Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2013

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the FY14 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill.

This bill is the perfect illustration of the majority's cruel and misguided priorities. We hear a lot from the other side about how we need to cut the budget, reduce the deficit and rein in spending, but, clearly, that's just rhetoric. Last week, the majority put a bill on the floor that increased defense spending substantially, including extra funding for programs the administration and the military didn't want and have no intention of using. The reality is that the majority in this House is perfectly willing to increase spending for things they care about, like military contracts, but not for ensuring adequate housing, investing in economic and community development or even in transportation infrastructure.

The bill before us today is so bad that it's hard to imagine how it can be fixed. The House bill is fully $10 billion less than the Senate bill, and it's virtually impossible to find offsets for amendments to improve the bill, but

it's important for us to highlight some of the egregious cuts, such as the drastic cuts to the Amtrak capital and operating budget. Just a few years ago, Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, PRIIA, which authorized a total of $9.8 billion for Amtrak for the fiscal years 2009 through 2013, but the actual appropriations for Amtrak over this time period was $2.5 billion below the authorized amount.

There is no question we need to invest more in our railroads. A working group for the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission reported that the total capital cost estimate of establishing a national intercity passenger rail network between now and 2050 would be about $357 billion, or a little over $8 billion annually. We are nowhere near that, and the bill before us today takes us in exactly the wrong direction. This bill slashes Amtrak's capital program by 37 percent and Amtrak's operations by 25 percent from last year's enacted level.

These funding levels would have a drastic impact on Amtrak's ability to maintain service. Once you take into account Amtrak's financial obligations, such as contract payments and federally mandated safety work, Amtrak would have only $100 million to cover the investment needs of the entire system. The Northeast corridor alone requires about $780 million per year to address longstanding state of good repair needs, and Amtrak will have to defer maintenance, which will cause service delays and interruptions, and increased costs in the long run.

This is idiotic. I know some people are Amtrak haters no matter the facts, but here are a few more facts that are noteworthy.

Commuter lines on the Northeast corridor carry 235 million passengers every year. These are mostly business travelers who rely on the reliability of Amtrak's rail in order for them to get to work and foster economic growth. If Amtrak cannot maintain the rails adequately, all of these commuter rail systems around all of our major cities will stop being efficient, will stop being able to transport their people.

Amtrak employs nearly 20,000 people in 46 States. Amtrak employees paid more than $64 million in State and local taxes last year. Amtrak did business for suppliers equaling about $1.3 billion last year. Cutting funding for Amtrak jeopardizes all of this economic activity and all of the good-paying jobs associated with it. It will ultimately cost taxpayers a lot of money in the long run.

Amtrak provides a vital service for communities all around the country. We should be increasing investments in Amtrak and developing intercity and high-speed rail. This bill includes no funds whatsoever for the TIGER grant program. In fact, it rescinds $237 million in previous TIGER funds. The bill also includes no funding for the Projects of National and Regional Significance account, which is authorized under the MAP-21 bill that we passed last year but that is now subject to general fund appropriations. The New Starts program will fund some new transit programs, but that account is cut as well, and there is only enough funding to maintain commitments to projects currently in the pipeline. So there are, essentially, no programs to fund any new construction of major transportation projects.

The majority has offered no solutions for how to invest in future economic growth, to facilitate interstate commerce and to maintain our global competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to reject these disastrous cuts to Amtrak, these disastrous cuts to TIGER and to general infrastructure, and to support moving us back toward an intelligent transportation policy. I have to urge a ``no'' vote on the FY14 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill.

Later in this debate, I will discuss the equally disastrous cuts in Community Development Block Grants. It's just another example of how this bill is dismantling the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the draconian cuts to the Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, program in this legislation.

The CDBG program has a proven record of success in stabilizing and revitalizing communities across the country by directly providing funds to local communities and giving them the flexibility to decide where the funding will have the greatest impact. In the last 7 years, CDBG has assisted over a million low- and moderate-income homeowners to rehabilitate their homes, keeping neighborhoods and communities safe and stable.

More than 30 million people have benefited from CDBG-funded public improvement programs, including senior and child care centers, homes for persons with disabilities, safe streets, and shelters for victims of domestic violence. Funds have also been used to provide public services to millions of low- and moderate-income households, including employment training, meals to seniors, and services for abused children.

But the real impact of CDBG is not seen on the national scale. It is seen on the streets and in the neighborhoods of

the communities that receive these funds. In my district, CDBG funds have established adult literacy programs, legal support for immigrant victims of domestic violence, and youth summer employment opportunities. It has preserved public housing and addressed vacant housing and lots in at-risk neighborhoods, providing support and guidance for small, locally owned businesses.

Because of the flexibility CDBG provides, the city government has been able to identify the most pressing needs and the most at-risk communities and allocate funds as they are needed. When we invest CDBG funds in our cities, we see an immediate impact in the neighborhoods as nonprofit and private entities follow, bringing new development and opportunities for residents.

Mr. Chairman, CDBG was a change from the old way in which specific programs were specifically funded. People in this House--mostly Republicans, I must say--said, Give more flexibility to local governments; instead of giving to 20 categorical-specific programs, fund them into one or two Community Development Block Grants so they can be used more efficiently. We have done that. We have combined a lot of categorical programs into CDBG, and now we want to tear it to pieces.

Despite the success that CDBG has had, the bill we are debating on the floor today would cut funding to $1.6 billion, which is a 50 percent cut from this year, and the lowest funding level in the 40-year history of the program--lower than when President Ford supported it, even without inflation adjustments.

In New York, CDBG funding would fall from $164 million to $82 million. These funding levels will leave hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers and millions of Americans without access to the vital services and support that CDBG provides.

How did we get here? Why are we voting to gut this proven, efficient, flexible program? Why are we voting for a 50 percent cut in an already much too small allotment? The answer is simple: the slash-and-burn Republican budget. The same budget that provides tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations and unneeded increases in defense spending while slashing funding for Medicaid, food stamps, and WIC has left appropriators with such small funding allocations that this bill was unworkable and unrealistic from the start.

So here we are, slashing programs that serve and protect the most vulnerable among us--programs that are proven to save us money in the long run and programs that support flexibility and accountability in our communities.

We may disagree, Mr. Chairman, on how to keep our economy strong, but we should all agree that we must stop piling these cuts on the backs of seniors and the working poor, women, kids, and the middle class. Stop these cuts to our communities. We should reject this bill unless it's grossly increased in the aggregate, which it won't be, as we know. So we should reject this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to increase transit funding for Capital Investment Grants, also known as the New Starts program, by $127 million, which would bring it to the same level as the bill currently being considered in the Senate.

Earlier this year, almost 100 Members joined me in sending a letter to the Appropriations Committee requesting funding for transit, at a minimum, at the levels authorized in MAP-21 and in the President's request. In one of the few bright spots in this bill, transit formula grants are funded at the MAP-21 authorized level, in large part because the formula grants are funded out of the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Unfortunately, the New Starts and Small Starts program, which comes out of general revenue and funds the construction of new fixed guideway systems, such as new subway lines, bus rapid transit, and light rail is cut 7 percent below the enacted level and 8 percent below the President's request. This shows how important it is that the provision in last year's Republican bill that would have cut regular mass transit funds out of the highway trust fund and subject it to appropriations was defeated because otherwise we would have a drastic cut there, too.

This bill is out of step with the demands of the American people. According to the American Public Transportation Association, a record 10.5 billion trips were taken last year, the second highest annual ridership since 1957. This increase in ridership is occurring all over the country, in places like Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, and Utah, to name just a few. Despite the increase in ridership, Federal transportation funding is not keeping up with demand. Public transportation agencies all across the country are facing possible job cuts, maintenance backlogs, service reductions, and fare hikes.

The funding levels in this bill provide barely enough to meet our existing commitments to projects currently under construction, and there is a small amount of money for only a few new Small Starts. The funding level is too low to adequately finance planning and development of additional transit projects. The policy framework in this bill is one of attrition and contraction:

to provide just enough money to close out the old projects, with no plans to invest in major new transit systems in any meaningful way in the future. We are not adequately investing in building new capacity and expanding transit service around this country, but I suppose that is the point--to slowly starve these programs to the point that they cease to be effective and then argue that they are not necessary.

But I am optimistic that we will ultimately provide greater funding for transit. This is an issue that historically has had bipartisan support. Many of my Republican friends joined me in protecting the transit funding guarantees during consideration of surface transportation legislation last year and in defeating the leadership's attempt to eliminate it. The business community and the real estate industry support funding for public transportation, along with a wide range of labor, civil rights, environmental, and civic organizations. Public transportation has broad support all over the country because people understand that investing in transit is one of the smartest things we can do to create jobs right here in America, reduce congestion and dependence on foreign oil, and spur economic growth.

My amendment would increase the New Starts program by $127 million, which is a modest amount considering how much we should be investing in our infrastructure, but at least it would put the House bill on equal footing with the Senate. Unfortunately, there is no account to use as an offset that wouldn't cause significant harm to other important programs, and, therefore, I have offered none. I understand the chairman may insist upon raising a point of order, and this just shows the limitations under which we are working in this impossible bill in which there is grossly inadequate funding all around so that you can't responsibly ask for an offset without destroying mass transit or something else that is of great import in order to support adequate expenditures.

I urge my colleagues to support increasing transit funding in whatever final product for FY14 appropriations becomes law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2610.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, today I present H.R. 2610, a bill providing fiscal year 2014 appropriations for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies.

The T-HUD bill conforms with the 302(b) allocation of $44.1 billion in budget authority, and is in line with the House budget of $967 billion. Under such an allocation, we prioritized programs and spending and were able to achieve three very important funding goals: first, meet the ``ob lim'' funding levels for the MAP-21, the highway authorization bill; keep the commercial airspace running smoothly; and preserve and renew the housing option for all HUD-assisted families under lease in fiscal year 2014.

Mr. Chairman, I imagine today we're going to hear a lot about the budget and the sequester, and I'll tell you, I agree. We need a deal. We need a deal that resolves the irresponsible meat-ax approach to the sequester and provides a top-line budget number that addresses concerns about taxes and spending.

But the Budget Control Act is the law, and no matter what number we'd like to write this to, the law gives us $967 billion to fund the government. You get there either by across-the-board cuts or by prioritizing the funds available. I think we all agree that continuing across-the-board cuts is not the answer. We've seen examples why.

Earlier this year, across-the-board cuts caused air traffic controllers to be furloughed, consumer convenience to be sacrificed, and air safety to be endangered. In April, the House voted on a strongly bipartisan basis 361-41 to tap unspent FAA funds and put these air traffic controllers back to work.

Mr. Chairman, we know that across-the-board cutting is no way to run a government. Considering there still isn't an agreement on the sequester or a top-line budget number, it's imperative that we realign the funds we have available to ensure DOT and HUD have the resources they need to care for the population and infrastructure of this Nation. This is a chance to make sure the ``must-do'' priorities are addressed.

I assume we're going to hear a lot about infrastructure investment, and I will tell you we fund the authorized programs at the authorized program levels.

I assume we're going to hear a lot about housing needs, and I will tell you, we retain the housing option for HUD families currently receiving assistance, protecting the most vulnerable.

We are operating under an open rule, and I hope we can keep the debate and amendment process moving along today. We will be taking points of order against amendments that would increase our allocations or authorize on an appropriations act. Let me reemphasize to people who are going to be offering amendments that we will enforce points of order.

I'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), the T-HUD ranking member, for his comity and willingness to discuss what would be possible under a $44.1 billion allocation.

I'd also like to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, plus the members of the committee, and especially the subcommittee, for their hard work and commitment to this bill.

And speaking of subcommittee members, I'd like to give a special word of congratulations to a new and valued member of the Appropriations Committee. The gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Jamie Herrera Beutler, and her husband, Daniel, recently welcomed their first child, a beautiful baby girl, into their family. This sweet girl is a miracle and a testament to the faith and hope that her parents have carried over recent months. We offer our continued praise for their strength, the wisdom of their doctors, and the joy of this new family.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JY13.009

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a great member of the committee.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I would inquire of the gentleman from Arizona if he has any more speakers.

I intend to yield back here, but let me associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) about commending the staff. He named everyone. I just wanted to, again, associate myself with that and thank him for being such a great partner through all this. It has been difficult, but the product we have is, I think, as good as we could possibly have with our allocation this year.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I think it is very well thought out. The gentleman does have it offset, so the committee position on this side would be to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would be happy to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue. I look forward to working with him and the FAA to ensure that our limited Federal dollars go to towers that provide the greatest benefit to the taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I am not opposed to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 19.

Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that provides the existing $14.7 million in DOT funding to the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, rather than a new Assistant Secretary.

This amendment is noncontroversial and addresses concerns of the Science and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. It does not affect the scoring of the bill.

I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I just will stand up in favor of the amendment and I will be calling a recorded vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

We have, in the bill, restrained the growth of this program, keeping the total amount at $216 million--$116 million of which is from fees and $100 million provided in discretionary appropriation for the fiscal year 2012 program level. So it's at the same level as it was before; we don't have any increase.

Mr. Chairman, I really urge the administration, the authorizers, if they want to reform this program, to actually get to work, do it--not on an appropriation bill where we have had no discussion, no debate. It is an issue that should be handled by the authorizers rather than on this appropriation bill.

We need the comprehensive reform so that isolated communities can be served while restraining growth in this program. But I do urge a ``no'' vote, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

The Essential Air Service program ensures that small and rural communities have access to the national air transportation system. The program plays a key role in the economic development of many rural communities by ensuring that air service continues.

Does the program need reform? Absolutely, it does, yes. That is why we cap the per passenger subsidy at $500, which is down from the current $1,000 cap per passenger.

We have also cut the discretionary funding in this bill by $46 million, leaving a total program level of $216 million--$100 million in discretionary funding and $116 million from fees. This is an 18 percent reduction. We already have imposed a significant cut to this program.

We will continue to push the administration to reform the program and work with the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, but an outright elimination of the funding in this bill is a hit to rural communities that I cannot support.

I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment as it would shut down Amtrak.

I can see that Amtrak could be more efficient. There is no doubt about that. However, it has made significant improvements in this area recently, and it is moving in the right direction.

The bill does not include arbitrary funding decisions. We held hearings and scrubbed each. This committee worked very hard to achieve a balanced bill within our limited funding.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states:

It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in the budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2 (f) of rule XXI.

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. It would increase budget authority by $127,383,000.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill. But no amount of hard work could redeem this bill, and I am rising in strong opposition. We call it the THUD bill. Well, the bill makes about the same sound as it spells--thud.

The majority's bill says of our transportation and infrastructure commitments, We don't care if the wheels fall off. It says of our housing and development commitments, We don't care if the roof caves in. Thud.

While I appreciate the hard work of the members of this subcommittee and of the dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle, the funding levels included in this bill are just unacceptable. They're impossible. The 302(b) allocation received by this subcommittee is 15 percent lower than it was last year. And that was already low. It's 19 percent below the Budget Control Act. It's nearly $10 billion below the level that the Senate is considering in the same bill.

This funding level reflects the reckless discretionary spending caps adopted by the House majority in the Ryan budget resolution, which not only locked in sequestration; it doubled down on sequestration in order to shelter defense and homeland security bills from some of the cuts. This made allocations for our domestic investments even worse--far, far beyond the usual zone of political disagreement. The Transportation and Housing bill we're considering today is a prime example of this impossible tradeoff.

On the transportation side, the bill makes deep cuts to the capital programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, Amtrak, and the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts program. It zeroes out funding for the TIGER program, which has been enormously successful at advancing critical

surface transportation projects in communities across the country, and yet has had to leave thousands of meritorious proposals unfunded. Once again, the bill includes no funding for the development of high speed rail.

Funding for our housing needs is even worse. The bill reduces funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, a program that over the years has been known for its bipartisan support, to $1.6 billion. That's the lowest level since this program was created in 1975. The HOME program is funded at $700 million, the lowest level since that program began in 1992. And the bill rescinds funding for the Choice Neighborhoods program, the successor program of Hope VI. That means the bill lacks funding for any comprehensive revitalization program whatsoever.

During the Appropriations Committee markup of this bill, Democrats offered a series of amendments to restore these damaging cuts and produce a bill that more adequately meets our Nation's critical housing and infrastructure needs. All of those amendments were rejected on party-line votes.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most tragic and disappointing fact about this bill is that the cuts it imposes could be avoided if the Republican leadership would only appoint budget conferees to go negotiate, with their Senate counterparts, a long-term deficit reduction deal that would lift sequestration and preserve vital investments in our future.

Alternatively, Republican leaders could reconsider their refusal to talk with the President. That offer from December still stands. They should work with him to address the real drivers of the deficit--tax expenditures and entitlements--thus, lifting sequestration, along with the drag it represents on our economy and the mockery it makes of the appropriations process.

The bill before us is exhibit A of this travesty. I urge my colleagues to raise their voices and their votes against it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the report for this year's Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill, the ``THUD'' bill, as I noted earlier, states:

The Nation is in desperate need for infrastructure and

investment.

I am glad we can agree on that. We are indeed in desperate need, yet the bill before us hardly reflects that. It chooses to prioritize spending cuts over putting Americans back to work. It is part of a budget process that places antitax ideology above all and refuses to address the main drivers of the deficit. Instead, it simply doubles down on sequestration, making sequestration even worse with respect to the domestic bills so as to give some measure of protection to defense. It is an atrocious process, and this bill is Exhibit A for this travesty.

We all know America's surface transportation network is essential for moving goods and services, as well as people, in an efficient manner. Unfortunately, that transportation system is becoming increasingly outdated and ineffective. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave America's infrastructure a cumulative grade of ``D.''

Congestion, aging trains and roads, and thousands of structurally deficient bridges are imposing real costs on the American people and on the American economy. It is estimated that Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic. I can testify to sharing that experience last Sunday. This costs the economy $78.2 billion annually. The poor condition of our roads costs motorists another $67 billion a year in repairs and operating expenses.

The civil engineers stated that ``current spending amounts to only about half of the needed investment.'' Instead, similar to the proposed Ryan budget, this Republican fiscal year 2014 THUD bill would underfund programs that provide critical investments in transportation alternatives and smart growth, providing about $2 billion in total for transit programs, which is about a 17 percent cut from last year.

The bill would completely eliminate funding for the overwhelmingly popular and successful TIGER grant program, which invests in multimodal projects, including roads and bridges, transit, high-speed and intercity passenger rail, freight rail, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and ports--these things that promise to achieve critical national objectives and make our communities more livable and sustainable. On top of that, the bill would even rescind funding for the fiscal year 2013 TIGER grant process that is already under way.

The bill also decreases funding for the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts and Small Starts program, which is the primary source of Federal support for major transit capital projects that are locally planned, implemented, and operated. They are critical for leveraging local investment to implement transit alternatives.

And then for yet another year, the bill provides zero dollars for development of high-speed rail corridor development. I speak as a representative of a State where high-speed rail development between Raleigh and Charlotte is well under way and holds great promise. Yet this bill denies further resources, denies that kind of support for other parts of the country. Our Nation has a major competitiveness gap in this area. These investments make sense. Sometimes you have to spend some money to make some money, and high-speed rail investments have a synergistic impact. They upgrade our rail infrastructure, they improve the mobility of goods and people, and they create jobs.

Finally, Amtrak. This bill is pathetic with respect to Amtrak--only $950 million total. Of this, only $600 million goes to the capital account. That is a 37 percent reduction from last year and more than $1 billion less than the administration's request for capital.

You can figure out how this is going to work. You subtract from that amount Amtrak's required mandatory debt service, that is $200 million; safety-critical work and inspections and maintenance mandated by Federal law, that is another $200 million; and new equipment expected to be delivered this year that will add capacity and improve returns on long-distance trains, that is $100 million. So you see where that money is going. It leaves almost nothing for capital investment in the national system, including improving accessibility for passengers with disabilities.

When you are cutting things this closely, it means the work you are going to do is going to be done less efficiently. Amtrak will have to fix problems only as they occur. It will defer major work. That is bad policy. It is bad economics. If Amtrak deteriorates, service will suffer, revenue will suffer, Amtrak's costs will go up, and that will eventually be reflected in higher appropriations needs in the future.

Mr. Chairman, transportation investments help improve the mobility of millions of Americans and provide alternatives to congested roadways. They foster the development of more livable communities and are proven job-creators. It is absolutely penny wise and pound foolish to shortchange these investments. I urge defeat of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

The devastating impacts of the Ryan budget are on full display in the fiscal year 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies bill.

My good friend, Chairman Tom Latham, was given an impossible allocation of $44.1 billion. This is $4.4 billion below the fiscal year 2013 sequestration level and $10 billion below the level included in the Senate bill. As a result, the FY 2014 bill makes deep cuts to a number of critical transportation and housing programs.

Within the Department of Transportation, the bill cuts the programs and activities of the Federal Aviation Administration by $756 million below the FY 2013 CR level. While the bill provides enough funds to avoid additional furloughs, it is unclear whether FAA will be able to completely lift the hiring freeze that has been in place during this fiscal year.

The FAA's NextGen program will also be impacted by delaying the important developmental work on many of the program's emerging technologies.

Amtrak's capital program is cut by more than $350 million, which will jeopardize long distance service and some short haul routes. At these funding levels, Amtrak will have to suspend mechanical overhauls on equipment, which will result in slow orders and furloughs of hundreds of mechanical employees and engineers.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development sustained even deeper cuts. The bill reduces funding for the CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant, program to $1.6 billion, which is the lowest level since the program was created in 1975. The HOME program is funded at $700 million, which is the lowest level since the program began in 1992.

The bill funds the Public Housing Capital Fund at its lowest level since 1987, adding more than $1 billion in deferred capital maintenance to an existing $26 billion maintenance backlog.

In closing, I do want to commend the chairman, Tom Latham, for funding the critical safety missions of the Department of Transportation and for honoring the obligation limitations in the surface and aviation bills. The chairman has also included sufficient funding to move 10,000 more homeless veterans off the street and into housing.

Despite the chairman's efforts, I have great concerns with the bill as it is currently written. I remain hopeful that we can achieve a more realistic allocation as the appropriations process moves forward this year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend from Chicago (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Chairman, we're waiting for the ranking member of the full committee. She is on her way. So I will fill in the best I can.

First of all, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Visclosky, who is the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations, for his excellent presentation. Also, I join him in making that request to our leadership, both the majority and the minority, that we begin the conversation. We only have a few days before September 30 rolls around. So I would hope that we take his comments seriously and get to work and continue the process of the appropriation and lift the sequestration.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, as we start this amendment process, I want to thank and commend the staff of the subcommittee. These are the individuals who worked very hard to bring this bill forward. They worked many hours and put in a lot of time and effort, so before we start the amendment process I want to recognize their hard work.

So I'd like to thank, from the minority staff, Kate Hallahan and Joe Carlile; from the majority staff, Dena Baron, Doug Disrud, Carl Barrick, Cheryle Tucker, and Brian Bernard because they spent countless hours bringing this bill to us.

Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Latham for doing what he could with this bad allocation, and I look forward to the amendment process

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. It ensures that the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response would receive no less than $10.778 million. This office performs important security functions of the Department of Transportation.

I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would agree with Chairman Latham that this reform needs to come about, and it shouldn't be in an appropriation bill. Hopefully, the T&I authorizing committee will look at this issue and come to a decision.

It was interesting that the amendment before this amendment, we basically waived Hawaii and Alaska. And here we are now limiting the Essential Air Service to $250. I would tell you, as we tried to explain to my colleague from Florida, that this would probably cause 100--maybe a little more--smaller communities not to be able to link to the national air service. So this is not the time to do it.

So I would rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to speak in opposition to the amendment.

The Essential Air Service program was designed to continue air service for small communities that had scheduled air service prior to airline deregulation. It is funded through annual appropriations and overflight fees that are collected when foreign air carriers traverse through U.S. airspace.

This amendment cuts the overall program in half. Many small communities would lose their air service, including, we believe, four communities in the State of California: Crescent City, El Centro, Merced, and Visalia.

This is not the way to reform this program. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that these moneys would expedite the study to see if better warnings could be given at low speeds, so we approve the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The amendment increases funding for the FAA's NextGen office by $3.5 million. As stated by my colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings), it is for future development. I would agree with him that it is something that we need to invest in and that this would accelerate the implementation of NextGen, which is greatly needed. Our air traffic control system is aging and needs modernization. Yet, as Mr. Wolf has pointed out, the allocation is so tight that moving money in the account will cause some problems.

My hope would be that if there is a reconciliation with the Senate that this would be given a higher priority in the funding levels as we work in conference with the Senate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The amendment strikes $13.25 million in additional funds for the administrative expenses for the Federal Highway Administration.

While I will not object to my friend's amendment, I do have concerns that the more we cut on the administrative expenses, the agency's ability to do proper oversight will suffer.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, when we're in session, I have the opportunity--and I take it--to ride the metro. That's the way I get around in this great city. I have to tell you that in the late sixties, early seventies when I first came to Washington on other business, I saw where Connecticut Avenue was being dug up, the beginning of the Red Line. So I can attest, Mr. Chairman, that every morning at the South Capitol stop, people who work in this complex on Capitol Hill, that there are lines of workers that are coming into work.

So when the proposition came before the House, the compact that the Federal Government agreed with Maryland, Virginia, and the District, to maintain the metro and the particular States and District had the matching funds, I was very supportive because I knew of the benefit that Metro brought to our employees here on Capitol Hill, as well as to the Federal employees throughout this metro area. So I have to tell you that I support the Metro system, and I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what a difference a year makes. Last year, Chairman Latham put forward a responsible bill that invested in our Nation's infrastructure and the housing needs of our most vulnerable citizens. The bill we consider today, which is $7.7 billion below the FY 2013 CR level and $13.9 billion below the President's request, is a stark contrast. For example, last year's bill funded Amtrak's capital program at the highest level ever. This year's bill funds Amtrak at the lowest level in a decade, which will likely cause furloughs of mechanical employees and slower service.

Last year, the chairman spoke out against an amendment offered by Mr. Chaffetz to cut the CDBG program to $2.95 billion--still $1.3 billion higher than the level in this bill. Member after Member on the majority side spoke out against the cut, noting how important CDBG was to economic development in cities and States across the country. In fact, 17 Republican appropriators, including Chairman Rogers and Chairman Latham, helped to defeat this wrong-headed cut by a vote of 157-267.

What changed? Have these programs become ineffective? Have local infrastructure needs and homelessness disappeared? Or do House Republicans simply support raising local taxes to fund affordable housing and infrastructure investments? Because that will be the result.

Unfortunately, what has changed is that the reckless Republican Ryan budget guts investments in domestic priorities that increase American prosperity. In fact, this bill alone would mean the loss of between 125,000 and 140,000 Tenant-Based Rental Vouchers, cause 146,000 people who are now housed to become homeless, and result in 7,110 fewer jobs created, and $1.4 billion in lost economic output due to the $237 million recision to the TIGER program.

Instead of investing in affordable housing to help people make the transition from dependency to independence and investing in infrastructure to fix deficient transportation systems and create jobs, Republicans would rather defund the Affordable Care Act, block-grant Medicaid, privatize Medicare, while protecting subsidies for Big Oil and tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans.

The Senate is currently marking up bills at the level to which Democrats and Republicans agreed in the bipartisan Budget Control Act. The Senate T-HUD bill provides a more responsible path that invests in job creation and assistance to families suffering in this economy. For example, the Senate provides nearly $10 billion more than the bill we consider today for infrastructure investments that have received strong bipartisan support and would create jobs, including $1.45 billion to fund Amtrak, more than $3 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program, $550 million for the TIGER grant program, and $1 billion for the HOME program.

If we are to avert a developing crisis and make progress on long-term fiscal challenges, Senate Democrats need a partner in the House majority to conference the budget. The American people, local governments, and small business owners want this budget standoff to end so that we can avoid shutting down the government in October and help them build a stronger economy.

When will Republicans stop holding their livelihoods hostage to the Ryan budget? House Democrats are ready to work with our Republican colleagues to responsibly address our fiscal challenges. However, if they continue to move farther away from consensus by turning once bipartisan bills like this one, T-HUD, into red meat messaging bills for their base, Congress will have a difficult time reaching a balanced agreement before the CR expires in 2 months.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

My friends on the other side of the aisle want it both ways. They adopted

a budget resolution that endorses the sequester levels for next year, locking in a top-line figure $92 billion below the Senate's and the President's budget levels, while they pretend they fixed the sequester for defense. They cut more than required on the domestic side and did nothing to shield defense programs from legally mandated cuts under sequestration. If the House bills are enacted, defense will be cut $48 billion in January as a result of the sequester because the majority has not enacted legislation to stop it--$48 billion when General Dempsey has made it very clear to those of us who have had recent talks with him that our readiness is at stake.

The Republicans allocated more adequate funding to the initial bills to fund military construction, veterans affairs, defense, and homeland security. The remaining bills have quickly revealed the Republicans' thoroughly inadequate investments to sustain job creation and invest in America's future prosperity.

Perhaps no other bill's programs mean as much to the communities in our districts as the bill we are considering today, yet it guts affordable housing and community development and underfunds rail, air, and road transportation networks.

The same majority wrote a very different bill last year that reflected an understanding of the impact these programs have on our economy and Americans' livelihoods.

Compare the House bill to the Senate version, which is almost $10 billion higher. Seventy-three Senators, including 19 Republicans, voted to proceed to floor debate. The House bill, on the other hand, was reported from committee on a straight party-line vote.

I would be hard-pressed to find a better example of fiddling while Rome burns than the House majority's budget and appropriations process this year. They continue to trot out bills despite White House veto threats and despite even worse sequestration cuts right around the corner.

I have asked at our committee to suspend our markup until we conference a budget resolution with the Senate so that we can negotiate a reasonable top line for the appropriations process. There is no sense in the House proceeding alone with levels totally unacceptable to the White House and the Senate, yet we will be here late into the evening again considering amendments to a bill that is going nowhere.

When the House returns after the August recess, we will have only 9 legislative days until the end of the fiscal year: 9 days to negotiate a path forward, 9 days to avert a government shutdown, 9 days to do the jobs we were sent here to do--work together to invest in America and build up our economy.

I genuinely hope our majority will be prepared in the fall for the necessary compromise these negotiations require, because this bill shows they are not prepared for responsible governance today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

This amendment is just another example of how the Republican majority is limiting transportation options for the American people.

Last year, more than 31 million Americans chose Amtrak as the means of transportation to get to business meetings, family gatherings, and vacations. They chose Amtrak to avoid crowded airplanes, congested highways, and for the opportunity to view the wonderful and majestic scenery of this great Nation. Americans deserve a passenger rail system that is safe and reliable.

This amendment also demonstrates how many Members on the other side of the aisle will blindly cut funding without any idea of the real ramifications. For instance, I sincerely doubt

that the gentlelady from Tennessee understands that in addition to handing out 20,000 pink slips, her amendment would cost the government $4.5 billion over the next 5 years due to the violation of labor agreements.

This is a shortsighted amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.