned in those countries, largely from stripping off earnings that they have here in america and shifting them there through interest gimmicks, through dividend gimmicks, intellectual property gimmicks. they avoid paying taxes not only on the tinny amount they might have earned from an occasional sale in the cayman islands, but from all of the sales they are able to strip off earnings and

shift them to these island paradises. they are looking for basically a shell game. i'm not talking about seashells on the beaches of the cayman islands but the shell game that exists when these companies come in and renounce their american citizenship and keep the form and operation of their business in america but claim they are no longer a citizen under the american flag but under the flag of some foreign nation. they basically are sending uncle sam a postcard that says, you can find me on the beach, glad you're not here. that's the answer they give when it comes time to that i their taxes but then they have the audacity to come and ask other taxpayers, other tax paying businesses and individuals who have done their fair share and then some for american security, they ask for american business at taxpayer expense. this amendment is september to

send the executives a message. they can play all they want to on the beach to avoid taxes but congress isn't going to put its head in the sand. they can have fun in the sun but congress refuses to let the rest of the americans get burned by having to pay not only for the taxes these tax dodgers but for government contracts that are paid for by taxpayer monies. let's support american companies that are paying their fair share and adopt 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 gentlewoman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. this for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition?

mr. gingrey: i have an amendment at the desk as the designee of mr. mica of florida. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gingrey of georgia, at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section 417, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of section 24305 c-4 of title 49 united states code. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. gingrey: i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 4745. this amendment would prohibit funds from being used to subsidize amtrak food and beverage service. as my colleagues know, amtrak operates at a loss every year, partially due to millions lost in the food services costs. in 2012, amtrak lost $72 million on its food and beverage service and that loss is just one in a consistent series of losses.

this loss on its own would be cause for concern, but even more concerning is that the loss directly violates the law. madam chairwoman, in 1981, federal law mandated that amtrak break even on its food and beverage service by the following year, 1982. despite this, amtrak not only failed to break even, it contracted with high-end chefs to develop gourmet recipes for amtrak meals to the tune of $905 million in the last decade. heavily subsidized routes features dishes such as lamb shank and atlantic salmon and amtrak has a cullin area advisory team to develop high-end recipe. 15 2012, a hamburger cost $16. and riders paying $9.50.

and we pick up the tab through subsidies provided to amtrak. on some routes, first class passengers are often comply men temporary given cheese, wine and champagne. while the passenger may enjoy these luxury items, it is not fair that the taxpayer is forced to subsidize these. each spring amtrak brings together some of the best chefs in the country for a retreat of sorts. these chefs, some of them award-winning come together what the "washington post" has called an intensive three-day session of cooking and brain-storming, end of quote. at last year's gathering, chefs tasted 100 offerings of the recipes tested, including braced pork chop and spin ash and mushroom fritatta and several will be deemed unsuitable either

due to kitchen limitations or lack of cohesiveness with the rest of the menu. when the average american is struggling to make ends meet why are we throwing money away at amtrak for these luxuries especially when they consistently operate at a loss. the private company wants to host a brainstorming weekend for top chefs, that's their prerogative but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook for developing lavish meals for amtrak passengers. taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize amtrak and they certainly should not be forced to cover tens of millions of dollars in costs to play for gourmet meals and first-class service on amtrak. the food and beverage service violates the law, yet this is flag grantly disregarded. rather than take steps to correct the problem, it goes to more upscale options.

we must end this wasteful spending and get our fiscal house back in order with a national debt of more than $17 trillion. we cannot afford to keep throwing money away particularly on luxuries such as gourmet meals on federally-subsidized train service. for that reason, mr. mica and i are offering this amendment to pront funds made available in this act to subsidize amtrak food and beverage service and i urge my colleagues to support the gingrey-mica amendment. and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: in the last five years moving crude oil by train has grown from a virtually none existent industry to a booming one with no signs of slowing down. after a number of high-profile

derailments, the need for shipping hazardous materials through rail could not be clear. i attended a first responder training course focused on crude oil. port of albanny has been a hub for crude oil shipments processing 40,000 last year. they are taking upon themselves to prepare for handling hazardous materials, but regulatory steps are also needed. we need a comprehensive approach to address this issue, including expanding route planning and selection requirements, requiring response plans for rail carriers and ensuring shippers and rail carriers are testing and classifying their shipments appropriately. many of these sugs have been recommended by the national transportation safety board. many of the reforms i support are common sense.

comprehensive oil spill response plans are required for greater shipments for greater about 1,000 barrels but most hold 700 barrels. therefore trains, some with as many as 120 cars carrying crude oil are not required to have response plans because of this outdated threshold. among other safety issues, tank car safety, particularly in regard to the.111's is a major concerns for many of my constituents. every day trains transporting crude oil move and idle next to public housing and the highway near albanny's south end before entering the port of albanny. railroads, suppliers and the ntsb, that we need a higher safety standard on new tank car orders and aggressive phase-out or retrofit of the old.111's,

which has no business transporting hazardous materials. only 14,000 of the 92,000.111 tank cars are currently built to the latest industry standards. the remaining 78,000 have demonstrated that they are prone to splitting open during derailments. the rail industry has taken meaningful and voluntary steps to account for the 111's inadequacies and raising the standard for cars built after 2011 but we need higher federal standards. this is long overdue and.must act. i know this is an issue my good friend from new york is passionate about as well. earlier this year we september a electric to secretary fox urging him to move forward with a rulemaking process that includes phasing out the.111's. we should harmonize our regulations with canada which already announced its plans

which include a three-year phaseout of 111's. this morning i spoke with secretary fox about.'s rulemaking process. i know this is a top priority for him and i have been assured that it is moving forward, forward aggressively. i encourage a speedy but appropriate resolution. i appreciate that the chair included language urging a comprehensive approach to rail safety. the language directs the pipeline hazardous pipeline safety administration to update emergency response planning thresholds and finalize a rule on tank cars by the end of this fiscal year. the bill also fully funds the president's request for r.f.a.'s safety and hazardous materials account. the manager's amendment designated some funds to hire additional safety staff to monitor routing and to make safety improvements on grade crossings that carry energy

products. this, indeed, is a positive step. however, i would have preferred the inclusion of $40 million as in the president's budget request to establish a safe transportation of energy products fund, within that the office of the secretary of transportation to support prevention and response activities. aside from the crude by rail issues, i understand the challenges of the current funding allocations, but i must strongly oppose the bill's shorlt falls and numerous infrastructure and transit accounts. the grant program is $809 million below the request. amtrak's capital grants is cut by $200 million and tiger receives only $100 million, shamefully shortfalling what we need. it is my hope we can improve this bill during conference and urge my colleagues in the senate to include appropriate levels for underfunded programs while building upon the safety provisions.

again, i thank chairman rogers and latham and ranking members lowey and pastor for this critical issue. with that, i yield back. the chair: 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 ayes have it, and the amendment s agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 19 is the designation. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas, at the end of the bill before the short title add the following new section, section 417 none of the funds made available shall be

used to support amtrak's route with the highest loss measured by contributions loss per rider as based on the national ailroad passengers corporation 2013-2017 five-year plan from may, 2013. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: it would eliminate funding for the absolute worst performing line, one line on the amtrak system. a line that is known as the sunset limited. it runs from new orleans to los angeles. madam chairman, the amtrak reform and accountability act of 1997 requires that amtrak offer -- operate without any federal assistance after 2002. amtrak was supposed to be free

of federal operating subsidies. yet, despite this commonsense requirement that amtrak cease their financial irresponsibility and mismanagement, instead it cost per rider rs $396.31 per year on this line. that's $296.71 to subsidize the travels of -- $396.31 to subsidize the travels of new orleans to los angeles, a trip that nearly takes 48 hours, assuming the train is on time. madam chairman, we can buy everybody a free ticket on an airline from new orleans to los angeles and probably end up saving money. however, according to amtrak's most recent report, performance report, the sunset limited only arrives on time 46% of the

time. so it might even make sense for somebody to get there not only quicker but also cheaper. this sunset limited is the top 10 worst ontime routes for amtrak in the latest report. madam chairman, the taxpayers should be happy that the train doesn't run more often but when it does it loses an average of $40 million a year. so my amendment is the first step, once again, in instilling just a small measure joining the gentleman from georgia in fiscal discipline that amtrak should be told today that it has to establish. if it cannot manage itself with its worst, most expensive performing line, then god help us all. if they won't do it, we're going to. and failure to do so will only

allow amtrak to continue misusing and wasting taxpayer dollars. so, look, it's very simple. i'm asking that my colleagues join with me and say that the worst performing, the most cost prohibitive line would be stopped by amtrak. so i think it makes sense to say no more, sunset limited. i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: madam chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amtrak, the sunset limited, runs through eight states, arizona, new mexico, california, mississippi, alabama, florida, texas, and if

we start picking lines, individual lines in terms of terminating -- determining a downward spiral for the demise of amtrak. for the reasons i want to make sure that my colleague from texas, his constituents are able to travel on this line, as well as the ones from arizona, i rise in opposition and i yield back my time. 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. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. bass of california. the chair: the gentlewoman is

recognized for five minutes. ms. bass: thank you. i rise today to offer an amendment that would spur local job creation through federally funded transit projects nationwide. specifically, this amendment would provide the necessary flexibility for transit agencies to implement geographically targeted hiring and procurement preferences. my amendment will help to ensure construction and operations jobs contribute to the local economic development of cities and towns where the transportation projects exist instead of outsourcing these new jobs. flexibility to implement local hire policies will also provide local and state agencies the ability to address unemployment in our hardest hit regions. for example, the los angeles transit corridor light rail line is currently under construction in los angeles. this project is expected to be a significant economic engine estimated ation of

7,000 jobs during the construction area. los angeles metro, our local transit agency, would like to encourage construction contractors to hire within the local community in order to help address unemployment in the area. however, according to current regulations, local transit agencies are restricted from implementing local hiring and procurement policies for federally funded transportation projects. even when the vast majority of the project funds are state -- are locally generated. this is a commonsense amendment. it will limit burdensome regulations placed on local government agencies and it will allow state and local agencies to more easily generate employment and economic development. and it deserves the competition mandates in our current grant rules governing federal transit projects. again, this is not a mandate. this just allows local agencies the flexibility. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman may not reserve. the gentlewoman must yield back. ms. bass: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i rise in support of this amendment. it would allow construction projects with the use of local workers. they must contribute their own resources in the form of a local match for projects that receive federal funds. at a time when many communities are still struggling from the economic distress, it is understandable that these local agencies would want transportation dollars to benefit local workers and businesses. it will help ensure construction and operation jobs, contribute to the local economic development within the cities and towns where the transportation projects exist. instead of outsourcing jobs to

other counties or to other countries or states. i support the amendment and yield back the time. 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. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated as number 20. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following new section. section 417, none of the funds made available by this act shall be used to support any amtrak route whose costs exceed two times its revenues as based on the national railroad passenger corporation fiscal years 2013 through 2017 five-year plan from may 20,

2013. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: thank you, madam chairman. madam chairman, once again, i stand up in a continuing theme of what i believe fiscally responsible members who come to the floor to look at the operation of amtrak. today once again i come to the floor tufere my ideas about how we can help, especially during troubling financial times for the american taxpayer with our federal government that we can look at and find ways to where we work with amtrak. years ago i met with the chairman of the board who openly acknowledged that there were challenges that amtrak faced. not just safety issues but many other issues that dealt with their financial integrity, and i told him i would continue doing these kinds of amendments. and he considered this in a sense an opportunity for the people who provide money,

meaning the taxpayers of the united states, to have a say about the operation of how their money would be used. that's the same spirit that i'm here on the floor today. madam chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for amtrak routes who have a total direct cost that are more than twice the revenue that they produce. that means if the cost is twice as much as the revenue, i think that that should be a solid reason why someone should consider eliminating those routes. they're all over the place, and i believe that amtrak continues o provide these except government money and they don't give a flip about the use of taxpayer money and so i think it's worth our time to be here. every single long distant route that amtrak provides, over 400

miles in length, operate at a loss every single month. if they've got a route that's more than 400 miles, i mean, we're helping them out here, madam chairman. we're helping out amtrak and we're saying to them if you got something more than 400 miles, you're operating at a loss. now, however, we're saying if it's twice the cost to the revenue, that's what we'd like to have you look at. and i think that it would be an argument for us as a provider of money to say, look, we think that you should help people maybe when they call in to take amtrak, if it's one of these routes, why don't you suggest to them that they fly aircraft, that they take a bus, that they do something where the american taxpayer is not on the line? the bottom line is, if you combine seven routes that are taken in this parameter, the $332.8 taxpayer pays

million for this subsidy. $332 million is maybe not a lot of money to amtrak, but that's a darn lot amount of money for the american people to be putting into amtrak to have them waste. and i believe it's a waste. i believe it can be more, not only better allocated but utilized in a better way like shifting people who really are coming to you, let's take an alternative, let's maybe take an airplane. it's clear that the government subsidizes rail service on amtrak and it does not make economic sense that they take advantage of it. so madam chairman, it's real simple. this is an opportunity for the people who represent taxpayers to simply come forth and say let's have a vote on this, that we believe that's too much money, $332 million should not

be used on these seven routes and that's why i'm here today. so madam chairman, i urge all my colleagues to support what i think is a commonsense 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 iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank you, madam chairman, and i rise in opposition to the amendment. while i support the efforts and reforms to move amtrak to operate in a more efficient and effective manner, i must oppose this amendment. i appreciate very much the gentleman from texas, my good friend and what -- and raising this issue. it would eliminate seven amtrak routes and eliminate rail service to dozens of cities and america. sizes across

one that goes to chicago to california which happens to go to iowa. chicago to new york. costar light from seattle to los angeles. crescent from new york city to new orleans. silver star from new york city to miami. the southwest chief which goes through iowa also from -- it goes from chicago to los angeles. and the sunset limited from los angeles to new orleans. and, again, i appreciate very much what the gentleman's trying to do. i just think we need to work on the efficiency at amtrak. we've been trying very, very hard through all of our hearings and contact with amtrak to get efficiency and to modernize and to try and get them to a profitable state. i unfortunately in this amendment must oppose it just because of the vast impact it would have on so many people

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 seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: we also agree with the chairman for the reasons he stated and we rise in opposition to this amendment. it would dismantle amtrak. the only resemblance we have of a rail system in this nation. and obviously we need to work with them to -- so that amtrak becomes more efficient, but this amendment would dismantle it. for that reason we oppose it, oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. sessions: i would like a vote. the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the

amendment is not agreed to. mr. sessions: i understand the chairwoman's ruling and ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. engel: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. engel of new york, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles for any executive fleet or for an agency's fleet inventory except in accordance with the fleet performance memorandum. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: on may 24, 2011, president obama issued a memorandum on federal fleet performance that requires all

new light-duty vehicles to be alternative fuel vehicles, hybrid, electric, or biofuel. my amendment echoes the presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds in the transportation, housing and urban development appropriations act from being used to lease or my ase -- yes, i yield to friend from iowa. mr. latham: we are happy to accept your amendment. mr. engel: i thank the gentleman and 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 new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings will resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. an amendment by mr. den ham of california, an amendment number 1 by mrs. blackburn of tennessee, an amendment by mr. schock of illinois, first amendment by mr. gosar of arizona, second amendment by mr. gosar of arizona, an amendment by mr. schiff from california, an amendment by mr. sessions of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time on any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr.

denham on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. denham 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 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 the committee will be in order. he committee will be in order.

he committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: seek permission to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: is there objection? he committee will be in order. the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. >> a high school is a terrific institution in my district. i was there recently. a kids -- they gave me

wooden bow tie with a bicycle on it. in a scene that is achingly familiar, this morning at ren olds, a -- reynolds, a shooting occurred, a student killed, a teacher wounded, the shooter died. the school and law enforcement recently completed drills to deal with these sad circumstances and luckily, it went off without a hitch and there were no further injuries. it went as well as could be expected where a massive regional response from law enforcement on the scene. i would ask, mr. speaker, that the house observe a moment of silence in support of the victims, their families and the community. the chair: the house will observe a moment of silence.

the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will be resumed. the unfinished business is a request for recorded vote on amendment number one printed in congressional record offered by gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on which noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number one printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having isen, 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: the yeas are 159 and the nays 260. the amendment is not agreed to. request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. schock on which further proceedings were postponed and the nays prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. schock of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise be counted. a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their vote 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 210, the nays are 209, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: first amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. 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 190, the nays are 232, the amendment is not agreed to. the chair would remind members that we are in a series of two-minute votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. -- 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 181, the nays are 240, the amendment is not agreed to.

he committee will be in order. he committee will be in order. he committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, seek recognition? the speaker: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection, the speaker is recognized. the speaker will suspend. he committee will be in order. the speaker is recognized. the speaker: i will not take my one minute. but the gentleman from iowa has announced that this will be his last term in congress. on behalf of the house i want to thank mr. latham for his 20

years of service to the house, thank him for all of his years of service on the appropriation committee and thank him for being one of my best friends. congratulations. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on -- >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from maryland is recognized. the gentleman will suspend. he committee will be in order. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. chairman. first, i want to say to mr. latham, with whom i had the opportunity of serving on the appropriations committee for

some years, thank you for your service. we obviously didn't always agree but i always found you to be a gentleman and conscientious and honest and in your leadership -- hon nest your leadership and willing to work together where we could work together and i want to thank you for that. mr. chairman, not only is mr. latham retiring but his partner , the ranking member, mr. pastor, is also retiring. who's standing at the back of the chamber. mr. hoyer: mr. chairman, let me say about ed pastor, he is a quiet man, like john wayne in hard uiet man, who worked for his constituents and had the

opportunity to serve many years with mr. pastor on subcommittees together and on the full committee together and we owe a debt of gratitude to both of these gentlemen who worked together to produce products that america could be proud of and work forward on. they worked as a team trying to get the best job possible within the constraints which they were operating. and we thank them both for that. and thank you, mr. pastor. we're proud of you. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. schiff, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. schiff of california. the chair: a recorded vote has beenry questionsed . 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: the yeas are 208 and the nays are 212. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from texas, mr. sessions and the noes prevailed. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of 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 167, the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read the last two lines. the clerk: this act may be cited as the transportation, and housing urban development of 2015. the chair: for what purpose does

the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: madam chairman, i move the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and the amendments be agreed to and the bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 47 45 directs me to report back to the house with amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and the bill as amended do pass. 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 the

bill h.r. 4745 and reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the hole. under house resolution 604, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee on the whole? >> i demand a separate vote on the gingrey amendment number 29. the speaker pro tempore: is a separate vote demanded on any other amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put the remaining amendments engross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the clerk will redesignate the amendment on which a separate vote is demanded. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. gingrey of

georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes are have it. >> i would ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is ordered. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-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.]