[Pages H3817-H3877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016

General Leave

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 3577, and
that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 287 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2577.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1908

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Bishop of Utah in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present to the House today for
consideration H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2016.
The committee has put forth a bill that conforms to our 302(b)
allocation of $55.3 billion in budget authority and is in line with the
budget cap of 1.016, ``ten sixteen.''
Under such an allocation, we prioritized programs and spending to
achieve, really, three very important basic goals: first, we continue
the ob lim funding levels of MAP-21 contingent upon reauthorization; we
keep the commercial airspace running smoothly; and also we preserve the
housing option for all current HUD-assisted families.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a balanced bill with the allocation
that has been given to us by the chairman. The Department of
Transportation is funded at $17.2 billion in budget authority and $70.6
billion in total budgetary resources to ensure, Mr. Chairman, the safe
and effective transportation of goods and people in America.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is funded at $42
billion to provide housing opportunities and assistance to the most
vulnerable in both cities and rural areas across our great Nation.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are a diverse body and this is a very
diverse bill, and I know some Members will speak for increased funding.
I would like to remind my colleagues that if you are going to be voting
against this bill, you are voting against the commercial airspace
system and our air traffic controllers and control system; against
housing programs for the most vulnerable, including the elderly and
families; and frankly, you would also be voting against community
development block grants that are vital to the cities and counties that
we all represent.
Some, however, Mr. Chairman, will speak for lower spending. Here it
is also important to remember that the House passed a budget
resolution, which this bill adheres to, Mr. Chairman, and the Congress
and the President are currently bound by the Budget Control Act, which
does include sequester. So this bill takes the responsible steps of
setting funding priorities for the next fiscal year, many of which are
shared, frankly, between both parties, and again, very important,
without doing it with across-the-board cuts or across-the-board
sequester.
The whole House of Representatives now has the opportunity for full
consideration of this legislation. It is imperative that we move this
bill to final passage reflecting the amendments obviously adopted by
the House, and we move this bill to conference in time for the new
fiscal year.
I really need to first thank my friend, the gentleman from North
Carolina and the ranking member of this

[[Page H3818]]

subcommittee, Mr. Price, for his ideas and his support in drafting this
piece of legislation. The gentleman, as anyone who has dealt with him
knows, gives a lot of thought and careful consideration to the many
programs under our jurisdiction, and I appreciate his willingness to
collaborate on this bill that is now before us.
I would also like to thank, in particular, Chairman Rogers and also
Ranking Member Lowey plus the members of the committee, and yes, I must
say, especially the members of the subcommittee for the hours and hours
spent in hearings, markups, and meetings, working together in a
cooperative effort to bring this bill to the floor and eventually
signed into law. Finally, as we can never do enough, I want to thank
the staff on both sides of the aisle for their incredible hard work.
I urge the expeditious adoption of this bill, Mr. Chairman, and at
this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
<graphic><tiff>TH03JN15.001

[[Page H3819]]

<graphic><tif1>TH03JN15.002

[[Page H3820]]

<graphic><tif2>TH03JN15.003

[[Page H3821]]

<graphic><tif3>TH03JN15.004

[[Page H3822]]

<graphic><tif4>TH03JN15.005

[[Page H3823]]

<graphic><tif5>TH03JN15.006

[[Page H3824]]

<graphic><tif6>TH03JN15.007

[[Page H3825]]

<graphic><tif7>TH03JN15.008

[[Page H3826]]

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as we begin consideration of H.R. 2577, the fiscal year
2016 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill, I want to start by thanking our chairman,
Chairman Diaz-Balart, for the hard work he has put in on this bill. He
has been open and accessible throughout this year's process, and he has
been receptive to my concerns and the concerns that other subcommittee
members and other colleagues have raised. It has been a pleasure
working with him, and I look forward to continuing to do that
throughout this process.
I also want to echo the thanks he just expressed to our hardworking
staff, to Dena Baron and her colleagues in the majority, to Kate
Hallahan and Joe Carlile on our side of the aisle, as well as Laura
Thrift and Kate Roetzer from my personal staff.
Now, unfortunately, I have to add that there is going to be a lot of
further work to do. It is necessary, and it is going to be difficult.
That is not the chairman's fault. He was dealt an impossible hand in
the Republican budget and an allocation that is simply unworkable.
At first glance, it might appear that this bill is a relative winner
when compared to other appropriations bills, as Chairman Rogers did
increase the subcommittee's allocation by $1.5 million. However, the
reality is that once you factor in declining Federal Housing
Administration receipts, increased Section 8 renewal costs, and other
inflationary adjustments, this bill is actually $1.5 billion below last
year's funding level, resulting in fewer services and less capital
investment than last year.
Mr. Chairman, the programs under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee are critical to our Nation's economic and social well-
being: providing necessary funding to improve housing and
transportation options, creating infrastructure jobs for hardworking
American families, and ensuring safe and adequate transportation
networks for goods, commuters, and travelers. But our Nation's
transportation and housing systems face daunting challenges, and on
almost every count, this bill falls short.

{time} 1915

The President requested a robust increase for this bill for fiscal
2016, calling on Congress to provide the critical investments necessary
to accelerate and sustain economic growth. Unfortunately, the bill
before us would not even begin to address our infrastructure needs.
In transportation, the bill levies deep cuts to capital programs. As
we learned from the Amtrak derailment last month in Philadelphia, these
cuts can have clear, direct consequences for the safety of our
transportation system. The bill before us cuts Amtrak by 18 percent--18
percent--below last year. There is no funding for the expansion of
safety mechanisms, including Positive Train Control, which regulates
the excessive speeds that caused the Philadelphia derailment.
Now, no one can say whether Positive Train Control would have
prevented the tragedy in Philadelphia, but cutting funding certainly
isn't making our transportation system any safer. How many train
derailments, how many bridge collapses is it going to take before the
majority agrees that we must invest in our crumbling transportation
infrastructure?
The bill before us would also reduce funding for the New Starts
program in the Federal Transit Administration by 8 percent below this
year, 40 percent below the President's request. It would cut DOT's
enormously popular TIGER program by 80 percent. It cuts the Federal
Aviation Administration's capital program by $355 million below the
President's request, $100 million below last year. That will hamper
FAA's ability to maintain and improve aging facilities and will slow
down progress on the critical NextGen program.
The bill doesn't just provide insufficient funding for critical
investments; it also contains toxic provisions completely unrelated to
the appropriations process. For instance, riders on truck length and
weight have no place in this bill. They should be left to the
authorizing committees. The bill also continues to delay full
implementation of the Department of Transportation's hours-of-service
rule for driver safety by including additional, unmanageable study
requirements. These riders, I regret to say, value the bottom line of
the trucking industry over driver safety. They will actually make our
roads more dangerous.
The bill also attempts to undermine President Obama's new policy
related to the United States' relationship with Cuba. Some of the
riders aim to prevent scheduled air services and cruise ship travel to
Cuban ports of entry.
On the housing side, the bill fails to adequately address the capital
needs of public housing. For example, the bill provides only the token
amount of $20 million for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. At such a low funding
level, the program won't be able to fulfill its mission--transforming
clusters of poverty into functioning, sustainable mixed-income
neighborhoods and allowing the children who live there to have the
opportunities that all Americans deserve.
The bill contains $1.68 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund,
which is a $194 million cut from last year. If enacted, this level
would be about the same as the funding level in 1989. That is 26 years
ago! Given that new maintenance needs accrue at $3.4 billion per year,
this level of funding would cover less than half the need while doing
nothing to address a backlog that now amounts to $25 billion.
The majority's bill transforms--or, more accurately, devolves--the
Housing for the Elderly and Housing for the Disabled programs into
purely rental renewal programs. Without capital funding, the supply of
safe, decent, and affordable housing for the elderly and for the
disabled will not keep up with the demand.
Mr. Chairman, for centuries, our country's economic competitiveness
has been built upon a world-class infrastructure that enabled
innovation and ingenuity to flourish. This bill and the budgetary
levels it reflects undermine the continued viability of our Nation's
infrastructure and our economic vitality. We simply cannot write a
credible bill until we have a new budget agreement.
This bill clearly illustrates the folly of dogmatically insisting on
domestic appropriations cuts as the sole focus of deficit reduction--
that is the majority's strategy--while leaving the main drivers of the
deficit unaddressed. Under sequestration funding levels, any
advancement of appropriations bills is simply delaying the day of
reckoning. So let's stop this charade now. Let's not wait for
Presidential vetoes or for governmental shutdowns. Let's confront it
now! Let's begin serious, broad budget negotiations.
I know we can responsibly chart a course to fiscal balance; we have
done it before, as recently as the 1990s. We achieved budget surpluses
as the result of a concerted, bipartisan effort to balance the budget
through a comprehensive approach. And I mean comprehensive. Revenues,
entitlements, military and domestic appropriations, everything was on
the table. We balanced the budget 4 years in a row. We paid off more
than $400 billion of this Nation's debt. Why is that lesson so hard to
recollect?
By contrast, the current Republican budget gives us the worst of both
worlds. It fails as fiscal policy, and it decimates the investments a
great country must make.
In its current form, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the fiscal 2016
T-HUD Appropriations bill. I do remain hopeful, however, that this bill
could be improved as it goes through the appropriations process. I will
continue working with the chairman as we move forward. I am confident
that a new agreement on funding levels can give this bill and America's
transportation and housing infrastructure the resources that our
national interest requires.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield as much time as
he may use to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), a friend, a
leader, a teacher, and the chairman of the full Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, obviously, the fiscal
2016 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill.

[[Page H3827]]

Mr. Chairman, I am proud that we have this piece of legislation. It
is our fifth appropriations bill of this year on the floor today. It is
the next step in our ongoing effort to fully fund the government before
the end of the fiscal year, as is our congressional duty.
This bill, as the chairman has said, funds a wide range of Federal
programs that affect every citizen of every district of every State.
From the transportation infrastructure that moves goods, people, and
businesses around the country to the housing options that help most
those in need, the benefits of the programs in this bill are felt far
and wide.
In total, the bill provides $55.3 billion in discretionary spending
due to reduced offsets, including lower FHA receipts. The bill
represents a $25 million increase above the current year.
This is a tight budget, Mr. Chairman. Yet the bill targets funds to
provide adequate investments in critical infrastructure and much-
relied-upon housing programs.
Of the total, $17.2 billion goes toward discretionary funding for
DOT, prioritizing projects that have great benefits to our Nation as a
whole and that will help make this Nation's transportation systems
safer and more efficient.
This includes $15.9 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration.
A portion of that money will go to what is called the NextGen program
to improve efficiency in our airways and reduce congestion and delays.
The Federal highway program gets $40.2 billion from the highway trust
fund, an amount equal to last year, but that is subject to continued
authorization. This funding will ensure our roadways, bridges, and
tunnels can safely and smoothly facilitate the flow of American
commerce.
The Federal Railroad Administration is funded at $1.4 billion. That
includes $289 million for Amtrak operations, the same as last year, and
$850 million for capital grants, as well as $187 million for critical
safety and research programs. Total FRA funding is reduced by $262
million, but rail safety, which is so important, is held harmless from
any reductions.
In fact, safety was a priority throughout the bill, and that is
evident in the funding levels. For instance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration received $6.5 million more than last
year, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
receives a $6.9 million bump up to help address safety concerns
regarding the transport of energy products.
Beyond these important infrastructure investments, the bill also
includes a total of $42 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. This level will guarantee that all individuals and
families currently receiving housing assistance will continue to be
served by this program, and it ensures that the 77,000 VASH vouchers
which support our veterans remain in circulation.
Important housing programs for some of our most vulnerable citizens,
the elderly and persons with disabilities, also receive targeted
increases. To help bolster economic growth in local communities, the
bill provides $6.4 billion in grant funding for economic development.
Investing in our communities through programs like Community
Development Block Grants will allow funds to be targeted to local areas
to meet their unique needs.
Now, as with all appropriations bills, particularly in these tight
budget times, we had to take a close look at what was mission critical
and what was lower on the priority list. Some tough choices had to be
made and some programs had to be reduced. Overall, I believe this bill
puts everything in its proper place and does the very best within its
allotted resources.
I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Congressman Diaz-
Balart. This is his maiden voyage as a cardinal, a chairman of a
subcommittee, his first voyage at sea. We hope it is a safe and smooth
one. And I am proud to say to him, ``Job well done so far.'' So we wish
for you the very best.
Thanks to David Price and the members of the committee, subcommittee,
all the staff; my counterpart Mrs. Lowey. I thank all of you for
working hard on this bill.
I am proud to support this bill, and I ask my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our distinguished ranking
member of the full committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to congratulate Chairman
Diaz-Balart and Ranking Member Price in their new roles on the
subcommittee. You have worked so hard, you have worked together, and I
really do want to express my appreciation. And to Chairman Rogers,
thank you for your work. I would particularly like to thank the
chairman for his support of my grade crossing safety requests.
However, the Republican bill to fund transportation and housing
priorities drastically shortchanges job-creating investments critical
to hard-working American families, like roads, bridges, rail systems,
and access to safe and affordable housing. At the same time, it
includes special interest giveaways for the trucking industry and other
policy riders that make our roads less safe and our rail system less
competitive and meddles foolishly in foreign policy.
Despite the fact that our infrastructure needs are increasing, the
bill before us takes a giant step backward. We cannot meet tomorrow's
challenges by slashing investments in TIGER, transit, and air traffic
modernization.
Even though the bill was considered in full committee the morning
after last month's tragic Amtrak crash in Philadelphia, the majority
voted down amendments to increase funds for Amtrak capital investments
and positive train control, which the NTSB has said would have
prevented the derailment. Yet it does not receive any funding in the
bill.

{time} 1930

While we do not yet have all of the answers to the horrific accident
in Philadelphia, we do know that starving Amtrak of funding will
inhibit safety upgrades, track, and capital improvements. Our continued
failure to invest in road and rail infrastructure is not just unwise;
it is plainly a public safety hazard.
Before I turn to housing, it is important to mention the plentiful
legislative riders. Christmas came early for the trucking industry:
longer, heavier trucks; the stalled enforcement of hours-of-service
rules; and inadequate insurance requirements.
Controversial riders have no place in an already difficult
appropriations process. At a time when roads and bridges are crumbling
and when there is a national crisis of affordable housing, it makes no
sense to use this critical bill to meddle in foreign policy by
including riders on Cuba.
With regard to housing, adequate funding to renew existing vouchers
is provided, but it isn't sufficient to meet our country's actual
housing needs.
Significantly cutting Lead Hazard Control will slow the progress on
eliminating household toxins despite the fact that the successful
program has resulted in lower lead poisoning and in better educational
and behavioral outcomes.
Slashing Choice Neighborhoods by $230 million, or 92 percent below
the President's request, guts resources to transform clusters of
poverty into functioning, sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods; and
it prevents the children who live there from having the opportunities
that all Americans deserve.
Employing gimmicks to fund HOME through the housing trust fund
perpetuates another gap in the spectrum of affordable housing.
Democrats are more than willing to support bills that make
investments to grow our economy and create opportunity for hard-working
Americans. Unfortunately, this bill falls far short of that goal.
Again, in conclusion, I want to thank the chairman, the ranking
member, and all of the hard-working staff. Although I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no,'' I do hope we can move forward and get to
real bills so we can work together and complete this process on
especially this very important piece of legislation.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Yoder), an indispensable member of the subcommittee.
Mr. YODER. I appreciate the chairman for yielding time in this
debate.
I want to thank Chairman Diaz-Balart, Chairman Rogers, Ranking

[[Page H3828]]

Member Price, and Ranking Member Lowey for their work in putting
together what is, I think, one of the best bills to come through
Congress as we debate how to balance our challenges with our budget and
how to make sure we enhance safety and improve our economy all at the
same time.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the earliest opportunities we have had
to debate this piece of legislation in the appropriations process since
1974, which is a commendable achievement. I want to thank Chairman
Diaz-Balart for his leadership, and I ask for the body to support this
good piece of legislation.
There are really three great reasons to support this bill.
First of all, it is great for the economy as we invest in our
Nation's critical transportation projects and programs and invest in
housing projects to help America's poverty families all across our
districts.
It helps to promote safety enhancement on our infrastructure by
ensuring that our roads, rails, and airways are safe for all Americans.
It increases funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration; it increases funding for the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and it increases funding for the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration--all to help protect the
safety of Americans.
It works to enhance the responsible efforts to spend money in this
capital. Most Americans know Washington is spending too much money, and
our budget is not in balance. It is a tough job, and I commend the
committee for doing the hard work to ensure that we are good stewards
of taxpayer dollars, so as to keep to the balanced budget agreement
that the House and Senate passed for the first time since 2001.
The bill also works towards needed policy achievements that would
help farmers in my State of Kansas or that would help keep the cost of
goods down for hard-working Americans because the prices at the grocery
stores are too high.
In Kansas, for example, the bill helps to ensure that Kansas laws are
in parity with States like Nebraska and Oklahoma when it comes to the
length of a trailer that custom harvesters can use. This is a provision
that is supported by the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Kansas Department
of Transportation, the Kansas Department of Agriculture.
I would ask my colleagues from across the aisle to listen to the
leaders in Kansas. The leaders of public safety in Kansas and those
within the highway patrol support this provision. Let's not subject the
will of Washington over the will of people in Kansas when it comes to
helping farmers with truck length for custom harvesters.
It works to eliminate the number of trucks that are on the road. This
bill's actually extending the trailer length will eliminate 6.6 million
truck trips; it will save 1.3 billion miles driven; it will reduce
carbon emissions by 4.4 billion pounds annually, and it will eliminate
the need for every ninth truck in our economy. Truck tonnage is
projected to grow by 23 percent over the next 12 years, so it makes
sense to move freight in fewer trucks.
The bill also works to enhance a program we started last year for
short line rail safety, which would help short line rail companies
across this country have the ability to have a stronger and sustainable
safety culture as they move more and more of our goods.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It promotes safety; it promotes
our economy, and it creates jobs.
I urge the bipartisan support of this legislation to help the
American economy.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), our colleague who
is the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, we have all heard about America and American
exceptionalism, and tonight, we see here a great new example for the
21st century the Republican majority version of American
exceptionalism. A country that used to be the envy of the world with
its infrastructure has now become a laughingstock of the industrial
world because it is falling apart.
There are 150,000 bridges on the National Highway System that need
repair or replacement, and with this bill, next year, it will be
160,000 that will need repair or replacement. There is 40 percent of
the road surface on the National Highway System that needs not just
resurfacing; it is so bad that it has to be dug up. Next year, there
will be more miles that are deficient.
And our transit? There is an $80 billion backlog just to bring our
existing transit systems up to a state of good repair. It is so bad
that we are killing people unnecessarily here in the Nation's Capital
on the mass transit system; and what does the Republican budget do? It
cuts the allocation to the Metro system here in D.C. In the greatest
country on Earth, it will be dangerous to ride on the Metro system
because we can't afford to fix it.
They failed to distinguish between investment--investment in moving
our people and our goods more efficiently--and spending. They rail
about spending, but they cut indiscriminately, and they add money in
places we don't need it.
Let's go down the list.
In aviation, we want to build a 21st century air traffic control
system, but they cut that budget $100 million.
The Coast Guard is spread so thin it can't meet its own criteria for
search and rescue, but they are $17 million below what the President
proposed, and there is no money in here for a new Coast Guard
icebreaker. We are a great maritime nation. We are down to one 50-year-
old, decrepit icebreaker. That is not going to serve our country too
well.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Then Amtrak, they cut Amtrak by $251 million in its
capital accounts. On the day that we had the Amtrak crash, they cut the
capital acquisition account for Amtrak by $251 million, despite the
fact that Amtrak has a $20 billion backlog.
There are 140-year-old tunnels that are near collapse, which will
paralyze the East Coast. There are bridges that are 100, 110, 120 years
old--and, yes, we do not yet have the positive train control system on
all of Amtrak's routes.
That has been something that has only been recommended for 25 years
by the National Transportation Safety Board. This is pretty pathetic.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
Mr. ROUZER. I thank the chairman.
I am proud to lend my full support to the chairman's bill to fund our
transportation systems that are so vital to moving this country
forward.
Mr. Chairman, important needs of our industries and countless
businesses in North Carolina are addressed by this legislation.
First, a marginal increase in the length of twin trailers carrying
freight over North Carolina's roads will allow more freight to be
carried per trip, thus decreasing the number of trucks on the road.
This modest change to 33 feet in length has a large impact on
productivity. Slightly longer trailers improve stability because you
have a longer wheelbase.
More productivity means a slower growth rate of truck trips on our
roads. With this change, there would be 6.6 million fewer truck trips
per year; and, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's data, it would prevent at least 912 highway accidents
every year.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that the North Carolina
Troopers Association is focused on supporting policies that promote
safety and improve law enforcement in the State of North Carolina and
across this country. They support modernizing freight transportation
regulations to allow for 33 feet in length.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record their letter in support of this
change.

May 6, 2015.
Secretary Anthony Foxx,
Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Foxx: The North Carolina Troopers
Association, founded in 1977, is focused on supporting
policies that promote safety and improve law enforcement in
the state of North Carolina and the United States of America.
We are grateful for your leadership on policies at the
intersection of

[[Page H3829]]

safety, law enforcement and transportation. From the
Charlotte City Council and Mayor's Office to the Department
of Transportation and the President's Cabinet, the central
questions remain the same. Which policy choices will do the
most to keep people safe?
We often work alongside the North Carolina Trucking
Association on matters concerning the transportation of
freight on the national highway system as well as the
extensive network of North Carolina highways and roads. From
Murphy to Manteo, we partner with professional drivers to
keep everyone safe on the roads.
We support truck safety advances such as lane departure
technologies and adaptive speed controls and encourage the
continued adoption of modern technology and training
techniques.
The less than truckload (LTL) market has a significant
footprint in North Carolina not least in the areas around
Greensboro and Charlotte. We understand the American Trucking
Associations along with other leading LTL companies, the
United States Chamber of Commerce, and the National
Association of Manufacturers, back a proposal to increase the
length of twin trailers in the LTL freight market by five
feet with no change to federal weight limits. We support the
proposal for several reasons.
First, a marginal increase to the length of twin trailers
carrying freight on North Carolina's roads will result in an
increase in cubic capacity allowing more freight to be
carried per trip, thus decreasing the number of trucks on the
road. A modest change in length has a large impact on
productivity. More productivity makes it easier to slow the
growth rate of truck trips on our road system.
Modernizing freight transportation regulations to allow for
33-ft. doubles means 6.6 million fewer truck trips per year
and according to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
data it would prevent at least 912 highway accidents every
year.
Second, studies from the experts at the University of
Michigan and the federal Department of Transportation show
that an increase to the length of the wheel base without an
increase to weight limitations creates a more stable truck
for both straight line driving and cornering. Indeed, the
proposal for five more feet on twin trailers came from a 2002
analysis from the Transportation Research Board (Special
Report 267, 2002).
In addition, fewer trucks on the road will inevitably lead
to much needed relief for North Carolina's infrastructure. In
2013, some 9.7 billion tons of freight was carried by truck.
The proposal for twin 33s would shift a portion of that
freight--the LTL market--into trailers with a slightly longer
wheelbase providing benefit for North Carolina bridges.
We are encouraged by your advocacy for better, smarter,
safer transportation policies. When the proposal for a five
foot extension--with no change in weight limits for twin
trailers--comes before Congress we ask you to provide the
full support of your office.
Sincerely,
Daniel S. Jenkins, Jr.,
President, North Carolina Troopers Association.

Mr. ROUZER. I am also pleased to support the committee's language
that would continue to prohibit the use of funds to enforce the restart
provisions of hours-of-service rules for our truck drivers. The
trucking industry does not need more regulations imposed upon them in
the name of safety.
Safety is an absolute priority for their industry. Trucking companies
know that, without good safety records, they will not be the carriers
of choice for businesses that need to move freight.
Mr. Chairman, each of these provisions will help spur economic growth
throughout our Nation and enable us to better compete and thrive
globally. My constituents in the manufacturing and agricultural
industries are interested in making Federal transportation policies
more conducive to the productive and efficient movement of the goods,
and these provisions will help facilitate that.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how
much time both sides have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 14 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Florida has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
As for the ideas that are being thrown back and forth here tonight
about highway safety and driver safety, the advocates for highway and
auto safety who are looking at this bill and evaluating this bill
include the Teamsters and the Short Line Railroad Association.
My own highway patrol in North Carolina came to see me; they came on
their own volition, and they had pictures, Mr. Chairman, of carnage on
our highways. It left no doubt that they were not interested in seeing
heavier and longer trucks and relaxed rules on our highways.
I suggest that Members might want to check in with safety advocates
and with law enforcement in their own States and see what kind of
assessments they get of this highly irregular effort that is going on
here tonight of writing into appropriations bills provisions that
haven't had hearings, that haven't had thorough evaluations.
In some cases, they overturn evaluations that are already in the
process--evaluations that this body has ordered up--prejudging the
consequences and the conclusions of those studies and are moving ahead
with ill-advised relaxations in truck and auto safety.
I suggest that Members will want to take a critical look at that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1945

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), one of those additional
speakers, a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding but
also for his very thoughtful leadership on the subcommittee as our
ranking member.
I rise to express my grave concerns regarding the funding levels for
our transportation and housing programs provided in this bill. Once
again, the majority has brought a bill to the floor that includes
drastic and misguided sequester cuts to programs that are critical to
the American economy and to the lives of the most vulnerable and to
creating jobs.
Under the transportation title, the bill funds TIGER grants $1.15
billion below the President's request. Similarly, Small Starts and New
Starts are underfunded from the President's request by over $1 billion.
These are programs that create jobs and create economic growth. It is
completely nonsensical to starve our communities of the proven Federal
investments in transportation that we so desperately need.
The bill before us drastically underfunds our critical housing
programs, including $25 million less than the President's request for
elderly and disabled housing. Yes, that is elderly and disabled
housing. It zeroes out the housing trust fund, which helps the lowest
income Americans, and it is $320 million less than the request for
Choice Neighborhoods. These cuts keep people living on the margins and
push more people into poverty and homelessness.
Before I conclude, let me just say how inappropriate it is in this
bill, like all these bills that we are seeing, they contain language
that would turn, now, this bill, the Treasury-HUD bill, into an
ideological and wrongheaded foreign policy document by restricting
travel to Cuba. I introduced an amendment to strike this language and
will be introducing a bipartisan amendment with my friend
Representative Mark Sanford to do the same on this bill. We need a 21st
century approach to our relations with the nation that is 90 miles from
our shores, not to cling to cold war era policies.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield an additional 1 minute to my
colleague.
Ms. LEE. Americans deserve the right to travel to wherever they would
so desire. They travel to China and Vietnam; Americans have that right.
Why shouldn't they have the right to travel to a country 90 miles off
of our shores? Cold war era policies are just that, 50-year-old
policies that have failed. They are wrong, first of all. They are very
ridiculous at this point, and they don't make any sense. So to keep
trying to put these amendments into nongermane bills where it makes no
sense is mind-boggling to me. I hope that we can get that amendment
out.
I just want to thank the ranking member for his efforts, given the
tremendous constraints allotted by Republican austerity budgeting.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a

[[Page H3830]]

distinguished member of our Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the ranking
member, Mr. Price, for the leadership that he has provided in this
committee, and also, thank you to his staff.
I also want to thank my friend Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart for his
leadership in working on this bill in a bipartisan way. There are a
couple things I just want to point out that are important to the State
of Texas. First of all, one of the issues that we worked on together
was to make sure that we direct the Federal highway authority to
continue to develop a freight network that connects to our high-volume
land ports of entry.
Some of the maps that I have seen show that they don't connect to the
land ports; but just to give you an idea, in my hometown of Laredo, the
largest inland port, if you look at the trucks that come in, those are
12,000 trailers every single day. This is why this particular language
got added: to make sure that the freight is connected to land ports of
entry and will make sure that American communities are able to get
products that are coming into the United States.
The other thing I do want to emphasize that was put in in this
particular bill has to do with encouraging the standardization of
passenger rail standards between the U.S. and Mexico, which means
basically from the San Antonio area to the Laredo area to the Monterrey
area, and this is something that will be one of the first. I want to
thank the chairman and the ranking member for putting in that language.
Finally, the last thing I want to bring up is the language that helps
HUD pay a little bit more attention to colonias. As you know, colonias
are third-world communities that have no water and no sewage. Putting
in this type of language will help thousands of people that live in
third-world conditions. After speaking to Secretary Castro and speaking
to the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Price, this will put a
focus on that.
I want to thank the ranking member for his good work. I also thank my
friend, the chairman, so much for working with me on this language.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have no further
speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I also yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill for many
reasons, but one short-sited cut stands out. This bill cuts HUD's
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes by $35 million. Let me
explain in the simplest terms I can what a $35 million cut would mean:
thousands of children in the United States will be poisoned.
Thousands of housing units identified as containing lead paint
hazards will not be made safe for the children who live there.
Thousands of children will be needlessly subjected to decreased IQ and
cognitive function across their entire lifespan, developmental delays,
behavior problems, learning disabilities, seizures, coma, and even
death. Lead poisoning impacts the decision making center of the brain.
Children with lead poisoning are 7 times more likely to drop out of
school, more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors, and more likely
to engage in criminal activity.
Lead poisoning is entirely preventable--but to save a few dollars,
this Majority will let them suffer. And it doesn't even save a few
dollars. The total annual costs of lead poisoning to society are over
$50 billion. Every dollar spent on lead hazard control activities has a
benefit of $17 to $220 in medical, educational, and criminal justice
costs. A $35 million cut will create a minimum of $600 million, and
possibly nearly $8 billion in additional costs to society.
In my district in Rochester, NY, 200 children were confirmed with
lead poisoning in 2014. Two hundred children. That's ten kindergarten
classrooms full of kids. That is simply not acceptable. This $35
million cut would let another 119 children be poisoned in my district
alone. When lead poisoning is entirely preventable, I do not know how
we can stand to have the lifelong negative impacts on those children's
lives on our conscience.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment each amendment shall
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. No pro
forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective
designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for
the purpose of debate. The chair of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Amendments so printed
shall be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2577

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2016, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary,
$105,000,000, of which not to exceed $2,734,000 shall be
available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to
exceed $1,025,000 shall be available for the immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $20,066,000 shall be
available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to
exceed $9,310,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed
$12,808,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed
$2,500,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $26,029,000
shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Administration; not to exceed $2,029,000 shall be
available for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed
$1,769,000 shall be available for the Office of the Executive
Secretariat; not to exceed $10,793,000 shall be available for
the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response;
and not to exceed $15,937,000 shall be available for the
Office of the Chief Information Officer: Provided, That the
Secretary of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds
appropriated for any office of the Office of the Secretary to
any other office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided
further, That no appropriation for any office shall be
increased or decreased by more than 5 percent by all such
transfers: Provided further, That notice of any change in
funding greater than 5 percent shall be submitted for
approval to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That not to exceed $60,000
shall be for allocation within the Department for official
reception and representation expenses as the Secretary may
determine: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, excluding fees authorized in Public Law
107-71, there may be credited to this appropriation up to
$2,500,000 in funds received in user fees: Provided further,
That none of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available for the position of Assistant Secretary for Public
Affairs.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dent

Mr. DENT. I have an amendment at the desk I would like to offer.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000)''.
Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
Page 47, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $9,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Page 56, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

Mr. DENT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to increase
Amtrak's capital account by $9 million, which is the amount that we are
told it will cost to equip all of Amtrak trains with inward-facing
cameras in their engine cars.

[[Page H3831]]

It has been over 3 weeks since Amtrak Northeast Regional number 188
derailed just north of Philadelphia, killing at least eight people and
injuring over 200. We still do not know exactly what caused this tragic
accident, but had the train been equipped with an inward-facing camera,
we very well might.
This is a simple and relatively inexpensive reform that the National
Transportation Safety Board has been advocating for years, and it is
past time that we act. Like the infamous black boxes on airplanes,
inward-facing cameras on trains would provide inspectors with critical
information after an accident.
Northeast Regional 188 was traveling over twice the posted speed
limit on the stretch of track where it derailed. I should also let you
know, I rode on that same regional train that morning, from Wilmington,
Delaware, down to Washington, so I know this particular line, the
Northeast corridor. I travel it regularly, so I am very much personally
interested, as are so many of my constituents and friends in the
northeastern part of the United States.
Had an inward-facing camera been installed on that train, we might
now know whether that was due to some mechanical failure, negligence on
the engineer's part, or perhaps some medical incident beyond his
control. With that information in hand, we would be that much closer to
taking the appropriate steps to ensure that this never happens again.
Our thoughts and prayers remain with the victims of this tragedy and
their loved ones, and we owe it to them to do everything we can to
prevent future incidents like the one we saw in Philadelphia. The
installation of inward-facing cameras in all Amtrak trains is an
important step in that direction.
I would like to thank Chairman Diaz-Balart and his staff for their
support and for working with me to identify an acceptable offset,
especially given the extremely tight constraints under which this bill
was drafted. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
I also would like to say, I know that the offsets are of some concern
to some of the Members. We are going to do our best to try to work with
them on that matter.
At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition so as to raise objections about the offsets proposed in this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my friend Mr. Dent has
proposed an increase in an appropriation for a worthy purpose, to
install inward-facing cameras on Amtrak locomotives, but his amendment
offers another example of why the overall allocation in this T-HUD bill
is completely inadequate.
The offsets may represent relatively small reductions in DOT's
administrative accounts, each of these accounts: the DOT Secretary's
salaries and expenses, the Federal Transit Administration's
administrative expenses account, the Saint Lawrence Seaway. All of
these would be cut below last year's level.
At this point, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my colleague from the full committee.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, respectfully,
and I implore the majority to take a close look at where they have
obtained the money for this important Amtrak investment. Amtrak is
important to Ohio, to the Pennsylvania-Ohio corridor, and there would
be nothing I would do to hurt Amtrak. I have been one of Amtrak's
greatest advocates.
Of the $9 million to fix this problem for Amtrak, you don't take the
majority of it, $3 million, from the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Administration, the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation. In effect, what they have done is they have taken $3
million of the $9 million they need for Amtrak out of the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, which is, in effect, a 10
percent cut to the smallest entity inside of the Department of
Transportation.
Why is the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation important?
First of all, the current funding level is the smallest budget within
the Department of Transportation. Our amendment inside the full
Committee on Appropriations allowed that budget not to be cut any
further.
The seaway is the only binational instrumentality between Canada and
the United States. It connects an entire region of the country from
Duluth to Massena, New York, to global markets. They have threatened
problems within the seaway, such as locks collapsing and inadequate
areas for our ships to pass through. Sailing on the Great Lakes can be
very, very dangerous, as many of our sailors know.
That corridor is the shortest distance between Europe and the United
States, and last year, the seaway had an 8 percent increase in its
shipping growth. It serves a part of America that has been battered
economically. Manufacturing has been fighting its way back. This really
isn't the time to tamper with the seaway's budget.
I understand the problems of Amtrak, and I know that it needs
funding, but I am just asking the majority to please look at the budget
you have offered. Your offsets in the case of the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation are truly unacceptable, and in doing so, the
seaway will be harmed. It will harm ports like Erie, Pennsylvania;
Massena, New York; Duluth, Minnesota; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Gary,
Indiana; Toledo, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan. The list is a very, very long
list.
We have an aging infrastructure in the Great Lakes as well. We don't
have the power of the Intracoastal. We wish we did. But I have to raise
my voice in strong objection to the offset related to the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
I respect very much the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I know what you
are trying to do for Amtrak. I want to help you in that effort, but not
at the expense of the seaway.

{time} 2000

I am hoping that the respective staffs can work together as this bill
moves forward to find a more reasonable offset. I have many more ideas
about that, but the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
should be allowed to remain functional and not be harmed by a 10
percent cut.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the comments of the
gentlewoman from Ohio, and I understand the difficult choices here. I
do intend to work with her and any other concerned Members about these
offsets and maybe find a way to alter them at some point, but I just
didn't have time to do it tonight.
Again, I believe this is a reasonable amendment and it will do what
we need to at least help with respect to the inward-facing cameras on
Amtrak trains.
At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Lance), my friend, who is a frequent Amtrak rider himself.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, 3 weeks ago, the tragic Amtrak accident in
north Philadelphia led to deaths, injuries, and destruction. Those who
were injured included two of my constituents with whom I had been
meeting with earlier in the day here in Washington.
While the circumstances surrounding the incident remain under
investigation, we do know that certain measures can be taken to ensure
safety and preparedness, and changes can be implemented moving forward
for public safety.
Inward-facing cameras are an appropriate step in modernizing train
transportation safety. The National Transportation Safety Board has
been advocating for this simple and relatively inexpensive reform for
years.
I urge support of Mr. Dent's amendment to bring this reform to
fruition.
Mr. DENT. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that
would provide $9 million for inward-facing cameras on Amtrak trains.
This is absolutely essential, I believe, to helping us hopefully
prevent and--certainly, after the fact--determine the causes of these
types of tragedies when they occur.
I wish we weren't at this point, but we need to do this. It is
important.

[[Page H3832]]

Amtrak wants to move in this direction. The National Transportation
Safety Board has urged this for some time. And it is now time that
Congress act.
So, again, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Bustos

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

Page 2, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 2, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $500,000)''.
Page 60, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. BUSTOS. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Diaz-
Balart and Ranking Member Price for their hard work on this
legislation.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to join with me in improving rail
and pipeline safety by supporting my amendment to increase funding by
$500,000 to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
This important agency's mission is to protect our communities from the
risks of hazardous materials transportation, including moving crude oil
by rail and pipeline.
Until just a few years ago, our Nation's railroads transported very
little crude oil. Now, in part due to the boom in oil production from
the Bakken formation in North Dakota and in other areas, approximately
1.1 billion barrels are transported by rail in the United States every
single day.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration conducted
tests on Bakken crude and found it to have a higher degree of
volatility than most other U.S. crudes.
Last year, railroads carried almost 650,000 carloads of oil, compared
to only 9,500 carloads in 2008. This impact is especially felt in
Illinois, my home State, where we have the second-most number of miles
of rail track in the entire country. In fact, about 25 percent of all
U.S. rail traffic passes through Chicago, Illinois.
Improving rail safety is extremely important to our region, our
State, and to our entire country. This issue is especially personal to
me and the people I serve in my congressional district. That is because
in March, earlier this year, a train carrying crude oil derailed near
Galena, Illinois. It is in the northwest corner of my State and is one
of the most beautiful regions of not only my congressional district but
the entire State of Illinois--and I think in the entire country.
While we were lucky that no one was harmed, several tanker cars
exploded and the Bakken crude spilled just a few feet from a slough
that flows straight into the Mississippi River, which is the drinking
water supply for millions of people.
Because of the bravery and the dedication of first responders and
local, State, and Federal cleanup crews, no water was contaminated. We
were also lucky that the derailment took place in a largely rural and
uninhabited area. Imagine what would have happened if a derailment like
this were to occur in Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York, or any more
populated area.
In light of several other high-profile train derailments, including
those in West Virginia and North Dakota, involving cars carrying crude
oil, communities across the country are becoming increasingly concerned
about the safe movement of crude oil--and with very good reason.
While I am encouraged that Federal agencies and industry leaders are
working together to make transportation of hazardous material safer,
Congress must also do its job and step up and provide adequate
resources to keep our energy transport system safe and secure.
That is why I ask today for your support for my effort to ensure this
appropriations bill includes additional funding for the agency that
helps ensure the safe transportation of energy products, including the
shipment of crude oil by pipeline and rail.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Meehan

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

Page 2, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,000,000)''.
Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,000,000)''.
Page 44, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my good friend and
colleague from Florida for his indulgence and working with me on this
amendment.
We have benefited here across the United States in recent times with
a boom in energy and moving towards energy self-sufficiency. Much of
this has been due to the ability to take advantage of our natural
resources, including crude oil, which is increasingly being developed
from the Western parts of our country. In fact, more than 33 million
barrels of crude oil are shipped by rail each month in the United
States, and that is a fifty-fold increase from more than 5 years ago.
Shipments from the Bakken region have brightened the future of oil
workers and refineries in my own Seventh District of Pennsylvania, and
indeed the entire Philadelphia area, and in fact they have created
energy opportunities throughout our Nation.
But now, despite the fact that nearly all of the shipments reach
their destinations safely, accidents, sadly, are on the rise. Recent
incidents in Ontario, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania call to mind the
need for improved safety measures.
Madam Chairman, my amendment seeks to transfer funding from the
Office of the Secretary salaries and expense account and puts $3.5
million into the Federal Railroad Administration to fund additional
cars to inspect the more than 14,000 miles of crude oil rail routes
nationwide.
This funding would also expedite the use of remote automated track
inspection capability, which will increase inspection mileage while
reducing costs.
For more than 30 years, the FRA's automated track inspection program,
called ATIP, has provided accurate track geometry and performance data
to assess compliance with the Federal Track Safety Standards.
Collected data is used by the FRA, railroad inspectors, and railroads
to ensure that track safety is being maintained. Immediately following
ATIP track surveys, the railroads use the data to help locate and
correct problems. Often railroads use the ATIP data as a quality
assurance check on their own track inspection and maintenance programs.
Madam Chairman, America's energy boom has brightened communities
across the country, and as crude oil by rail grows, I want to help
protect those communities. My amendment would enable the FRA to
increase its ATIP capability to meet this challenge.
Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and Ranking Member Price for
their willingness to work with me on this issue. I urge the amendment's
adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

Page 2, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``($4,000,000)''.
Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $500,000)''.
Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.

[[Page H3833]]

Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $250,000)''.
Page 2, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000)''.
Page 3, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $250,000)''.
Page 40, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,000,000)''.

Mr. BURGESS (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous
consent the amendment be considered read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairman, this is an amendment to add an
additional $4 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's operations and research.
Madam Chair, at the beginning of this Congress, I took the gavel of
the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade. This was the gavel previously held by our good friend, Chairman
Lee Terry.
There was some unfinished business as this Congress started, and one
of the biggest issues left over from the previous Congress was the
issue of airbag energetic deployments and ruptures, and the subsequent
recall of those airbags.
There was a hearing done in December right at the end of the last
Congress, and it seemed like there was no activity from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But just 2 weeks ago, they
announced a recall of 34 million vehicles. The recall massively
expanded. And the manufacturer of the airbags, Takata, finally admitted
that six of their manufacturing designs were indeed defective. Takata
has identified 11 auto manufacturers that use the defective air bag
inflators.
Again, 34 million vehicles have been subject to this recall. And this
may not be the end.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Takata have
not identified what is the cause of these energetic disruptions of the
air bag inflators.
Yesterday, the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee held a
hearing to receive an update on the situation. Among the witnesses was
the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Dr. Mark Rosekind. Dr. Rosekind took over the
Administration just weeks after the subcommittee's Takata hearing in
December.
During yesterday's hearing, one of the themes we heard repeatedly
from Administrator Rosekind was that NHTSA would have been better able
to identify and mandate recalls had they had more resources. It is a
refrain we are used to hearing here in Congress. His argument was that
with more money, the agency could save more lives. I will take him at
his word on that.
For fiscal year 2016, Congress is proposing funding the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration operations and research, the
account responsible for the policing of the safety of auto
manufacturers' products, at $150 million. This indeed is an increase of
$20 million from fiscal year 2015, and for that I am extremely
grateful.
In the interest of good faith, however, from the new chairman of the
subcommittee to the new Administrator of NHTSA, I want to take one more
step and offer an additional $4 million to this account to provide
NHTSA with the resources it needs to ensure that more lives are not
disrupted by these defects.

{time} 2015

It is my hope that NHTSA can use this additional funding to find a
permanent solution to the problem.
The Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee is closely
watching and awaiting the release of a report by NHTSA's inspector
general on their Office of Defects Investigation. We hope it will be
released soon.
The offset comes from the Department of Transportation Office of the
Secretary for salaries and expenses. This seems like an extremely
worthwhile investment, and I urge the subcommittee's adoption of my
amendment.
Again, I want to thank the subcommittee for hearing my amendment. I
certainly want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the
subcommittee. I think they have done good work on this. I urge adoption
of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

research and technology

For necessary expenses related to the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, $11,386,000,
of which $8,218,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2018: Provided, That there may be credited to this
appropriation, to be available until expended, funds received
from States, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for
training: Provided further, That any reference in law,
regulation, judicial proceedings, or elsewhere to the
Research and Innovative Technology Administration shall
continue to be deemed to be a reference to the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology of the
Department of Transportation.

national infrastructure investments

(including transfer of funds)

For capital investments in surface transportation
infrastructure, $100,000,000, to remain available through
September 30, 2018: Provided, That the Secretary of
Transportation shall distribute funds provided under this
heading as discretionary grants to be awarded to a State,
local government, transit agency, or a collaboration among
such entities on a competitive basis for projects that will
have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area,
or a region: Provided further, That projects eligible for
funding provided under this heading shall include, but not be
limited to, highway or bridge projects eligible under title
23, United States Code; public transportation projects
eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code;
passenger and freight rail transportation projects; and port
infrastructure investments (including inland port
infrastructure and land ports of entry): Provided further,
That the Secretary may use up to 20 percent of the funds made
available under this heading for the purpose of paying the
subsidy and administrative costs of projects eligible for
Federal credit assistance under chapter 6 of title 23, United
States Code, if the Secretary finds that such use of the
funds would advance the purposes of this paragraph: Provided
further, That in distributing funds provided under this
heading, the Secretary shall take such measures so as to
ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds, an
appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and
rural areas, and the investment in a variety of
transportation modes: Provided further, That a grant funded
under this heading shall be not less than $2,000,000 and not
greater than $15,000,000: Provided further, That not more
than 20 percent of the funds made available under this
heading may be awarded to projects in a single State:
Provided further, That the Federal share of the costs for
which an expenditure is made under this heading shall be, at
the option of the recipient, up to 50 percent: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall give priority to projects
that require a contribution of Federal funds in order to
complete an overall financing package: Provided further, That
not less than 10 percent of the funds provided under this
heading shall be for projects located in rural areas:
Provided further, That for projects located in rural areas,
the minimum grant size shall be $1,000,000 and the Secretary
may increase the Federal share of costs above 80 percent:
Provided further, That projects conducted using funds
provided under this heading must comply with the requirements
of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States
Code: Provided further, That the Secretary shall conduct a
new competition to select the grants and credit assistance
awarded under this heading: Provided further, That the
Secretary may retain up to $5,000,000 of the funds provided
under this heading, and may transfer portions of those funds
to the Administrators of the Federal Highway Administration,
the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Railroad
Administration and the Maritime Administration, to fund the
award and oversight of grants and credit assistance made
under the National Infrastructure Investments program.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Maxine Waters of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 4, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,150,000,000)''.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.

[[Page H3834]]

Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman from California and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an
amendment to invest in transportation infrastructure for the 21st
century.
The transportation funding in this bill is woefully insufficient to
meet our country's infrastructure needs. The cuts to the TIGER program
are particularly egregious.
TIGER, formally known as Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery, is a competitive grant program that creates jobs by
funding investments in transportation infrastructure. This bill cuts
TIGER from the 2015 level of $500 million down to a mere $100 million
in 2016.
America needs new infrastructure for the 21st century. The American
Society of Civil Engineers gave the public infrastructure of the United
States a grade of D-plus in 2013 and estimated that we will need to
invest $3.6 trillion by 2020 in order to improve the conditions of our
infrastructure.
Indeed, TIGER needs to be expanded, not cut. The President requested
$1.25 billion for TIGER in the coming fiscal year, as part of an
expanded TIGER program that will create jobs, encourage innovation, and
modernize transportation infrastructure for the 21st century.
Earlier this year, I sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee
urging support for the President's request, and 144 Members of Congress
signed my letter.
Our economy is still struggling to recover from the recession.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our Nation's unemployment
rate stands at 5.4 percent. Furthermore, unemployment among Hispanics
is 6.9 percent. Among African Americans, it is 9.6 percent, and among
teenagers, it is 17.1 percent.
An expanded TIGER program will create meaningful employment building
safe roads, bridges, and public transit systems in communities
throughout the United States.
My amendment increases TIGER funding to $1.25 billion in order to
fully fund the President's request for this critical program.
Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I want to commend my
colleague, who does such distinguished work in housing and financial
services on her committee, for coming in to this debate today and
calling attention to the importance of the TIGER program, and I would
just like to ask her to respond.
I am looking at the figures for this year. There is a $500 million
appropriation for that program in the current year. Is the gentlewoman
aware that the Department of Transportation has already received 950
preapplications, totaling $14.5 billion? That is 29 times the amount
available.
What does that suggest about the need for this program?
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Well, you have accurately and
appropriately identified the need for the program, based on those
applications. Not only is it a very popular program, it is a program
that creates jobs, and our local communities need this very much, and
they are strong advocates for it.
I would hope that my colleagues here in the Congress, on both sides
of the aisle, who have benefitted from the TIGER program, would see the
need and remove all obstacles, support this program, and let us move
forward with getting the infrastructure repairs and the building that
we need to do.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank my colleague for offering this
amendment. It calls attention to the gross underfunding in this bill,
not just of TIGER, but of virtually every HUD and transportation
program so that it is very hard, of course, to find offsets. There is
very little money in this bill.
We should be breaking out of that mold. We should be going after a
budget agreement that will let us write a decent bill and meet this
country's needs. Her amendment, better than anything we have heard thus
far tonight, underscores that need.
I thank the gentlewoman.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase
in budget authority in the bill.
The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)3 of House Resolution
5 of the 114th Congress, which states the following:
``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 XXI.''
The amendment does propose a net increase in budget authority in the
bill in violation of such section.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California violates section 3(d)3 of
House Resolution 5.
Section 3(d)3 establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Florida, the amendment
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Maxine Waters of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 4, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $400,000,000)''.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman from California and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an
amendment to restore some of the transportation funding that was cut
drastically in this bill.
This is my second of two amendments to increase funds for the
innovative TIGER transportation grant program. This amendment increases
fiscal year 2016 TIGER funding to $500 million, thereby restoring TIGER
to the 2015 level.
States, local governments, and transit agencies depend upon the TIGER
program to finance projects to repair aging infrastructure and develop
new highway and transit systems. A safe, efficient, modern, and
accessible transportation system is vital for a growing economy.
Madam Chair, we cannot afford to cut TIGER below the current funding
level, and I am here this evening to urge my colleagues to vote for my
amendment and invest in infrastructure for the 21st century.
I recognize that a point of order has been raised on this issue, but
I also recognize that what I am advocating is vital for this economy
and for this country. I would hope that somehow we would be wise
enough, creative enough, and caring enough to dispense with the rule,
as it has been identified on my first amendment, and move forward in a
very creative way to do what is necessary to help our failing
infrastructure in this country.
The stories about the failing bridges, the stories about the unsafe
highways, the stories about the need for transit system improvements
are stories that we hear, day in and day out.
Given the information that has been made available to us about the
needs for infrastructure repairs, I would hope that we would not simply
treat this in such an ordinary fashion and apply the rule that
basically says: Well, if I did not find the money to fund it, then
somehow it cannot be in order.
Certainly, this amount of money is not easy to locate; certainly, I
do not

[[Page H3835]]

have an answer to where this money would necessarily come from, but I
would hope that my colleagues would take into consideration again the
desperate need of our economy and our communities and not rule this out
of order.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, this amendment proposes a net increase
in budget authority in the bill.
The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)3 of House Resolution
5 of the 114th Congress which states the following:
``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 XXI.''
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California violates section 3(d)3 of
House Resolution 5.
For the reasons stated in the previous ruling, and as persuasively
asserted by the gentleman from Florida, the amendment proposes a net
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dold

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

Page 6, line 9, strike ``and the Secretary'' and all that
follows through ``percent'' on line 10.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment
to change a provision in the bill relating to TIGER grants.
Put simply, this amendment would put all transportation projects on
an even playing field and allow all qualified projects to fairly
compete for these grants, regardless of whether they take place in an
urban area or a rural area.

{time} 2030

Madam Chair, my district is heavily reliant on all forms of
transportation. The Chicagoland area is the hub for the Nation's
transportation network. Over 925 million tons of freight move in and
out of Chicago each and every year, and each workday, tens of thousands
of citizens of the 10th Congressional District use commuter rail.
The Chicago Regional Transportation Authority estimates that it needs
to find $13.4 billion over the next decade just to maintain the system
in its current condition. That is why it is more important than ever to
find the funds to pay to maintain and rebuild our Nation's
transportation system.
In the Transportation Appropriations funding bill, there is a
provision which discriminates against urban districts, like Illinois'
10th Congressional District. TIGER grants, which are competitive grants
to fund capital investments in surface transportation projects, can be
awarded to projects across the entire Nation.
However, the bill also provides that projects in urban areas receive
a Federal match of 50 percent of the project funding, while projects in
rural areas can receive up to 80 percent of the project's funding.
Madam Chair, this is unfair and unjust. The TIGER grants are
competitive, discretionary grants that should be awarded to the most
deserving projects. The bill's language allows rural areas to leverage
local dollars at a 4 to 1 ratio, allowing them to put up just $2 out of
every $10 needed for a project. Urban areas may only leverage at a 1 to
1 ratio.
This language harms urban areas and makes it more difficult to secure
the funding needed to complete these projects. My amendment is a
commonsense and just solution to this problem and would place all
projects, no matter where they occur, on an even playing field.
Madam Chair, it is time to bring equity back to transportation
funding, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and put all
qualified projects on an even playing field.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's
well-intentioned amendment.
TIGER is a national program, and we support cities of all sizes
having a chance to get a grant, and we work to ensure there is a
balance between urban and rural areas. I am afraid that the well-
intentioned amendment from the gentleman seeks to undo that delicate
balance at this time.
Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I, too, want to reluctantly express my opposition to this amendment.
Madam Chair, I take second place to no one in this body as the
champion of the TIGER program, as I hope was evident in my support for
the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Maxine Waters) amendments just
now; but we are underscoring in this amendment, while it is worthy in
its intent--and I would love to be able to add a lot more money than
this to the TIGER program--its offset is very worrisome and one that I
think should lead us to oppose this amendment.
It comes out of the Federal Aviation Administration's operations
account, $100 million out of that account.
Now, the bill provides a slight increase for FAA operations, but it
is still $67 million below the President's request. This is the account
that provides the funds needed to ensure aviation safety and security,
so cutting this account is ill advised.
Mr. DOLD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DOLD. I think the gentleman is talking about a different
amendment. My amendment doesn't take anything out of any account. This
is talking about simply changing the percentages between urban and
rural to allow competitive grants so that it competes at a level
playing field.
I just respectfully think you have got a different amendment, which I
appreciate, but it is not the one that I think that we are talking
about right now.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman does have an amendment
that fits my description; is that true?
Mr. DOLD. Yes, but we have withdrawn that one, but I do appreciate
the gentleman talking about that one.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for that
clarification. My remarks will await the proper amendment.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, as we talk about transportation and
infrastructure, it is so critically important, critically important for
our economy, critically important certainly for our urban areas, and if
you look at a map of the city of Chicago in the center of our country,
we have got six of seven major rail lines that go through there.
It used to be that a third of all the freight in the country would go
through Chicago. Now, it is about a quarter, but it is still a
tremendous amount, and it really impacts the Nation's economy.
We can get a railcar from Los Angeles to Chicago in 2 days. It takes
nearly 2 days to go from one side of Chicago to the other side of
Chicago. This does have an impact.
The same rail that we are talking about here also has commuter rails
on it, and we are dealing with infrastructure that goes back to the
Roosevelt administration. I don't mean FDR; I mean Teddy Roosevelt. We
need to make sure that there is some additional funding going here.
This amendment that we are talking about is not talking about moving
dollars around. It is talking about trying to provide equity so that
urban

[[Page H3836]]

projects, which I would argue we desperately need, are on the same
level as the rural projects.
If we were to lose mass transit or some of these other projects in
the city of Chicago, we are talking about a 50 percent increase in
congestion on our roadways.
This is an amendment that I hope that my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle would embrace--at least let's talk about a level playing
field, where we are not giving preference to the rural areas versus the
urban areas, urban areas which I would argue use the rail a pretty
significant amount in terms of how we are moving people around, not to
mention our goods and services.
This is an amendment that I think is a commonsense amendment, and I
would hope that I would get some support from my good friend from
Florida and maybe we could get him to even reconsider, but I hope I am
not tilting at windmills on that one, Madam Chair.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

financial management capital

For necessary expenses for upgrading and enhancing the
Department of Transportation's financial systems and re-
engineering business processes, $1,000,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2017.

cyber security initiatives

For necessary expenses for cyber security initiatives,
including necessary upgrades to wide area network and
information technology infrastructure, improvement of network
perimeter controls and identity management, testing and
assessment of information technology against business,
security, and other requirements, implementation of Federal
cyber security initiatives and information infrastructure
enhancements, implementation of enhanced security controls on
network devices, and enhancement of cyber security workforce
training tools, $7,000,000 to remain available through
September 30, 2017.

office of civil rights

For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$9,600,000.

transportation planning, research, and development

For necessary expenses for conducting transportation
planning, research, systems development, development
activities, and making grants, to remain available until
expended, $5,976,000.

working capital fund

For necessary expenses for operating costs and capital
outlays of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed
$181,500,000 shall be paid from appropriations made available
to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That such
services shall be provided on a competitive basis to entities
within the Department of Transportation: Provided further,
That the above limitation on operating expenses shall not
apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That no funds
appropriated in this Act to an agency of the Department shall
be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without majority
approval of the Working Capital Fund Steering Committee and
approval of the Secretary: Provided further, That no
assessments may be levied against any program, budget
activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless
notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are
presented to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

minority business resource center program

For the cost of guaranteed loans, $336,000, as authorized
by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $18,367,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan program, $597,000.

small and disadvantaged business utilization and outreach

For necessary expenses for small and disadvantaged business
utilization and outreach activities, $4,518,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That
notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 332, these funds may be used for
business opportunities related to any mode of transportation.

payments to air carriers

(airport and airway trust fund)

In addition to funds made available from any other source
to carry out the essential air service program under 49
U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, $155,000,000, to be derived from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That in determining between or among
carriers competing to provide service to a community, the
Secretary may consider the relative subsidy requirements of
the carriers: Provided further, That basic essential air
service minimum requirements shall not include the 15-
passenger capacity requirement under subsection 41732(b)(3)
of title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That none
of the funds in this Act or any other Act shall be used to
enter into a new contract with a community located less than
40 miles from the nearest small hub airport before the
Secretary has negotiated with the community over a local cost
share: Provided further, That amounts authorized to be
distributed for the essential air service program under
subsection 41742(b) of title 49, United States Code, shall be
made available immediately from amounts otherwise provided to
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration:
Provided further, That the Administrator may reimburse such
amounts from fees credited to the account established under
section 45303 of title 49, United States Code.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

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

Page 9, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
to $0)''.
Page 156, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $155,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, this amendment eliminates the $155
million of discretionary spending that is wasted on one of the least
essential programs in the entire United States Government, the so-
called Essential Air Service. That is the program that subsidizes empty
and near-empty planes to fly from small airports to regional hubs just
a few hours or less away by car.
This was supposed to be a temporary program to allow local
communities and airports to readjust to airline deregulation in 1978.
Not only is it still going on today, but it has doubled in cost in the
last 4 years, from $130 million in 2011 to roughly $260 million in
2015, and $155 million of that is in our control. This amendment zeros
it out and puts it toward deficit reduction.
Now, we are often told: Well, don't worry. We have enacted all of
these reforms. We have caps on subsidies.
All those caps, $200 per ticket, are only for flights under 210
miles. It continues unlimited subsidies over that distance. Actual
subsidies per passenger can be as high as $980 per ticket, paid by
hard-working taxpayers. Year after year, we are promised reform; and
year after year, the cost goes up and up.
By the way, Essential Air Service flights are flown out of Merced and
Visalia airports, serving my district in the Sierra. Trust me, a tiny
number of people actually use it. The alternative is hardly
catastrophic; it is typically an extra hour's drive to a regional
airport. I guarantee you that everybody who hears about this waste of
their money is outraged by it.
It is true there are a few tiny communities in Alaska, like Kake's
700 citizens, that have no highway connections to hub airports, but
they have plenty of alternatives. In the case of Kake, they enjoy year-
round ferry service to Juneau. In addition, Alaska is well served by a
thriving general aviation market and the ubiquitous bush pilot.
Rural life has great advantages. It also has some disadvantages, but
it is not the job of hard-working taxpayers who choose to live
elsewhere to level out the differences.
Now, apologists for this wasteful spending tell us it is an important
economic driver for these small airports and airlines, and I am sure
that is so. Whenever you give away money, the folks you are giving it
to are always better off, but the folks you are taking it from are
always worse off to exactly the same extent. Indeed, it's economic
drivers like this that have driven Europe's economy right off a cliff.
Two years ago, one Member rushed to the microphone to suggest that
this was essential for emergency medical evacuations. It has nothing to
do with that. This program subsidizes regularly scheduled commercial
service that practically nobody uses. If it actually had a passenger
base, it wouldn't need, in effect, to hand out $100 bills to the few
passengers who use it.
An airline so reckless with its funds would quickly bankrupt itself.
Well,

[[Page H3837]]

the same principle holds true of governments.
The Washington Post is not known as a bastion of fiscal conservatism,
but I cannot improve upon an editorial a few years ago when it said,
``Ideally, EAS would be zeroed out, and the $200 million we waste on it
devoted to a truly national purpose: perhaps deficit reduction,
military readiness, or the social safety net.''
The Washington Post goes on to write, ``Alas, if Congress and the
White House were capable of making such choices, we probably never
would have had sequestration in the first place.''
Madam Chair, there are many tough calls in setting fiscal priorities,
but this isn't one of them. If the House of Representatives--where all
appropriations begin, where the Republican majority pledged to stop
wasting money--can't 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 reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment that the
gentleman from California has offered is about as indiscriminate as it
gets. He apparently has ideas, and those ideas ought to be heard to
reform this program, to make it more efficient and more effective and
more targeted. The place to do that is in the authorizing committee. We
have forums where we can discuss those ideas and act on them.
To come in tonight and offer this indiscriminate amendment which, by
the way, not only cuts this overall program by more than half, but also
cuts the allocation for this bill, which is already so inadequate, it
is not an approach that this body should endorse.

{time} 2045

The program we are talking about, Essential Air Services, was created
after deregulation. It has remained essential to keep service going to
many, many small communities in this country, including Crescent City,
El Centro, Merced, and Visalia in California. It is funded through
annual appropriations, and also funded through overflight fees that are
collected when foreign air carriers traverse through U.S. airspace. If
this amendment were adopted, many small communities would lose air
service.
Madam Chair, this isn't the way to reform the program, so I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, this is the kindest cut of all. It is a
temporary program that was established 37 years ago and has become a
poster child for wasteful Federal spending, and I believe the
authorization ran out years ago. Our national debt has doubled in 8
years. American taxpayers pay $230 billion a year just in interest
costs on that debt. That means if you are an average family paying
average taxes, $2,000 of those taxes did nothing more than rent the
money that we have already spent.
Continuing to pay for this obsolete and wasteful program with money
we don't have is obscene and makes a mockery of any claim that we have
cut spending to the bone, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

administrative provisions

Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Transportation may be obligated for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve
assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds
appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except
for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act,
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the
normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Sec. 102. The Secretary or his designee may engage in
activities with States and State legislators to consider
proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Walberg

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

Page 11, strike lines 1 through 3.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Diaz-Balart and his
staff for their hard work on this legislation before us.
Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment with Mr.
Sensenbrenner and Mr. Ribble of Wisconsin which makes it clear that
Federal Government agencies should not be in the business--again, I say
should not be--in the business of lobbying State and local legislators
with Federal taxpayers' money. Federal law already prohibits Federal
agencies from lobbying Congress in support of or against legislation.
Thanks in part to the leadership of Mr. Sensenbrenner in 1998,
Congress passed similar antilobbying language to prohibit the
Department of Transportation from lobbying State and local elected
officials.
At that time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was
sending staff to State capitols at taxpayers' expense to lobby in favor
of motorcycle helmet laws. At the cost of tens of thousands of taxpayer
dollars, these officials traveled across the country to testify before
State legislative committees, participate in conferences, and produce
videotapes and other printed materials with the goal of advancing
mandatory motorcycle helmet laws.
As the co-chairman of the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus and a rider
myself who wears a helmet, I believe the most effective way to reduce
motorcycle injuries and fatalities is to prevent these crashes from
occurring in the first place. Madam Chair, that means putting between
the ears as opposed to simply putting on the head.
I believe the NHTSA has an appropriate role in promoting vehicle and
highway safety, whether that is focusing on efforts on crash prevention
or rider education. Unfortunately, language pushed by the
administration has made it into the recent omnibus legislation to
reverse the lobby ban, and that provision is carried over into this
bill.
Whether you ride or not, I would hope all my colleagues agree that
this is an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. It violates the
rights of States and local communities we represent to make their own
decisions on helmet laws.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, we have an amendment before
us that would strike a provision that has been carried in every
transportation appropriations bill since 2009. The section simply
grants the Secretary or his representatives the authority to engage in
activities with States and State legislators to consider proposals
related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. This consultation is
entirely voluntary.
Madam Chair, in 2013, we had 5,000 motorcycle fatalities in this
country. That is the last year for which we have data.
The research and expertise of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration can be extremely helpful--helpful to State highway
traffic safety agencies as they consider measures they might want to
undertake to improve motorcycle safety. Why wouldn't we want to be in
partnership with the States as they address this important safety
issue?
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3838]]

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 103. Notwithstanding section 3324 of title 31, United
States Code, in addition to authority provided by section 327
of title 49, United States Code, the Department's Working
Capital Fund is hereby authorized to provide payments in
advance to vendors that are necessary to carry out the
Federal transit pass transportation fringe benefit program
under Executive Order 13150 and section 3049 of Public Law
109-59: Provided, That the Department shall include adequate
safeguards in the contract with the vendors to ensure timely
and high-quality performance under the contract.
Sec. 104. The Secretary shall post on the Web site of the
Department of Transportation a schedule of all meetings of
the Credit Council, including the agenda for each meeting,
and require the Credit Council to record the decisions and
actions of each meeting.
Sec. 105. In addition to authority provided by section 327
of title 49, United States Code, the Department's Working
Capital Fund is hereby authorized to provide partial or full
payments in advance and accept subsequent reimbursements from
all Federal agencies for transit benefit distribution
services that are necessary to carry out the Federal transit
pass transportation fringe benefit program under Executive
Order 13150 and section 3049 of Public Law 109-59: Provided,
That the Department shall maintain a reasonable operating
reserve in the Working Capital Fund, to be expended in
advance to provide uninterrupted transit benefits to
Government employees, provided that such reserve will not
exceed one month of benefits payable: Provided further, that
such reserve may be used only for the purpose of providing
for the continuation of transit benefits, provided that the
Working Capital Fund will be fully reimbursed by each
customer agency for the actual cost of the transit benefit.

Federal Aviation Administration

operations

(airport and airway trust fund)

For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation
Administration, not otherwise provided for, including
operations and research activities related to commercial
space transportation, administrative expenses for research
and development, establishment of air navigation facilities,
the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of
aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and
maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made
available by Public Law 112-95, $9,847,700,000 of which
$8,831,250,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $7,505,293,000 shall be
available for air traffic organization activities; not to
exceed $1,258,411,000 shall be available for aviation safety
activities; not to exceed $16,605,000 shall be available for
commercial space transportation activities; not to exceed
$725,000,000 shall be available for finance and management
activities; not to exceed $60,089,000 shall be available for
NextGen and operations planning activities; and not to exceed
$282,302,000 shall be available for staff offices: Provided,
That not to exceed 2 percent of any budget activity, except
for aviation safety budget activity, may be transferred to
any budget activity under this heading: Provided further,
That no transfer may increase or decrease any appropriation
by more than 2 percent: Provided further, That any transfer
in excess of 2 percent shall be treated as a reprogramming of
funds under section 405 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section: Provided
further, That not later than March 31 of each fiscal year
hereafter, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall transmit to Congress an annual update to
the report submitted to Congress in December 2004 pursuant to
section 221 of Public Law 108-176: Provided further, That the
amount herein appropriated shall be reduced by $100,000 for
each day after March 31 that such report has not been
submitted to the Congress: Provided further, That not later
than March 31 of each fiscal year hereafter, the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a companion report
that describes a comprehensive strategy for staffing, hiring,
and training flight standards and aircraft certification
staff in a format similar to the one utilized for the
controller staffing plan, including stated attrition
estimates and numerical hiring goals by fiscal year: Provided
further, That the amount herein appropriated shall be reduced
by $100,000 per day for each day after March 31 that such
report has not been submitted to Congress: Provided further,
That funds may be used to enter into a grant agreement with a
nonprofit standard-setting organization to assist in the
development of aviation safety standards: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for new
applicants for the second career training program: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the Federal Aviation Administration to finalize
or implement any regulation that would promulgate new
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after
the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That
there may be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, foreign authorities, other public
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred in the
provision of agency services, including receipts for the
maintenance and operation of air navigation facilities, and
for issuance, renewal or modification of certificates,
including airman, aircraft, and repair station certificates,
or for tests related thereto, or for processing major repair
or alteration forms: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, not less than $154,400,000
shall be for the contract tower program, including the
contract tower cost share program: Provided further, That
none of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and
cartography are available for activities conducted by, or
coordinated through, the Working Capital Fund.

Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

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

Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000)''.
Page 16, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 16, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Chair, I would like to start by thanking Chairman
Diaz-Balart for cooperating with this amendment.
Madam Chair, the Federal Aviation Administration is dealing with an
increasing threat of cyberattacks against the National Airspace System.
This critical threat was recently detailed in a GAO report as well as
identified in news reports of a reported attempt to hack into the
flight control system of a U.S. airliner through the plane's in-flight
entertainment system.
The FAA must protect the safety of our citizens and prevent negative
impact to the U.S. economy by developing a comprehensive and
multilayered approach to mitigating new and emerging cybersecurity
threats.
My amendment will transfer $3 million within the FAA to develop an
integrated cybersecurity testbed to evaluate and certify all NextGen
and National Airspace systems. The FAA currently possesses the
capability to establish such a testbed at its existing integrated
testing environment at the FAA Tech Center in southern New Jersey. The
Tech Center presents a natural host for FAA partnership with industry
and academia to leverage the best ideas and technology to continually
mitigate evolving cybersecurity threats.
Madam Chair, increasing FAA capability for creating, identifying,
defending, and solving cybersecurity-related problems for existing
National Airspace System and future NextGen systems is vital to the
future safety and proposals of our American airspace.
Once again, Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart. I thank
Ranking Member Price. I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Esty

Ms. ESTY. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Page 44, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page H3839]]

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. ESTY. Madam Chair, I come to the floor once again to urge this
House to invest in rail safety. My amendment adds $3 million to the
Federal Railroad Administration for safety and operations to fund vital
rail safety education programs, like Operation Lifesaver.
Railroads move the goods that fuel our economy, and thousands of
commuters in my district rely on passenger rail lines every day. In
fact, over 11\1/2\ million Americans took the trains along the
Northeast corridor last year, a record high ridership.
Freight rail traffic is also increasing, reflecting a growing economy
and a booming energy sector. However, as we have seen in the news
almost monthly, there have been a disturbing number of rail accidents
in the last few years, many of them preventable train derailments and
collisions. We in this House stood in silence a few weeks ago to mourn
the loss of the eight passengers killed in last month's Amtrak
derailment near Philadelphia. Those deaths were tragic and completely
avoidable. We must do more to promote safe and reliable rail travel.
I have worked hard on the Transportation Committee and advocated in
this House to implement positive train control and other innovative
technologies that can protect passengers against the most dangerous
rail accidents. But technologies like positive train control cannot
prevent all train-related accidents.
On February 3, 2015, six people died when a northbound Metro-North
Railroad commuter train collided with an SUV that was stopped at a
highway rail crossing. Aditya Tomar, a resident of Danbury,
Connecticut, and one of my constituents, was one of those passengers
killed.

{time} 2100

According to the Federal Railroad Administration, these sorts of
highway-rail grade crossing accidents lead to 270 deaths every year.
Just this morning, media outlets were featuring a viral video from an
Amtrak Silver Star train colliding with a car and slicing it in half
after the driver drove around the lowered gate at a rail crossing in
Jacksonville, Florida. Miraculously, every passenger survived with only
minor injuries.
This video demonstrates that even when crossings are equipped with
gates and warning lights, human error and miscalculation can have
devastating consequences.
That is why we need to educate drivers, passengers, and pedestrians
on how to avoid accidents along railroad tracks and at highway-rail
grade crossings.
Technological safety advances are essential, make no mistake, but
they are not enough. We must educate people about the dangers of
walking along railroads or ignoring rail crossing warning signals.
The Operation Lifesaver program is an effective public safety
campaign that encourages drivers and pedestrians to ``stop, look, and
listen'' at highway-rail grade crossings and increases awareness in all
50 States.
Congress authorized Operation Lifesaver in 2008, but has failed to
provide adequate funding.
My amendment to increase funding for the Operation Lifesaver rail
safety program is also fiscally responsible and does not increase
spending. Instead, this investment is offset by a very small reduction
in Federal Government staff offices for the Federal Aviation
Administration, an account that will still receive $75 million above
the administration's request.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, just moments ago we increased the FRA
safety and operations by $3.5 million.
This amendment, however, would result in, really, an unsustainable
cut to FAA's operations account. Air traffic control facilities would
have to close and communities would lose service. Frankly, critical
operational support staff would have to be furloughed or even laid off.
Safety could be compromised for flights, and flights could be
potentially canceled.
Therefore, I cannot support this well-intentioned offset and,
therefore, I cannot support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESTY. Madam Chair, I urge passage of this commonsense amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. ESTY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dold

Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $290,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $81,203,000)''.
Page 13, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $208,797,000)''.
Page 47, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $290,000,000)''.

Mr. DOLD (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment to
increase funding for Amtrak's capital account. The bill as is cuts $290
million from Amtrak's capital account, which is used to upgrade or
replace the infrastructure that Amtrak owns, along with the acquisition
and maintenance of Amtrak's fleet of locomotives, passenger cars, and
other equipment.
Madam Chair, the Chicago area, which I represent, is the hub of our
Nation's transportation network. Over 30 million people ride Amtrak
every year nationwide, and many of those passengers ride through the
city of Chicago. However, in the Chicago area, Amtrak trains are
running on infrastructure that has not been updated in decades,
including switches that date back to the administration of Teddy
Roosevelt.
As we have seen in recent months, safety concerns on Amtrak are at a
premium. Now is not the time to reduce the amount of money that we have
made available for Amtrak and for our needed infrastructure upgrades.
We need to make investments in our tracks, our trains, our stations,
and the rest of our transportation system.
My amendment would take a step towards addressing that problem. All
it does is restore capital investment grants to the level at which they
were appropriated last year. This is a small step but one that will
help rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and will help improve the
mass transit systems that so many of our citizens use each and every
day.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, this amendment would result in a deep
and, frankly, unsustainable reduction to FAA's operations account. FAA
would have to suspend contracts that run the information technology
systems that keep our air traffic control flowing.
Air traffic control facilities would have to be closed and
communities, frankly, would lose service. Critical operational support
staff would be furloughed or, again, laid off. Safety could be
compromised. Flights, again, would be canceled.
Therefore, I cannot support this offset and, respectfully, cannot
support the gentleman's amendment.

[[Page H3840]]

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I, too, reluctantly oppose this amendment. The discussion we had
earlier about this offset certainly pertains here. We really cannot
afford to make this kind of cut--safety-related cut, I might say--to
the Federal Aviation Administration's funding.
The amendment is worthy in purpose. Again, funding for Amtrak's
capital accounts is woefully inadequate in this bill. But this is
simply not the way to make it up. In fact, there is no way to make it
up within the confines of this bill. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
This is what is wrong with this bill--an inadequate allocation. That
means there is no way to get adequate funding for things we care about
without doing equivalent damage somewhere else. It is an impossible
dilemma.
What we need to do is do the responsible thing: get a budget
agreement, get numbers we can work with, and write a decent bill. In
the meantime, this amendment, while well-intentioned, really is not
acceptable, and I urge rejection.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, as we look at our transportation and
infrastructure system, we know that investment is needed.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lynch

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

Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
Page 44, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, what I am trying to do in this amendment is
to really address a wider problem in my congressional district. My
district surrounds the Logan International Airport in Boston.
What this amendment would do is remove $25 million from the FAA
budget and transfer it to rail. The reason for that is because the FAA
has steadfastly refused to do part of their job in my district. I have
tried to get them to come to the town of Milton, Massachusetts, to
address the overflights in that area. The new NextGen RNAV system
concentrates flight after flight, thousands of flights a month, over
the town of Milton, Massachusetts.
I requested the FAA to come out and meet with my neighbors--the
people that I represent--just like everybody else represents people in
their districts, and the FAA has flatly refused. So since they have
refused to do part of the job that we fund them for, I figured I would
take $25 million out of their budget because they are not doing their
job.
All I am looking for is a meeting with the FAA in my district, and
I've got to resort to this. It is shameful. I would say that their
attitude towards my constituents--the people I work for--has been utter
contempt and disrespectful. So here I am trying to cut their budget to
get their attention. It is a sad statement of the way the FAA operates.
But my real issue is getting the FAA to respond to my constituents,
not about cutting their budgets. I know the chair and the ranking
member have worked wonderfully, and I give you great credit for the
work you have done.
What I am wondering is, would the chair and the ranking member help
me just get the FAA to respond by having a meeting in my district in
the town of Milton? I would withdraw my amendment and leave the money
that you have wisely appropriated where it is. I am just looking to get
this agency, this bureaucracy, to respond to the people I represent. It
is as simple as that, Mr. Chairman.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I will tell the gentleman that one of the responsibilities that we
have is to make sure that we hold government accountable. I don't think
it is acceptable to not get answers. So I look forward to working with
the gentleman to make sure that we move to address those concerns of
your community. I don't want to speak for the ranking member, but I
know that I look forward to working with you to make sure that we get
answers that you need to get.
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LYNCH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I appreciate the chairman's
response.
I, too, will work with you. This isn't acceptable. We will do our
best to help you get the kind of response you need.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman, and I want to
thank the ranking member for the courtesy, not only to me, but to my
constituents as well.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 3, 2015, on page H3840, the following appeared: There was
no objection. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DOLD

The online version should be corrected to read: There was no
objection. The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn. AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY MR. DOLD

========================= END NOTE =========================

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dold

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

Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $200,000,000)''.
Page 52, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $200,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment to
increase funding for capital investment grants to help our Nation's
mass transit rail systems. The bill as is cuts $200 million from the
account, and my amendment would restore that funding.
While I recognize, and as we have heard from the chairman and the
ranking member, there is not really a good spot to be able to take some
of these additional funds from, I do think it is important though,
Madam Chair, that we talk about our infrastructure system, especially
our rail system. And as we look specifically in the greater Chicago
area, the Chicago Transit Authority's rail system, the El, serves
around 725,000 riders each and every day, and the Metra, which serves
the suburban areas like the 10th District in Illinois, serves over
300,000 riders each and every day. Over a million people are using
these rail systems.

{time} 2115

Again, as we talked about before, Metra estimates that it needs to
find roughly $13.4 billion over the next decade just to maintain the
system in its current condition. That is why it is more important than
ever before to find the funds to pay to maintain and rebuild our
Nation's transportation infrastructure system.
Madam Chair, we hear all the time from our constituents that we need
good, high-paying jobs. Frankly, a transportation infrastructure system
for manufacturers--how do we get raw material and a finished product
out? How do we get people around?--is absolutely critical to our
economy.
I saw an estimate from UPS that read that every additional 5 minutes
of idling time costs them $100 million. We have switches in the Chicago
area that delay rail up to 15 minutes one way. That is 30 minutes a
day; and, if you are a regular commuter, that is 10\1/2\ hours in a
given month, 10\1/2\ hours that you could be more productive or could
be spending time with your family or spending time doing homework with
your children.

[[Page H3841]]

If we as a country want to be more productive, if we want to
encourage more good, high-paying jobs, we have to find a way to make
sure that we invest in our transportation infrastructure system.
When we use this transportation infrastructure system and if it goes
away, we are talking about an increase in congestion--at least I can
tell you in the Chicago area--of an additional 50 percent. In talking
to the rail, we would need an additional 29 lanes of traffic.
What is the cost of that? We just don't have it. If we don't have
this type of funding, the car in front of you could have been somebody
who was sitting on the rail, who could have been using mass transit.
Madam Chair, this bill is a step backward for our Nation's mass
transit systems, not a step forward. Instead of providing funds to
maintain and improve world-class mass transit systems, we are, instead,
taking money away and making it harder and harder for the public to
find the funds needed to keep their systems operational, much less to
improve them. A reliable and consistent stream of capital funding is
essential for these systems, but this bill does not meet that need.
My amendment would take a step toward addressing that problem. I
recognize it is just a step, but I am anxious to work with the chairman
and the ranking member, and I am anxious to work with those on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to make sure that we are
coming up with outside-the-box thinking in how we can improve our mass
transit systems.
It is vitally important for our urban areas, and it is certainly
important for the Nation's transportation hub, which, I would argue, is
in the heartland, in the Chicago area.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, one has to frankly respect and admire
Mr. Dold's knowledge and passion in these amendments that he is doing.
I am sensitive to that, and I look forward to working with him. I know
that he will make sure that we work with him on these issues that he
brings up and that he is very passionate about, which I think are very
important.
Respectfully, I have to oppose this amendment. This amendment would
result in deep reductions to the FAA's operations account and would
result in breaches of contract for air traffic control information
technology systems. In addition, it would result in staff layoffs,
which would again compromise safety.
I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman. He brings
up, obviously, some very important points; but again, respectfully, I
must object to this amendment at this time.
Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Price), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I appreciate the chairman's
yielding.
I want to echo his opposition to this amendment, and I want to echo
his praise for the reality check that the gentleman from Illinois has
provided us tonight. At various times in the course of the evening, we
have talked about TIGER grants; we have talked about Amtrak; we have
talked about transit investments--all of which are underfunded in this
bill.
I am also pleased that the chairman has expressed the willingness to
cooperate in going forward. I want to echo that on my part, too,
because we do believe a better day will come and, hopefully, not only
at the end of the fiscal year but soon, where we get a budget
agreement, where we get better numbers, and where we are able to
address each of these accounts that the gentleman has highlighted.
He is exactly right about the need in all of these areas. The offset
is not acceptable. It is even dangerous.
For that reason, I oppose the amendment, but the larger message is we
have got to get a better budget number, and we have got to revisit many
of the accounts in this bill.
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DOLD. I certainly want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their thoughts.
Madam Chair, there is no question as we look at the debt that we
have--we have an $18 trillion debt in our country--that it is
jeopardizing our children's opportunity for the American Dream. One of
the things that I talk about in terms of how we get out of it is by
talking about: How do we grow, Madam Chair?
We grow, I think, by creating this opportunity and environment so
people want to come and put their businesses here, becoming globally
competitive. When entrepreneurs look at where to go to place their
businesses, one of the things they are going to look at is our
transportation infrastructure system. We need to know how we are going
to get our raw materials in and our finished product out if we want to
be globally competitive and if we want to manufacture. I would argue
that we do.
I recognize where the committee is. I also appreciate the chairman's
and the ranking member's willingness to work with us in going forward,
but we have to, each and every one of us, come together and put our
differences aside and invest in our infrastructure system so that we
can grow our economy and have greater dollars coming into the Federal
Treasury so that we can have these resources.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bridenstine

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

Page 13, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $250,000)''.
Page 13, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $250,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Madam Chair, the Bridenstine-Rohrabacher-Posey
amendment, which is supported by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation,
transfers $250,000 from the FAA's finance and management activities to
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation. This is a small amount,
but it is extremely important if we are to support the booming
commercial spaceflight industry.
The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation's mission is as
follows: ``to ensure protection of the public, property, and the
national security and foreign policy interests of the United States
during commercial launch or reentry activities and to encourage,
facilitate, and promote commercial space transportation.''
To carry out this mission, AST, as the office is known, is tasked
with overseeing commercially licensed launches, test launches under
experimental permits, licenses and permits for new vehicle designs,
supporting NASA and the Commercial Crew contractors, taking the lead
role in coordinating space traffic at the White House's request, and
many other duties.
Over the past few years, the number of activities AST oversees has
grown significantly; yet funding and staffing levels have remained
absolutely flat.
Just last month, the House of Representatives passed the SPACE Act on
an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. That bill establishes a statutory
and regulatory regime that provides stability and encourages private
sector investment in order to facilitate the growth of commercial space
activities. If we are passing legislation to encourage growth, we need
to provide this office with increased resources to keep up.
We rely on the commercial space sector for many things: reliable,
frequent, and inexpensive launches; communications, navigation, and
imaging satellites; and services such as the Internet, telephone,
television, and radio, which are staples of modern life.

[[Page H3842]]

Going forward, there are companies whose goal is to provide space
tourism services. There are also ventures planning missions to harvest
precious resources from celestial bodies. This is just the tip of the
iceberg for this growth industry.
This is an industry that is constantly innovating. It is also an
industry we have come to increasingly rely on. If AST does not get the
additional resources, it could lead to slips of planned launch dates
for some companies as the office is unable to process inspections,
permits, and licenses in a timely manner. On top of being a hindrance
to this growth industry, it could also reduce the functionality and
capabilities we take for granted in our everyday lives.
This funding will give AST additional resources to accomplish its
mission. As its workload continues to grow, I encourage the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation to continue to work alongside industry
in developing and supporting consensus safety standards that can
streamline the inspection process.
I appreciate Chairman Diaz-Balart's leadership and his recognition of
the importance of this office. I thank him for working with me on this
amendment, particularly given the constraints he is under while
crafting this appropriations bill.
I understand we are in tough fiscal times; however, we need to ensure
we do not strangle the unlimited potential of the commercial
spaceflight industry. An important piece of this is ensuring that the
Office of Commercial Space Transportation can keep up with the growth
of this burgeoning industry.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

facilities and equipment

(airport and airway trust fund)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
acquisition, establishment, technical support services,
improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of national
airspace systems and experimental facilities and equipment,
as authorized under part A of subtitle VII of title 49,
United States Code, including initial acquisition of
necessary sites by lease or grant; engineering and service
testing, including construction of test facilities and
acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant;
construction and furnishing of quarters and related
accommodations for officers and employees of the Federal
Aviation Administration stationed at remote localities where
such accommodations are not available; and the purchase,
lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds available under
this heading, including aircraft for aviation regulation and
certification; to be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, $2,500,000,000, of which $460,000,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2016, and $2,040,000,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2018: Provided,
That there may be credited to this appropriation funds
received from States, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in
the establishment, improvement, and modernization of national
airspace systems: Provided further, That upon initial
submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2017
President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall
transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital investment
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration which includes
funding for each budget line item for fiscal years 2017
through 2021, with total funding for each year of the plan
constrained to the funding targets for those years as
estimated and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget: Provided further, That the amount herein appropriated
shall be reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after the
initial submission of the fiscal year 2017 President's budget
that such report has not been submitted to Congress.

research, engineering, and development

(airport and airway trust fund)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
research, engineering, and development, as authorized under
part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code,
including construction of experimental facilities and
acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant,
$156,750,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2018:
Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation as
offsetting collections, funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private
sources, which shall be available for expenses incurred for
research, engineering, and development.

grants-in-aid for airports

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(airport and airway trust fund)

For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid
for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility
planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of
chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49,
United States Code, and under other law authorizing such
obligations; for procurement, installation, and commissioning
of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at
airports of such title; for grants authorized under section
41743 of title 49, United States Code; and for inspection
activities and administration of airport safety programs,
including those related to airport operating certificates
under section 44706 of title 49, United States Code,
$3,600,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided,
That none of the funds under this heading shall be available
for the planning or execution of programs the obligations for
which are in excess of $3,350,000,000 in fiscal year 2016,
notwithstanding section 47117(g) of title 49, United States
Code: Provided further, That none of the funds under this
heading shall be available for the replacement of baggage
conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas,
or other airport improvements that are necessary to install
bulk explosive detection systems: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, of funds limited
under this heading, not more than $107,100,000 shall be
obligated for administration, not less than $15,000,000 shall
be available for the Airport Cooperative Research Program,
and not less than $31,000,000 shall be available for Airport
Technology Research.

administrative provisions

Sec. 110. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
compensate in excess of 600 technical staff-years under the
federally funded research and development center contract
between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center
for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year
2016.
Sec. 111. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport
sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration
without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for
services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or
weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in
this section does not apply to negotiations between the
agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on below-
market rates for these items or to grant assurances that
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the
FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Sec. 112. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration may reimburse amounts made available to
satisfy 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) from fees credited under 49
U.S.C. 45303 and any amount remaining in such account at the
close of that fiscal year may be made available to satisfy
section 41742(a)(1) for the subsequent fiscal year.
Sec. 113. Amounts collected under section 40113(e) of
title 49, United States Code, shall be credited to the
appropriation current at the time of collection, to be merged
with and available for the same purposes of such
appropriation.
Sec. 114. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for paying premium pay under subsection 5546(a) of title 5,
United States Code, to any Federal Aviation Administration
employee unless such employee actually performed work during
the time corresponding to such premium pay.
Sec. 115. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated
or expended for an employee of the Federal Aviation
Administration to purchase a store gift card or gift
certificate through use of a Government-issued credit card.
Sec. 116. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated
or expended for retention bonuses for an employee of the
Federal Aviation Administration without the prior written
approval of the Assistant Secretary for Administration of the
Department of Transportation.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available under this Act or any prior Act
may be used to implement or to continue to implement any
limitation on the ability of any owner or operator of a
private aircraft to obtain, upon a request to the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, a
blocking of that owner's or operator's aircraft registration
number from any display of the Federal Aviation
Administration's Aircraft Situational Display to Industry
data that is made available to the public, except data made
available to a Government agency, for the noncommercial
flights of that owner or operator.
Sec. 118. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 9 political and
Presidential appointees in the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Sec. 119. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to increase fees pursuant to section 44721 of
title 49, United States Code, until the FAA provides to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report that
justifies all fees related to aeronautical navigation
products and explains how such fees are consistent with
Executive Order 13642.

[[Page H3843]]

Sec. 119A. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
close a regional operations center of the Federal Aviation
Administration or reduce its services unless the
Administrator notifies the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not less than 90 full business days in
advance.
Sec. 119B. None of the funds appropriated or limited by
this Act may be used to change weight restrictions or prior
permission rules at Teterboro airport in Teterboro, New
Jersey.

Federal Highway Administration

limitation on administrative expenses

(highway trust fund)

(including transfer of funds)

Contingent upon enactment of authorization legislation, not
to exceed $426,100,000, together with advances and
reimbursements received by the Federal Highway
Administration, shall be obligated for necessary expenses for
administration and operation of the Federal Highway
Administration. In addition, not to exceed $3,248,000 shall
be transferred to the Appalachian Regional Commission in
accordance with section 104 of title 23, United States Code.

federal-aid highways

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

Contingent upon enactment of authorization legislation,
funds available for the implementation or execution of
Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs
authorized under titles 23 and 49, United States Code, and
the provisions of such authorization legislation shall not
exceed total obligations of $40,256,000,000 for fiscal year
2016: Provided, That the Secretary may collect and spend
fees, as authorized by title 23, United States Code, to cover
the costs of services of expert firms, including counsel, in
the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the
underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments and
all or a portion of the costs to the Federal Government of
servicing such credit instruments: Provided further, That
such fees are available until expended to pay for such costs:
Provided further, That such amounts are in addition to
administrative expenses that are also available for such
purpose, and are not subject to any obligation limitation or
the limitation on administrative expenses under section 608
of title 23, United States Code.

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(highway trust fund)

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

administrative provisions--federal highway administration

Sec. 120. Contingent upon enactment of authorization
legislation:
(a) For fiscal year 2016, the Secretary of Transportation
shall--
(1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid highways--
(A) amounts authorized for administrative expenses and
programs by section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code;
and
(B) amounts authorized for the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics;
(2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation
for Federal-aid highways that is equal to the unobligated
balance of amounts--
(A) made available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid highway and highway
safety construction programs for previous fiscal years the
funds for which are allocated by the Secretary (or
apportioned by the Secretary under sections 202 or 204 of
title 23, United States Code); and
(B) for which obligation limitation was provided in a
previous fiscal year;
(3) determine the proportion that--
(A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways,
less the aggregate of amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection; bears to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
the Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction
programs (other than sums authorized to be appropriated for
provisions of law described in paragraphs (1) through (11) of
subsection (b) and sums authorized to be appropriated for
section 119 of title 23, United States Code, equal to the
amount referred to in subsection (b)(12) for such fiscal
year), less the aggregate of the amounts not distributed
under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection;
(4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
highways, less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2), for each of the programs (other than
programs to which paragraph (1) applies) that are allocated
by the Secretary under such authorization legislation and
title 23, United States Code, or apportioned by the Secretary
under sections 202 or 204 of that title, by multiplying--
(A) the proportion determined under paragraph (3); by
(B) the amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such
program for such fiscal year; and
(5) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
highways, less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2) and the amounts distributed under
paragraph (4), for Federal-aid highway and highway safety
construction programs that are apportioned by the Secretary
under such authorization legislation or title 23, United
States Code (other than the amounts apportioned for the
National Highway Performance Program in section 119 of title
23, United States Code, that are exempt from the limitation
under subsection (b)(12) and the amounts apportioned under
sections 202 and 204 of that title) in the proportion that--
(A) amounts authorized to be appropriated for the programs
that are apportioned under title 23, United States Code, or
such authorization legislation to each State for such fiscal
year; bears to
(B) the total of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
for the programs that are apportioned under title 23, United
States Code, or such authorization legislation to all States
for such fiscal year.
(b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation
limitation for Federal-aid highways shall not apply to
obligations under or for--
(1) section 125 of title 23, United States Code;
(2) section 147 of the Surface Transportation Assistance
Act of 1978 (23 U.S.C. 144 note; 92 Stat. 2714);
(3) section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 (95
Stat. 1701);
(4) subsections (b) and (j) of section 131 of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2119);
(5) subsections (b) and (c) of section 149 of the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987
(101 Stat. 198);
(6) sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2027);
(7) section 157 of title 23, United States Code (as in
effect on June 8, 1998);
(8) section 105 of title 23, United States Code (as in
effect for fiscal years 1998 through 2004, but only in an
amount equal to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years);
(9) Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation
authority was made available under the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107) or subsequent Acts
for multiple years or to remain available until expended, but
only to the extent that the obligation authority has not
lapsed or been used;
(10) section 105 of title 23, United States Code (as in
effect for fiscal years 2005 through 2012, but only in an
amount equal to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years);
(11) section 1603 of SAFETEA-LU (23 U.S.C. 118 note; 119
Stat. 1248), to the extent that funds obligated in accordance
with that section were not subject to a limitation on
obligations at the time at which the funds were initially
made available for obligation; and
(12) section 119 of title 23, United States Code (but, for
each of fiscal years 2013 through 2016, only in an amount
equal to $639,000,000).
(c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall, after
August 1 of such fiscal year--
(1) revise a distribution of the obligation limitation made
available under subsection (a) if an amount distributed
cannot be obligated during that fiscal year; and
(2) redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to
obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed
during that fiscal year, giving priority to those States
having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under
sections 144 (as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of Public Law 112-141) and 104 of title 23, United
States Code.
(d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to
Transportation Research Programs.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways shall apply to
contract authority for transportation research programs
carried out under--
(A) chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code; and
(B) the transportation research programs sections of such
authorization legislation.
(2) Exception.--Obligation authority made available under
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) remain available for a period of 4 fiscal years; and
(B) be in addition to the amount of any limitation imposed
on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety
construction programs for future fiscal years.
(e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
distribution of obligation limitation under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds
(excluding funds authorized for the program under section 202
of title 23, United States Code) that--
(A) are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year
for Federal-aid highway programs; and
(B) the Secretary determines will not be allocated to the
States (or will not be apportioned to the States under
section 204 of title 23, United States Code), and will not be
available for obligation, for such fiscal year because of the
imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year.
(2) Ratio.--Funds shall be distributed under paragraph (1)
in the same proportion as the distribution of obligation
authority under subsection (a)(5).

[[Page H3844]]

(3) Availability.--Funds distributed to each State under
paragraph (1) shall be available for any purpose described in
section 133(b) of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 121. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received
by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of
data products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to
chapter 63 of title 49, United States Code, may be credited
to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of
reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses: Provided, That such
funds shall be subject to the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs.
Sec. 122. Not less than 15 days prior to waiving, under
his or her statutory authority, any Buy America requirement
for Federal-aid highways projects, the Secretary of
Transportation shall make an informal public notice and
comment opportunity on the intent to issue such waiver and
the reasons therefor: Provided, That the Secretary shall
provide an annual report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations on any waivers granted under the Buy
America requirements.
Sec. 123. None of the funds in this Act to the Department
of Transportation may be used to provide credit assistance
unless not less than 3 days before any application approval
to provide credit assistance under sections 603 and 604 of
title 23, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation
provides notification in writing to the following committees:
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; the
Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee
on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate; and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives: Provided, That such notification shall
include, but not be limited to, the name of the project
sponsor; a description of the project; whether credit
assistance will be provided as a direct loan, loan guarantee,
or line of credit; and the amount of credit assistance.
Sec. 124. Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Longer Combination Vehicles in Idaho.--No limit or
other prohibition under this section, except as provided in
this subsection, applies to a longer combination vehicle
operating on a segment of the Interstate System in the State
of Idaho if such vehicle--
``(1) has a gross vehicle weight of 129,000 pounds or less;
``(2) complies with the single axle, tandem axle, and
bridge formula limits set forth in subsection (a); and
``(3) is authorized to operate on such segment under Idaho
State Law.''.
Sec. 125. Section 31111(b)(1)(A) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``or of less than 28 feet
on a semitrailer or trailer operating in a truck tractor-
semitrailer-trailer combination,'' and inserting ``or,
notwithstanding section 31112, of less than 33 feet on a
semitrailer or trailer operating in a truck tractor-
semitrailer-trailer combination,''.
Sec. 126. Exemption.--
(a) In General.--Section 31112(c)(5) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Nebraska may'' and inserting ``Nebraska
and Kansas may''; and
(2) by striking ``the State of Nebraska'' and inserting
``the relevant state''.
(b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--Section 31112(c)
of such title is amended--
(1) by striking the subsection designation and heading and
inserting the following:
``(c) Special Rules for Wyoming, Ohio, Alaska, Iowa,
Nebraska, and Kansas.--'';
(2) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``; and''.
Sec. 127. Section 130(e)(1) of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``$220,000,000'' and inserting
``$350,000,000''.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

motor carrier safety operations and programs

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

Contingent upon enactment of authorization legislation, for
payment of obligations incurred in the implementation,
execution and administration of motor carrier safety
operations and programs pursuant to section 31104(i) of title
49, United States Code, and sections 4127 and 4134 of Public
Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, and as extended
by Public Law 113-159, $259,000,000, to be derived from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account),
together with advances and reimbursements received by the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the sum of which
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
available for implementation, execution or administration of
motor carrier safety operations and programs authorized under
title 49, United States Code, and sections 4127 and 4134 of
Public Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, and as
extended by Public Law 113-159, shall not exceed total
obligations of $259,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier Safety
Operations and Programs'' for fiscal year 2016, of which
$9,000,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2018, is for the research and technology
program, and of which $34,545,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2018, is for information
management: Provided further, That $1,000,000 shall be made
available for commercial motor vehicle operator grants to
carry out section 4134 of Public Law 109-59, as amended by
Public Law 112-141, and as extended by Public Law 113-159.

motor carrier safety grants

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

Contingent upon enactment of authorization legislation, for
payment of obligations incurred in carrying out sections
31102, 31104(a), 31106, 31107, 31109, 31309, 31313 of title
49, United States Code, and sections 4126 and 4128 of Public
Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, as extended by
Public Law 113-159, $313,000,000, to be derived from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and
to remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
available for the implementation or execution of motor
carrier safety programs shall not exceed total obligations of
$313,000,000 in fiscal year 2016 for ``Motor Carrier Safety
Grants''; of which $218,000,000 shall be available for the
motor carrier safety assistance program, $30,000,000 shall be
available for commercial driver's license program improvement
grants, $32,000,000 shall be available for border enforcement
grants, $5,000,000 shall be available for performance and
registration information system management grants,
$25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial vehicle
information systems and networks deployment program, and
$3,000,000 shall be available for safety data improvement
grants: Provided further, That, of the funds made available
herein for the motor carrier safety assistance program,
$32,000,000 shall be available for audits of new entrant
motor carriers.

administrative provisions--federal motor carrier safety administration

Sec. 130. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall
be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section
350 of Public Law 107-87 and section 6901 of Public Law 110-
28.
Sec. 131. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
shall send notice of 49 CFR section 385.308 violations by
certified mail, registered mail, or another manner of
delivery, which records the receipt of the notice by the
persons responsible for the violations.
Sec. 132. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act or any other Act may be used to
implement, administer, or enforce sections 395.3(c) and
395.3(d) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, and such
section shall have no force or effect on submission of the
final report issued by the Secretary, as required by section
133 of Division K of Public Law 113-235, unless the Secretary
and the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation
each review and determine that the final report--
(1) meets the statutory requirements set forth in such
section; and
(2) establishes that commercial motor vehicle drivers who
operated under the restart provisions in effect between July
1, 2013, and the day before the date of enactment of such
Public Law demonstrated statistically significant improvement
in all outcomes related to safety, operator fatigue, driver
health and longevity, and work schedules, in comparison to
commercial motor vehicle drivers who operated under the
restart provisions in effect on June 30, 2013.
Sec. 133. None of the funds limited or otherwise made
available under the heading ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations
and Programs'' may be used to deny an application to renew a
Hazardous Materials Safety Program permit for a motor carrier
based on that carrier's Hazardous Materials Out-of-Service
rate, unless the carrier has the opportunity to submit a
written description of corrective actions taken, and other
documentation the carrier wishes the Secretary to consider,
including submitting a corrective action plan, and the
Secretary determines the actions or plan is insufficient to
address the safety concerns that resulted in that Hazardous
Materials Out-of-Service rate.
Sec. 134. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to develop, issue, or implement any regulation that
increases levels of minimum financial responsibility for
transporting passengers or property as in effect on January
1, 2014, under regulations issued pursuant to sections 31138
and 31139 of title 49, United States Code.

{time} 2130

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cartwright

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Strike section 134.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, tonight I urge the adoption of my
amendment, which would allow the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration to continue its congressionally mandated ongoing work to
improve

[[Page H3845]]

safety and accountability in the trucking and bus industry. I do so out
of a concern that we need to exhibit common sense in what we do. We
need to be fiscally prudent, we need to promote safe highways in our
Nation, and we need to recognize the importance of promoting personal
responsibility and accountability.
My amendment would strike a section of this bill that would halt the
FMCSA's work toward issuing a rule that would make our highways safer
for everyone by creating an incentive for motor carriers to make safety
a greater priority. We have to allow the FMCSA to proceed with the
development of a rule to increase insurance minimums for motor
carriers, which have not been updated in, fully, 35 years in this
Nation and, thus, have become outdated to the point of uselessness.
The first point I make is that it is simply common sense that we
adjust for inflation. Not adjusting for inflation for 35 years is not
prudent, and it makes no sense. It allows carriers to travel on our
Nation's highways in a financially irresponsible manner, in a manner
that would allow them not to be accountable for whatever harm they
might cause.
Adjusting for inflation is common sense. It is also fiscally prudent,
because what happens? Right now in this Nation, tractor-trailers are
allowed to travel around with $750,000 of liability insurance. The
FMCSA is studying that number to see what it should be updated to after
35 years. $750,000 is not enough money.
Just this morning in my district in northeastern Pennsylvania, there
was a horrendous truck and bus accident in which three people were
killed and a dozen others were seriously injured. When three people are
killed, asking their families to share $750,000 is not fiscally
responsible. Look who pays the difference.
If somebody is killed or if somebody is rendered, for example, a
paraplegic, they are going to incur incredible amounts of medical
bills; they are not going to be able to work. Who picks up the
difference when that happens? It is the Social Security system, it is
the Medicare system, it is John Q. Taxpayer that ends up paying the
bill when the trucking company doesn't have enough insurance to pay the
damages.
That is why it is fiscally prudent that we allow the FMCSA to
continue its important work, and it is important work that was mandated
by the MAP-21 bill that required the FMCSA to do this work.
It also promotes safe highways, because if we raise insurance
minimums up to modern and responsible levels, that means insurance
companies will have to engage in actual real underwriting. They will
have to go out from the home office and visit the headquarters of
trucking companies to make sure they are acting properly and safely and
responsibly. If they do that, if you want to buy insurance at
reasonable levels, you have to act safely.
Finally, Madam Chair, this is about personal responsibility. If you
don't have enough insurance, you get away without being personally
responsible when these horrendous crashes happen.
Madam Chair, I yield to Mr. Price for a colloquy.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
want to commend him for offering this amendment.
Madam Chair, as he has stressed very effectively, this is simply
irrational to freeze these claims where they were in the early 1980s,
and it also defies our own body's directions to the DOT to look at this
and to think about what kind of future changes might be in order. This
simply preempts that whole process; is that right?
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. That is correct. For that very reason, I urge
everyone to support my amendment to allow the FMCSA to finish its
important work of examining and developing a rule that is critical to
preventing devastating trucking accidents and keeping our highways safe
and secure for everyone.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment. As is frequently the case in
Washington, D.C., the proposed rules requiring truckers to increase
their liability insurance is a solution in search of a problem. The
provision currently included in the bill must remain. It must remain
because it protects job creators so they can stay in business. When you
consider that 99.9 percent of crashes are already covered by existing
insurance requirements, you can see that increasing insurance and,
thus, costs at the expense of jobs is just not a credible solution.
Safety is important. We all know that. We all want to make sure that
our roadways are safe. But the Department of Transportation readily
admits that raising the cost does not necessarily improve safety. The
DOT's own study expresses a crippling revelation to proponents of a
cost increase on our job creators. There may be more effective ways
that reduce crashes at a lower cost.
Bottom line, we need to strike a balance. If the proposed regulations
went into effect, our smaller trucking companies in Iowa and other
rural areas in States around the country would be unable to absorb the
increased costs, and it could threaten their ability to stay in
business. Too frequently in this town we are working to fix the
mistakes that were made by so-called Washington solutions. I strongly
encourage the rejection of this amendment tonight.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, on the one point about 99.9 percent of
crashes settling within existing insurance minimums, there we have the
opponents of my amendment speaking really out of both sides of their
mouth, because if they say it is so rare that a crash will cost more
than the minimum insurance, then what that means is that the expense of
insuring against that minimal risk has to be minimal itself, but these
are the same people saying that it will be a crippling additional
insurance premium. It doesn't make sense.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I, too, oppose this amendment. Increasing
insurance requirements will not improve highway safety. I mean, what
incentive does it create? How does increasing the insurance requirement
improve safety? It is not backed by any sound data.
The agency's own data shows that current requirements cover damages
in more--more--than 99 percent of all crashes. Think about that, more
than 99 percent of all crashes. But to the gentleman's point, my friend
from Pennsylvania, the agency is planning on tying these requirements
to medical inflation, and that results in increases of 500 percent or
more. Think about that, medical inflation, this administration. I mean,
isn't that the height of irony? I thought they were driving the cost of
medical inflation down. That is another whole story.
The fact is the industry has a remarkable safety record compared to
all commercial motor vehicles. As a matter of fact, motor coaches
average only 20 fatalities per year and schoolbuses only 5. Now, that
is not meant to minimize those losses because every life is precious,
but in a highway environment that produces 35,000 fatalities per year,
the DOT study did not even consider accident data, claims data, or talk
to insurance carriers about the impacts of increasing insurance or
whether there is even a need for it.
Indeed, this is a solution that is looking for a problem, a problem
that does not exist. I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

[[Page H3846]]

The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 135. None of the funds made available by this Act or
previous appropriations Acts under the heading ``Motor
Carrier Safety Operations and Programs'' shall be used to pay
for costs associated with design, development, testing, or
implementation of a wireless roadside inspection program
until 180 days after the Secretary of Transportation
certifies to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that such program does not conflict with
existing non-Federal electronic screening systems, create
capabilities already available, or require additional
statutory authority to incorporate generated inspection data
into safety determinations or databases, and has restrictions
to specifically address privacy concerns of affected motor
carriers and operators: Provided, That nothing in this
section shall be construed as affecting the Department's
ongoing research efforts in this area.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

operations and research

For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety
authorized under chapter 301 and part C of subtitle VI of
title 49, United States Code, $150,000,000, of which
$20,000,000 shall remain available through September 30,
2017.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

Mr. GOSAR. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The Clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 40, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $1,200,000)''.
Page 142, line 9, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

{time} 2145

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which
seeks to bolster funds for the inspector general of the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak.
I am a strong proponent of government oversight, and I believe the
revelatory work of the inspector general should be staunchly supported
within each agency of the Federal Government.
Today, given the dismal financial record of Amtrak through its
history, compounded with recent safety failures, it is clear that the
scrupulous, objective oversight of the inspector general is needed for
this agency now more than ever.
This amendment redirects $500,000 to the Amtrak Office of the
Inspector General salaries and expenses account to bring it up to the
budget request level.
Since the Inspector General Act was passed into law, the IG community
has saved taxpayers billions of dollars and has uncovered countless
examples of wrongdoing in the Federal Government. The inspector general
community does good work. Let's give them the resources they need.
The committee has noted the good work of the Amtrak OIG in the
committee report, stating: ``The OIG's efforts have resulted in
valuable studies and recommendations for this committee and for the
Corporation that have yielded cost savings and management improvements.
These studies have been in a number of areas, including food and
beverage service, capital planning, overtime, and fraud.''
I commend the committee for the work they have done to support
efficient and effective government.
This amendment is directly in line with the high value the committee
places on the thorough work of the OIG and will ensure additional
transparency and accountability within Amtrak.
There is a wide agreement about the need to reform, streamline, and
improve Amtrak. A valuable first step in that reform is supporting the
objective, rigorous auditing information which the OIG is uniquely
qualified to produce.
I ask my colleagues to join me in support of government
accountability by giving the Amtrak OIG the resources they need to
identify the waste, fraud, and abuse within a government agency that is
in desperate need of reform.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on
this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

operations and research

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

Contingent upon enactment of authorization legislation, for
payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, and chapter 303 of title 49,
United States Code, $125,000,000, to be derived from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and
to remain available until expended: Provided, That none of
the funds in this Act shall be available for the planning or
execution of programs the total obligations for which, in
fiscal year 2016, are in excess of $125,000,000, of which
$120,000,000 shall be for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C.
403 and $5,000,000 shall be for the National Driver Register
authorized under chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code:
Provided further, That within the $120,000,000 obligation
limitation for operations and research, $20,000,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2017, and shall be in
addition to the amount of any limitation imposed on
obligations for future years: Provided further, That
$6,500,000 of the total obligation limitation for operations
and research in fiscal year 2016 shall be applied toward
unobligated balances of contract authority provided in prior
Acts for carrying out the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, and
chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code.

highway traffic safety grants

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

Contingent on the enactment of authorization legislation,
for payment of obligations incurred in carrying out
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405, section 2009 of Public
Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, and section
31101(a)(6) of Public Law 112-141, to remain available until
expended, $561,500,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account): Provided, That
none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
planning or execution of programs the total obligations for
which, in fiscal year 2016, are in excess of $561,500,000 for
programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405, section 2009
of Public Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141, and
section 31101(a)(6) of Public Law 112-141, of which
$235,000,000 shall be for ``Highway Safety Programs'' under
23 U.S.C. 402; $272,000,000 shall be for ``National Priority
Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 405; $29,000,000 shall be
for the ``High Visibility Enforcement Program'' under section
2009 of Public Law 109-59, as amended by Public Law 112-141;
$25,500,000 shall be for ``Administrative Expenses'' under
section 31101(a)(6) of Public Law 112-141: Provided further,
That none of these funds shall be used for construction,
rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, or for office
furnishings and fixtures for State, local or private
buildings or structures: Provided further, That not to exceed
$500,000 of the funds made available for ``National Priority
Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 405 for ``Impaired Driving
Countermeasures'' (as described in subsection (d) of that
section) shall be available for technical assistance to the
States: Provided further, That with respect to the
``Transfers'' provision under 23 U.S.C. 405(a)(1)(G), any
amounts transferred to increase the amounts made available
under section 402 shall include the obligation authority for
such amounts: Provided further, That the Administrator shall
notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of
any exercise of the authority granted under the previous
proviso or under 23 U.S.C. 405(a)(1)(G) within 60 days.

administrative provisions--national highway traffic safety
administration

Sec. 140. An additional $130,000 shall be made available
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, out of
the amount limited for section 402 of title 23, United States
Code, to pay for travel and related expenses for State
management reviews and to pay for core competency development
training and related expenses for highway safety staff.
Sec. 141. The limitations on obligations for the programs
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set in
this Act shall not apply to obligations for which obligation
authority was made available in previous public laws but only
to the extent that the obligation authority has not lapsed or
been used.
Sec. 142. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 143. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to obligate or award funds for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's National Roadside Survey.
Sec. 144. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to mandate global positioning system (GPS) tracking
in private passenger motor vehicles without providing full
and appropriate consideration of privacy concerns under 5
U.S.C. chapter 5, subchapter II.

[[Page H3847]]

Federal Railroad Administration

safety and operations

For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad
Administration, not otherwise provided for, $186,870,000, of
which $15,400,000 shall remain available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

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

Page 44, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $16,930,000)''.
Page 52, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $83,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
will bolster our Nation's rail safety and operations.
First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for his
dedication and important work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the number of train derailments and accidents in our
local communities is a growing concern among my constituents and
Americans all across the country.
In the first 2 months of 2015, there were 18 Amtrak accidents, as
well as recent oil train derailments in West Virginia and in North
Dakota. Most recently, Mr. Chairman, an Amtrak train crash in
Philadelphia killed eight people and injured dozens more.
In New Jersey alone, there are 2,400 miles of freight lines and over
1,000 passenger rail miles, and we must ensure, Mr. Chairman, that
these existing lines are operating safely.
So what do we have here? My amendment fully funds the Federal
Railroad Administration's safety and operations account without
increasing spending in the underlying bill. The FRA's safety and
operations account provides funding for the FRA's safety program
activities related to passenger and freight railroads.
So how do we do this? By reallocating a mere 4 percent of funding
from capital investment grants, we can fund the safe operation of our
Nation's trains at the President's requested levels.
Mr. Chairman, we do not build a new section onto our house if our
roof is caving in. So we should not be adding on to these systems if
they are caving in or failing.
So why are we funding new projects before we ensure that our current
rail lines have enough dollars, enough funding for their safety?
My amendment would simply prioritize safety and maintenance of our
existing infrastructure over the ribbon-cutting ceremonies associated
with system expansion.
In light of the recent upsurge in deadly rail accidents, now is the
time to adequately fund the safety and operations of our trains.
Additionally, with our rising national debt, it is very important that
we remain fiscally responsible and prioritize how we spend our
constituents' hard-earned tax dollars.
That is why, in conclusion, my amendment does not increase spending,
but only prioritizes a commonsense directive. And so I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment to fund train safety, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, while I know and I am absolutely
certain that the gentleman from New Jersey's heart is in the right
place, unfortunately, I cannot support the offset.
The committee carefully calculated the New Start numbers to be able
to accommodate the signed FFGAs and Small Starts Grant Agreements at
the beginning of the fiscal year, and I am a firm believer that once
you sign a grant, once you make that commitment, we should honor it.
This reduction would impact those signed agreements, so I reluctantly
oppose this amendment.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price), the ranking member.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I want to echo his opposition to this amendment, although
I do commend Mr. Garrett for his focus on safety and operations. I,
too, would like to raise that appropriation to the request level. That
is a good objective.
There are a couple of problems here, though. One, is that because of
differences in outlay rates, to pick up $17 million on the safety and
operations side you have to cut $83 million from the transit New
Starts. That has to do with differences in outlay rates. But the fact
is, it is a substantial cut. And these New Starts in the bill, I remind
colleagues, are already $1.3 billion below the President's request.
They are $198 million below what we have this year.
These are badly underfunded items. So we simply, again, are robbing
Peter to pay Paul. But because of the disproportionate impact here, and
the fact that New Starts are already so underresourced, I reluctantly
oppose this amendment.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, two points. The first is, I understand the
gentleman's opposition on procedural grounds as far as the differences
in outlays and what have you. But when you go back home and talk to
your district and say you are trying to do something for safety, as we
are in this case, and you say: Well, the reason we can't do this is the
procedural aspect of outlays versus the actual amount of money going in
and the amount of money being cut, and so on and so forth, and you go
through all the rubric and the matrix that we use around here and all
the buzz words on the floor to try to explain things, the eyes of the
people back home glaze over, rightfully so, because they say: Those are
your rules, not ours. Why don't you just get something done.
What they are asking to get done is rail safety. And that is what
this amendment does.
I just want to end with one quote. Back in 2010, the head of the
FTA--at that time, the administrator was Peter Rogoff--chastised local
transit agencies for promoting rail construction for so many new rail
lines. He said on one hand, agencies were unable to maintain the rail
lines they already had. The FTA had recently at that point estimated
that rail transit systems suffered from close to a $60 billion
maintenance backlog--and the backlog was growing even then.
And he said this: ``If you can't afford to operate the systems you
have,'' he asked the agencies, ``why does it make sense for us to
partner with you in new expansions?''
That is a great question. If they can't fix up what is already out
there and all the problems on the rail lines out there on important
things like safety, then why on Earth are we spending all these tens of
millions of dollars on brand new programs that we know that they are
not going to be able to maintain as well? Let's do first things first.
As I said in my little example before, if your roof is collapsing on
your house, you don't add a new deck, you don't put in a new pool, you
don't put in a paved new driveway, you don't do anything else. You
repair the roof, first and foremost, and then everything else comes
after that.
And that is really all I am asking. Let's maintain the safety, first
and foremost, so that everyone riding on the rails can feel confident
that they are operating right. Then, after that, let's come back here
to the floor and fix up the other funding mechanism for new programs
and what have you, and go forward.
Right now, let's make sure that our constituents back home can feel
confident every time they ride on a transit system, be it a bus or
train or something else, that they know that it is adequately funded
and taken care of and maintained.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.

[[Page H3848]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

railroad research and development

For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $39,100,000, to remain available until expended.

railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program

The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue
direct loans and loan guarantees pursuant to sections 501
through 504 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as amended, such
authority to exist as long as any such direct loan or loan
guarantee is outstanding. Provided, That pursuant to section
502 of such Act, as amended, no new direct loans or loan
guarantee commitments shall be made using Federal funds for
the credit risk premium during fiscal year 2016.

operating grants to the national railroad passenger corporation

To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make
quarterly grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, in amounts based on the Secretary's assessment
of the Corporation's seasonal cash flow requirements, for the
operation of intercity passenger rail, as authorized by
section 101 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008 (division B of Public Law 110-432), $288,500,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
amounts available under this paragraph shall be available for
the Secretary to approve funding to cover operating losses
for the Corporation only after receiving and reviewing a
grant request for each specific train route: Provided
further, That each such grant request shall be accompanied by
a detailed financial analysis, revenue projection, and
capital expenditure projection justifying the Federal support
to the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided further, That not
later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the
Corporation shall transmit, in electronic format, to the
Secretary and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations the annual budget, business plan, the 5-Year
Financial Plan for fiscal year 2016 required under section
204 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
2008 and the comprehensive fleet plan for all Amtrak rolling
stock: Provided further, That the budget, business plan and
the 5-Year Financial Plan shall include annual information on
the maintenance, refurbishment, replacement, and expansion
for all Amtrak rolling stock consistent with the
comprehensive fleet plan: Provided further, That the
Corporation shall provide monthly performance reports in an
electronic format which shall describe the work completed to
date, any changes to the business plan, and the reasons for
such changes as well as progress against the milestones and
target dates of the 2012 performance improvement plan:
Provided further, That the Corporation's budget, business
plan, 5-Year Financial Plan, semiannual reports, monthly
reports, comprehensive fleet plan and all supplemental
reports or plans comply with requirements in Public Law 112-
55: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this
Act may be used to support any route on which Amtrak offers a
discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal peak
fare: Provided further, That the preceding proviso does not
apply to routes where the operating loss as a result of the
discount is covered by a State and the State participates in
the setting of fares.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Titus

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

Page 45, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from Nevada and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.

{time} 2200

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with this very simple
amendment. It is one that is meant to shed light on inadequate
investments that are being made in our Nation's passenger rail service.
The bill before us appropriates nearly $16 billion for aviation, over
$40 billion for our roads, over $10 billion for public transit, but
just $1.1 billion for our Nation's passenger rail service.
I represent Las Vegas, where we import everything from tourists to
lobsters, so we certainly understand the importance of transportation
mobility.
It is interesting, many international and domestic travelers alike
are shocked to learn, when they are coming to Las Vegas, that a major
metropolitan city, home to more than 2 million residents and playground
and boardroom to over 42 million visitors a year, we just don't have
access to passenger rail service.
Visitors from Europe or Asia are accustomed to taking trains from one
city to another, and they face a sad reality when traveling to Las
Vegas from other Southwestern tourist destinations.
From Los Angeles, for example, you would have to take a 7-hour train
ride that drops you off in Kingman, Arizona, at 1:30 in the morning.
There, you would have to find the bus station, which is 4 miles away,
get on a bus at 4 in the morning to travel another 3 hours to downtown
Las Vegas. That is just crazy.
The last Amtrak train on the Desert Wind line departed the back of
the Plaza Hotel in May of 1997, bound for Los Angeles.
Well, a lot has changed since the late 1990s. Over the last 17 years,
southern Nevada's population has grown by a million new residents, and
10 million more visitors travel to southern Nevada annually, putting
enormous strain on our area's highways and the airport, which is among
the top 10 busiest airports in the country.
More than 42,000 vehicles also cross the I-15 border between
California and Nevada daily. If you have traveled along that busy
stretch of road, you know the kind of traffic nightmares that you might
encounter.
In fact, I recently spoke with an airline pilot who frequently makes
the short flight between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and he remarked
that you can't get lost. All you have to do is follow the red brake
lights on I-15 all the way to McCarran.
We can and we must do better; but this isn't just about Las Vegas.
Cities like Phoenix, Arizona; Nashville, Tennessee; Columbus, Ohio;
Louisville, Kentucky; and Boise, Idaho, don't have passenger rail
service either.
In addition, there is no direct rail service between major
metropolitan areas like Houston and Dallas, Atlanta and Orlando, and
Kansas City and Oklahoma City. I believe that expanding rail service to
unserved communities like those in southern Nevada should be a
priority, but, unfortunately, this legislation before us does not
really get us there.
At the end of April, I organized a roundtable back in my district to
discuss the need to restore passenger service to Las Vegas, and I was
really surprised by the high level of interest from local stakeholders.
We had participants from our State and local transportation
authorities, the gaming and hotel industries, the chamber of commerce,
labor unions and economic development organizations, all in agreement
that southern Nevada should have passenger rail service as part of our
long-term economic viability plans. This type of development is a
regional and should be a national priority.
Now, a lot of attention has been paid to the Northeast corridor,
where travelers frequent Amtrak service along the East Coast, but we
should not forget that it was the railroad that built the West and
still, today, remains a critical piece of our transportation network.
China is investing $128 million in rail in 2015 alone and India, $137
billion over the next 5 years; yet we are investing only $1.1 billion.
Mr. Chairman, since this amendment really has no monetary impact, I
would respectfully ask that you accept it. It is my hope that we
recognize this mode of transportation that is so tied to our Nation's
history and that we can continue to work together to see that it gets
the attention and support that it deserves.
Thank you very much for your time and your consideration. I hope
that, together, we can work to be sure that passenger rail service is
expanded throughout the country and especially in the Southwest.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Brooks of Alabama

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

Page 45, strike line 6 and all that follows through page
47, line 3.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page H3849]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, America recently suffered four
straight trillion dollar deficits. In the past few months, America's
debt blew through the $18 trillion mark.
America pays over $200 billion per year in debt service, which is
more than four times what the Federal Government spends on highways,
bridges, and interstates each year. America's Comptroller General warns
that America's deficits and debt paths are unsustainable.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that our debt
service cost is on a path to increase by another $600 billion within a
decade, to more than $800 billion per year. That is more than America
spends each year on national defense. The CBO also warns that, within a
decade, if current trends continue, America will face yearly trillion
dollar deficits in perpetuity.
Per then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen's
testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, debt is America's
``greatest threat to our national security.''
As a result of America's debt, in a few short years, America's
uniformed military personnel numbers will be our smallest since before
World War II, America's Navy will have the smallest number of
operational naval vessels since World War I, and America's Air Force
will have its smallest number of operational aircraft in its history.
Debt, not our enemies, is slowly but surely stripping America of its
ability to defend itself.
In sum, Washington's financial irresponsibility, this House of
Representatives' financial irresponsibility, is pushing America into a
debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that will destroy the American
Dream for our children and grandchildren.
It is in this setting that I beseech this House of Representatives to
be financially responsible by supporting my amendment that eliminates
Federal Government operating subsidies of Amtrak, thus forcing Amtrak
to operate in the black.
How bad is the Amtrak subsidy problem? The Congressional Research
Service reports that, from 1971 to 2015, Federal Amtrak subsidies
totaled $78 billion in constant 2015 dollars. In fiscal year 2014,
Amtrak had a net loss of $1.1 billion. Who paid for that loss?
America's children and grandchildren, that is who.
How so? It is because America does not have the money and had to
borrow every penny of that $1.1 billion, thus burdening Americans for
generations to come.
Mr. Chairman, a business that relies on subsidies and tax dollars to
cover losses has little incentive to operate efficiently or effectively
or, for that matter, as safely as it should.
It is appalling that the Federal Government undermines and threatens
the future of America's children and grandchildren in order to
subsidize Amtrak passenger service that would be self-sufficient if
Amtrak riders stopped mooching off of hard-working American taxpayers
and, instead, simply paid for the actual cost of their rides.
Amtrak supporters often claim that Amtrak will go out of business if
it is not subsidized by American taxpayers. That is bunk unsupported by
facts.
This same ``woe is me'' argument was made about freight train
subsidies; yet, when freight rail subsidies ended and freight rail was
sold to private investors in the 1980s, freight rail did not go out of
business and still operates today.
Similarly, the Federal Government does not operate or subsidize
national airlines or national bus services; yet airlines and buses
operate profitably in the private sector, despite Federal Government
subsidies for Amtrak, their competitor.
Just as airlines, bus services, and freight rail operate without
government subsidies, Amtrak will do the same if this House of
Representatives has the courage to wean Amtrak from the taxpayer
nipple.
Mr. Chairman, after more than 40 years, it is time to stop the
runaway Amtrak train. It is time to force Amtrak riders to pay their
own way by ending their subsidized rides on the backs of American
taxpayers.
I urge adoption of my amendment to do just that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to this amendment which, purely and simply, would end
intercity passenger rail for our Nation.
I remind colleagues, there is not a single mode of transportation in
this country that is not subsidized, contrary to what we have just
heard.
To make the case further, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), a distinguished member of the
authorizing committee.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, when I was coming up, I used to like this television
show, ``Robin Hood.'' My colleagues practice what I call reverse Robin
Hood, robbing from the working people and the poor people and the
transit people to give tax breaks to the rich.
Just a few weeks ago, the House Republicans passed a bill cutting
taxes by $269 billion--I guess that didn't affect the deficit--for
their wealthiest friends, but can't find the $2 billion that we need
for Amtrak--shameful.
The funding cuts proposed in this amendment would simply force Amtrak
to shut down, strand millions of rail passengers, disrupt commuter
operations, add to our already congested roads and airports, eliminate
over 20,000 jobs nationwide, and jeopardize local economies and
businesses that depend on Amtrak's service.
Amtrak provides the majority of all intercity passenger rail service
in the United States, with more States and localities across America
turning to passenger rail to meet the transportation needs of our
citizens.
Amtrak has done an excellent job, based on the fact that 9/11, when
we were attacked, Amtrak was the only means that you could move away.
When we had Hurricane Katrina, Amtrak is the only way that we could
move people out of harm's way by evacuating and delivering food and
water and supplies.
Amtrak has made significant improvement in its system over the last
several years, has steady increase in ridership numbers, played a vital
role in disaster recovery, and has an ambitious agenda for future
growth.
I encourage all Members to vote against this ill-willed and ill-
thought-out amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would respond that there is no
factual basis for the gentlewoman's comments that have just been made.
Socialism does not work. We need to get Amtrak passengers off the
backs of all taxpayers, including those that are poor, that can't
afford the taxes that they are already having to pay to benefit those
Amtrak riders. Let's set them free.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank the ranking member.
The fact of the matter is, notwithstanding what was offered to the
House as the picture of America, we actually live in the greatest
country in the world. We have the strongest economy. We are the
wealthiest country. There is no country, based on the IMF, that would
want to trade our position vis-a-vis debt-to-wealth ratio.
I hear the gentleman saying, Woe is America, and we can't afford to
subsidize rail. I think the ranking member makes it clear that there is
no form of transportation that is not subsidized.
I heard this utterance that we don't subsidize airplane travel. This
is nonsensical. Just the facts of this bill itself outline some of our
country's subsidies for our airline industry.

{time} 2215

But I want to talk about Amtrak.
When it is said that there is a $1 billion subsidy and that somehow
we can't afford that from last year, I want

[[Page H3850]]

to remind this House that for each and every month we have been in
Afghanistan, we have been spending $2 billion a week for well over a
decade, as a Nation. The idea that we can't afford to have a first-rate
passenger rail system defies logic. It is just a matter of political
will.
We need to make a decision about America's place in the world, and
our economy is dependent on our ability to transport not just freight
but human beings, and Amtrak is critical to that.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me time.
I hope this House will reconsider this thrust of the majority to move
away from passenger rail. I heard some talk from the gentleman that we
have got to stop this runaway train, but we tried to stop a train in
Philadelphia, and if we had made the investments, there would be people
who would be alive today.
We need to make these investments, and we need to move our country
forward. It is not about political philosophy. It is about
practicality.
Our economic competitors are subsidizing rail. And if we want to make
our economy work, we are going to have to make Amtrak work. And we can
do that through some of the efforts on this bill today.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for his wise words
and join him in wholeheartedly opposing this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

capital and debt service grants to the national railroad passenger
corporation

To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for capital
investments as authorized by sections 101(c), 102, and 219(b)
of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
(division B of Public Law 110-432), $850,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which not to exceed $160,200,000
shall be for debt service obligations as authorized by
section 102 of such Act: Provided, That of the amounts made
available under this heading, not less than $50,000,000 shall
be made available to bring Amtrak-served facilities and
stations into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act: Provided further, That after an initial distribution of
up to $200,000,000, which shall be used by the Corporation as
a working capital account, all remaining funds shall be
provided to the Corporation only on a reimbursable basis:
Provided further, That of the amounts made available under
this heading, up to $20,000,000 may be used by the Secretary
to subsidize operating losses of the Corporation should the
funds provided under the heading ``Operating Grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' be insufficient to
meet operational costs for fiscal year 2016: Provided
further, That the Secretary may retain up to one-half of 1
percent of the funds provided under this heading to fund the
costs of project management and oversight of activities
authorized by subsections 101(a) and 101(c) of division B of
Public Law 110-432: Provided further, That the Secretary
shall approve funding for capital expenditures, including
advance purchase orders of materials, for the Corporation
only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for each
specific capital project justifying the Federal support to
the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided further, That except
as otherwise provided herein, none of the funds under this
heading may be used to subsidize operating losses of the
Corporation: Provided further, That none of the funds under
this heading may be used for capital projects not approved by
the Secretary of Transportation or on the Corporation's
fiscal year 2016 business plan: Provided further, That in
addition to the project management oversight funds authorized
under section 101(d) of division B of Public Law 110-432, the
Secretary may retain up to an additional $3,000,000 of the
funds provided under this heading to fund expenses associated
with implementing section 212 of division B of Public Law
110-432, including the amendments made by section 212 to
section 24905 of title 49, United States Code: Provided
further, That Amtrak shall conduct a business case analysis
on capital investments that exceed $10,000,000 in life-cycle
costs: Provided further, That each contract for a capital
acquisition that exceeds $10,000,000 in life cycle costs
shall state that funding is subject to the availability of
appropriated funds provided by an appropriations Act.

amendment offered by ms. brown of florida

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

Page 47, line 11, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $861,500,000)''.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman from Florida and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases capital
grants to Amtrak by $861 million. This will bring the total funding for
Amtrak in the bill to $2 billion, equal to Amtrak's fiscal year 2016
budget request to Congress.
This bill, as if it wasn't bad enough, cut $290 million from Amtrak's
capital program, which is used to repair and replace aging
infrastructure on the Northeast corridor, including 140-year-old
bridges and tunnels, and implement positive train control, a system
that, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, would have
prevented the recent Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia.
According to the April 2015 report to Congress, ``At the current rate
of available funding, it would take over 300 years to replace all of
the bridges on the Northeast corridor, well beyond the timeframe in
which assets would simply be shut down.''
The list of critical needs extends far beyond just bridges and
tunnels. Major portions of Amtrak's electrical power supply system date
back to 1930.
According to the commission, in total, $21.1 billion is needed to
achieve a state of good repair on the corridor, $8.7 billion of which
is needed to address critical infrastructure needs over the next 5
years.
We cannot point to the recent Amtrak derailment and say that it was
directly caused by a lack of investment. That is true. But we do know
from the NTSB that it was preventable had positive train control been
installed on that section of track.
Amtrak included $36.4 million in their $2 billion fiscal year 2016
budget request to Congress. Amtrak testified at a hearing in the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee yesterday that had they
been provided adequate funding from the get-go, they would have been
able to implement positive train control sooner.
The impact of this tragic accident could also have been lessened had
the Republican-controlled Congress not denied Amtrak's request for
funding to replace passenger cars that date back to 1975 with newer
cars.
At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
I think it is critically important that we understand that the
President requested an increase in capital allotments for Amtrak. Not
only was that not honored, but we actually went with the wisdom of the
majority: we actually cut last year's number by over $250-plus million.
This is a move in the wrong direction for our country, and I hope
that through the gentlewoman's amendment, we can reverse that. So I
stand in support of it, and I hope that the majority would allow us to
proceed to a vote.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.

point of order

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase
in budget authority in the bill.
The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House
Resolution 5 of the 114th Congress, which states the following:
``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 XXI.''

[[Page H3851]]

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point
of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, just a few short weeks ago, House
Republicans passed a bill cutting taxes by $269 billion for their
wealthiest friends, yet we can't find $2 billion for Amtrak to make it
safe?
My friend from Florida, this is unacceptable; shame.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman needs to confine her remarks to the
point of order.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I thought I was speaking to the point of order,
sir.
That is my point. We cut $269 billion, and we can't find $2 billion
to make Amtrak safe? That is the point.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Florida violates section 3(d)(3) of
House Resolution 5.
Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budgetary authority in the pending bill.
As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Florida, the amendment
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

amendment offered by mr. brooks of alabama

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

Page 47, strike line 4 and all that follows through page
49, line 8.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, my first amendment, Brooks No.
19, strikes $288.5 million in operating subsidies for Amtrak. This
second amendment, which is Brooks No. 21, strikes capital and debt
service subsidies that total $850 million per year to get to the point
where we can strike all taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak.
I would rely on the arguments previously made with respect to my
first amendment to support this second amendment.
I would add, however, that I have heard some comments about the
safety associated with Amtrak. I would emphasize at this point that if
you want safety with rail service, probably the best thing to do is to
put it in the private sector and eliminate Amtrak altogether.
Look at airlines, air carriers; they are private sector and are much
safer than Amtrak. Look at buses; they are private sector and are safer
than Amtrak. And I would submit that if lives are what concern the
opponents to these amendments that they would propose putting Amtrak
into private hands in order to have the same kind of safety record that
we have with buses, air carriers, and other modes of private
transportation.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I very strongly oppose
this amendment which, like the gentleman's previous amendment, would
essentially end passenger rail service in this country. It is just that
drastic. It is also targeting passenger rail in a way that obscures the
fact that every mode of transportation in this country is subsidized.
It is in the public interest to maintain diverse modes of
transportation that serve our various transportation needs and our
various population centers.
Amtrak provides an invaluable service to this country: 500
destinations in 46 States, connecting small communities that don't have
access to air service.
Amtrak is popular with the American people. It is increasingly being
taken advantage of. In the last 11 years, 10 consecutive years of
record ridership, serving nearly 32 million passengers last year.
Without Amtrak's service in the Northeast corridor, where would we
be? There would be virtual gridlock in New York's airports, but it is
not just the Northeast corridor. I come from a State that had the
insight years ago to invest in State Amtrak service, and now Amtrak is
the preferred mode of transportation for thousands of people between
Raleigh and Charlotte, with three full routes a day in each direction.
This is an irresponsible amendment. It will eliminate thousands of
jobs. It will harm local economies. And it will violate labor
agreements. There is so much wrong with this.
I urge its rejection and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the argument
that this would end rail service is absolutely false and is not
supported by history. Nothing in history supports the gentleman's
argument. However well-intentioned, the evidence is clear.
Freight rail, the same kind of argument was made. Subsidies were
ended. It went into the private sector. It survives and thrives today.
There is an argument that buses and air carriers are somehow or
another subsidized. I would submit that what we are talking about,
there are user fees and there are gasoline taxes and diesel taxes that
pay for those roads that buses use, and there are air passenger charges
that pay for the cost of those airports that air carriers use.
So with that as a backdrop, I would submit that it is time for Amtrak
passengers to pay their own way. It is time for Amtrak passengers to
quit riding on the backs of other taxpayers. They have the ability to
pay their own way. The rest of the country is expected to pay their own
way when they travel. As such, I would ask this body to adopt my
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

administrative provisions--federal railroad administration

Sec. 150. The Secretary of Transportation may receive and
expend cash, or receive and utilize spare parts and similar
items, from non-United States Government sources to repair
damages to or replace United States Government owned
automated track inspection cars and equipment as a result of
third-party liability for such damages, and any amounts
collected under this section shall be credited directly to
the Safety and Operations account of the Federal Railroad
Administration, and shall remain available until expended for
the repair, operation and maintenance of automated track
inspection cars and equipment in connection with the
automated track inspection program.
Sec. 151. None of the funds provided to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation may be used to fund any
overtime costs in excess of $35,000 for any individual
employee: Provided, That the President of Amtrak may waive
the cap set in the previous proviso for specific employees
when the President of Amtrak determines such a cap poses a
risk to the safety and operational efficiency of the system:
Provided further, That Amtrak shall report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter of the
calendar year on waivers granted to employees and amounts
paid above the cap for each month within such quarter and
delineate the reasons each waiver was granted: Provided
further, That the President of Amtrak shall report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1,
2016, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the
Corporation for 2015 and the three prior calendar years:
Provided further, That such summary shall include the total
number of employees that received waivers and the total
overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees
receiving waivers for each month for 2015 and for the three
prior calendar years.

[[Page H3852]]

Federal Transit Administration

administrative expenses

For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal
Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of
title 49, United States Code, $102,933,000, of which not more
than $4,000,000 shall be available to carry out the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5329 and not less than $750,000 shall
be available to carry out the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5326:
Provided, That none of the funds provided or limited in this
Act may be used to create a permanent office of transit
security under this heading: Provided further, That upon
submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2017
President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall
transmit to Congress the annual report on New Starts,
including proposed allocations for fiscal year 2017.

{time} 2230

Amendment Offered by Mr. Langevin

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

Page 50, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 52, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Rhode Island and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today with my good friends
Congressmen Quigley and Butterfield will return funding for FTA
Technical Assistance and Training back to its 2014 level. Older adults
and individuals with disabilities disproportionately rely on public
transit to live, learn, get to work and access recreation in their
communities. The Technical Assistance and Training dollars made
available by this amendment will help increase mobility for people with
disabilities and older adults. By providing this assistance to our
transit systems and services, we can ensure that they become more
accessible for those who rely on them the most.
Mr. Chairman, FTA has a long history of working with Easter Seals,
the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and others to
provide training, technical assistance, and other problem-solving
support to the transit industry, people with disabilities, and older
adults; and it is imperative that this work continue as more people age
and more people with disabilities seek to live as independently as
possible.
Now, in order to realize this goal, FTA needs adequate resources to
support these technical assistance activities. To that end, my
amendment will increase funding by $2 million for FTA Technical
Assistance and Training and reduce, by an equivalent amount, funding
for FTA administrative expenses.
Mr. Chairman, the House adopted this exact amendment last year to
restore FTA Technical Assistance and Training to $5 million.
Unfortunately, it was cut to $3 million in this bill. My amendment will
simply restore the funds back to the fiscal year '15 House-adopted
level of $5 million.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this
amendment, which will provide a world of benefit to all those that it
serves.
I thank my colleagues today for their consideration.
Again, I urge passage of the amendment, and with that, Mr. Chairman,
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk will read.
Clerk read as follows:

transit formula grants

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

Contingent upon enactment of authorization legislation, for
payment of obligations incurred in the Federal Public
Transportation Assistance Program in this account, and for
payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5310, 5311, 5318,
5322(d), 5329(e)(6), 5335, 5337, 5339, and 5340, as amended
by Public Law 112-141, and section 20005(b) of Public Law
112-141, $9,500,000,000, to be derived from the Mass Transit
Account of the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available
until expended: Provided, That funds available for the
implementation or execution of programs authorized under 49
U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5310, 5311, 5318, 5322(d), 5329(e)(6),
5335, 5337, 5339, and 5340, as amended by Public Law 112-141,
and section 20005(b) of Public Law 112-141, shall not exceed
total obligations of $8,595,000,000 in fiscal year 2016.

transit research

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5312,
$26,000,000.

technical assistance and training

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5314
$3,000,000.

capital investment grants

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5309,
$1,921,395,000, to remain available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grothman

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

Page 52, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $230,000,000)''.
Page 156, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $230,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are very in debt in this
country. This budget is on path to balance the budget eventually years
down the road, but, really, we should be looking to cut spending right
now.
You look at things the Federal Government is paying for that should
be done locally, and one of those things is these new capital
improvements on mass transit projects. I think normally these things do
not get the ridership that justifies these projects, and we would not
be doing these projects, local governments would not be applying for
these projects or building these projects if they had to pay their
money themselves. The only reason these things go ahead is the Federal
Government is paying for them, and the Federal Government has no money.
Mr. Chairman, this proposal will bring back down the funding on this
line to what the Appropriations Committee wanted only 2 years ago, and
for whatever reason, apparently in negotiations, this amount went up
last year. But I don't think it is too much to ask that this House not
zero out this line--and we could argue that we shouldn't be doing this
at all--but at least go back to the levels of 2013, especially given
the huge amount of debt that is being piled up at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the committee carefully calculated the
New Start number to be able to accommodate the signed FFGAs and Small
Starts Grant Agreements at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Again, as I submitted before, I am a firm believer that once you sign
a grant agreement, then we should, frankly, honor that. This reduction
would impact those signed agreements, and I reluctantly oppose the
gentleman's amendment. I know the passion that he has for this, but I
again have to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
chairman's yielding. I would like to echo his opposition to this
amendment.
I have just retrieved here a list of New Start projects that, under
the present funding levels of the bill, probably aren't going to be
able to be addressed. We are talking about the Westside project in Los
Angeles. We are talking about San Diego, Denver, Baltimore, the
Washington, D.C. area, the Maryland National Capital Purple Line,
Minneapolis, Fort Worth. These are ready to go. These are ready to go
with strong support in their communities, a strong impact on moving
people and providing jobs. It is just unthinkable that we would cut
this further.
Transit is an extremely important mode of transportation in many of
our cities and suburban areas too, and the bill is inadequate. We need
to find ways to make it more adequate going forward.

[[Page H3853]]

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would move exactly in the wrong
direction, so I urge its defeat.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is all fine and good to move forward, but we are
going to borrow about 14 percent of this budget, and we have got to
stop saying whenever we see a spending item it is time to move forward.
I think what we have to do here is--I can certainly understand if we
made commitments today, I can understand how people of goodwill would
not want this amendment. But if this amendment doesn't pass, then I
think we have to make doubly certain that a year from now we have a
dramatic reduction here.
If there are any of these projects that are that important, the local
unit of government can fund it. There is no surer way to overspend than
have the Federal Government give grants to local units of government
that they would never dream of spending themselves.
That is what is going on here, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The amendment was rejected.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

grants to the washington metropolitan area transit authority

For grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority as authorized under section 601 of division B of
Public Law 110-432, $100,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall approve grants
for capital and preventive maintenance expenditures for the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority only after
receiving and reviewing a request for each specific project:
Provided further, That prior to approving such grants, the
Secretary shall certify that the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority is making significant progress in
eliminating the material weaknesses, significant
deficiencies, and minor control deficiencies identified in
the most recent Financial Management Oversight Review:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine that the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has placed the
highest priority on those investments that will improve the
safety of the system before approving such grants: Provided
further, That the Secretary, in order to ensure safety
throughout the rail system, may waive the requirements of
section 601(e)(1) of title VI of Public Law 110-432 (112
Stat. 4968).

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Mica

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

Page 53, line 11, strike the colon and all that follows
through line 15 and insert a period.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. My colleagues, at this late hour, this is a simple
amendment. It strikes a waiver that was granted to the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and it is a waiver that has been
in place for several years. It waives the requirements for them to
complete installation of cellular service in the tunnels of the Metro
system in Washington, D.C. That waiver allows them to continue to
receive Federal funds but not have made the installation.
It is funny because congressional staffers said: Well, Mr. Mica, why
are you doing this? I am doing this because, as the chairman of a
subcommittee on transportation oversight, I had to conduct a hearing
after the January 12 deadly incident in the Washington area Metro. You
may recall at L'Enfant Plaza, on the Yellow Line, there was an incident
in which smoke filled the tunnel. A passenger train was left outside of
the station.
I might say that, back in 2008, we set up a requirement that we have
at the stations, within 1 year, Metro cellular service, and then by 4
years later, the entire system. So they were given from 2008 to 2012 to
complete the system. They never completed the system. One individual
died, others were injured, and we disrupted service. It was a day from
hell in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, they never completed the job. They said they were going
to complete the job right after 2012. They did not complete the job.
They said it would be done in 2015. The last time I checked, it is
2015. It won't be done in 2015. They will not even sit down with the
carriers who will install this equipment, and it is really at no cost
to Metro.
I have talked to Mr. Connolly, the gentleman from Virginia; I have
talked to Mrs. Comstock, the gentlewoman from Virginia; I have talked
to Mr. Hoyer, the gentleman from Maryland; and others. We have all had
it with Metro not complying with us.
This waiver was put in to give them the opportunity to comply, and
they haven't complied. Now it is in here again, and I am offering, in
this amendment, to take it out.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart), the chairman, for comment.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Florida is talking about this
issue, I think all of us should be very, very concerned. I will tell
you I think that the gentleman from Florida has been beyond reasonable,
has tried to get folks to do what they were, again, supposed to do, and
they have not done it.
So I just want to let the gentleman from Florida know that I am
looking forward, and I am committed to making sure that this issue is
solved one way or another. I am hoping that it is solved in a nice,
positive way. But otherwise, I want to let the gentleman from Florida
know that I will be working with him to make sure that we hold folks
accountable.
Mr. MICA. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am willing to work with everyone.
Again, I have had to conduct oversight over a tragedy that could have
and should have been prevented.
Here is the latest headline: ``Can You Hear Me Now? In Metro Tunnels,
Answer Is `Not Yet.'''
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend.
Mr. Chairman, I sympathize deeply with the concerns expressed by my
friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Mica), and I know Metro is
committed to working with the wireless carriers to ensure seamless
coverage throughout the rail system. I appreciate his willingness
ultimately to withdraw the amendment so as not to jeopardize other
vital safety improvements underway at Metro by conditioning the Federal
commitment, which has already been reduced and which is matched by our
State and local partners, on completion of this wireless upgrade.
Without question, the January arcing incident at L'Enfant Plaza
underscored the urgent need for having working communications in
Metro's underground stations and tunnels. While faulty electrical
wiring was to blame for the fire and hazardous smoke, a breakdown in
communications, as Mr. Mica has indicated, led to passengers being
stranded in dangerous conditions aboard that Yellow Line train for an
extended period of time. It wasn't just public safety personnel who
experienced problems communicating. Stranded riders also reported
having spotty or no cellular service in the tunnel.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), our
colleague, so he can complete his statement.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from North Carolina,
the distinguished ranking member.
Tragically, one rider--Carol Glover of Virginia, my home State--died
as a result of smoke inhalation, and dozens of others required medical
treatment and/or hospitalization.

{time} 2245

This was, and remains, an unacceptable situation, and I and all of
the members of the national capital region delegation are committed to
working with the NSTB, FTA, Metro, and our

[[Page H3854]]

regional partners to ensure corrective actions are taken to restore
public confidence.
I would note for my colleagues, the current Federal law already
includes language requiring Metro riders to have underground access to
wireless telecommunications services if the service providers work with
Metro to install such services. Unfortunately, they have lagged behind
again, as my friend from Florida has indicated.
Congress approved that requirement as part of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. One year later, as required by
the law, the wireless providers did successfully establish service in
the 20 busiest underground rail stations. However, Congress has granted
an extension on the timeline to install wireless service to the tunnels
and the rest of the system because Metro and the wireless providers
have run into delays with scheduling work while Metro trains are not
running, performing higher priority safety improvements as directed by
the NTSB, and other factors. However, they continue to work toward
meeting this requirement, albeit at a very slow and glacial pace.
Metro is particularly motivated to complete this work as it also
involves a parallel upgrade of its own underground radio communications
services. Metro is an essential component of this region's
transportation network, moving hundreds of thousands of commuters every
day, including a significant portion of Federal employees. It also
serves as America's subway, transporting 12 million visitors from
across the country to the Nation's Capital each year.
It is critical that we maintain this bipartisan commitment to match
local and State funding so that Metro can continue working with the
NTSB and FTA on its critical safety upgrades.
Mr. Mica is right, and all of us from the national capital region
agree with him. I pledge upon withdrawal of this amendment we will work
with Mr. Mica to ensure that Metro meets deadlines at a much more
expeditious pace than has been the case in the past.
Again, I thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding, and I
thank Mr. Mica for his leadership.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman from North Carolina yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude. I want to thank Mr.
Connolly. I want to thank Mrs. Comstock, and the chairman particularly,
for working on this.
I think we have gotten the attention of the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority. We have an agreement to bring the parties
together as a result of this pending amendment. That is set. If it does
not go through, I can assure you we will find a way to put this waiver
in.
At this time, though, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment. I will bring the parties together and hopefully common sense
and good faith will prevail.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Connolly

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 52, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair.
I rise to offer an amendment with my colleagues in the national
capital region that would restore full funding of the Federal
commitment for vital rider safety improvements to ``America's Subway,''
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, or Metro.
Let me remind my colleagues, this is not like the traditional transit
or capital funding under the Department of Transportation. The
Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act of 2008 specifically
authorized a $150 million annual Federal commitment for 10 years, and
Congress has worked in bipartisan fashion the past 6 years to fulfill
that. It was a Republican initiative initiated and authored by my
predecessor, Republican member Tom Davis of Virginia.
As required by law, the Federal funding is matched dollar for dollar,
with $150 million coming from Virginia, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia.
I appreciate the efforts of my fellow Virginian, Mr. Rigell, and the
subcommittee chairman, my friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart, to try to work with
us to restore some of the funding at full committee markup. But
reducing any of this funding would renege on the Federal commitment and
jeopardize the successful local-State-Federal partnership we have
worked so hard to create.
It would also open the door for our partners to pull back on their
commitments commensurately, which would only exacerbate Metro's
challenge in upgrading its aging infrastructure.
This partnership is funding critical safety improvements throughout
the system identified by Metro itself, the National Transportation
Safety Board, and the Federal Transit Administration following the
tragic 2009 Red Line accident and the recent tragedy on the Yellow Line
this past January. The most visible improvement is the purchase of
7000-series new rail cars with advanced crash-resilient technology and
extra capacity to replace the oldest and original cars in the fleet.
Congress and the Federal Government have a responsibility in the
operation and safety of Metro. Half of all Metro stations are located
on Federal property, and approximately 40 percent of rush-hour riders
on Metro are, in fact, Federal employees, including many Members of
Congress and their staffs.
It is critical we maintain this bipartisan commitment to match local
and State funding so that Metro can continue making these safety
upgrades.
I want to thank Mr. Hoyer, Ms. Norton, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Edwards,
Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Beyer, and my friend Mrs. Comstock for
working with us on this regional priority.
I now yield the balance of my time to the distinguished delegate from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding and as
a cosponsor of this amendment, which has profound safety implications
for America's subway. I think it is so urgent that a member of the
Appropriations Committee has already restored $25 million.
This was a partnership, a partnership between the Federal Government
and Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. It became real
after there was a crash that took the lives of nine District of
Columbia residents in 2009.
This is a unique transit agency. This is where staff of this body,
this is where visitors from all over the world ride. If this funding is
delayed, it will delay the crashworthy 7000-series trains. It is in
trains that were not crashworthy that we lost lives. We beg that this
funding be restored.
The District, Maryland, and Virginia are each fulfilling their part
of the partnership. It is up to the Federal Government to do our part
and fulfill our part. Don't break the partnership open now.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I
continue to reserve my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Comstock), who, obviously, is very passionate about this
issue.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I rise as a cosponsor of the amendment in support of the amendment.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 3, 2015, on page H3854, the following appeared: Ms.
COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I

The online version should be corrected to read: Mrs. COMSTOCK.
Mr. Chairman, I

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. Chairman, as been pointed out by my colleagues, Congress did make
a 10-year statutory commitment as a Federal partner, a 50-50 partner,
to provide capital grant money to the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority. This funding has been used for vital

[[Page H3855]]

capital and safety improvements on the Metro system that so many of our
constituents and our staff and tourists, people from all over the
world, travel on every day.
As part of that agreement, matching grant money from the Commonwealth
of Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the State of Maryland have
all supplemented this in a full 50-50 match. This is truly a good
partnership that has worked well since the bill was passed in 2008, and
we should continue to fulfill that commitment.
This amendment would restore the already obligated funding to the
bill and keep the promise that we have already made. Metro needs these
important funds for capital improvements that will address important
safety concerns.
I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues in the national
capital area in support of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase
in budget authority in the bill.
The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House
Resolution 5, 114th Congress, which states the following:
``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 XXI.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget
authority in the bill in violation of such section.
I respectfully ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the invocation of
the point of order.
This is a provision that has been in law for the past 6 years, and I
believe that it ought to be enshrined in law for a 7th. We represent
the entire National Capital Region. This is a unique region. This is
the Nation's Capital. And we ought not to be reneging on a deal that
was worked out with great effort 6 years ago based on a point of order.
With that, I oppose the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Virginia violates section 3(d)(3) of
House Resolution 5.
Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Florida, the amendment
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

administrative provisions--federal transit administration

Sec. 160. The limitations on obligations for the programs
of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any
authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for
obligation, or to any other authority previously made
available for obligation.
Sec. 161. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated or limited by this Act under the heading
Fixed Guideway Capital Investment of the Federal Transit
Administration for projects specified in this Act or
identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by
September 30, 2020, and other recoveries, shall be directed
to projects eligible to use the funds for the purposes for
which they were originally provided.
Sec. 162. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated before October 1, 2015, under any section
of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain
available for expenditure, may be transferred to and
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for
any such section.
Sec. 163. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available in this Act shall be used to
enter into a full funding grant agreement for a project with
a New Starts share greater than 50 percent.
Sec. 164. (a) Loss of Eligibility.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), none of the funds in this or any other Act
may be available to advance in any way a new light or heavy
rail project towards a full funding grant agreement as
defined by 49 U.S.C. 5309 for the Metropolitan Transit
Authority of Harris County, Texas if the proposed capital
project is constructed on or planned to be constructed on
Richmond Avenue west of South Shepherd Drive or on Post Oak
Boulevard north of Richmond Avenue in Houston, Texas.
(b) Exception for a New Election.--The Metropolitan Transit
Authority of Harris County, Texas, may attempt to construct
or construct a new fixed guideway capital project, including
light rail, in the locations referred to in subsection (a)
if--
(1) voters in the jurisdiction that includes such locations
approve a ballot proposition that specifies routes on
Richmond Avenue west of South Shepherd Drive or on Post Oak
Boulevard north of Richmond Avenue in Houston, Texas; and
(2) the proposed construction of such routes is part of a
comprehensive, multi-modal, service-area wide transportation
plan that includes multiple additional segments of fixed
guideway capital projects, including light rail for the
jurisdiction set forth in the ballot proposition. The ballot
language shall include reasonable cost estimates, sources of
revenue to be used and the total amount of bonded
indebtedness to be incurred as well as a description of each
route and the beginning and end point of each proposed
transit project.

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation,
and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the
programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the
current fiscal year.

operations and maintenance

(harbor maintenance trust fund)

For necessary expenses to conduct the operations,
maintenance, and capital asset renewal activities of those
portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway owned, operated, and
maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, $32,042,000, to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.

Maritime Administration

maritime security program

For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States, $186,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

operations and training

For necessary expenses of operations and training
activities authorized by law, $164,158,000, of which
$22,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
maintenance and repair of training ships at State Maritime
Academies, and of which $5,000,000 shall remain available
until expended for National Security Multi-Mission Vessel
design for State Maritime Academies and National Security,
and of which $2,400,000 shall remain available through
September 30, 2017, for the Student Incentive Program at
State Maritime Academies, and of which $1,200,000 shall
remain available until expended for training ship fuel
assistance payments, and of which $19,700,000 shall remain
available until expended for facilities maintenance and
repair, equipment, and capital improvements at the United
States Merchant Marine Academy, and of which $3,000,000 shall
remain available through September 30, 2017, for Maritime
Environment and Technology Assistance grants, contracts, and
cooperative agreement: Provided, That amounts apportioned for
the United States Merchant Marine Academy shall be available
only upon allotments made personally by the Secretary of
Transportation or the Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Programs: Provided further, That the Superintendent, Deputy
Superintendent and the Director of the Office of Resource
Management of the United States Merchant Marine Academy may
not be allotment holders for the United States Merchant
Marine Academy, and the Administrator of the Maritime
Administration shall hold all allotments made by the
Secretary of Transportation or the Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs under the previous proviso: Provided
further, That 50 percent of the funding made available for
the United States Merchant Marine Academy under this heading
shall be available only after the Secretary, in consultation
with the Superintendent and the Maritime Administrator,
completes a plan detailing by program or activity how such
funding will be expended at the Academy, and this plan is
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.

ship disposal

For necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete
vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the Maritime
Administration, $4,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

[[Page H3856]]

maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary administrative expenses of the maritime
guaranteed loan program, $3,135,000 shall be paid to the
appropriations for ``Maritime Administration--Operations and
Training''.

administrative provisions--maritime administration

Sec. 170. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
in addition to any existing authority, the Maritime
Administration is authorized to furnish utilities and
services and make necessary repairs in connection with any
lease, contract, or occupancy involving Government property
under control of the Maritime Administration: Provided, That
payments received therefor shall be credited to the
appropriation charged with the cost thereof and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That rental
payments under any such lease, contract, or occupancy for
items other than such utilities, services, or repairs shall
be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 171. None of the funds available or appropriated in
this Act shall be used by the United States Department of
Transportation or the United States Maritime Administration
to negotiate or otherwise execute, enter into, facilitate or
perform fee-for-service contracts for vessel disposal,
scrapping or recycling, unless there is no qualified domestic
ship recycler that will pay any sum of money to purchase and
scrap or recycle a vessel owned, operated or managed by the
Maritime Administration or that is part of the National
Defense Reserve Fleet: Provided, That such sales offers must
be consistent with the solicitation and provide that the work
will be performed in a timely manner at a facility qualified
within the meaning of section 3502 of Public Law 106-398:
Provided further, That nothing contained herein shall affect
the Maritime Administration's authority to award contracts at
least cost to the Federal Government and consistent with the
requirements of 54 U.S.C. 308704, section 3502, or otherwise
authorized under the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

operational expenses

For necessary operational expenses of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, $20,725,000.

hazardous materials safety

For expenses necessary to discharge the hazardous materials
safety functions of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, $60,500,000, of which $7,570,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2018: Provided, That up
to $800,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall
be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as
offsetting receipts: Provided further, That there may be
credited to this appropriation, to be available until
expended, funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training, for reports publication
and dissemination, and for travel expenses incurred in
performance of hazardous materials exemptions and approvals
functions.

pipeline safety

(pipeline safety fund)

(oil spill liability trust fund)

For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the
pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a
pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107,
and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $145,870,000, of which $19,500,000
shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
shall remain available until September 30, 2018; and of which
$124,500,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
of which $66,309,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2018: Provided, That not less than $1,000,000 of the
funds provided under this heading shall be for the One-Call
state grant program.

{time} 2300

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capps

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

Page 61, line 22, strike the period at the end insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That not less than
$1,000,000 of the funds provided under this heading shall be
for the finalization and implementation of rules required
under section 60102(n) of title 49, United States Code, and
section 8(b)(3) of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty,
and Job Creation Act of 2011 (49 U.S.C. 60108 note; 125 Stat.
1911).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that will take a
modest step forward to improve pipeline safety. This issue is of
particular importance to me and to my constituents.
Two weeks ago, more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from
the ruptured Plains All American Pipeline along the treasured Gaviota
Coast, in my district, just north of Santa Barbara. The oil quickly
flowed under the highway, onto the beach, and into the ocean where the
oil slick spread south for miles along the coastline, affecting
pristine environmental habitats, recreational interests, and commercial
fishing operations.
While the exact causes of this spill are still being investigated, it
is already clear that woefully inadequate Federal pipeline safety
standards played a significant role, but it didn't have to be this way.
In 2011, the House worked in a bipartisan way to pass the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act. This law, which
passed the House unanimously, directed the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, to update and strengthen key
pipeline safety standards.
The law called on PHMSA to issue a rule requiring automatic shutoff
valves on new pipelines and to strengthen requirements for the
inclusion of leak detection technologies on pipelines.
The law required these rules to be finalized by January of last year;
yet, here today, we are still waiting. PHMSA has not even issued a
proposed rule on these commonsense regulations, which passed the House
unanimously. PHMSA continues to drag its feet, and communities like
mine continue to pay the price. It is time for PHMSA to follow the law
and the bipartisan will of Congress.
My amendment is simple. It would set aside $1 million of PHMSA's own
budget for the finalization and implementation of these overdue
pipeline safety and spill mitigation rules.
My amendment would simply help ensure that section 4 and section 8 of
the bipartisan 2011 pipeline safety law are finally implemented so that
our Federal regulations are in line with today's reality.
My amendment does not cost a dime, and it does not authorize any new
programs. Section 4 requires new pipelines to install automatic shutoff
valves, and section 8 requires pipeline operators to use the latest
leak detection technologies. Both of these provisions were enacted
unanimously by this House in 2011.
The pipeline that burst in my district did not have an automatic
shutoff valve despite the fact that other comparable pipelines in the
area do use this technology. An automatic shutoff valve would not have
prevented the spill necessarily, but it certainly would have minimized
it. It took over 2 hours for the pipeline operator to even identify
where the pipeline had ruptured, let alone to actually stop the flow of
crude oil.
That is unacceptable. If the standards required under section 4 and
section 8 had been required of the Plains pipeline in my district, the
spill likely would have been much less severe. My amendment would take
a small, yet important step forward to address these troubling issues
by pushing PHMSA to get its act together and finalize these rules.
Mr. Chairman, oil and gas development, by its nature, is a dangerous
and dirty business. The mere fact that the Plains and other companies
have oil spill contingency funds shows that there is no such thing as a
safe pipeline. Spills do happen, and they will continue to happen as
long as we depend on fossil fuels for our energy needs. We have a
responsibility, therefore, to do all we can to make these pipelines as
safe as possible.
Congress has repeatedly directed PHMSA to strengthen its standards;
yet this agency has done little. My amendment would help hold their
feet to the fire and get commonsense safety standards finalized and
implemented. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capps

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

Page 61, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $27,604,000)''.

[[Page H3857]]

Page 61, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $27,604,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that Federal pipeline
safety standards are in serious need of improvement. Despite repeated
bipartisan efforts to strengthen these standards, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, has dragged its feet
on implementing the new rules.
Not only has this agency failed to keep up with new statutory
requirements, they struggle to even enforce the rules they already have
on the books. There are several reasons for this, including rapid
growth in the miles of new pipelines to inspect and the need to compete
with the private sector for the best talent while using limited
resources.
PHMSA's preliminary estimate of serious incidents on pipelines showed
an increase in 2014; and, with the miles of pipelines only multiplying,
these numbers will surely grow. That is why my amendment would increase
funding for PHMSA's pipeline safety program by $27 million, to simply
match the President's own fiscal year 2016 budget request. While this
would not solve the multitude of problems facing the agency, it would
certainly make a big difference in two key areas.
First, it would help PHMSA retain and recruit the best inspectors and
staff. Last year, Congress provided funding for 100 additional full-
time employees to help PHMSA adjust to the increasing demand; and, as
part of its fiscal year 2016 request, PHMSA requested $15 million to
fully fund and annualize these employees. The current bill only
provides enough funding for 1 year of salaries for these new employees.
How is the agency supposed to attract the best talent when they can't
count on paying their new employees for more than a year at a time?
Second, my amendment would also provide requested funding for the
national pipeline information exchange. This information exchange would
be a comprehensive database of integrated pipeline safety information
from PHMSA, from State regulators, industry, and other Federal
resources.
Of the 2.6 million miles of pipeline in the United States, PHMSA
inspects only 20 percent, while States monitor the remaining 80
percent. However, the information the States gather through inspections
is neither shared among the States, nor with PHMSA. That is kind of
unbelievable. It makes no sense. We should be doing everything we can
to analyze and understand this data.
My amendment would fund this exchange to help regulators be more
effective and to better protect communities like mine from future
spills. There are currently pilot information exchange programs in 7
States, and the funding provided by my amendment would allow PHMSA to
expand these information exchanges to 25 States.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment costs absolutely nothing from the American
taxpayers, not one dime. The increased funding would come from a modest
increase in user fees paid into the pipeline safety fund. These user
fees are paid for by the oil companies that profit enormously from the
oil and gas flowing through the pipelines that PHMSA oversees.
Oil companies are seeing record profits from a booming oil and gas
development industry. This is leading to more miles of pipeline and
more risks for local communities like mine. The least they can do is
ensure that the Federal oversight of the industry is keeping pace with
the growth because, when pipelines fail, it is our local communities
and our constituents, not the oil companies, who suffer the most.
My amendment takes a small step forward to help strengthen the
pipeline safety and oversight, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I commend my colleague for offering this
amendment, and I want to offer my strong support.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking here about annualizing the funding--in
other words, bringing these people on board permanently--for pipeline
safety inspectors who were hired in fiscal year 2015. We are also
talking about the better coordination of enforcement activities between
Federal, State, and local officials.
I would like to remind my colleagues we have 2.6 million miles of
pipeline across this country. I think the number is maybe 548 personnel
in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
This is an enormous task. The gentlewoman's amendment would greatly
improve our capacity to address this challenge, and I urge its
adoption.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The authorization for this program expires this
year, Mr. Chairman. Frankly, there are many questions, and it is not
really clear whether or not the next authorization would accommodate
this funding fee level. I understand the gentlewoman's passion, but I
must respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge the adoption of this
amendment. I have a classic example of why it is needed, and I ask for
your consideration.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

emergency preparedness grants

(emergency preparedness fund)

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5128(b),
$188,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That
notwithstanding the fiscal year limitation specified in 49
U.S.C. 5116, not more than $28,318,000 shall be made
available for obligation in fiscal year 2016 from amounts
made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i), and 5128(b) and (c):
Provided further, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 5116(i)(4),
not more than 4 percent of the amounts made available from
this account shall be available to pay administrative costs:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available by 49
U.S.C. 5116(i), 5128(b), or 5128(c) shall be made available
for obligation by individuals other than the Secretary of
Transportation, or his or her designee.

Office of Inspector General

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General
Act of 1978, as amended, $86,223,000: Provided, That the
Inspector General shall have all necessary authority, in
carrying out the duties specified in the Inspector General
Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 3), to investigate allegations
of fraud, including false statements to the government (18
U.S.C. 1001), by any person or entity that is subject to
regulation by the Department: Provided further, That the
funds made available under this heading may be used to
investigate, pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United
States Code: (1) unfair or deceptive practices and unfair
methods of competition by domestic and foreign air carriers
and ticket agents; and (2) the compliance of domestic and
foreign air carriers with respect to item (1) of this
proviso: Provided further, That hereafter funds transferred
to the Office of the Inspector General through forfeiture
proceedings or from the Department of Justice Assets
Forfeiture Fund or the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture
Fund, as a participating agency, as an equitable share from
the forfeiture of property in investigations in which the
Office of Inspector General participates, or through the
granting of a Petition for Remission or Mitigation, shall be
deposited to the credit of this account for law enforcement
activities authorized under the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, to remain available until expended.

Surface Transportation Board

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $31,375,000:
Provided,

[[Page H3858]]

That notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to
exceed $1,250,000 from fees established by the Chairman of
the Surface Transportation Board shall be credited to this
appropriation as offsetting collections and used for
necessary and authorized expenses under this heading:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the
general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as
such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year
2016, to result in a final appropriation from the general
fund estimated at no more than $30,125,000.

General Provisions--Department of Transportation

Sec. 180. During the current fiscal year, applicable
appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be
available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of
passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability
insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries
on official department business; and uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 181. Appropriations contained in this Act for the
Department of Transportation shall be available for services
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals
not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an
Executive Level IV.
Sec. 182. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and
Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation:
Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this
provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside the
Department of Transportation.
Sec. 183. (a) No recipient of funds made available in this
Act shall disseminate personal information (as defined in 18
U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtained by a State department of motor
vehicles in connection with a motor vehicle record as defined
in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provided in 18 U.S.C. 2721
for a use permitted under 18 U.S.C. 2721.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall not
withhold funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Sec. 184. Funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training may be credited
respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's
``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit
Administration's ``Technical Assistance and Training''
account, and to the Federal Railroad Administration's
``Safety and Operations'' account, except for State rail
safety inspectors participating in training pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 20105.
Sec. 185. None of the funds in this Act to the Department
of Transportation may be used to make a loan, loan guarantee,
line of credit, or grant unless the Secretary of
Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not less than 3 full business days before any
project competitively selected to receive a discretionary
grant award, any discretionary grant award, letter of intent,
loan commitment, loan guarantee commitment, line of credit
commitment, or full funding grant agreement totaling $750,000
or more is announced by the department or its modal
administrations from:
(1) any discretionary grant or federal credit program of
the Federal Highway Administration including the emergency
relief program;
(2) the airport improvement program of the Federal Aviation
Administration;
(3) any program of the Federal Railroad Administration;
(4) any program of the Federal Transit Administration other
than the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization
programs;
(5) any program of the Maritime Administration; or
(6) any funding provided under the headings ``National
Infrastructure Investments'' in this Act:
Provided, That the Secretary gives concurrent notification
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for any
``quick release'' of funds from the emergency relief program:
Provided further, That no notification shall involve funds
that are not available for obligation.
Sec. 186. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees
and other funds received by the Department of Transportation
from travel management centers, charge card programs, the
subleasing of building space, and miscellaneous sources are
to be credited to appropriations of the Department of
Transportation and allocated to elements of the Department of
Transportation using fair and equitable criteria and such
funds shall be available until expended.
Sec. 187. Amounts made available in this or any other Act
that the Secretary determines represent improper payments by
the Department of Transportation to a third-party contractor
under a financial assistance award, which are recovered
pursuant to law, shall be available--
(1) to reimburse the actual expenses incurred by the
Department of Transportation in recovering improper payments;
and
(2) to pay contractors for services provided in recovering
improper payments or contractor support in the implementation
of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002: Provided,
That amounts in excess of that required for paragraphs (1)
and (2)--
(A) shall be credited to and merged with the appropriation
from which the improper payments were made, and shall be
available for the purposes and period for which such
appropriations are available: Provided further, That where
specific project or accounting information associated with
the improper payment or payments is not readily available,
the Secretary may credit an appropriate account, which shall
be available for the purposes and period associated with the
account so credited; or
(B) if no such appropriation remains available, shall be
deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided
further, That prior to the transfer of any such recovery to
an appropriations account, the Secretary shall notify the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of the amount
and reasons for such transfer: Provided further, That for
purposes of this section, the term ``improper payments'' has
the same meaning as that provided in section 2(d)(2) of
Public Law 107-300.
Sec. 188. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if
any funds provided in or limited by this Act are subject to a
reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
transmission of said reprogramming notice shall be provided
solely to the Committees on Appropriations, and said
reprogramming action shall be approved or denied solely by
the Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That the
Secretary may provide notice to other congressional
committees of the action of the Committees on Appropriations
on such reprogramming but not sooner than 30 days following
the date on which the reprogramming action has been approved
or denied by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 189. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act may be used by the Surface
Transportation Board of the Department of Transportation to
charge or collect any filing fee for rate or practice
complaints filed with the Board in an amount in excess of the
amount authorized for district court civil suit filing fees
under section 1914 of title 28, United States Code.
Sec. 190. Funds appropriated in this Act to the modal
administrations may be obligated for the Office of the
Secretary for the costs related to assessments or
reimbursable agreements only when such amounts are for the
costs of goods and services that are purchased to provide a
direct benefit to the applicable modal administration or
administrations.
Sec. 191. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to
carry out a program that establishes uniform standards for
developing and supporting agency transit pass and transit
benefits authorized under section 7905 of title 5, United
States Code, including distribution of transit benefits by
various paper and electronic media.
Sec. 192. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used by the Surface Transportation Board to take any
actions with respect to the construction of a high speed rail
project in California unless the permit is issued by the
Board with respect to the project in its entirety.
Sec. 193. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to facilitate new scheduled air transportation
originating from the United States if such flights would land
on, or pass through, property confiscated by the Cuban
Government, including property in which a minority interest
was confiscated, as the terms confiscated, Cuban Government,
and property are defined in paragraphs (4), (5), and (12)(A),
respectively, of section 4 of the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6023
(4), (5), and (12)(A)): Provided, That for this section, new
scheduled air transportation shall include any flights not
already regularly scheduled prior to March 31, 2015.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of
Transportation Appropriations Act, 2016''.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Management and Administration

executive offices

For necessary salaries and expenses for Executive Offices,
which shall be comprised of the offices of the Secretary,
Deputy Secretary, Adjudicatory Services, Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, Public Affairs, Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, and the Center for Faith-
Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, $14,500,000: Provided,
That not to exceed $25,000 of the amount made available under
this heading shall be available to the Secretary for official
reception and representation expenses as the Secretary may
determine.

administrative support offices

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary salaries and expenses for Administrative
Support Offices, $547,000,000, of which $45,600,000, to
remain available until expended, in addition to amounts made
available under this heading for the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer and the Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer, shall be for funding shared service agreements
between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the Department of the Treasury; $39,000,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer;
$93,000,000 shall be available for the Office of the General
Counsel; $199,000,000 shall be available for the Office of
Administration; $40,000,000 shall be

[[Page H3859]]

available for the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer;
$49,000,000 shall be available for the Office of Field Policy
and Management; $16,000,000 shall be available for the Office
of the Chief Procurement Officer; $3,000,000 shall be
available for the Office of Departmental Equal Employment
Opportunity; $4,000,000 shall be available for the Office of
Strategic Planning and Management; $44,000,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Chief Information Officer;
and of which the remaining amount shall be available through
September 30, 2017, for transfer to the appropriations for
offices specified under this heading or the heading ``Program
Office Salaries and Expenses'' in this title: Provided, That
funds provided under this heading may be used for necessary
administrative and non-administrative expenses of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, not otherwise
provided for, including purchase of uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; hire of
passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, funds appropriated under this heading may
be used for advertising and promotional activities that
directly support program activities funded in this title:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide the
Committees on Appropriations quarterly written notification
regarding the status of pending congressional reports:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide in
electronic form all signed reports required by Congress.

Program Office Salaries and Expenses

public and indian housing

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of Public
and Indian Housing, $203,000,000.

community planning and development

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of
Community Planning and Development, $102,000,000.

housing

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of
Housing, $372,000,000.

policy development and research

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of Policy
Development and Research, $22,700,000.

fair housing and equal opportunity

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity, $73,000,000.

office of lead hazard control and healthy homes

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of Lead
Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, $6,700,000.

Public and Indian Housing Programs

tenant-based rental assistance

For activities and assistance for the provision of tenant-
based rental assistance authorized under the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.)
(``the Act'' herein), not otherwise provided for,
$15,918,643,000 to remain available until September 30, 2018,
shall be available on October 1, 2015 (in addition to the
$4,000,000,000 previously appropriated under this heading
that became available on October 1, 2015), and
$4,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2019,
shall be available on October 1, 2016: Provided, That the
amounts made available under this heading are provided as
follows:
(1) $18,151,000,000 shall be available for renewals of
expiring section 8 tenant-based annual contributions
contracts (including renewals of enhanced vouchers under any
provision of law authorizing such assistance under section
8(t) of the Act) and including renewal of other special
purpose or incremental vouchers: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, from amounts
provided under this paragraph and any carryover, the
Secretary for the calendar year 2016 funding cycle shall
provide renewal funding for each public housing agency based
on validated voucher management system (VMS) leasing and cost
data for the prior calendar year and by applying an inflation
factor as established by the Secretary, by notice published
in the Federal Register, and by making any necessary
adjustments for the costs associated with the first-time
renewal of vouchers under this paragraph including tenant
protection, HOPE VI, and Choice Neighborhoods vouchers:
Provided further, That in determining calendar year 2016
funding allocations under this heading for public housing
agencies, including agencies participating in the Moving To
Work (MTW) demonstration, the Secretary may take into account
the anticipated impact of changes in targeting and utility
allowances, on public housing agencies' contract renewal
needs: Provided further, That none of the funds provided
under this paragraph may be used to fund a total number of
unit months under lease which exceeds a public housing
agency's authorized level of units under contract, except for
public housing agencies participating in the MTW
demonstration, which are instead governed by the terms and
conditions of their MTW agreements: Provided further, That
the Secretary shall, to the extent necessary to stay within
the amount specified under this paragraph (except as
otherwise modified under this paragraph), prorate each public
housing agency's allocation otherwise established pursuant to
this paragraph: Provided further, That except as provided in
the following provisos, the entire amount specified under
this paragraph (except as otherwise modified under this
paragraph) shall be obligated to the public housing agencies
based on the allocation and pro rata method described above,
and the Secretary shall notify public housing agencies of
their annual budget by the latter of 60 days after enactment
of this Act or March 1, 2016: Provided further, That the
Secretary may extend the notification period with the prior
written approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That public housing
agencies participating in the MTW demonstration shall be
funded pursuant to their MTW agreements and shall be subject
to the same pro rata adjustments under the previous provisos:
Provided further, That the Secretary may offset public
housing agencies' calendar year 2016 allocations based on the
excess amounts of public housing agencies' net restricted
assets accounts, including HUD held programmatic reserves (in
accordance with VMS data in calendar year 2015 that is
verifiable and complete), as determined by the Secretary:
Provided further, That public housing agencies participating
in the MTW demonstration shall also be subject to the offset,
as determined by the Secretary, excluding amounts subject to
the single fund budget authority provisions of their MTW
agreements, from the agencies' calendar year 2016 MTW funding
allocation: Provided further, That the Secretary shall use
any offset referred to in the previous two provisos
throughout the calendar year to prevent the termination of
rental assistance for families as the result of insufficient
funding, as determined by the Secretary, and to avoid or
reduce the proration of renewal funding allocations: Provided
further, That up to $75,000,000 shall be available only: (1)
for adjustments in the allocations for public housing
agencies, after application for an adjustment by a public
housing agency that experienced a significant increase, as
determined by the Secretary, in renewal costs of vouchers
resulting from unforeseen circumstances or from portability
under section 8(r) of the Act; (2) for vouchers that were not
in use during the 12-month period in order to be available to
meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the Act;
(3) for adjustments for costs associated with HUD-Veterans
Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) vouchers; (4) for
adjustments for public housing agencies with voucher leasing
rates at the end of the calendar year that exceed the average
leasing for the 12-month period used to establish the
allocation, and for additional leasing of vouchers that were
issued but not leased prior to the end of such calendar year;
(5) for public housing agencies that despite taking
reasonable cost savings measures, as determined by the
Secretary, would otherwise be required to terminate rental
assistance for families as a result of insufficient funding;
and (6) for adjustments in the allocations for public housing
agencies that experienced a significant increase, as
determined by the Secretary, in renewal costs as a result of
participation in the Small Area Fair Market Rent
demonstration: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
allocate amounts under the previous proviso based on need, as
determined by the Secretary;
(2) $130,000,000 shall be for section 8 rental assistance
for relocation and replacement of housing units that are
demolished or disposed of pursuant to section 18 of the Act,
conversion of section 23 projects to assistance under section
8, the family unification program under section 8(x) of the
Act, relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to
combat crime in public and assisted housing pursuant to a
request from a law enforcement or prosecution agency,
enhanced vouchers under any provision of law authorizing such
assistance under section 8(t) of the Act, HOPE VI and Choice
Neighborhood vouchers, mandatory and voluntary conversions,
and tenant protection assistance including replacement and
relocation assistance or for project-based assistance to
prevent the displacement of unassisted elderly tenants
currently residing in section 202 properties financed between
1959 and 1974 that are refinanced pursuant to Public Law 106-
569, as amended, or under the authority as provided under
this Act: Provided, That when a public housing development is
submitted for demolition or disposition under section 18 of
the Act, the Secretary may provide section 8 rental
assistance when the units pose an imminent health and safety
risk to residents: Provided further, That the Secretary may
only provide replacement vouchers for units that were
occupied within the previous 24 months that cease to be
available as assisted housing, subject only to the
availability of funds: Provided further, That of the amounts
made available under this paragraph, $5,000,000 may be
available to provide tenant protection assistance, not
otherwise provided under this paragraph, to residents
residing in low vacancy areas and who may have to pay rents
greater than 30 percent of household income, as the result of
(1) the maturity of a HUD-insured, HUD-held or section 202
loan that requires the permission of the Secretary prior to
loan prepayment; (2) the expiration of a rental assistance
contract for which the tenants are not eligible for enhanced
voucher or tenant protection assistance under existing law;
or (3) the expiration of affordability restrictions
accompanying a mortgage or preservation program administered
by the Secretary: Provided further, That such tenant
protection assistance made available under the previous
proviso may be provided under the authority of section 8(t)
or section 8(o)(13) of the

[[Page H3860]]

United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)):
Provided further, That the Secretary shall issue guidance to
implement the previous provisos, including, but not limited
to, requirements for defining eligible at-risk households
within 120 days of the enactment of this Act: Provided
further, That any tenant protection voucher made available
from amounts under this paragraph shall not be reissued by
any public housing agency, except the replacement vouchers as
defined by the Secretary by notice, when the initial family
that received any such voucher no longer receives such
voucher, and the authority for any public housing agency to
issue any such voucher shall cease to exist: Provided
further, That the Secretary, for the purpose under this
paragraph, may use unobligated balances, including recaptures
and carryovers, remaining from amounts appropriated in prior
fiscal years under this heading for voucher assistance for
nonelderly disabled families and for disaster assistance made
available under Public Law 110-329;
(3) $1,530,000,000 shall be for administrative and other
expenses of public housing agencies in administering the
section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program, of which up
to $10,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary to
allocate to public housing agencies that need additional
funds to administer their section 8 programs, including fees
associated with section 8 tenant protection rental
assistance, the administration of disaster related vouchers,
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers, and other
special purpose incremental vouchers: Provided, That no less
than $1,520,000,000 of the amount provided in this paragraph
shall be allocated to public housing agencies for the
calendar year 2016 funding cycle based on section 8(q) of the
Act (and related Appropriation Act provisions) as in effect
immediately before the enactment of the Quality Housing and
Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-276):
Provided further, That if the amounts made available under
this paragraph are insufficient to pay the amounts determined
under the previous proviso, the Secretary may decrease the
amounts allocated to agencies by a uniform percentage
applicable to all agencies receiving funding under this
paragraph or may, to the extent necessary to provide full
payment of amounts determined under the previous proviso,
utilize unobligated balances, including recaptures and
carryovers, remaining from funds appropriated to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development under this
heading from prior fiscal years, excluding special purpose
vouchers, notwithstanding the purposes for which such amounts
were appropriated: Provided further, That all public housing
agencies participating in the MTW demonstration shall be
funded pursuant to their MTW agreements, and shall be subject
to the same uniform percentage decrease as under the previous
proviso: Provided further, That amounts provided under this
paragraph shall be only for activities related to the
provision of tenant-based rental assistance authorized under
section 8, including related development activities;
(4) $107,643,210 for the renewal of tenant-based assistance
contracts under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), including necessary
administrative expenses: Provided, That administrative and
other expenses of public housing agencies in administering
the special purpose vouchers in this paragraph shall be
funded under the same terms and be subject to the same pro
rata reduction as the percent decrease for administrative and
other expenses to public housing agencies under paragraph (3)
of this heading;
(5) The Secretary shall separately track all special
purpose vouchers funded under this heading.

{time} 2315

Amendment Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 74, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
Page 75, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
Page 77, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
Page 78, line 9, before the semicolon insert the following:
``, except that of the amount made available by this proviso,
$75,000,000 shall be used only for the purpose under this
clause''.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask that the
amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman?
There was no objection.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Texas and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of the
people who make it possible for us to be here. Of course, I speak of
those persons who go to distant places, those persons who serve us in
our military who don't always return the same way they left.
I rise tonight because we have had a successful program. The HUD VASH
program has been successful, and it has contributed to the decline in
homelessness among those persons who make it possible for us to be
here, who make real the great and noble American ideals: liberty and
justice for all; government of the people, by the people, for the
people.
Mr. Chairman, homelessness has declined 33 percent among our veteran
population since 2010, and this is because the President made it a
priority. President Obama indicated that he would reduce homelessness
among veterans, and he had 2015 as a targeted date.
I am proud to say that in my city of Houston, Texas, our mayor,
Annise Parker, had an event just recently with three HUD Secretaries,
and it was announced at that event that in Houston, Texas, the
resources were available to accommodate a veteran in need of a place to
call home.
Tonight, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would accord $75
million to the HUD VASH program. This $75 million would be used to make
sure that what we have done we will not only continue to do, but we can
do even better.
I believe that the people who have served us and who find themselves
now living on the streets of life should have a better quality of life.
For this reason, I will promote this amendment tonight, understanding
that a point of order has been made, but also understanding that it is
necessary for us to continue to remind ourselves that we have people
who are willing to make the sacrifice and that we should make
sacrifices for them.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I want to thank the gentleman, again, for his
passion for this issue and for talking to me about this issue, and I
look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman.
Obviously, all of us know that there is never anything, there is
never enough that we could ever do for our veterans. So again, I thank
the gentleman, and I look forward to continuing to work with the
gentleman.
I thank you for yielding your time.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and I thank
the Congress of the United States of America because Congress has
appropriated money for these VASH vouchers, this program. I have always
tried to get more because I think our veterans deserve as much as we
can give them, but I am appreciative for what Congress has done, and I
am appreciative for what the chairman has done.
So tonight I will withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I do so
with the understanding that as we move forward, knowing that we have
done a great job, the President has done well, that the cities and
municipalities have worked well with the President, this has been an
integrated system, holistic approach to ending homelessness among our
veterans, but I still believe that we cannot allow ourselves to relax.
We must never assume that we have done enough for those who are willing
to do all for us.
With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 3, 2015, on page H3860, the following appeared: There was
no objection. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. NORTON

The online version should be corrected to read: There was no
objection. The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn. AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY MS. NORTON

========================= END NOTE =========================

amendment offered by ms. norton

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

Page 74, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $512,000,000)''.
Page 75, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $512,000,000)''.

[[Page H3861]]

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2577,
the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act, that would fully fund the existing Housing Choice
Vouchers and replenish the 67,000 vouchers lost to the fiscal year 2013
sequestration.
It is difficult, Mr. Chair, to think of a more urgent issue
confronting the American people. Affordable housing has reached zero in
many communities of our country. It is estimated that 2.1 million low-
income families utilize the Housing Choice Voucher program. These are
the most vulnerable among us, including children, senior citizens,
veterans, and persons with disabilities who rely on this important
program to keep their families from becoming homeless.
Most families must make roughly $18.92 per hour to afford a two-
bedroom apartment, which is more than 2\1/2\ times the Federal minimum
wage. In the District of Columbia, where affordable housing has
virtually disappeared, families must make $28.25 per hour to afford a
two-bedroom apartment, making the Nation's Capital one of the most
expensive housing markets in the Nation.
The District mirrors cities and suburbs throughout the country,
however. For over a decade, District residents have faced increasing
rents, stagnant incomes, and the disappearance of affordable rental
units. As a result, the city has had to close--actually close
altogether--its housing waiting list, which includes vouchers, leaving
more than 72,000 people waiting to be placed and thousands more waiting
for a chance even to get on the list.
My amendment would fund President Obama's budget request to restore
67,000 vouchers lost during the fiscal year 2013 sequestration,
bringing urgently needed relief to struggling families across the
country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. What is
Congress here for if not to bring some relief to millions of families
across the country, those who are most in need?
I reserve the balance of my time.

point of order

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida may state his point of
order.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not in order under
section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5 of the 114th Congress which
states the following:
``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 XXI.''
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
recognized.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, but for sequestration probably most of
these housing vouchers would have gone through. They are already cut.
These are cuts that were never anticipated. These were sequestration
cuts. The Congress cannot ignore forever the neediest people for
housing as homelessness increases and as there is no relief whatsoever.
I understand the point of order. I can't agree with it. I think at
some point this Congress must face what it must do for people who but
for sequestration, something none of us wanted, none of us anticipated,
would at least among them have some who would have these housing
vouchers.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia violates
section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5.
Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Florida, the amendment
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

Page 74, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,204,853,210)''.
Page 75, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $182,816,000)''.
Page 79, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 81, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $490,037,000)''.
Page 83, after line 10, insert the following:
(5) $277,000,000 shall be for incremental rental voucher
assistance under section 8(o) of the Act to be distributed
based on relative need, as determined by the Secretary:
Provided, That the Secretary shall make such funding
available, notwithstanding section 204 (competition
provision) of this title;
(6) $177,500,000 shall be used for incremental rental
voucher assistance for use by families, veterans, and tribal
families who are experiencing homelessness, as well as
victims of domestic and dating violence: Provided, That
eligibility for veterans is made without regard to discharge
status: Provided further, That the Secretary shall make such
funding available through a competitive process to public
housing agencies that partner with eligible Continuums of
Care, as identified by the Secretary and to recipients
eligible to receive block grants under the Native American
Housing Assistance and Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA)
(25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.): Provided further, That assistance
provided to recipients eligible under NAHASDA shall be
subject to requirements of NAHASDA: Provided further, That
the Secretary may waive, or specify alternative requirements
for any provision or statute or regulation that the Secretary
administers in connection with the use of funds made
available under this paragraph upon a finding by the
Secretary that any such waivers or alternative requirements
are necessary for the effective delivery and administration
of such voucher assistance: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall issue guidance to implement the previous
proviso;
(7) $37,500,000 shall be made available to provide
incremental rental voucher assistance for victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as
defined by the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act
of 2013 (Public Law 113-4), who require an emergency
transfer: Provided, That the Secretary shall issue guidance
to implement this paragraph;
(8) $20,000,000 shall be made available for new incremental
voucher assistance through the Family Unification Program:
Provided, That the assistance made available under this
paragraph shall continue to remain available for family
unification upon turnover: Provided further, That the amounts
made available under this paragraph shall be used only in
connection with tenant-based assistance on behalf of--
(A) any family--
(i) who is otherwise eligible for such assistance; and
(ii) who the public child welfare agency for the
jurisdiction has certified is a family for whom the lack of
adequate housing is a primary factor in the imminent
placement of the family's child or children in out-of-home
care; and
(B) for a period not to exceed 60 months, otherwise
eligible youths who have attained at least 18 years of age
and not more than 21 years of age and who have left foster
care at age 16 or older.
Page 83, line 11, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(9)''

Mr. NADLER (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
to waive the reading of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from New York and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the funding levels provided in this bill are
unrealistic and unsustainable and clearly demonstrate that our current
budget process has failed. This bill reveals where the majority's
priorities lie, and they clearly do not lie in serving the most basic
function of government: to provide for the safety and well-being of its
citizens.
This bill makes major cuts to critical HUD programs. The public
housing

[[Page H3862]]

capital fund is slashed by $200 million, barely reaching its 1989
level, almost 30 years ago. This will cover less than half of the basic
maintenance needs and does nothing to address the $25 billion in
deferred projects.
For the first time since 2007, this body will provide no new funding
to provide housing and support to homeless veterans. The Healthy Homes
and Lead Hazard Control program is cut by 32 percent, even as The
Washington Post reported 2 months ago that in low-income West Baltimore
neighborhoods, more than 3 percent of children under the age of 6 had
dangerously high levels of lead in their blood, which we know leads to
learning disabilities and can lead to lifelong dependency, not to
mention lifelong dependency on the taxpayers.
But perhaps most startling is the bill's failure to provide low-
income seniors and hard-working families adequate access to affordable
housing through HUD's Section 8 program. Rental assistance helps 2.1
million very-low-income households to rent modest homes in the private
market at affordable costs. Households that use vouchers have an
average income of $13,000 per year, well below the Federal poverty
line, and nearly all include children, seniors, or people with
disabilities. Only about one in four eligible low-income families
receives Federal rental assistance. Long waiting lists remain in nearly
every community, and these long waits are exacerbated by a lack of
administrative funding for public housing agencies.
Sequestration has only made this situation worse. As of June of last
year, an estimated 100,000 fewer families were receiving assistance
from Section 8 due to the sequestration cuts; 100,000 families cut off.
These cuts have had a severe impact on communities at a time when the
number of very-low-income renters with worst case housing needs remains
30 percent higher than it was before the Great Recession.
Through the fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 appropriations
bills, Congress began the work of reversing the deep cuts in assistance
caused by sequestration, but nearly 67,000 vouchers have yet to be
restored. My amendment would finally restore those lost vouchers by
providing an additional $512 million to the voucher renewal account.
This amendment mirrors the President's request and targets 30,000
vouchers to those families and individuals most in need of housing
assistance: homeless families; veterans, including those not covered by
the VASH program; victims of domestic violence; and Native Americans.

{time} 2330

The bill does include important and helpful language directing HUD to
target vouchers to the vulnerable populations as they become available
but provides no funds for HUD to do so.
My amendment sets aside specific funding for these targeted vouchers
to make sure the most vulnerable populations have access to safe,
affordable housing.
This additional funding will go a long way toward ensuring that every
family that qualifies for rental assistance finds a home. However, at
the funding levels for administrative fees in this legislation, it
would be impossible for public housing agencies to hire and maintain
enough staff to process and renew vouchers.
We cannot continue to undermine our hard-working public housing
agencies by failing to provide them enough money to function. My
amendment would finally address the undercutting of public housing
agencies by providing an additional $490 million to match the
President's request.
Mr. Chairman, this is the minimum we can do to meet the vital needs
of our lowest-income citizens and of our veterans. I urge adoption of
this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House
Resolution 5, 114th 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 XXI.''
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that this amendment is
necessary. We are talking about denying tens of thousands of families
and seniors access to an efficient, cost-effective program that keeps
families together and lowers the government's costs over the long term.
Without this amendment, we will see a spike in homelessness, a spike in
medical costs, and a spike in hungry children.
I understand the point of order. I understand that the rules demand
an offset for any funding increase in the bill. I also appreciate the
chairman's efforts to support Section 8 and public housing. However,
when funding levels are as restrictive as this bill provides across the
board, it is impossible to offset such drastic underfunding without
hurting other people in need.
When faced with a funding bill----
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from New York wish to speak to
the point of order?
The gentleman will confine his remarks to the point of order.
Mr. NADLER. When faced with a funding bill that fails to provide any
new funding to support homeless veterans and is leaving victims of
domestic violence and homeless families with no access to secure
housing, we need to take action to support the most vulnerable among
us.
I hope that as we go forward, we can find a way to provide these
funds so that kids, working families, and seniors are not out on the
street.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York violates section 3(d)(3) of
House Resolution 5.
Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Florida, the amendment
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very
important that this moment not pass without us expressing appreciation
to Mr. Nadler and to Ms. Norton for these amendments they have offered,
because they are addressing a critical issue, a critical deficiency in
this bill. And believe me, Mr. Chairman, this is just the tip of the
iceberg.
The President proposed in his budget to provide additional rental
vouchers to compensate for those lost earlier to sequestration. He also
proposed funding for 30,000 new targeted vouchers, as Mr. Nadler was
indicating: homeless families, veterans, Native Americans, victims of
domestic violence and stalking, reuniting families.
Because of this budget policy that has us so hamstrung, we are simply
not addressing in this bill any of these desperate needs. I invite
colleagues to talk to their local housing authorities, if they haven't
already. Ask how many are on the waiting list. Ask how many people are
desperate for decent housing. There is nothing more basic to our
communities' well-being than decent housing.
I don't know of a single housing program that isn't underresourced,
and all this because of a budget policy that really isn't working as
fiscal policy. That is what it is supposed to be doing, but it is
decimating these investments that our country needs to be making.
I said the tip of the iceberg. Here is what I mean. The Choice
Neighborhoods initiative is the successor to HOPE VI. That has been an
enormously successful program in my area of Raleigh-Durham in North
Carolina. That is $20 million. That is a token amount. I hope we will
revisit that amount later.

[[Page H3863]]

Public housing capital fund, $1.68 billion. That is $194 million cut
from last year. That goes back to where we were 26 years ago. And then
we have a $25 billion backlog--not even beginning to address that.
Mr. Chairman, my district displays rental housing for the elderly,
housing for the disabled. Local congregations have taken on these
projects. We have group homes for the disabled that have done a
wonderful job. This budget simply turns them into rental renewal
programs. No capital funding, no increase in the supply. And so it
goes.
So Mr. Nadler and Ms. Norton have done us a great service tonight in
pressing the case for tenant-based rental assistance--for these
vouchers--and for addressing some of these very needy categories of our
fellow citizens. But it is the tip of the iceberg. It is only one of an
array of programs that we very much need to address.
I am hopeful that the inadequacy of this bill tonight, and the kind
of debate we are having tonight, the kind of sharp relief that these
needs are being put into, will motivate us very strongly sooner rather
than later.
Let's not wait for a Presidential veto. Let's not wait for some kind
of governmental shutdown. Let's show that we can govern. Let's show
that we can take hold of our situation, invest the way a great country
should invest, and do a budget agreement that secures our fiscal future
but also makes room for the kind of investments that we should make.
So I thank my colleagues for bringing up these critical housing
needs. We simply must address them in the weeks ahead.
I yield back the balance of my time.

amendment offered by mr. grothman

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

Page 74, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $614,000,000)''.
Page 75, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $434,000,000)''.
Page 81, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $180,000,000)''.
Page 81, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $180,000,000)''.
Page 156, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $614,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be here. It shows different
people look at this budget and see different things.
I look at this budget and see a $614 million increase in Section 8
housing, and I look at the huge debt we have, and I say: Why are we
spending more? Other people apparently look at the $614 million
increase and say: Why, that is just a pittance.
Obviously, a 3 percent increase in any program at a time we are in
the huge debt we are should be viewed skeptically. I have an amendment
here to get rid of the $614 million increase.
Now, as I understand, the reason there is an increase is because we
are getting in less receipts on the Section 8 housing and, therefore,
we feel that the citizens of this country have to make up the
difference.
My opinion is they have done nothing that we have to take more out of
their pocket, either in taxes or by way of inflation, and we should not
be increasing this funding by $614 million.
In the debate over the last amendment it was said that there is a
waiting list on a lot of these programs. That doesn't mean we have to
spend more money on the programs. If we are giving away something for
free, there is always going to be a waiting list. If you go out in
society, if a store says, we are going to give away something for free,
you have a waiting list, right?
This is a flawed program for a couple of reasons. I don't object to
using it for disabled people. I don't object to using it for elderly
people. But like many welfare-related programs, two things help you in
eligibility for this program.
First of all, you are required not to work very hard. And the
gentleman made a point that the income level of a lot of these people
in the projects isn't that high. That is because if they made more
money, they wouldn't be eligible for the generous subsidies. So, of
course they are not making a lot of money. It is wrong to set up a
program that discourages industry.
The second thing wrong with this program is it discourages marriage.
A lot of these housing things are set up such that if somebody marries
the mother or father of their children who is working harder, you lose
the subsidy. I can't imagine anything more foolish than setting up a
program that says we will give you an apartment if you raise a child
out of wedlock, but if you get married, we will take away your
apartment.
The last time we really looked at this program was 1994. It is time
we look at it again. And the idea of pouring another $614 million into
this program is out of line.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition with considerable enthusiasm.
It is as though what I said 5 minutes ago about the deficiencies of
this bill--this whole budget strategy that has left us so unable to
address our needs--it is as though the gentleman took that and went in
exactly the opposite direction.
His amendment reduced an allocation that is already far too low, and
it takes these rental assistance programs and reduces them further. Not
only does it not meet the need that we are seeing but actually reduces
what we are already doing. This means evictions. I promise you, it
means large-scale evictions. It means a cutting back in communities
across this country of the housing alternatives that people have.
I have always thought, Mr. Chairman, that rental assistance--Section
8--should be a housing program that conservatives should love because
it is market-based. It is not, contrary to what the gentleman says, a
total free ride. As a matter of fact, people pay a third of their
income in rent. What Section 8 provides is a modest boost so that these
housing developments and these apartment buildings can work. People can
live there. They put their own money in, and they get a boost. They are
able to move toward self-sufficiency.
So it is not public housing. It is housing for people who are able to
do more for themselves and who are receiving support as they do that.
This would be unconscionable to cut this program further.
With great conviction I believe this would be a mistaken amendment, a
hard-hearted amendment, and one that this body should reject.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

housing certificate fund

(including rescissions)

Unobligated balances, including recaptures and carryover,
remaining from funds appropriated to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under this heading, the heading
``Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing'' and the heading
``Project-Based Rental Assistance'', for fiscal year 2016 and
prior years may be used for renewal of or amendments to
section 8 project-based contracts and for performance-based
contract administrators, notwithstanding the purposes for
which such funds were appropriated: Provided, That any
obligated balances of contract authority from fiscal year
1974 and prior that have been terminated shall be rescinded:
Provided further, That amounts heretofore recaptured, or
recaptured during the current fiscal year, from section 8
project-based contracts from source years fiscal year 1975
through fiscal year 1987 are hereby rescinded, and an amount
of additional new budget authority, equivalent to the amount
rescinded is hereby appropriated, to remain available until
expended, for the purposes set forth under this heading, in
addition to amounts otherwise available.

public housing capital fund

For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program to carry out
capital and management activities for public housing
agencies, as authorized under section 9 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) (``the Act''),
$1,681,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2019:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, during fiscal year 2016 the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development may not delegate to any Department
official other than the Deputy Secretary and the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian

[[Page H3864]]

Housing any authority under paragraph (2) of section 9(j)
regarding the extension of the time periods under such
section: Provided further, That for purposes of such section
9(j), the term ``obligate'' means, with respect to amounts,
that the amounts are subject to a binding agreement that will
result in outlays, immediately or in the future: Provided
further, That up to $3,000,000 shall be to support ongoing
Public Housing Financial and Physical Assessment activities:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be available
for the Secretary to make grants, notwithstanding section 204
of this Act, to public housing agencies for emergency capital
needs including safety and security measures necessary to
address crime and drug-related activity as well as needs
resulting from unforeseen or unpreventable emergencies and
natural disasters excluding Presidentially declared
emergencies and natural disasters under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et
seq.) occurring in fiscal year 2016: Provided further, That
of the total amount provided under this heading $30,000,000
shall be for supportive services, service coordinator and
congregate services as authorized by section 34 of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 1437z-6) and the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101
et seq.): Provided further, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, up to $15,000,000 may be used
for a Jobs-Plus initiative modeled after the Jobs-Plus
demonstration: Provided further, That the funding provided
under the previous proviso shall provide competitive grants
to partnerships between public housing authorities, local
workforce investment boards established under section 117 of
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, and other agencies and
organizations that provide support to help public housing
residents obtain employment and increase earnings: Provided
further, That applicants must demonstrate the ability to
provide services to residents, partner with workforce
investment boards, and leverage service dollars: Provided
further, That the Secretary may set aside a portion of the
funds provided for the Resident Opportunity and Self-
Sufficiency program to support the services element of the
Jobs-Plus Pilot initiative: Provided further, That the
Secretary may allow PHAs to request exemptions from rent and
income limitation requirements under sections 3 and 6 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 as necessary to implement
the Jobs-Plus program, on such terms and conditions as the
Secretary may approve upon a finding by the Secretary that
any such waivers or alternative requirements are necessary
for the effective implementation of the Jobs-Plus initiative
as a voluntary program for residents: Provided further, That
the Secretary shall publish by notice in the Federal Register
any waivers or alternative requirements pursuant to the
preceding proviso no later than 10 days before the effective
date of such notice: Provided further, That for funds
provided under this heading, the limitation in section
9(g)(1) of the Act shall be 25 percent: Provided further,
That the Secretary may waive the limitation in the previous
proviso to allow public housing agencies to fund activities
authorized under section 9(e)(1)(C) of the Act: Provided
further, That from the funds made available under this
heading, the Secretary shall provide bonus awards in fiscal
year 2016 to public housing agencies that are designated high
performers: Provided further, That the Department shall
notify public housing agencies of their formula allocation
within 60 days of enactment of this Act.

public housing operating fund

For 2016 payments to public housing agencies for the
operation and management of public housing, as authorized by
section 9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437g(e)), $4,440,000,000.

choice neighborhoods initiative

For competitive grants under the Choice Neighborhoods
Initiative (subject to section 24 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v), unless otherwise
specified under this heading), for transformation,
rehabilitation, and replacement housing needs of both public
and HUD-assisted housing and to transform neighborhoods of
poverty into functioning, sustainable mixed income
neighborhoods with appropriate services, schools, public
assets, transportation and access to jobs, $20,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2018: Provided, That
grant funds may be used for resident and community services,
community development, and affordable housing needs in the
community, and for conversion of vacant or foreclosed
properties to affordable housing: Provided further, That the
use of funds made available under this heading shall not be
deemed to be public housing notwithstanding section 3(b)(1)
of such Act: Provided further, That grantees shall commit to
an additional period of affordability determined by the
Secretary of not fewer than 20 years: Provided further, That
grantees shall undertake comprehensive local planning with
input from residents and the community, and that grantees
shall provide a match in State, local, other Federal or
private funds: Provided further, That grantees may include
local governments, tribal entities, public housing
authorities, and nonprofits: Provided further, That for-
profit developers may apply jointly with a public entity:
Provided further, That for purposes of environmental review,
a grantee shall be treated as a public housing agency under
section 26 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437x), and grants under this heading shall be subject
to the regulations issued by the Secretary to implement such
section: Provided further, That such grantees shall create
partnerships with other local organizations including
assisted housing owners, service agencies, and resident
organizations: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
consult with the Secretaries of Education, Labor,
Transportation, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and
Commerce, the Attorney General, and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate and leverage
other appropriate Federal resources: Provided further, That
unobligated balances, including recaptures, remaining from
funds appropriated under the heading ``Revitalization of
Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI)'' in fiscal year
2011 and prior fiscal years may be used for purposes under
this heading, notwithstanding the purposes for which such
amounts were appropriated.

family self-sufficiency

For the Family Self-Sufficiency program to support family
self-sufficiency coordinators under section 23 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937, to promote the development of
local strategies to coordinate the use of assistance under
sections 8 and 9 of such Act with public and private
resources, and enable eligible families to achieve economic
independence and self-sufficiency, $75,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That the
Secretary may, by Federal Register notice, waive or specify
alternative requirements under sections b(3), b(4), b(5), or
c(1) of section 23 of such Act in order to facilitate the
operation of a unified self-sufficiency program for
individuals receiving assistance under different provisions
of the Act, as determined by the Secretary: Provided further,
That owners of multifamily properties with project-based
subsidy contracts under section 8 may compete for funding
under this heading and/or voluntarily make a Family Self-
Sufficiency program available to the assisted tenants of such
property in accordance with procedures established by the
Secretary: Provided further, That such procedures established
pursuant to the previous proviso shall permit participating
tenants to accrue escrow funds in accordance with section
23(d)(2) and shall allow owners to use funding from residual
receipt accounts to hire coordinators for their own Family
Self-Sufficiency program.

native american housing block grants

For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as
authorized under title I of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (25
U.S.C. 4111 et seq.), $650,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2020: Provided, That, notwithstanding the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
of 1996, to determine the amount of the allocation under
title I of such Act for each Indian tribe, the Secretary
shall apply the formula under section 302 of such Act with
the need component based on single-race census data and with
the need component based on multi-race census data, and the
amount of the allocation for each Indian tribe shall be the
greater of the two resulting allocation amounts: Provided
further, That of the amounts made available under this
heading, $3,500,000 shall be contracted for assistance for
national or regional organizations representing Native
American housing interests for providing training and
technical assistance to Indian housing authorities and
tribally designated housing entities as authorized under
NAHASDA: Provided further, That of the funds made available
under the previous proviso, not less than $2,000,000 shall be
made available for a national organization as authorized
under section 703 of NAHASDA (25 U.S.C. 4212): Provided
further, That of the amounts made available under this
heading, $2,000,000 shall be to support the inspection of
Indian housing units, contract expertise, training, and
technical assistance in the training, oversight, and
management of such Indian housing and tenant-based
assistance, including up to $300,000 for related travel:
Provided further, That of the amount provided under this
heading, $2,000,000 shall be made available for the cost of
guaranteed notes and other obligations, as authorized by
title VI of NAHASDA: Provided further, That such costs,
including the costs of modifying such notes and other
obligations, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize the
total principal amount of any notes and other obligations,
any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed
$17,452,007: Provided further, That the Department will
notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of
the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further,
notwithstanding section 302(d) of NAHASDA, if on January 1,
2016, a recipient's total amount of undisbursed block grants
in the Department's line of credit control system is greater
than three times the formula allocation it would otherwise
receive under this heading, the Secretary shall adjust that
recipient's formula allocation down by the difference between
its total amount of undisbursed block grants in the
Department's line of credit control system on January 1,
2016, and three times the formula allocation it would
otherwise receive: Provided further, That grant amounts not
allocated to a recipient pursuant to the previous proviso
shall be allocated under the need component of the formula
proportionately among all other Indian tribes not subject to
an adjustment: Provided further, That the two previous

[[Page H3865]]

provisos shall not apply to any Indian tribe that would
otherwise receive a formula allocation of less than
$5,000,000: Provided further, That to take effect, the three
previous provisos do not require the issuance of any
regulation.

indian housing loan guarantee fund program account

For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section
184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 1715z-13a), $8,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal,
any part of which is to be guaranteed, up to $1,269,841,270,
to remain available until expended: Provided further, That up
to $750,000 of this amount may be for administrative contract
expenses including management processes and systems to carry
out the loan guarantee program.

Community Planning and Development

housing opportunities for persons with aids

For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity
Act (42 U.S.C. 12901 et seq.), $332,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017, except that amounts
allocated pursuant to section 854(c)(3) of such Act shall
remain available until September 30, 2018: Provided, That the
Secretary shall renew all expiring contracts for permanent
supportive housing that initially were funded under section
854(c)(3) of such Act from funds made available under this
heading in fiscal year 2010 and prior fiscal years that meet
all program requirements before awarding funds for new
contracts under such section: Provided further, That the
Department shall notify grantees of their formula allocation
within 60 days of enactment of this Act.

{time} 2345

Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

Page 94, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 116, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

Mr. NADLER (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
to waive the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from New York and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, since 1992, the Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS has provided a vital safety net. In the United States, 50,000
people become infected with HIV every year, and 1.2 million people are
living with HIV/AIDS. More than 500,000 of these individuals will need
some form of housing assistance during the course of their illness, but
145,000 individuals have unmet housing needs.
HOPWA combines housing support with additional services to help
people living with HIV/AIDS and their families stay in stable, safe
housing; manage their illness; and remain active in their communities.
Housing interventions are critical in our continued fight against HIV/
AIDS, and research clearly shows that stable housing leads to better
health outcomes.
Providing stable housing to people living with HIV/AIDS reduces the
risk of transmission to a partner by 96 percent; it reduces emergency
room visits and expense to the public by 36 percent and
hospitalizations by 57 percent. In other words, investing a modest
amount in HOPWA today saves us millions, if not billions of Federal
taxpayer dollars in the future.
HOPWA is the only Federal housing program to provide cities and
States with dedicated resources to address the housing crisis facing
people living with HIV/AIDS, and the program traditionally enjoys
strong bipartisan support.
Congressional support for HOPWA is clear in this legislation. While
nearly every other program in the bill has been slashed by millions of
dollars and often funded at levels below the point of actually
functioning, HOPWA saw a slight increase in funding during the
committee's consideration of the bill.
Some hail the bill's slim $332 million for HOPWA as a victory. I also
applaud any additional funding for HOPWA, but I cannot call it a
victory to fund this program below its 2010 funding level when wait
lists for HOPWA services continue to grow and thousands of Americans
die on the streets and in shelters because we refuse to provide a few
extra million dollars to provide them with the care they need.
I will not claim that my amendment completely solves that problem.
The National AIDS Housing Coalition estimates that, in FY16, they will
need $364 million to provide HOPWA services to those who need them and
to fund vital administrative support to improve the program.
To reach that goal, we would need to find $32 million somewhere in
this bill to transfer to HOPWA, but the funding levels we are
considering today are so abysmally low, it is nearly impossible to move
that much money without gutting other important programs.
What we do, at the very least, is pass my amendment to restore HOPWA
to its FY10 funding level of $335 million, a scant $3 million increase.
That funding level makes only a small dent in HOPWA's real need, but it
will give hundreds more people and families access to lifesaving
services. It is a very small step, but it is in the right direction,
and I believe if we have the chance to save even one life, let alone
hundreds, we have a duty to act.
To protect those living with HIV/AIDS and to stay within the House
rules, my amendment offsets this additional funding to cuts to HUD's
information technology fund.
I recognize the importance of providing HUD with phones and computers
and understand the chairman and ranking member's concerns about
additional cuts to this account, but nothing is more important than,
quite simply, saving lives.
We must pass this amendment and give those families battling HIV/AIDS
a fighting chance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point
of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
Does any Member seek time in opposition?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me inquire of the
chairman, does he plan to claim the time in opposition?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I will not be claiming the time in
opposition.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, although, as a formality,
I will then claim that time, although I am not opposed; I am
enthusiastically in support of Mr. Nadler's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I do want to take a little
extra time to mention some things connected to this that I think need
to come to our colleagues' attention.
First of all, this is not an ideal offset that Mr. Nadler has chosen.
This is simply an example of the problem we have had all evening. Any
funding amendment will fill only one hole by digging another, and so
that is just the reality we are dealing with.
I do support this amendment. It runs the risk of further delaying
HUD's acquisition of improved IT systems. We are going to need to
attend to that. In this bill, HUD's IT account is already $150 million
below the fiscal year '15 level and $234 million below the President's
request. This is not an account that has a lot to spare, so I hope we
can revisit that.
It may be relatively easy to target this funding line. We have got to
provide HUD with the tools it needs to properly administer HOPWA and
other programs.
We need, of course, eventually, a bipartisan budget agreement that
will allow for a more credible bill that will adequately fund HOPWA and
HUD's IT account both, both of those.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I, in addition, hope that the chairman and
other longtime supporters of HOPWA are

[[Page H3866]]

going to be able to work--we are all going to be able to work together
moving forward to get this HOPWA formula updated once and for all.
The formula hasn't been updated for the distribution of funds, the
allocation of funds, that formula hasn't been updated since the
inception of program in the early nineties. Without an update, many
Americans who are living with HIV in areas of the country with the
fastest growing infection rates--namely, the South and rural America--
are not getting the housing support they desperately need.
As a Member from a State with an AIDS death rate higher than the
national average, this issue, getting this formula right, is a matter
of life and death for many of my constituents.
As we work on this bill in the months to come, try to get the funding
levels where they need to be, we also very much need to address that
formula issue, and I pledge my readiness to work with colleagues to
have an equitable funding formula.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
won't use it.
I simply want to express my appreciation first to the ranking member
for supporting the amendment, despite the very painful offset which he
will have to deal with, which I won't have to deal with, except as a
single Member of the House.
I want to thank the chairman for not opposing this amendment. This
amendment is a matter of life or death for a large number of people,
and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

community development fund

For assistance to units of State and local government, and
to other entities, for economic and community development
activities, and for other purposes, $3,060,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2018, unless otherwise
specified: Provided, That of the total amount provided,
$3,000,000,000 is for carrying out the community development
block grant program under title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (``the Act''
herein) (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.): Provided further, That
unless explicitly provided for under this heading, not to
exceed 20 percent of any grant made with funds appropriated
under this heading shall be expended for planning and
management development and administration: Provided further,
That a metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local
government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or
indirectly receives funds under this heading may not sell,
trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of such funds
to another such entity in exchange for any other funds,
credits or non-Federal considerations, but must use such
funds for activities eligible under title I of the Act:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 105(e)(1) of
the Act, no funds provided under this heading may be provided
to a for-profit entity for an economic development project
under section 105(a)(17) unless such project has been
evaluated and selected in accordance with guidelines required
under subparagraph (e)(2): Provided further, That none of the
funds made available under this heading may be used for
grants for the Economic Development Initiative (``EDI'') or
Neighborhood Initiatives activities, Rural Innovation Fund,
or for grants pursuant to section 107 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5307): Provided
further, That the Department shall notify grantees of their
formula allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading $60,000,000 shall be for grants to Indian tribes
notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of such Act, of which,
notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section
204 of this Act), up to $3,960,000 may be used for
emergencies that constitute imminent threats to health and
safety.

community development loan guarantees program account

(including rescission)

Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, during fiscal year 2016, commitments to guarantee loans
under section 108 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308), any part of which is
guaranteed, shall not exceed a total principal amount of
$300,000,000, notwithstanding any aggregate limitation on
outstanding obligations guaranteed in subsection (k) of such
section 108: Provided, That the Secretary shall collect fees
from borrowers, notwithstanding subsection (m) of such
section 108, to result in a credit subsidy cost of zero for
guaranteeing such loans, and any such fees shall be collected
in accordance with section 502(7) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974: Provided further, That all unobligated balances,
including recaptures and carryover, remaining from funds
appropriated to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development under this heading are hereby permanently
rescinded.

home investment partnerships program

(including transfer of funds)

For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized
under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act, as amended, $767,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2019: Provided, That notwithstanding the
amount made available under this heading, the threshold
reduction requirements in sections 216(10) and 217(b)(4) of
such Act shall not apply to allocations of such amount:
Provided further, That the requirements under provisos 2
through 6 under this heading for fiscal year 2012 and such
requirements applicable pursuant to the ``Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013'', shall not apply to any
project to which funds were committed on or after August 23,
2013, but such projects shall instead be governed by the
Final Rule titled ``Home Investment Partnerships Program;
Improving Performance and Accountability; Updating Property
Standards'' which became effective on such date: Provided
further, That notwithstanding paragraphs (1)(B)(i) or
(2)(B)(i) of section 1337(a) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4567(a)), amounts
allocated under such paragraphs shall be credited to, made
available, and merged with this account: Provided further,
That no amounts made available by any provision of law may be
transferred, reprogrammed, or credited to the Housing Trust
Fund.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

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

In the ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--
Community Planning and Development--HOME Investment
Partnerships Program'' account, after the aggregate dollar
amount insert ``(increased by $293,000,000)''.
In the ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--
Community Planning and Development--HOME Investment
Partnerships Program'' account, strike the last two provisos.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Texas and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me please start by
acknowledging the Honorable Maxine Waters. What I present tonight is an
amendment that she actually authored, and I would like to present it.
In so doing, I want to remind us that this amendment deals with two
programs that are near and dear to my heart, the affordable housing
trust fund and the HOME program.
These programs are near and dear to my heart because the greatness of
a nation will not be measured by how we treat people who live in the
suites of life, how we treat the well off, the well heeled, and the
well to do.
The greatness of a nation is often measured by how we treat people
who live in the streets of life, those who are too often among the
least, the last, and the lost.
This amendment seeks to provide aid and comfort for those who, but
for the grace of God, could be you or me, but those who find themselves
living in the streets of life. This amendment, in dealing with the
affordable housing trust fund, will restore it.
The current bill would actually eliminate the affordable housing
trust fund. This amendment provides some degree of aid and comfort for
those who are living at 30 percent of the area median income, wherever
they happen to live.
In Ms. Maxine Waters' district, this would mean an annual income of
$20,200 for a family of four. I would dare say that there are few among
us who

[[Page H3867]]

would dare attempt to live off of $20,200 as an individual. This helps
a family of four with $20,200. This is what the affordable housing
trust fund does. It helps people who are extremely low of income.
My hope is that we will be able to prevent this elimination of the
affordable housing trust fund, and this amendment does it.
This amendment also will help those who can benefit from the HOME
program. The HOME program can serve a family of four that earns up to
$53,900 per year. This program is a partnership, if you will, between
State, municipal, and Federal Government.
It has been a program that has been of great benefit across the
length and breadth of this country. There is not a State in the
country, I would dare say, that has not benefited from the HOME
program.
It is my hope that we can meet the President's request for the HOME
program. Right now, it is about $293 million short of the President's
request. This amendment would add that $293 million that the President
has requested.
I started by indicating that these are two programs that are near and
dear to me. Mr. Chairman, I believe that Ruth Meltzer was right when
she indicated that some measure their lives by days and years, others
by heartthrobs, passions, and tears; but the surest measure under God's
sun is what for others in your lifetime have you done.
These programs afford us an opportunity to do for others, to be a
blessing to those that have not been as blessed as we. My hope is that
we will find a way to salvage both of these programs, restore the HOME
program to what the President has requested, and prevent the affordable
housing trust fund from finding its way to the ash heap of history.
I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase
in budget authority in the bill.
The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)3 of House Resolution
5, 114th Congress, which states the following:
``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 XXI.''
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. If I may, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized on the point of order.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order,
understanding the rules, I still would beseech us, Mr. Chairman, to
give some consideration to the salvation of these programs.
Perhaps I will be able to work with the chairman and in some way help
those who are not in a position to help themselves.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas violates section 3(d)(3) of House
Resolution 5.
Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Florida, the amendment
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

{time} 0000

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program

For the Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity
Program, as authorized under section 11 of the Housing
Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996, as amended,
$50,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2018:
Provided, That of the total amount provided under this
heading, $10,000,000 shall be made available to the Self-Help
and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program as authorized
under section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension
Act of 1996, as amended: Provided further, That of the total
amount provided under this heading, $35,000,000 shall be made
available for the second, third, and fourth capacity building
activities authorized under section 4(a) of the HUD
Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 9816 note), of which not
less than $5,000,000 shall be made available for rural
capacity building activities: Provided further, That of the
total amount provided under this heading, $5,000,000 shall be
made available for capacity building by national rural
housing organizations with experience assessing national
rural conditions and providing financing, training, technical
assistance, information, and research to local nonprofits,
local governments and Indian Tribes serving high need rural
communities.

homeless assistance grants

(including transfer of funds)

For the emergency solutions grants program as authorized
under subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act, as amended; the continuum of care program as
authorized under subtitle C of title IV of such Act; and the
rural housing stability assistance program as authorized
under subtitle D of title IV of such Act, $2,185,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2018: Provided, That any
rental assistance amounts that are recaptured under such
continuum of care program shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That not less than $250,000,000
of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be
available for such emergency solutions grants program:
Provided further, That not less than $1,905,000,000 of the
funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for
such continuum of care and rural housing stability assistance
programs: Provided further, That up to $5,000,000 of the
funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for
the national homeless data analysis project: Provided
further, That all funds awarded for supportive services under
the continuum of care program and the rural housing stability
assistance program shall be matched by not less than 25
percent in cash or in kind by each grantee: Provided further,
That for all match requirements applicable to funds made
available under this heading for this fiscal year and prior
years, a grantee may use (or could have used) as a source of
match funds other funds administered by the Secretary and
other Federal agencies unless there is (or was) a specific
statutory prohibition on any such use of any such funds:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall establish minimum
project performance thresholds for each grantee under the
continuum of care program based on program performance data:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this
heading shall be available to renew any expiring contract or
amendment to a contract funded under the continuum of care
program unless the Secretary determines that the expiring
contract or amendment to a contract is needed under the
applicable continuum of care and meets appropriate program
requirements, financial standards, and performance measures,
including the minimum performance thresholds established in
the previous proviso: Provided further, That the Secretary
shall prioritize funding under the continuum of care program
to grant applications that demonstrate a capacity to
reallocate funding from lower performing projects to higher
performing projects: Provided further, That all awards of
assistance under this heading shall be required to coordinate
and integrate homeless programs with other mainstream health,
social services, and employment programs for which homeless
populations may be eligible: Provided further, That with
respect to funds provided under this heading for the
continuum of care program for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015,
and 2016 provision of permanent housing rental assistance may
be administered by private nonprofit organizations: Provided
further, That any unobligated amounts remaining from funds
appropriated under this heading in fiscal year 2012 and prior
years for project-based rental assistance for rehabilitation
projects with 10-year grant terms may be used for purposes
under this heading, notwithstanding the purposes for which
such funds were appropriated: Provided further, That all
balances for Shelter Plus Care renewals previously funded
from the Shelter Plus Care Renewal account and transferred to
this account shall be available, if recaptured, for continuum
of care renewals in fiscal year 2016: Provided further, That
the Department shall notify grantees of their formula
allocation from amounts allocated (which may represent
initial or final amounts allocated) for the emergency
solutions grant program within 60 days of enactment of this
Act.

Housing Programs

project-based rental assistance

For activities and assistance for the provision of project-
based subsidy contracts under the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) (``the Act''), not otherwise
provided for, $10,254,000,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be available on October 1, 2015 (in addition
to the

[[Page H3868]]

$400,000,000 previously appropriated under this heading that
became available October 1, 2015), and $400,000,000, to
remain available until expended, shall be available on
October 1, 2016: Provided, That the amounts made available
under this heading shall be available for expiring or
terminating section 8 project-based subsidy contracts
(including section 8 moderate rehabilitation contracts), for
amendments to section 8 project-based subsidy contracts
(including section 8 moderate rehabilitation contracts), for
contracts entered into pursuant to section 441 of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11401), for
renewal of section 8 contracts for units in projects that are
subject to approved plans of action under the Emergency Low
Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 or the Low-Income
Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990,
and for administrative and other expenses associated with
project-based activities and assistance funded under this
paragraph: Provided further, That of the total amounts
provided under this heading, not to exceed $150,000,000 shall
be available for performance-based contract administrators
for section 8 project-based assistance, for carrying out 42
U.S.C. 1437(f): Provided further, That the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development may also use such amounts in
the previous proviso for performance-based contract
administrators for the administration of: interest reduction
payments pursuant to section 236(a) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1(a)); rent supplement payments pursuant
to section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); section 236(f)(2) rental assistance
payments (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1(f)(2)); project rental assistance
contracts for the elderly under section 202(c)(2) of the
Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q); project rental
assistance contracts for supportive housing for persons with
disabilities under section 811(d)(2) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013(d)(2));
project assistance contracts pursuant to section 202(h) of
the Housing Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-372; 73 Stat. 667);
and loans under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959
(Public Law 86-372; 73 Stat. 667): Provided further, That
amounts recaptured under this heading, the heading ``Annual
Contributions for Assisted Housing'', or the heading
``Housing Certificate Fund'', may be used for renewals of or
amendments to section 8 project-based contracts or for
performance-based contract administrators, notwithstanding
the purposes for which such amounts were appropriated:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, upon the request of the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, project funds that are held in residual
receipts accounts for any project subject to a section 8
project-based Housing Assistance Payments contract that
authorizes HUD or a Housing Finance Agency to require that
surplus project funds be deposited in an interest-bearing
residual receipts account and that are in excess of an amount
to be determined by the Secretary, shall be remitted to the
Department and deposited in this account, to be available
until expended: Provided further, That amounts deposited
pursuant to the previous proviso shall be available in
addition to the amount otherwise provided by this heading for
uses authorized under this heading.

housing for the elderly

For amendments to capital advance contracts for housing for
the elderly, as authorized by section 202 of the Housing Act
of 1959, as amended, and for project rental assistance for
the elderly under section 202(c)(2) of such Act, including
amendments to contracts for such assistance and renewal of
expiring contracts for such assistance for up to a 1-year
term, and for senior preservation rental assistance
contracts, including renewals, as authorized by section
811(e) of the American Housing and Economic Opportunity Act
of 2000, as amended, and for supportive services associated
with the housing, $414,000,000 to remain available until
September 30, 2019: Provided, That of the amount provided
under this heading, up to $77,000,000 shall be for service
coordinators and the continuation of existing congregate
service grants for residents of assisted housing projects:
Provided further, That amounts under this heading shall be
available for Real Estate Assessment Center inspections and
inspection-related activities associated with section 202
projects: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive the
provisions of section 202 governing the terms and conditions
of project rental assistance, except that the initial
contract term for such assistance shall not exceed 5 years in
duration: Provided further, That upon request of the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, project funds
that are held in residual receipts accounts for any project
subject to a section 202 project rental assistance contract,
and that upon termination of such contract are in excess of
an amount to be determined by the Secretary, shall be
remitted to the Department and deposited in this account, to
be available until September 30, 2019, for purposes under
this heading, and shall be in addition to the amounts
otherwise provided under this heading for such purposes:
Provided further, That in addition, of the prior year
unobligated balances of funds, including recaptures and
carryover, made available under this heading, $47,000,000
shall be used for an additional amount for the purposes
provided under this heading, notwithstanding any purpose for
which originally appropriated.

amendment offered by mr. grayson

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

Page 105, line 9, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
Page 113, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $2,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to increase the
housing for the elderly account in this bill by $2.5 million and
decrease the policy development and research account within the
Department of Housing and Urban Development by an equal amount.
I hope my good friend from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) across the aisle
agrees with me on this one. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in
support of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR.
The Clerk will read.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 3, 2015, on page H3868, the following appeared: The
amendment was agreed to. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as
follows:

The online version should be corrected to read: The amendment
was agreed to. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read. The Clerk
read as follows:

========================= END NOTE =========================

The Clerk read as follows:

housing for persons with disabilities

For amendments to capital advance contracts for supportive
housing for persons with disabilities, as authorized by
section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), for project rental assistance
for supportive housing for persons with disabilities under
section 811(d)(2) of such Act and for project assistance
contracts pursuant to section 202(h) of the Housing Act of
1959 (Public Law 86-372; 73 Stat. 667), including amendments
to contracts for such assistance and renewal of expiring
contracts for such assistance for up to a 1-year term, for
project rental assistance to State housing finance agencies
and other appropriate entities as authorized under section
811(b)(3) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Housing Act, and
for supportive services associated with the housing for
persons with disabilities as authorized by section 811(b)(1)
of such Act, $152,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2019: Provided, That amounts made available
under this heading shall be available for Real Estate
Assessment Center inspections and inspection-related
activities associated with section 811 projects: Provided
further, That, in this fiscal year, upon the request of the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, project funds
that are held in residual receipts accounts for any project
subject to a section 811 project rental assistance contract
and that upon termination of such contract are in excess of
an amount to be determined by the Secretary shall be remitted
to the Department and deposited in this account, to be
available until September 30, 2019: Provided further, That
amounts deposited in this account pursuant to the previous
proviso shall be available in addition to the amounts
otherwise provided by this heading for the purposes
authorized under this heading: Provided further, That
unobligated balances, including recaptures and carryover,
remaining from funds transferred to or appropriated under
this heading may be used for the current purposes authorized
under this heading notwithstanding the purposes for which
such funds originally were appropriated.

Housing Counseling Assistance

For contracts, grants, and other assistance excluding
loans, as authorized under section 106 of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, $47,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2017, including up to
$4,500,000 for administrative contract services: Provided,
That grants made available from amounts provided under this
heading shall be awarded within 180 days of enactment of this
Act: Provided further, That funds shall be used for providing
counseling and advice to tenants and homeowners, both current
and prospective, with respect to property maintenance,
financial management/literacy, and such other matters as may
be appropriate to assist them in improving their housing
conditions, meeting their financial needs, and fulfilling the
responsibilities of tenancy or homeownership; for program
administration; and for housing counselor training: Provided
further, That for purposes of providing such grants from
amounts provided under this heading, the Secretary may enter
into multiyear agreements as is appropriate, subject to the
availability of annual appropriations.

rental housing assistance

For amendments to contracts under section 101 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s)
and section 236(f)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715z-1) in State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects,
$30,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such amount, together with unobligated balances from
recaptured amounts appropriated prior to fiscal year 2006
from terminated contracts under such sections of law, and any
unobligated balances, including recaptures and carryover,
remaining from funds appropriated

[[Page H3869]]

under this heading after fiscal year 2005, shall also be
available for extensions of up to one year for expiring
contracts under such sections of law.

payment to manufactured housing fees trust fund

For necessary expenses as authorized by the National
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.), up to $11,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $11,000,000 is to be
derived from the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund:
Provided, That not to exceed the total amount appropriated
under this heading shall be available from the general fund
of the Treasury to the extent necessary to incur obligations
and make expenditures pending the receipt of collections to
the Fund pursuant to section 620 of such Act: Provided
further, That the amount made available under this heading
from the general fund shall be reduced as such collections
are received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result in a
final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the general fund
estimated at zero, and fees pursuant to such section 620
shall be modified as necessary to ensure such a final fiscal
year 2016 appropriation: Provided further, That for the
dispute resolution and installation programs, the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development may assess and collect fees
from any program participant: Provided further, That such
collections shall be deposited into the Fund, and the
Secretary, as provided herein, may use such collections, as
well as fees collected under section 620, for necessary
expenses of such Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding
the requirements of section 620 of such Act, the Secretary
may carry out responsibilities of the Secretary under such
Act through the use of approved service providers that are
paid directly by the recipients of their services.

Federal Housing Administration

mutual mortgage insurance program account

New commitments to guarantee single family loans insured
under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund shall not exceed
$400,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2017: Provided, That during fiscal year 2016, obligations to
make direct loans to carry out the purposes of section 204(g)
of the National Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed
$5,000,000: Provided further, That the foregoing amount in
the previous proviso shall be for loans to nonprofit and
governmental entities in connection with sales of single
family real properties owned by the Secretary and formerly
insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund: Provided
Further, That for administrative contract expenses of the
Federal Housing Administration, $130,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017.

general and special risk program account

New commitments to guarantee loans insured under the
General and Special Risk Insurance Funds, as authorized by
sections 238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715z-3 and 1735c), shall not exceed $30,000,000,000 in total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, to
remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That
during fiscal year 2016, gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans, as authorized by sections 204(g),
207(l), 238, and 519(a) of the National Housing Act, shall
not exceed $5,000,000, which shall be for loans to nonprofit
and governmental entities in connection with the sale of
single family real properties owned by the Secretary and
formerly insured under such Act.

Government National Mortgage Association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

New commitments to issue guarantees to carry out the
purposes of section 306 of the National Housing Act, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall not exceed
$500,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2017: Provided, That $23,000,000 shall be available for
necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of Government
National Mortgage Association: Provided further, That
receipts from Commitment and Multiclass fees collected
pursuant to title III of the National Housing Act, as
amended, shall be credited as offsetting collections to this
account.

Policy Development and Research

research and technology

For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs
of research and studies relating to housing and urban
problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title
V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C.
1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out the functions of the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under section
1(a)(1)(i) of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $52,500,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That
with respect to amounts made available under this heading,
notwithstanding section 204 of this title, the Secretary may
enter into cooperative agreements funded with philanthropic
entities, other Federal agencies, or State or local
governments and their agencies for research projects:
Provided further, That with respect to the previous proviso,
such partners to the cooperative agreements must contribute
at least a 50 percent match toward the cost of the project:
Provided further, That for non-competitive agreements entered
into in accordance with the previous two provisos, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall comply with
section 2(b) of the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-282, 31 U.S.C. note)
in lieu of compliance with section 102(a)(4)(C) with respect
to documentation of award decisions: Provided further, That
prior to obligation of technical assistance funding, the
Secretary shall submit a plan, for approval, to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on how it will allocate
funding for this activity.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

fair housing activities

For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise
provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987, as amended, $65,300,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary may assess and
collect fees to cover the costs of the Fair Housing Training
Academy, and may use such funds to provide such training:
Provided further, That no funds made available under this
heading shall be used to lobby the executive or legislative
branches of the Federal Government in connection with a
specific contract, grant, or loan: Provided further, That of
the funds made available under this heading, $300,000 shall
be available to the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development for the creation and promotion of translated
materials and other programs that support the assistance of
persons with limited English proficiency in utilizing the
services provided by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.

amendment offered by mr. stivers

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

Page 114, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $28,375,000) (increased by $28,375,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Diaz-Balart as
well as Ranking Member Price for their hard work on this bill and for
preparing a bill that is the best we can do.
I do rise in support of an amendment that seeks to curb lawsuit abuse
and help fund our local governments. This creates congressional intent
to redirect funds away from the private enforcement account to the
administrative enforcement account.
My amendment would decrease by $28.375 million the Private
Enforcement Initiative and redirect those resources to the
Administrative Enforcement Initiative in the Fair Housing Initiatives
Program.
I believe that the most efficient and effective way to protect Fair
Housing is through the Administrative Enforcement Initiative of the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which helps State and local
governments who administer laws that include rights and remedies every
day. They act to help Fair Housing. They know their communities, and
they can enforce in their communities best.
My amendment would help protect more consumers. In fact, I believe
administrative enforcement is less expensive to taxpayers. It is more
certain. It has faster resolution. It has less conflicts of interest
than some of these nonprofit proxy agencies that use the Private
Enforcement Initiative.
In fact, there is a 1997 GAO study, Mr. Chairman, that revealed that
more than half of the Private Enforcement Initiative dollars were
concentrated in just 6 of the 27 awardees. I have asked the GAO to
update that study and to look at private enforcement as far as its
effectiveness because, as I said, it is slower and more expensive than
administrative enforcement.
Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to support my congressional
intent amendment to redirect these resources to our State and local
governments who can more effectively administer justice. I ask my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. We have only recently received it, and I haven't fully
analyzed

[[Page H3870]]

it; but, on the face of it, it does appear to be shifting the support
among private enforcement and public enforcement, the kind of private
enforcement that involves community-based groups, that involves often
more flexible ways of resolving conflicts and issues.
I simply think it is ill advised here tonight to undertake that kind
of internal shifting of funds and would suggest that we reject this,
understanding that we can return to it and examine this more fully to
see exactly what is implied by this kind of internal shifting of funds
within Fair Housing accounts.
I suggest that we reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to my colleague from
North Carolina that administrative enforcement is more effective, it is
more efficient. That is why we should redirect these resources
internally inside Fair Housing. It doesn't change Fair Housing dollars
one penny.
It redirects the resources to more efficient and effective means of
enforcement, from folks who enforce these laws every day and can do it
faster and more effectively, to make sure the people that might be
discriminated against get their redress sooner.
I am excited about this amendment. I think it will lead to much more
effective enforcement. It does so without the conflict of interest of
these private organizations that can have conflicts of interest, and
that has been another issue that I have asked the GAO to look at in my
letter to them today.
I apologize that the minority is just seeing this for the first time.
I did talk about it at the Rules Committee the other day. It is
something I have been working on just for a couple of days since that
Rules Committee meeting when it came up. I apologized for not giving
the gentleman from North Carolina more notice.
I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

Page 114, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $150,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to raise the cap on
funding for the Limited English Proficiency Initiative under the Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity section of the bill by 50 percent.
I want to highlight that we are not taking away anything from other
programs. We are simply lifting the cap on this particular initiative.
This amendment has passed by voice vote for the last 2 years, and it is
my hope that it will do so again.
There are more than 40 million Americans who do not speak English as
their first language. This tiny, but vital program demonstrates to the
American people that we have equal protection under the law, regardless
of what language we speak.
I hope to once again have the support of my friend from Florida and
from the House as a whole.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes

lead hazard reduction

For the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, as authorized by
section 1011 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, $75,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2017: Provided, That up to $15,000,000 of that
amount shall be for the Healthy Homes Initiative, pursuant to
sections 501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1970 that shall include research, studies, testing, and
demonstration efforts, including education and outreach
concerning lead-based paint poisoning and other housing-
related diseases and hazards: Provided further, That for
purposes of environmental review, pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
other provisions of the law that further the purposes of such
Act, a grant under the Healthy Homes Initiative, or the Lead
Technical Studies program under this heading or under prior
appropriations Acts for such purposes under this heading,
shall be considered to be funds for a special project for
purposes of section 305(c) of the Multifamily Housing
Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994: Provided further,
That amounts made available under this heading in this or
prior appropriations Acts, and that still remain available,
may be used for any purpose under this heading
notwithstanding the purpose for which such amounts were
appropriated if a program competition is undersubscribed and
there are other program competitions under this heading that
are oversubscribed.

information technology fund

For the development of, modifications to, and
infrastructure for Department-wide and program-specific
information technology systems, for the continuing operation
and maintenance of both Department-wide and program-specific
information systems, and for program-related maintenance
activities, $100,000,000: Provided, That any amounts
transferred to this Fund under this Act shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That any amounts
transferred to this Fund from amounts appropriated by
previously enacted appropriations Acts may be used for the
purposes specified under this Fund, in addition to any other
information technology purposes for which such amounts were
appropriated.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of
Inspector General in carrying out the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $126,000,000: Provided, That the
Inspector General shall have independent authority over all
personnel issues within this office.

General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development

(including rescissions)

Sec. 201. Eighty five percent of the amounts of budget
authority, or in lieu thereof 85 percent of the cash amounts
associated with such budget authority, that are recaptured
from projects described in section 1012(a) of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 1437 note) shall be rescinded or in the case of cash,
shall be remitted to the Treasury. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, the Secretary may award up to 15 percent
of the budget authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded
or remitted to the Treasury to provide project owners with
incentives to refinance their project at a lower interest
rate. Any amounts of budget authority or cash recaptured and
not rescinded, returned to the Treasury, or otherwise awarded
by September 30, 2016 shall be rescinded or in the case of
cash, shall be remitted to the Treasury.
Sec. 202. None of the amounts made available under this
Act may be used during fiscal year 2016 to investigate or
prosecute under the Fair Housing Act any otherwise lawful
activity engaged in by one or more persons, including the
filing or maintaining of a nonfrivolous legal action, that is
engaged in solely for the purpose of achieving or preventing
action by a Government official or entity, or a court of
competent jurisdiction.
Sec. 203. Sections 203 and 209 of division C of Public Law
112-55 (125 Stat. 693-694) shall apply during fiscal year
2016 as if such sections were included in this title, except
that during such fiscal year such sections shall be applied
by substituting ``fiscal year 2016'' for ``fiscal year 2011''
and for ``fiscal year 2012'' each place such terms appear,
and shall be amended to reflect revised delineations of
statistical areas established by the Office of Management and
Budget pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(3), 31 U.S.C. 1104(d),
and Executive Order No. 10253.
Sec. 204. Except as explicitly provided in law, any grant,
cooperative agreement or other assistance made pursuant to
title II of this Act shall be made on a competitive basis and
in accordance with section 102 of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545).
Sec. 205. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act
or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available,
without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses,
for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for
utilizing and making payment for the services and facilities
of the Federal National Mortgage Association, Government
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or
any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured
bank within the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-11).
Sec. 206. Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or
through a reprogramming of funds, no part of any
appropriation for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development shall be available for any program, project or
activity in excess of amounts set forth in the budget
estimates submitted to Congress.
Sec. 207. Corporations and agencies of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the
Government Corporation Control Act are hereby authorized to
make such expenditures, within the

[[Page H3871]]

limits of funds and borrowing authority available to each
such corporation or agency and in accordance with law, and to
make such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal
year limitations as provided by section 104 of such Act as
may be necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in
the budget for 2016 for such corporation or agency except as
hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these
corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or
mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly
provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of
other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior
appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not
apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of
these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are
necessary to protect the financial interest of the United
States Government.
Sec. 208. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations regarding all uncommitted,
unobligated, recaptured and excess funds in each program and
activity within the jurisdiction of the Department and shall
submit additional, updated budget information to these
Committees upon request.
Sec. 209. The President's formal budget request for fiscal
year 2017, as well as the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's congressional budget justifications to be
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall use the identical
account and sub-account structure provided under this Act.
Sec. 210. A public housing agency or such other entity
that administers Federal housing assistance for the Housing
Authority of the county of Los Angeles, California, and the
States of Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi shall not be required
to include a resident of public housing or a recipient of
assistance provided under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 on the board of directors or a similar
governing board of such agency or entity as required under
section (2)(b) of such Act. Each public housing agency or
other entity that administers Federal housing assistance
under section 8 for the Housing Authority of the county of
Los Angeles, California and the States of Alaska, Iowa and
Mississippi that chooses not to include a resident of public
housing or a recipient of section 8 assistance on the board
of directors or a similar governing board shall establish an
advisory board of not less than six residents of public
housing or recipients of section 8 assistance to provide
advice and comment to the public housing agency or other
administering entity on issues related to public housing and
section 8. Such advisory board shall meet not less than
quarterly.
Sec. 211. No funds provided under this title may be used
for an audit of the Government National Mortgage Association
that makes applicable requirements under the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Sec. 212. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
subject to the conditions listed under this section, for
fiscal years 2016 and 2017, the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development may authorize the transfer of some or all
project-based assistance, debt held or insured by the
Secretary and statutorily required low-income and very low-
income use restrictions if any, associated with one or more
multifamily housing project or projects to another
multifamily housing project or projects.
(b) Transfers of project-based assistance under this
section may be done in phases to accommodate the financing
and other requirements related to rehabilitating or
constructing the project or projects to which the assistance
is transferred, to ensure that such project or projects meet
the standards under subsection (c).
(c) The transfer authorized in subsection (a) is subject to
the following conditions:
(1) Number and bedroom size of units.--
(A) For occupied units in the transferring project: the
number of low-income and very low-income units and the
configuration (i.e., bedroom size) provided by the
transferring project shall be no less than when transferred
to the receiving project or projects and the net dollar
amount of Federal assistance provided to the transferring
project shall remain the same in the receiving project or
projects.
(B) For unoccupied units in the transferring project: the
Secretary may authorize a reduction in the number of dwelling
units in the receiving project or projects to allow for a
reconfiguration of bedroom sizes to meet current market
demands, as determined by the Secretary and provided there is
no increase in the project-based assistance budget authority.
(2) The transferring project shall, as determined by the
Secretary, be either physically obsolete or economically
nonviable.
(3) The receiving project or projects shall meet or exceed
applicable physical standards established by the Secretary.
(4) The owner or mortgagor of the transferring project
shall notify and consult with the tenants residing in the
transferring project and provide a certification of approval
by all appropriate local governmental officials.
(5) The tenants of the transferring project who remain
eligible for assistance to be provided by the receiving
project or projects shall not be required to vacate their
units in the transferring project or projects until new units
in the receiving project are available for occupancy.
(6) The Secretary determines that this transfer is in the
best interest of the tenants.
(7) If either the transferring project or the receiving
project or projects meets the condition specified in
subsection (d)(2)(A), any lien on the receiving project
resulting from additional financing obtained by the owner
shall be subordinate to any FHA-insured mortgage lien
transferred to, or placed on, such project by the Secretary,
except that the Secretary may waive this requirement upon
determination that such a waiver is necessary to facilitate
the financing of acquisition, construction, and/or
rehabilitation of the receiving project or projects.
(8) If the transferring project meets the requirements of
subsection (d)(2), the owner or mortgagor of the receiving
project or projects shall execute and record either a
continuation of the existing use agreement or a new use
agreement for the project where, in either case, any use
restrictions in such agreement are of no lesser duration than
the existing use restrictions.
(9) The transfer does not increase the cost (as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended) of any FHA-insured mortgage, except to the extent
that appropriations are provided in advance for the amount of
any such increased cost.
(d) For purposes of this section--
(1) the terms ``low-income'' and ``very low-income'' shall
have the meanings provided by the statute and/or regulations
governing the program under which the project is insured or
assisted;
(2) the term ``multifamily housing project'' means housing
that meets one of the following conditions--
(A) housing that is subject to a mortgage insured under the
National Housing Act;
(B) housing that has project-based assistance attached to
the structure including projects undergoing mark to market
debt restructuring under the Multifamily Assisted Housing
Reform and Affordability Housing Act;
(C) housing that is assisted under section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959, as amended by section 801 of the
Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act;
(D) housing that is assisted under section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959, as such section existed before the
enactment of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable
Housing Act;
(E) housing that is assisted under section 811 of the
Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act; or
(F) housing or vacant land that is subject to a use
agreement;
(3) the term ``project-based assistance'' means--
(A) assistance provided under section 8(b) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937;
(B) assistance for housing constructed or substantially
rehabilitated pursuant to assistance provided under section
8(b)(2) of such Act (as such section existed immediately
before October 1, 1983);
(C) rent supplement payments under section 101 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965;
(D) interest reduction payments under section 236 and/or
additional assistance payments under section 236(f)(2) of the
National Housing Act;
(E) assistance payments made under section 202(c)(2) of the
Housing Act of 1959; and
(F) assistance payments made under section 811(d)(2) of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
(4) the term ``receiving project or projects'' means the
multifamily housing project or projects to which some or all
of the project-based assistance, debt, and statutorily
required low-income and very low-income use restrictions are
to be transferred;
(5) the term ``transferring project'' means the multifamily
housing project which is transferring some or all of the
project-based assistance, debt, and the statutorily required
low-income and very low-income use restrictions to the
receiving project or projects; and
(6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development.
(e) Public Notice and Research Report.--
(1) The Secretary shall publish by notice in the Federal
Register the terms and conditions, including criteria for HUD
approval, of transfers pursuant to this section no later than
30 days before the effective date of such notice.
(2) The Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of the
transfer authority under this section, including the effect
of such transfers on the operational efficiency, contract
rents, physical and financial conditions, and long-term
preservation of the affected properties.
Sec. 213. (a) No assistance shall be provided under section
8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f)
to any individual who--
(1) is enrolled as a student at an institution of higher
education (as defined under section 102 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002));
(2) is under 24 years of age;
(3) is not a veteran;
(4) is unmarried;
(5) does not have a dependent child;
(6) is not a person with disabilities, as such term is
defined in section 3(b)(3)(E) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(3)(E)) and was not receiving
assistance under such section 8 as of November 30, 2005; and
(7) is not otherwise individually eligible, or has parents
who, individually or jointly, are

[[Page H3872]]

not eligible, to receive assistance under section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).
(b) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a person
to receive assistance under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), any financial
assistance (in excess of amounts received for tuition and any
other required fees and charges) that an individual receives
under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.), from private sources, or an institution of higher
education (as defined under the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1002)), shall be considered income to that
individual, except for a person over the age of 23 with
dependent children.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill through page 156, line 8 be considered read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through page 156, line 8, is as
follows:

Sec. 214. The funds made available for Native Alaskans
under the heading ``Native American Housing Block Grants'' in
title II of this Act shall be allocated to the same Native
Alaskan housing block grant recipients that received funds in
fiscal year 2005.
Sec. 215. Notwithstanding the limitation in the first
sentence of section 255(g) of the National Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1715z-20(g)), the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may, until September 30, 2016, insure and enter
into commitments to insure mortgages under such section 255.
Sec. 216. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
fiscal year 2016, in managing and disposing of any
multifamily property that is owned or has a mortgage held by
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and during
the process of foreclosure on any property with a contract
for rental assistance payments under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 or other Federal programs, the
Secretary shall maintain any rental assistance payments under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and other
programs that are attached to any dwelling units in the
property. To the extent the Secretary determines, in
consultation with the tenants and the local government, that
such a multifamily property owned or held by the Secretary is
not feasible for continued rental assistance payments under
such section 8 or other programs, based on consideration of
(1) the costs of rehabilitating and operating the property
and all available Federal, State, and local resources,
including rent adjustments under section 524 of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (``MAHRAA'') and (2) environmental conditions that
cannot be remedied in a cost-effective fashion, the Secretary
may, in consultation with the tenants of that property,
contract for project-based rental assistance payments with an
owner or owners of other existing housing properties, or
provide other rental assistance. The Secretary shall also
take appropriate steps to ensure that project-based contracts
remain in effect prior to foreclosure, subject to the
exercise of contractual abatement remedies to assist
relocation of tenants for imminent major threats to health
and safety after written notice to and informed consent of
the affected tenants and use of other available remedies,
such as partial abatements or receivership. After disposition
of any multifamily property described under this section, the
contract and allowable rent levels on such properties shall
be subject to the requirements under section 524 of MAHRAA.
Sec. 217. The commitment authority funded by fees as
provided under the heading ``Community Development Loan
Guarantees Program Account'' may be used to guarantee, or
make commitments to guarantee, notes or other obligations
issued by any State on behalf of non-entitlement communities
in the State in accordance with the requirements of section
108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974:
Provided, That any State receiving such a guarantee or
commitment shall distribute all funds subject to such
guarantee to the units of general local government in non-
entitlement areas that received the commitment.
Sec. 218. Public housing agencies that own and operate 400
or fewer public housing units may elect to be exempt from any
asset management requirement imposed by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development in connection with the
operating fund rule: Provided, That an agency seeking a
discontinuance of a reduction of subsidy under the operating
fund formula shall not be exempt from asset management
requirements.
Sec. 219. With respect to the use of amounts provided in
this Act and in future Acts for the operation, capital
improvement and management of public housing as authorized by
sections 9(d) and 9(e) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g(d) and (e)), the Secretary shall not
impose any requirement or guideline relating to asset
management that restricts or limits in any way the use of
capital funds for central office costs pursuant to section
9(g)(1) or 9(g)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437g(g)(1), (2)): Provided, That a public housing
agency may not use capital funds authorized under section
9(d) for activities that are eligible under section 9(e) for
assistance with amounts from the operating fund in excess of
the amounts permitted under section 9(g)(1) or 9(g)(2).
Sec. 220. No official or employee of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development shall be designated as an
allotment holder unless the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer has determined that such allotment holder has
implemented an adequate system of funds control and has
received training in funds control procedures and directives.
The Chief Financial Officer shall ensure that there is a
trained allotment holder for each HUD sub-office under the
accounts ``Executive Offices'' and ``Administrative Support
Offices'', as well as each account receiving appropriations
for ``Program Office Salaries and Expenses'', ``Government
National Mortgage Association--Guarantees of Mortgage-Backed
Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account'', and ``Office of
Inspector General'' within the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
Sec. 221. The Secretary of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development shall, for fiscal year 2016, notify the
public through the Federal Register and other means, as
determined appropriate, of the issuance of a notice of the
availability of assistance or notice of funding availability
(NOFA) for any program or discretionary fund administered by
the Secretary that is to be competitively awarded.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal year
2016, the Secretary may make the NOFA available only on the
Internet at the appropriate Government web site or through
other electronic media, as determined by the Secretary.
Sec. 222. Payment of attorney fees in program-related
litigation must be paid from the individual program office
and Office of General Counsel personnel funding. The annual
budget submissions for program offices and Office of General
Counsel personnel funding must include program-related
litigation costs for attorney fees as a separate line item
request.
Sec. 223. The Disaster Housing Assistance Programs,
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, shall be considered a ``program of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development'' under section
904 of the McKinney Act for the purpose of income
verifications and matching.
Sec. 224. (a) The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall take the required actions under subsection
(b) when a multifamily housing project with a section 8
contract or contract for similar project-based assistance:
(1) receives a Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) score
of 30 or less; or
(2) receives a REAC score between 31 and 59 and:
(A) fails to certify in writing to HUD within 60 days that
all deficiencies have been corrected; or
(B) receives consecutive scores of less than 60 on REAC
inspections.

Such requirements shall apply to insured and noninsured
projects with assistance attached to the units under section
8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f),
but do not apply to such units assisted under section
8(o)(13) (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) or to public housing units
assisted with capital or operating funds under section 9 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g).
(b) The Secretary shall take the following required actions
as authorized under subsection (a)--
(1) The Secretary shall notify the owner and provide an
opportunity for response within 30 days. If the violations
remain, the Secretary shall develop a Compliance, Disposition
and Enforcement Plan within 60 days, with a specified
timetable for correcting all deficiencies. The Secretary
shall provide notice of the Plan to the owner, tenants, the
local government, any mortgagees, and any contract
administrator.
(2) At the end of the term of the Compliance, Disposition
and Enforcement Plan, if the owner fails to fully comply with
such plan, the Secretary may require immediate replacement of
project management with a management agent approved by the
Secretary, and shall take one or more of the following
actions, and provide additional notice of those actions to
the owner and the parties specified above:
(A) impose civil money penalties;
(B) abate the section 8 contract, including partial
abatement, as determined by the Secretary, until all
deficiencies have been corrected;
(C) pursue transfer of the project to an owner, approved by
the Secretary under established procedures, which will be
obligated to promptly make all required repairs and to accept
renewal of the assistance contract as long as such renewal is
offered; or
(D) seek judicial appointment of a receiver to manage the
property and cure all project deficiencies or seek a judicial
order of specific performance requiring the owner to cure all
project deficiencies.
(c) The Secretary shall also take appropriate steps to
ensure that project-based contracts remain in effect, subject
to the exercise of contractual abatement remedies to assist
relocation of tenants for imminent major threats to health
and safety after written notice to and informed consent of
the affected tenants and use of other remedies set forth
above. To the extent the Secretary determines, in
consultation with the tenants and the local government, that
the property is not feasible for continued rental

[[Page H3873]]

assistance payments under such section 8 or other programs,
based on consideration of (1) the costs of rehabilitating and
operating the property and all available Federal, State, and
local resources, including rent adjustments under section 524
of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability
Act of 1997 (``MAHRAA'') and (2) environmental conditions
that cannot be remedied in a cost-effective fashion, the
Secretary may, in consultation with the tenants of that
property, contract for project-based rental assistance
payments with an owner or owners of other existing housing
properties, or provide other rental assistance. The Secretary
shall report semi-annually on all properties covered by this
section that are assessed through the Real Estate Assessment
Center and have physical inspection scores of less than 30 or
have consecutive physical inspection scores of less than 60.
The report shall include:
(1) The enforcement actions being taken to address such
conditions, including imposition of civil money penalties and
termination of subsidies, and identify properties that have
such conditions multiple times; and
(2) Actions that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development is taking to protect tenants of such identified
properties.
Sec. 225. None of the funds made available by this Act, or
any other Act, for purposes authorized under section 8 (only
with respect to the tenant-based rental assistance program)
and section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437 et seq.), may be used by any public housing
agency for any amount of salary, including bonuses, for the
chief executive officer of which, or any other official or
employee of which, that exceeds the annual rate of basic pay
payable for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule
at any time during any public housing agency fiscal year
2016.
Sec. 226. None of the funds in this Act may be available
for the doctoral dissertation research grant program at the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Sec. 227. None of the funds in this Act provided to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development may be used to
make a grant award unless the Secretary notifies the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full
business days before any project, State, locality, housing
authority, tribe, nonprofit organization, or other entity
selected to receive a grant award is announced by the
Department or its offices.
Sec. 228. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to require or enforce the Physical Needs Assessment
(PNA).
Sec. 229. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used by the Federal Housing Administration, the
Government National Mortgage Administration, or the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to insure,
securitize, or establish a Federal guarantee of any mortgage
or mortgage backed security that refinances or otherwise
replaces a mortgage that has been subject to eminent domain
condemnation or seizure, by a state, municipality, or any
other political subdivision of a state.
Sec. 230. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to terminate the status of a unit of general local
government as a metropolitan city (as defined in section 102
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5302)) with respect to grants under section 106 of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 5306).
Sec. 231. Amounts made available under this Act which are
either appropriated, allocated, advanced on a reimbursable
basis, or transferred to the Office of Policy Development and
Research in the Department of Housing and Urban Development
and functions thereof, for research, evaluation, or
statistical purposes, and which are unexpended at the time of
completion of a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement,
may be deobligated and shall immediately become available and
may be reobligated in that fiscal year or the subsequent
fiscal year for the research, evaluation, or statistical
purposes for which the amounts are made available to that
Office subject to reprogramming requirements in Section 405
of this Act.
Sec. 232. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to
require a recipient or sub-recipient of funding for the
purpose of land acquisition, affordable housing construction,
or affordable housing rehabilitation to meet Energy Star
standards or any other energy efficiency standards that
exceed the requirements of applicable State and local
building codes.
Sec. 233. Of the unobligated balances, including
recaptures and carryover, remaining from funds appropriated
in section 1497(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203; 42 U.S.C. 5301
note) and section 2301(a) of title III of division B of the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-
289; 42 U.S.C. 5301 note), $7,000,000 is hereby rescinded.
Sec. 234. (a) All unobligated balances, including
recaptures and carryover, remaining from funds appropriated
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the
heading ``Rural Housing and Economic Development'' are hereby
rescinded.
(b) Effective October 1, 2015, all unobligated balances,
including recaptures and carryover, remaining from funds
appropriated to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for accounts under the headings ``Management and
Administration'' and ``Program Office Salaries and Expenses''
in division K of Public Law 113-235 are rescinded.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2016''.

TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES

Access Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Access Board, as authorized
by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
$7,548,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received for publications and training expenses.

Federal Maritime Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission
as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act,
1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 307), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or
allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902,
$25,660,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Inspector General

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation to carry out
the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $23,999,000: Provided, That the Inspector General
shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out the
duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended (5
U.S.C. App. 3), to investigate allegations of fraud,
including false statements to the government (18 U.S.C.
1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation
by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Provided
further, That the Inspector General may enter into contracts
and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and
other services with public agencies and with private persons,
subject to the applicable laws and regulations that govern
the obtaining of such services within the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation: Provided further, That the Inspector
General may select, appoint, and employ such officers and
employees as may be necessary for carrying out the functions,
powers, and duties of the Office of Inspector General,
subject to the applicable laws and regulations that govern
such selections, appointments, and employment within Amtrak:
Provided further, That concurrent with the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2017, the Inspector General shall
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
budget request for fiscal year 2017 in similar format and
substance to those submitted by executive agencies of the
Federal Government.

National Transportation Safety Board

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the National Transportation
Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at
rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902),
$103,981,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for
official reception and representation expenses. The amounts
made available to the National Transportation Safety Board in
this Act include amounts necessary to make lease payments on
an obligation incurred in fiscal year 2001 for a capital
lease.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as
authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $135,000,000, of which $5,000,000
shall be for a multi-family rental housing program: Provided,
That in addition, $42,000,000 shall be made available until
expended to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for
mortgage foreclosure mitigation activities, under the
following terms and conditions:
(1) The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) shall
make grants to counseling intermediaries approved by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (with match
to be determined by NRC based on affordability and the
economic conditions of an area; a match also may be waived by
NRC based on the aforementioned conditions) to provide
mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance primarily to
States and areas with high rates of defaults and foreclosures
to help eliminate the default and foreclosure of mortgages of
owner-occupied single-family homes that are at risk of such
foreclosure. Other than areas with high rates of defaults and
foreclosures, grants may also be provided to approved
counseling intermediaries based on a geographic analysis of
the Nation by NRC which determines where there is a
prevalence of mortgages that are risky and likely to fail,
including any trends for mortgages that are likely to default
and face foreclosure. A State Housing Finance Agency may also
be eligible where the State Housing Finance Agency meets all
the requirements under this paragraph. A

[[Page H3874]]

HUD-approved counseling intermediary shall meet certain
mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance counseling
requirements, as determined by NRC, and shall be approved by
HUD or NRC as meeting these requirements.
(2) Mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance shall only
be made available to homeowners of owner-occupied homes with
mortgages in default or in danger of default. These mortgages
shall likely be subject to a foreclosure action and
homeowners will be provided such assistance that shall
consist of activities that are likely to prevent foreclosures
and result in the long-term affordability of the mortgage
retained pursuant to such activity or another positive
outcome for the homeowner. No funds made available under this
paragraph may be provided directly to lenders or homeowners
to discharge outstanding mortgage balances or for any other
direct debt reduction payments.
(3) The use of mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance
by approved counseling intermediaries and State Housing
Finance Agencies shall involve a reasonable analysis of the
borrower's financial situation, an evaluation of the current
value of the property that is subject to the mortgage,
counseling regarding the assumption of the mortgage by
another non-Federal party, counseling regarding the possible
purchase of the mortgage by a non-Federal third party,
counseling and advice of all likely restructuring and
refinancing strategies or the approval of a work-out strategy
by all interested parties.
(4) NRC may provide up to 15 percent of the total funds
under this paragraph to its own charter members with
expertise in foreclosure prevention counseling, subject to a
certification by NRC that the procedures for selection do not
consist of any procedures or activities that could be
construed as a conflict of interest or have the appearance of
impropriety.
(5) HUD-approved counseling entities and State Housing
Finance Agencies receiving funds under this paragraph shall
have demonstrated experience in successfully working with
financial institutions as well as borrowers facing default,
delinquency and foreclosure as well as documented counseling
capacity, outreach capacity, past successful performance and
positive outcomes with documented counseling plans (including
post mortgage foreclosure mitigation counseling), loan
workout agreements and loan modification agreements. NRC may
use other criteria to demonstrate capacity in underserved
areas.
(6) Of the total amount made available under this
paragraph, up to $2,000,000 may be made available to build
the mortgage foreclosure and default mitigation counseling
capacity of counseling intermediaries through NRC training
courses with HUD-approved counseling intermediaries and their
partners, except that private financial institutions that
participate in NRC training shall pay market rates for such
training.
(7) Of the total amount made available under this
paragraph, up to 5 percent may be used for associated
administrative expenses for NRC to carry out activities
provided under this section.
(8) Mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance grants may
include a budget for outreach and advertising, and training,
as determined by NRC.
(9) NRC shall continue to report bi-annually to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations as well as the Senate
Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee on
its efforts to mitigate mortgage default.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

operating expenses

For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries,
authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the
rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and
consultants under section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code) of the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness in carrying out the functions pursuant to title
II of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended,
$3,530,000.

TITLE IV

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

Sec. 401. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for
the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses
of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening
in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Sec. 402. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal
year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations,
unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 403. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through a procurement contract
pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures
are a matter of public record and available for public
inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing
law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to
existing law.
Sec. 404. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be obligated or expended for any employee training that--
(1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills,
and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of
official duties;
(2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of
emotional response or psychological stress in some
participants;
(3) does not require prior employee notification of the
content and methods to be used in the training and written
end of course evaluation;
(4) contains any methods or content associated with
religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age''
belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
(5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants'
personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or
otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing
directly upon the performance of official duties.
Sec. 405. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, none of
the funds provided in this Act, provided by previous
appropriations Acts to the agencies or entities funded in
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2016, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury derived by the collection of fees and available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that:
(1) creates a new program;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by
the Congress;
(4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity
by either the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations
for a different purpose;
(5) augments existing programs, projects, or activities in
excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less;
(6) reduces existing programs, projects, or activities by
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures a branch,
division, office, bureau, board, commission, agency,
administration, or department different from the budget
justifications submitted to the Committees on Appropriations
or the table accompanying the explanatory statement
accompanying this Act, whichever is more detailed, unless
prior approval is received from the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That not later than
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, each agency
funded by this Act shall submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives to establish the baseline for application of
reprogramming and transfer authorities for the current fiscal
year: Provided further, That the report shall include:
(A) a table for each appropriation with a separate column
to display the prior year enacted level, the President's
budget request, adjustments made by Congress, adjustments due
to enacted rescissions, if appropriate, and the fiscal year
enacted level;
(B) a delineation in the table for each appropriation and
its respective prior year enacted level by object class and
program, project, and activity as detailed in the budget
appendix for the respective appropriation; and
(C) an identification of items of special congressional
interest.
Sec. 406. Except as otherwise specifically provided by
law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances
remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2016 from
appropriations made available for salaries and expenses for
fiscal year 2016 in this Act, shall remain available through
September 30, 2017, for each such account for the purposes
authorized: Provided, That a request shall be submitted to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for
approval prior to the expenditure of such funds: Provided
further, That these requests shall be made in compliance with
reprogramming guidelines under section 405 of this Act.
Sec. 407. No funds in this Act may be used to support any
Federal, State, or local projects that seek to use the power
of eminent domain, unless eminent domain is employed only for
a public use: Provided, That for purposes of this section,
public use shall not be construed to include economic
development that primarily benefits private entities:
Provided further, That any use of funds for mass transit,
railroad, airport, seaport or highway projects, as well as
utility projects which benefit or serve the general public
(including energy-related, communication-related, water-
related and wastewater-related infrastructure), other
structures designated for use by the general public or which
have other common-carrier or public-utility functions that
serve the general public and are subject to regulation and
oversight by the government, and projects for the removal of
an immediate threat to public health and safety or
brownfields as defined in the Small Business Liability Relief
and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Public Law 107-118) shall
be considered a public use for purposes of eminent domain.
Sec. 408. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriations Act.
Sec. 409. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to pay the salary for any person
filling a position, other than a temporary position, formerly

[[Page H3875]]

held by an employee who has left to enter the Armed Forces of
the United States and has satisfactorily completed his or her
period of active military or naval service, and has within 90
days after his or her release from such service or from
hospitalization continuing after discharge for a period of
not more than 1 year, made application for restoration to his
or her former position and has been certified by the Office
of Personnel Management as still qualified to perform the
duties of his or her former position and has not been
restored thereto.
Sec. 410. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may
be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in
expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections
2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c,
popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
Sec. 411. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act shall be made available to any
person or entity that has been convicted of violating the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
Sec. 412. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for first-class airline accommodations in
contravention of sections 301-10.122 and 301-10.123 of title
41, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 413. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to approve a new foreign air carrier permit under
sections 41301 through 41305 of title 49, United States Code,
or exemption application under section 40109 of that title of
an air carrier already holding an air operators certificate
issued by a country that is party to the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-
Norway Air Transport Agreement where such approval would
contravene United States law or Article 17 bis of the U.S.-
E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict or
otherwise preclude the Secretary of Transportation from
granting a foreign air carrier permit or an exemption to such
an air carrier where such authorization is consistent with
the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement and
United States law.
Sec. 414. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Federal Maritime Commission or the
Administrator of the Maritime Administration to issue a
license or certificate for a commercial vessel that docked or
anchored within the previous 180 days within 7 miles of a
port on property that was confiscated, in whole or in part,
by the Cuban Government, as the terms confiscated, Cuban
Government, and property are defined in paragraphs (4), (5),
and (12)(A), respectively, of section 4 of the Cuban Liberty
and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C.
6023).

The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that portion of the
bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

spending reduction account

Sec. 415. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under Section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.

amendment offered by mr. stivers

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Private Enforcement Initiative of the Fair
Housing Initiatives Program under section 561(b) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C.
3616a(b)) and section 125.401 of the regulations of the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (24 C.F.R.
125.401).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I will be fairly brief.
This is a followup amendment. We have already accepted the
congressional intent that we will have a preference toward
administrative enforcement. This is a followup limitation amendment
that basically says we will not, for this calendar year, use the
Private Enforcement Initiative.
As the gentleman from North Carolina said, we can always come back;
but I think we need to have time for this GAO study that I have
requested to come back because I would assert that administrative
enforcement is less expensive to taxpayers than private enforcement.
It creates more certainty. It happens faster. It has less conflict of
interest than the Private Enforcement Initiative. I would ask that my
colleagues support this limitation amendment on the Private Enforcement
Initiative for this year period.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 0015

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Again, Mr. Chairman, let me say how
unfortunate I believe it is that we are dealing with this kind of
amendment in this setting here tonight without really having much
notice, much ability to understand the full implications.
I do think that we need to appreciate the role of what the gentleman
calls private organizations. We are really talking here about
nonprofits, about mediators, about the kind of working out of
complaints, working out of problems, informal work with landlords, the
kind of thing that actually helps avoid legal action and avoid
litigation. There is a lot that can be mediated, a lot of things can be
worked out in the fair housing arena. There are many nonprofit groups
that do a good job of doing that.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman apparently has lots of complaints about
this, and there have been a couple of prominent cases. I am aware of
that. But the notion that we would come in here tonight and make a
change of this magnitude, of this importance, I simply don't think is
responsible.
So I will speak for myself. I am perfectly willing to look at this
matter down the road. I understand there may be some issues here, but
this is a pretty drastic amendment, and you are taking a whole area
here of mediation and informal conciliation, things that actually keep
things out of the courts, keep things out of the legal system and out
of litigation. I don't know why we would want to do that. It seems
reckless to me.
I recommend that we reject this amendment and, at the same time,
pledge to look at this carefully and work on it later.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Chair, does
recognize that there are problems in the private enforcement
initiative. He just admitted that. There is a lot of lawsuit abuse. In
fact, many of these organizations sue first and ask questions later.
They don't do their due diligence. They send interns in to actually
look at these places and file lawsuits before they get the facts.
The gentleman asserted that we shouldn't make these kind of changes.
That is why the people sent us here, to make things better. We are
supposed to do it every day, and when we see problems, we need to fix
them. This is a temporary, 1-year halt of the private enforcement
initiative with the GAO study that is not directed in this bill, but I
asked for by letter through the GAO, and they are always good about
doing those when you ask them to. They haven't looked at this program
since 1997.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to look at this program in detail. I would
assert that our local and State governments can also do the mediation
that the gentleman from North Carolina talked about, Mr. Chairman, and
they can do it better, more efficiently, and without the conflicts of
interest that some of these private organizations have done.
So I think we ought to give it a try. That is the great thing about
an annual appropriations bill. Guess what; we get to do it again next
year. I am certainly willing to admit if I am wrong and we find out
through a GAO study that the private enforcement has worked well. But
there have been articles in the paper about some of the lawsuit abuse
that we have seen all across the country, and I think we should just
take a strategic pause here and give the money to our State and local
governments who can better enforce our laws. They do it every day, and
they can do it through the mediation and things that the gentleman
asserts that these private enforcement initiatives can do so well.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I
think it will help make our fair housing laws better, and it will
protect more consumers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

[[Page H3876]]

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of
its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by the
Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of
its principals--
(1) within a three-year period preceding this offer has
been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it
for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public
(Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation
of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records,
making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal
criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
(2) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of
any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1); or
(3) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has
been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount
that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains
unsatisfied.

Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that the reading be waived.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment is identical to other
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every
appropriations bill considered under an open rule during the 113th and
114th Congresses.
My amendment would expand the list of parties with whom the Federal
Government is prohibited from contracting due to serious misconduct on
the part of that contractor. It is my hope that this amendment will be
noncontroversial, as it always has been, and again passed unanimously
by the House.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 121.584 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will ensure that the FAA
is doing everything that it can to certify that our aircraft are
protected during a moment that pilots, flight attendants, and Federal
law enforcement officers have all said that the aircraft is vulnerable
to terror hijackings. Despite the effort to safeguard the cockpit after
the 9/11 terror attacks, today, operational experience has highlighted
that a critical vulnerability remains when a pilot must open the
hardened, reinforced cockpit doors to eat, rest, or use the bathroom
during long flights. Even the FAA recognizes that, ``During this door
transition, the flight deck is vulnerable.''
Current FAA regulations require that the area outside the flight deck
be secure before the reinforced cockpit door is opened. Currently, some
airlines are using human shields or, in some cases, drink carts to try
to block entry to the cockpit and claim it ``secure.'' But only one
method has been thoroughly studied and proven to beat the threat of a
trained hijacker exploiting this particular vulnerability, and that is
an installed physical secondary barrier door. These barriers are light,
inexpensive wire gates that are able to protect the flight deck long
enough for the pilot to shut the reinforced door.
This double door security procedure is something that Israeli
airlines have been using for over a decade. They understand the risk
and how to mitigate it. A Cato study has shown these secondary barrier
doors to be the most cost-effective way to protect the cockpit door
when the reinforced door is opened.
This is not some hypothetical threat. We know for a fact that
terrorists maintain their desire to exploit vulnerabilities in our
aircraft safety protocols to bring down an airliner just like they did
on September 11, 2001. A recent USA Today headline read, ``ISIS' Next
Test Could Be a 9/11-Style Attack.'' In 2013, outgoing FBI Director
Robert Mueller said that the terror scenario he fears most remains an
attack with the use of an aircraft.
Perhaps no one knows the consequences of terrorists hijacking our
aircraft more so than my constituent, Ellen Saracini. The terror
hijackings of September 11 took the life of her husband, Victor
Saracini, Captain of United Flight 175, which was hijacked and flown
into the South Tower of the World Trade Center by al Qaeda terrorists.
Inspired by Ellen and the pilots and flight attendants that stand
with her, I have been working with a bipartisan, bicameral group of
lawmakers to have these commonsense, cost-effective security features
installed on every single large passenger aircraft in the United States
through my bill, H.R. 911, the Saracini Aviation Safety Act.
Some have pointed to the ``layered security'' approach to aircraft
security as proof that we don't need secondary barriers, but one only
need to read current headlines to see the huge gaps in our layered
security. As we recently learned, undercover agents, we saw, this week,
were able to get weapons past the TSA 95 percent of the time.
Mr. Chairman, a recent Advisory Circular issued by the FAA highlights
the risk to the cockpit during door transition and calls for the use of
effective protection measures. Support for this amendment today would
build on this positive step used by the FAA by showing that Congress is
serious about this issue and that installed physical secondary barriers
are the only way that we can guarantee, as FAA regulations do require,
that the flight deck be secure prior to that reinforced door being
opened.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to make incentive payments pursuant to 48 CFR 16.4 to
contractors for contracts that are behind schedule under the
terms of the contract as prescribed by 48 CFR 52.211 or over
the contract amount indicated in Standard Form 33, box 20.

[[Page H3877]]

I urge support for this amendment that combats waste, fraud, and
abuse of taxpayer dollars, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes,
had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________