Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the kind words.

I rise today in strong support of this omnibus appropriations bill. I am particularly proud of the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development division which makes critical investments in our Nation's infrastructure, our air traffic control system, and housing for our neediest citizens.

The bill requires some tough choices, but it advances our common priorities of responsible government and fiscal restraint. We worked hard to ensure that this final bill includes funding and policy provisions that are a priority for this body.

We provide funds for the FAA to support the full operations of the air traffic control system and the FAA's investment in NextGen. We meet the MAP-21 extension authorized funding levels for highways and transit. We provide housing funds to assist families served by HUD's housing programs, plus 10,000 new veterans housing vouchers. We provide $3 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program which is a priority for Members of both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I have been honored to serve as chairman of the T-HUD committee for the last 4 years and on the committee for the full 18 years. It has been an amazing experience to see each and every year how the work of this committee works for the people of America.

I would like to thank my ranking member, Mr. Ed Pastor, with whom it has been a real honor to serve. I wish him well in his retirement, and I know that this body will miss him as much as I will.

I would also like to thank the staff of the committee who put in countless hours to draft this compromise. I would also like to recognize and thank Doug Bobbitt from my staff for the

past 12 years and who has served this institution for nearly three decades.

Our chairman, Hal Rogers, has demonstrated that you can stick to your principles and still come to a compromise that puts the American people first.

Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to serve on this committee and under your leadership. I appreciate very, very much all the kindness and personal things that you and Cynthia have done for Kathy and me. I very much appreciate it.

I urge Members to support this bill.

First of all, I will say ``thank you'' to Mr. Simpson--a great, great friend--for doing this this evening; to Mr. Nunes, who is still on the floor here; to Steve King and Dave Loebsack, who were down here. I am not going to sing--we will pass that by--but, again, thank you very, very much for the honor you have bestowed on me and for the kind words here tonight.

Madam Speaker, I will just say the thing I will miss most are my good friends here. That part of it really is hard because it becomes an extended family over time--people whom you know, whom you work with, whom you trust on a day-to-day basis. I will miss that. Now, there is a lot of other stuff I won't miss here, but I will miss the personal relationships and friendships.

Mr. Simpson mentioned the Speaker. I will just tell you that there is no one who could be a better friend and someone I owe so much to. John and Debbie Boehner, Kathy and I owe them so much. They are great, great friends. We love them, and we will continue that friendship as we will with all of the colleagues here we have come to know and love.

Anyone who does this job for any period of time understands you are never going to be successful or accomplish anything without the great work of your staff. I have been blessed both in Iowa and here in Washington with tremendous people who have worked so hard for me, who have committed themselves to the people of Iowa--to the service to them and to this country. All of them are very, very special to me. One person, my chief of staff, James Carstensen, who happens to be in the Chamber tonight, has been with me since day one--actually, a year before I got elected, working on the campaign. So 21 years he has had to put up with me.

Thank you very much.

Thanks to all of the members of my staff. It has been a pleasure for me--a great, great honor to have the privilege of serving with them-- because we have all done it on a cumulative basis, and we have tried to do the best job possible for the people of Iowa.

I have to say ``thank you,'' obviously, to the Iowans. As Mr. Nunes said, I have represented a lot of the State in having the different districts, starting with the Fifth District, then the Fourth District, and now the Third District--moving from northwest Iowa to northeast Iowa to southwest Iowa. It is the honor of my life to serve the people of Iowa and to have that opportunity to be their Representative in Washington to try to accomplish things for their good and for the good of the country. Again, I just say ``thank you.''

Everybody who is in Congress knows the sacrifice of your family. My parents, who were such great role models for me, taught me so much. They are gone now. I have got four brothers and their families. I have my son, Justin; Lynnae; Emerson and Jack; my daughter Jennifer; her husband, Brian; and Keaton, Mason, and Carson; and my daughter Jill and her husband, Nick, and their son, Will. I love them, and what they have done to support me over the years is tremendous and will always be appreciated.

Obviously, there is one person. You could never be successful if you didn't have the support of your spouse. Kathy has been just exceptional in putting up with all the back-and-forth--having two residences and having had to travel here and keep everything going at home while I am away. For the first 19 years we were married, I was on the road with our family business. For the last 20 years, I have been gone, being in Congress. So, obviously, her love and her support has meant everything in the world to me.

Thank you, Dear.

Let me just say, in closing, that it has been an amazing ride for 20 years. For a kid, like Mr. Simpson said or Mr. King said, who grew up in Alexander, Iowa--who grew up on a farm outside of a big town of 168 people--to come to Washington to be able to represent Iowa here is, obviously, a huge, huge honor from that background.

I will honestly say to any Member listening, if you ever get to the point when you walk across the street and don't look up at that dome and get that chill up your spine about something much bigger than you are, you probably should go home. Now, I still get that chill, but I think it is time for me and my family to go a different course.

I am extraordinarily proud to have served here. This is a great, great body. It is something that is an incredible institution. It is truly a slice of America when you come here and you meet the different folks and all you learn about this great country. Having to take into consideration a lot of different views and constituencies from all over the country is an amazing experience. I am very, very proud of that, and I will always feel that my time was well spent here. More so today I am excited about the future because we are going to have an opportunity to spend more time with the family--with Kathy, with the kids and grandchildren. We are going to be able to do some things we have never been able to do before. So I am proud of the past and am excited about the future, and I just thank God that I have had the opportunities I have had to grow up in a State like Iowa and in a community like I grew up in, with parents like I had and brothers and the support of the family.

This is the greatest country in the world. It will always be because of our system of government. As hard as it is to get something done, it is very difficult, but it is the right way to do things, and we need to get back to everyone listening to each other. There is one thing I will say: I never learn a thing when I am talking. You learn things when you are listening to other folks. I think we should all, maybe, step back and listen to each other more, and I think, maybe, we would be better off.

With that, I will just say ``thank you'' to everyone. It is a great country. God bless America. I am excited about the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Brigadier General James Derek Hill of the Iowa Air National Guard and to congratulate him on his illustrious 29-year military career.

General Hill began his military service in 1985 upon receiving his commission through Direct Appointment. Eighteen years later, General Hill joined the Iowa Air National Guard as a Lieutenant Colonel and has faithfully devoted the following decade to guiding our state's men and women in uniform. General Hill retired as the Iowa Air National Guard's Deputy Adjutant General where he served as principal advisor to Iowa's Adjutant General while organizing, manning, equipping, and training more than 1,800 airmen to accomplish missions assigned at both the state and national level. General Hill's unfailing leadership has proven to be instrumental in preparing the men and women of the Iowa Air National Guard for numerous successful deployments in an often chaotic and unpredictable environment.

Throughout nearly three decades of selfless service, General Hill has earned numerous decorations for his consistent leadership and uncompromising standards. Most recently, General Hill was nominated by Iowa's Adjutant General Timothy Orr to receive the hallowed Legion of Merit for his ``exceptionally meritorious conduct'' as Iowa's Assistant Adjutant General over the past four years. I believe it goes without saying that the Iowa Air National Guard's world-renowned 21st century capabilities would not be possible without the positive and professional guidance expertly offered by General Hill over the past decade.

Mr. Speaker, our country owes Brigadier General James Derek Hill a great debt of gratitude for his decades of selfless service and sacrifice. His unwavering commitment to his country and fellow Americans is a testament to our nation's service members and our great state. I know my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives will join me in thanking General Hill and congratulating him on a truly stellar career. In retirement, General Hill leaves behind a grateful state and nation and I wish him, and his wife Rhonda, the very best as they begin a new chapter in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the retirement of Des Moines Police Chief Judy Bradshaw, and to express my appreciation for her dedication and commitment to law enforcement.

Since beginning her storied career as a police cadet in 1980, Chief Bradshaw has been an integral part of the Des Moines Police Department for more than three decades. As the Des Moines Police Department's first female lieutenant, captain, major, and chief of police, Chief Bradshaw has continually broken new ground while both innovating and improving the department.

Throughout her career, Chief Bradshaw has worked and supervised in every area of the department while developing several programs and policies. Since assuming the role of Chief of Police in 2007, Chief Bradshaw has revitalized the community's relationship with the department and its officers. Two of her programs, the Community Ambassador Program and Mentoring Youth with Cops Program, incentivize productive relationships with at-risk youth and community leaders alike. Chief Bradshaw's tenure has shown that when the Des Moines community and its police work together, great things are possible.

Throughout her illustrious and lengthy career, Judy has never wavered in her commitment to justice and security. Chief Bradshaw is a testament to the high quality character instilled in Iowans, and the city of Des Moines owes her a great debt of gratitude for her service. While Judy's leadership will be sorely missed, she leaves behind a more secure community that will continue to benefit from her service for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a great honor to represent the brave men and women that comprise the Des Moines Police Department in the United States Congress. I thank Judy for her wonderful work and I wish her the best as she begins a new chapter in her life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Jeffrey Kueter for being named the next President of the University of Iowa Alumni Association. Mr. Kueter will succeed current President Vince Nelson at the end of this month.

As any loyal Hawkeye knows, the UI Alumni Association is the trusted resource for more than 45,000 graduates who continue to stay involved in the university's community. The association has maintained an excellent reputation of keeping alumni engaged and united no matter how many miles may separate them from Iowa City.

Since graduating from the University of Iowa in 1993, Mr. Kueter has maintained an unparalleled allegiance to his alma mater through the devotion of his time, resources, and efforts as an ambassador to the political science department. While in his current role as President of the George C. Marshall Institute in Arlington, Virginia, Jeffrey also has presided over the Capital Area Iowa Club of Washington, D.C. and served on the UI Alumni Association's Board of Directors for seven years. In 2011, Mr. Kueter was bestowed with the association's esteemed Distinguished Young Alumni Award for epitomizing what it means to pursue a rewarding, lifelong relationship with the university.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better selection than Mr. Kueter to promote the University of Iowa Alumni Association's mission of strengthening the university through alumni engagement. Jeffrey's continued commitment to his university and home state throughout his professional endeavors embody the values espoused in the lecture halls of Iowa City and all across our great state. As the next association president, there is no doubt that Jeffrey will continue to focus his efforts to further the University of Iowa and its world-class alumni. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Kueter on his new position and I wish him the best of luck as he expands his integral role in leading Hawkeye Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Quinton Jenkins for being named a state winner of the Library of Congress's Letters about Literature program.

Letters about Literature is a national reading and writing program that is sponsored by the Library of Congress. The program asks students to write to the past or present author of a book that affected their life. More than 50,000 young readers from across the country submitted letters last year to compete for the state-level awards for 2014.

A panel of judges that can include published authors, editors, publishers, librarians, teachers, and state officials chose Quinton's letter

as a state winner. Quinton wrote a letter to author Michael Buckley explaining how Buckley's book, Gifted Hands, affected his life. Quinton's letter to Buckley earned him recognition in his community as well as here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young man demonstrates the rewards of harnessing one's talents and sharing them with the world. Quinton's efforts embody the Iowa spirit and I am honored to represent him and his family in the United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives will join me in congratulating his achievement and will wish him continued success in his future education and career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Ellie Ball for being named a state winner of the Library of Congress's Letters about Literature program.

Letters about Literature is a national reading and writing program that is sponsored by the Library of Congress. The program asks students to write to the past or present author of a book that affected their life. More than 50,000 young readers from across the country submitted letters last year to compete for the state-level awards for 2014.

A panel of judges that can include published authors, editors, publishers, librarians, teachers, and state officials chose Ellie's letter as a state winner. Ellie wrote a letter to author J.R.R. Tolkien explaining how his renowned work, The Lord of the Rings, affected her life. Ellie's letter to Tolkien earned her recognition in her community as well as here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young woman demonstrates the rewards of harnessing one's talents and sharing them with the world. Ellie's efforts embody the Iowa spirit and I am honored to represent her and her family in the United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives will join me in congratulating her achievement and will wish her continued success in her future education and career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Alexandra Grady for being selected as the 2014 Distinguished Young Woman of Iowa.

Distinguished Young Women is a national scholarship program that supports young women to reach their full potential. Founded in 1958, Distinguished Young Women is the largest and oldest national scholarship program for high school girls. It was founded on the mission to ``positively impact the lives of young women by providing a transformative experience that promotes and rewards scholarship, leadership and talent.'' As Iowa's Distinguished Young Woman, Ms. Grady will compete in the National Finals competition later this month in Mobile, Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young woman demonstrates the rewards of harnessing one's talents and sharing them with the world. Alex's efforts embody the Iowa spirit and I am honored to have her represent our state in this national competition. I know that all of my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives will join me in congratulating Alex's achievement and I wish her continued success in her future education and career.

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have already crafted this bill to our 302(b) allocation, which is in compliance with the Ryan-Murray budget agreement.

While I agree with the gentlewoman's desire to reduce spending, the proper time to consider reductions to overall spending is when the budget is being crafted, not on individual appropriations bills.

This bill continues the investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure, as well as serving as a critical safety net for some of our most vulnerable populations by trying to make sure all Americans have a roof over their head.

This amendment would cut the FAA air traffic controllers, cut infrastructure, highway spending, transit grants, section 8 vouchers, VASH vouchers for our homeless veterans, safety inspectors for all modes of transportation, and also homeless grants.

We have done our cutting based on hearings, meetings with the departments and the stakeholders, and analyzing the budget justifications, rather than just an arbitrary across-the-board cut.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote, 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 make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment directly amends existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. As we move forward to conference, we will work with the gentleman to ensure that any project ready for full funding grant agreements will receive funds under our conference allocation.

Will the gentleman yield?

We would accept the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, reluctantly I must rise in opposition to the amendment. I share the gentleman's concern, and that is why we have included language in our committee report directing HUD to review instances of payments for housing that exceed 120 percent of fair market rates.

The big problem is I have concerns about the potential unintended consequences of this funding prohibition, in particular, the elderly and disabled populations which could be displaced with an amendment such as this.

I really appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue and will continue to work with HUD to address any excessive, unwarranted overpayments for assistance to our most vulnerable citizens.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

We will accept the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this important safety issue and for highlighting the promise of this research initiative. I look forward to working with you as our bill moves through the legislative process to make certain DADSS research is adequately funded.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I appreciate the gentleman's effort to further reduce spending, this account is already below the enacted funding level, and further cuts in this account are unwarranted.

This account primarily funds employee salaries and benefits, and an additional 14 percent reduction would result in the furlough or layoff of key HUD employees. Disruption of the leadership offices at HUD would jeopardize the welfare of millions of vulnerable families and billions of dollars in taxpayer investments. Therefore, I cannot support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I must rise in opposition to this amendment also. While I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to further reduce spending, this account is already $6 million below the enacted level from last year and over $30 million below the President's request.

Additional cuts would require HUD to furlough or lay off employees which undermines the Department's ability to adequately serve millions of low-income, elderly, and disabled households and puts billions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Unfortunately, the way the amendment is written, it would not reduce the deficit at all. It doesn't go to the deficit reduction account. It would basically just stay in the bill, to be spent by someone else, somewhere else; so it doesn't really save the taxpayers any money in the end. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Unfortunately, I wish the gentleman would have brought it up maybe in full committee as a member of the committee to address it then. I don't believe that this bill is really the venue to address what is a local issue.

The affected airport serves the Greater Los Angeles area. I simply don't know the impact of this action that it would have on trans- Pacific flights, trade, or commerce throughout the area. So, for those reasons, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I have great appreciation for the gentleman's point. The report was very shocking as far as the transparency and how some of these grants have been given. I am in a position where I must insist on being consistent in opposing all legislation on the appropriation bill.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I really appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this issue to our attention. I know the authorizing committee has looked into the issue of voice communications on flights and unanimously voted out a bill out of the committee addressing the same concerns. I look forward to working with the gentlewoman and the authorizers as we move forward on this very, very important issue as far as you and I and all travelers are concerned.

So, thank you very much.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would gladly accept your amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

We will gladly accept your amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I support the efforts and reforms to move Amtrak to operate in a more efficient and effective manner, I must oppose this amendment.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, and his raising this issue. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate seven Amtrak routes and eliminate rail service to dozens of cities and towns of all sizes across America.

Just to list, those would be California Zephyr, which goes from Chicago to Emeryville, California, which happens to go through Iowa; Cardinal Hoosier line, which is Chicago to New York; Coast Star Light, from Seattle to Los Angeles; the Crescent, from New York City to New Orleans; Silver Star, from New York City to Miami; Southwest Chief, from Chicago to Los Angeles; and the Sunset Limited, from Los Angeles to New Orleans.

Again, I appreciate very much what the gentleman is trying to do. I just think we need to work on efficiency at Amtrak.

We have been trying very, very hard, through all of our hearings and through our contact with Amtrak, to get efficiency and to modernize and to try to get them to a profitable state; but unfortunately, I must oppose this amendment, just because of the vast impact it would have on so many people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to accept your amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be

agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say thank you to Speaker Boehner and Mr. Hoyer for the kind words earlier and to also express my appreciation to my counterpart here, Mr. Pastor, who has been such a great partner through this whole process. It has been a real pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we considered is a good piece of legislation that adequately funds critical transportation and housing programs, programs that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support, and it does so within the confines of a reduced budget.

The motion specifically adds money to NHTSA's administration account. Unfortunately, simply throwing money at a problem will not solve the problem. We have an opportunity in the next surface reauthorization bill to look at NHTSA's authority and regulatory ability.

It is kind of a surprise to have this motion now. We have gone through 2 days under a totally open rule. This could have been considered in regular order. Mr. Speaker, this is just an effort to grind the appropriations process bills to a halt.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion and pass H.R. 4745 today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 4745, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I am pleased today to present to the House for consideration H.R. 4745, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015.

The committee has put forth a bill that conforms to our 302(b) allocation of $52 billion in budget authority and is in line with the budget cap of $1.014 trillion. Under such an allocation, we prioritized programs and spending to achieve three very important goals: to continue the ob lim level funding levels of MAP-21 contingent upon reauthorization; keep the commercial air space running smoothly; and preserve the housing option for all current HUD-assisted families.

I think this is a good bill with the allocation that was given to us. We may hear today from some who say the bill spends too much money, and I am sure we will hear from those who believe we should be spending more money. However, this bill received a fair allocation under the Ryan-Murray budget agreement with a large, bipartisan majority, and, as such, we should continue that support.

Thanks to the return of regular order, the whole House of Representatives has the opportunity for full consideration of this legislation. It is imperative that we move this bill to final passage, reflecting the amendments adopted by the House, and move this bill to conference in time for the new fiscal year.

I would like to thank my good friend and fellow future retiree, the gentleman from Arizona and the T-HUD ranking member, Mr. Pastor, for his ideas and support in drafting the bill. It has been a real pleasure to work with the gentleman, and I really do appreciate his friendship. I would also like to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, plus the members of the full committee, and especially the subcommittee, for the hours spent in hearings, markups, and meetings, working together to bring this bill to the floor and eventually have it signed into law.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. They have worked tirelessly to get this bill done to this point, and I urge the adoption of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] THJN09.008

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

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Arizona have any more speakers?

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very well intended, but I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide funding for Navy operations that might be affected by new and existing wind turbines. Upgrades to air traffic control to address Navy requirements resulting from the construction of wind farms are the responsibility of the Department of Defense and potentially those who are constructing the new wind farms. FAA would have a role in consulting with DOD to upgrades of air traffic control facilities, but this is typically done as a reimbursable agreement between DOD and the FAA.

Further, we cannot accept this offset. We have already reduced DOT salaries and expenses for the Office of the Secretary down to the level provided in fiscal year 2012. We have provided funds in this account to protect transportation consumers, ensure safety across DOT programs, and provide oversight of DOT programs to safeguard the taxpayer.

I would be happy to work with the gentleman to ensure the FAA has an appropriate partner to help in addressing this issue, but I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to accept 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 make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment directly amends existing law and is not merely perfecting to the existing text of the bill.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would shut down Amtrak.

I concede that Amtrak could be more efficient. However, it has made significant improvements in this area recently, and it is moving in the right direction.

The bill provides $340 million in operation grants to Amtrak, which fully cover Amtrak's anticipated operating losses for fiscal year 2015. This is a realistic number that we base on Amtrak's most recent operating loss projections.

The bill does not include arbitrary funding decisions. We held hearings, and we scrubbed every account. It isn't prudent to eliminate an entire transportation option.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the amendment.

The fact of the matter is the bill provides $340 billion in operating grants to Amtrak, which will fully cover their operating losses. If in fact the amendment were put in place, there could very easily be interruptions of service in the Northeast or throughout the system, and it could cause real problems as far as the operations itself, obviously, of Amtrak.

For those reasons, I would oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We will accept the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

We accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we all know in section 8 there are reforms that are needed. This amendment does nothing to those reforms, and it should be to the authorizing Financial Services Committee to initiate the reform so that, in fact, we can change it, make it work better, and do the right thing for the people in the system. But this is just not the way to approach it.

We have worked in this bill to cut all unnecessary spending in HUD's programs. We provided funds to continue assistance to the 2.2 million families while cutting administrative fees by $150 million to $1.35 billion.

It also would cut the housing assistance for homeless veterans program, which we need to give those veterans the kind of services that they desperately need.

I agree with the gentleman from Ohio that reforms need to be done to the program. This is not the place to do those reforms, nor is he even proposing any reforms to the program, rather than just slashing important programs for people. And I don't want to be the one to have to pick and choose who is going to lose their house, their place to live under this amendment.

So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have not even seen the amendment. For that reason, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill.

The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states:

``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriation 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 of the Chair.

Objection.

There is an objection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate very much the gentleman raising the issue.

I think we should remember, this is an appropriation bill. It is a funding bill. It is not an authorizing bill. This is an issue that should be dealt with by the committee of jurisdiction, which needs to make a lot of changes at HUD. There is no question about it.

This is a funding bill, and, Mr. Chairman, we have already made tough, responsible choices in the bill, and we have already cut the Public Housing Capital Fund by $100 million below last year. So while the gentleman wants to cut a little bit more, I understand that, but the fact of the matter is we are down $100 million from last year.

The Public Housing Operating Fund is held at last year's level of $4.4 billion. I really think to cut any more out of this could possibly pose a risk to the health and safety of our housing capital.

For those reasons, again, I appreciate the gentleman's bringing the issue forward, it is an authorizing issue, and on this, as a funding bill, I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate very much the gentleman's effort to help more vulnerable households by increasing funding for HOPWA, but I simply cannot support this amendment.

The increase is offset by a more than 30 percent reduction in funding for HUD's information technology systems. These systems are critical to HUD's ability to oversee billions of dollars in grants, subsidies, and loans. Many HUD systems are antiquated and require significant maintenance and investment to keep operating. A cut of this magnitude would undermine the

agency's ability to function, so I would urge a ``no'' vote and also remind folks that there is $305 million for HOPWA in the bill already, a slight reduction from last year, but with our allocation, very significant funding for this program.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think we should keep in mind that we have $3 billion in the Community Development Block Grant account. That is slightly less than last year by $30 million, but there are $3 billion in that.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's effort to increase funding, but the offset for that increase is a $100 million reduction to the HOME program, which is already reduced by $300 million, so we are already cutting HOME by $300 million from the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

It is important to remember that, just a few years ago, the HOME program was funded at $1.6 billion. In this bill, it will be at $700 million, so it is less than half of what it was at that time.

The program is targeted to the development of affordable housing that benefits low-income families, and we don't believe, at this point, a further reduction is warranted. So while I appreciate the benefits of the block grants, I must urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is obviously just the opposite of the previous amendment in the reduction of our proposed amount of $3 billion for the Community Development Block Grant.

This amendment would accept the President's proposal to cut $230 million from the Community Development Block Grant program. Our bill already has a small reduction, $30 million, from what was enacted last year.

The CDBG program provides critical funding to State and local jurisdictions for affordable housing, economic development, and public service projects such as homeless shelters.

What is great about the program is that the grants are very flexible, which empowers jurisdictions to identify and fund investments that meet local priorities. Also, these funds often attract significant coinvestment from private and other non-Federal sources.

CDBG is an important source of Federal partnership and support in many of our jurisdictions, and so I must urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I will not go through the merits of the program again, but the fact of the matter

is we are $30 million less than the enacted level from last year, so there is a reduction in the account.

A lot of people would say ``unfortunately,'' but there is, in fact, a reduction, and for that reason, I would oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman makes a very compelling argument, and we would accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

The bill funds rental housing assistance at $28 million. This is the amount necessary to fund the 18,000 existing long-term project-based rental assistance contracts. This will ensure that these units remain available to low-income families. In fact, if the gentleman's amendment were adopted we would actually break contracts. We would not be able to fund contracts that we are legally obligated to do.

The bill's funding levels are not arbitrary. We have scrubbed these accounts. We have held hearings and

made recommendations on what must be funded.

Again, I must oppose it. There are no new contracts. We are not expanding the program; we are basically paying for what we already have in this account. Again, to have this reduction, we would, in fact, break our contract.

With that, I oppose the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states, in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

As you know, one of the very important functions of this committee is

oversight--ensuring agencies under our purview are effectively and efficiently managed.

The bill provides the Amtrak OIG with $25 million for oversight studies and investigations into fraud, waste, and abuse at Amtrak. It is through these investigations that the Amtrak OIG has helped improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Amtrak's programs and operations.

For example, Amtrak OIG developed a program that has identified improper or overpayments to the tune of $91.3 million. Amtrak has collected some of this back, which has saved taxpayer money. The impact of sequestration and unanticipated rail employee benefit cost increases wreaked havoc on Amtrak OIG and forced them to curtail or to suspend work on important initiatives and investigations. Amtrak needs more oversight, not less.

I appreciate the gentleman for pointing out all of the problems at Amtrak, but the only people there to fix it are in the OIG office, so I think to reduce funding for that would not be in the best interest. The bill's funding levels are not arbitrary. We have scrubbed these accounts. We have held hearings and have made recommendations on what should be funded and where increases or reductions need to be.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. I very much understand where the gentlewoman is coming from with the tremendous needs that we have today in infrastructure, to have some of this money being diverted to other uses. I understand entirely.

This really is an authorizing issue if there ever was one. We appropriate money in this bill. We don't authorize or set up the programs themselves. That should be addressed in a reauthorization of the MAP-21 bill.

The funds here, oftentimes, go to erosion control. They preserve wetlands and meet some environmental regulations that the States have to comply with or the entities, government entities have to comply with.

But the real big problem here is the fact that States may have contracts already out there that they are obligated to pay and, basically, what we are saying is we are not going to reimburse you, so the Federal Government, even though the States have the contracts in place, we are not going to do our part and help pay the bill, and that really is where the problem is.

We have an obligation, but we don't have the money. Again, that is why this goes back to an authorizing issue that needs to be looked at. I totally agree with the gentlewoman, and I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We agree to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

Will the gentleman yield?

The reason I objected is we weren't sure as to what the amendment was, and we would accept the amendment.

If the gentleman doesn't take much time, we will accept the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand the gentleman's concern, but this can have some unintended consequences. But the main reason is that unfortunately this would not affect the public housing authorities at all. This would affect HUD employees. Public housing authorities are not HUD employees. So this amendment, and I wish the gentleman and I could have worked together on this, but it does nothing to the public housing authorities because it does not prohibit them from hiring outside legal, and that is unfortunate.

We have been saying for years and years and years to the authorizers that these are issues they need to address, and they haven't been able to do it. Unfortunately, we get in an appropriation bill and end up with a lot of these issues. But again, the main reason to oppose it is because it does nothing to the public housing authorities. They would still be able to continue their practices as they are.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

All this would do is limit the employees of HUD, and it would do nothing to the PHA employees. PHA employees are not HUD employees; and all you are doing is limiting funding to HUD employees, so it would have no effect as far as the PHAs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We would be more than happy to accept the amendment in the interest of time if we could move on.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the issue the gentleman is trying to get at.

I must oppose the amendment because I think there are some unintended consequences. As far as the way the amendment itself is written, in effect you are banning DOT or HUD from ever purchasing another camera for any use, in essence, because of the possibility it might capture a license plate somewhere.

It simply will also have a lot of wide unanticipated operational impacts across all of the programs in this bill. There could be a prohibition on purchases of aircraft control surveillance technologies at the FAA, an unintended ban on cameras used for safety purposes at airports and air traffic control facilities.

The prohibition could prevent Federal and State motor carrier inspectors from using camera-based technology to screen vehicles for compliance with safety regulations.

The broad nature of this prohibition will negatively affect key research program studies and crash investigations for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The prohibition could undermine revenue collection systems on several large toll-funded routes who take pictures of a license plate--and that is how they charge--and put Federal loans at risk of default not having that means of collecting those revenues.

At HUD, the prohibition, being as broad as it is, could prevent housing authorities from purchasing or operating security systems that are critical to the health and safety of the residents in the public housing and the surrounding communities.

I totally understand the gentleman's point, but there are some ramifications here. I think that maybe we could tailor it better, working on it together in the future, but at this point I would have to oppose the amendment, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the rationale for the point of order is projects can be broad in scope, both in terms of the purpose of the project and the number and types of contractors involved.

For an agency to determine whether a specific bonus can be awarded, this amendment would require the agency to also determine whether the project as a whole is over budget or behind schedule, not simply the part of the project pertaining to the agency awarding the bonus.

So I, again, would insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. There are multiple toll finance projects along the I-4 corridor that could potentially be disrupted by this prohibition.

Further, this prohibition could undermine the creditworthiness of pending applications for Federal loans to support critical projects along I-4.

This route crosses multiple Members' districts, and it is not clear what effect it may have on future I-4 projects.

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

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.

Yes, we were aware of it. We have been advised by the DOT of the ramifications of this amendment in the revised form. That is why I rise in opposition. It is DOT's concerns we are raising.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination with respect to the calculation of a per-passenger subsidy.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Major General Gregory Schwab of the United States Air Force on his illustrious military career spanning more than four decades. Major General Schwab will be honored at a ceremony at Camp Dodge on Saturday by Iowa's Adjutant General, Major General Timothy Orr.

Before he was a Major General, Gregory Schwab spent his childhood growing up on a

farm in Minnesota. Upon his high school graduation in 1968, Gregory enrolled in the University of Minnesota, Duluth to pursue a Bachelor's degree in Geography. In 1972, Gregory received his degree and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force through the ROTC program. He earned his wings in 1973 and would begin his storied career serving as an A-7 pilot and Forward Air Controller across the world before joining the Iowa Air National Guard in May of 1978.

Since joining the 132nd Fighter Wing, Major General Schwab's remarkable efforts have been invaluable to the State of Iowa. Initially serving a number of squadron roles in and out of the A-7, Major General Schwab transitioned to the F-16 with the unit and led two combat deployments to Southwest Asia in 1996 and 1997 as the 124th Fighter Squadron Commander. By 2002, he had ascended to Commander of the 132nd Fighter Wing. His remarkable leadership and management of such a renowned unit led to his service as the Deputy Adjutant General for the Iowa National Guard in 2008. In this role, Major General Schwab assisted leading Iowa's 9,000 Guardsmen in meeting mission requirements at the state and federal level. His outstanding work in Iowa resulted in his selection as the Air National Guard Assistant to the Commander of Air Combat Command in which he has served since 2011.

Mr. Speaker, our state and nation owes Major General Schwab a great debt of gratitude for his decades of service and sacrifice. His unwavering commitment to honorably serving his country and fellow Americans has been recognized through numerous decorations and continues to positively impact both Iowa and our nation as a whole. I know all of my colleagues in the United States Congress will join me in thanking Major General Schwab for his years of faithful service and congratulating him on a truly stellar career. I wish him, and his wife Debey, the very best as they begin a new chapter in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Ambassador Kenneth M. Quinn for being named the twenty-third recipient of the Iowa Award by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad. This is a remarkable and well-deserved achievement for one of the finest citizens in Iowa's 168 year history.

The Iowa Award is the highest citizen award attainable from our great state. Established in 1948 by Governor Robert Blue and the Iowa Legislature, the Iowa Centennial Memorial Foundation bestows the Iowa Award approximately every half decade though a self-financed event. The foundation was created ``to encourage and recognize the outstanding service of Iowans'' in numerous fields and to recognize the ``merit of their accomplishments in Iowa and throughout the United States.''

Knowing Ambassador Quinn and counting him as a close friend, I can think of no more deserving Iowan to be formally recognized for his service to our state, nation, and world as a whole. Kenneth will formally join this elite class of Iowans, including President Herbert Hoover, Dr. James Van Allen, Vice President Henry Wallace, and Dr. Norman Borlaug, when Governor Branstad presents Ambassador Quinn with the Iowa Award at the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates in Des Moines later this month.

Mr. Speaker, I have lauded Ambassador Quinn's astounding biography, service, philanthropy, and heroism previously in this hallowed chamber and I am privileged to reiterate that sentiment today. Ambassador Quinn has dedicated his life and his talents to assisting those in all corners of the globe and words cannot express the extent of his positive impact left on his colleagues, the State of Iowa, and countless individuals around the world. It has been one of the greatest honors of my career to represent and assist Kenneth in all that he does and his selection by Governor Branstad to receive the Iowa Award is affirmation that I am far from alone in my effusive praise and appreciation. I invite my fellow Members of Congress to join me in thanking Ambassador Quinn for his decades of unwavering service and to congratulate him as the people of Iowa proudly count him among our state's most storied and influential citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Kuder, Inc. of Adel, Iowa for being named a 2014 recipient of the President's ``E'' Award by the United States Department of Commerce.

On December 5, 1961, the prestigious ``E'' Award program was created by President Kennedy through Executive Order to properly recognize American citizens and organizations who significantly contribute to increasing United States exports. United States exports are a crucial part of our economy and support nearly 10 million jobs across the country.

Kuder, Inc. is a growing career and education planning company with an increasing focus on evidence-based career guidance overseas. From Adel, Iowa, Kuder has acquired multiple government contracts in the Middle East and Asia as well as fostering collaboration with private organizations and government agencies in Europe, South America, Asia, and Africa. In total, Kuder has helped more than 150 million people discover their career aspirations. In addition to Kuder, Inc.'s national recognition for its outstanding efforts, Kuder was also recently selected as the Iowa Small Business Exporter of the Year for 2014 by the U.S. Small Business Administration for their outstanding leadership in our state's business community. It is clear that Iowa's own Kuder, Inc. truly represents the spirit of American business and the renowned Iowa work ethic.

Mr. Speaker, the great work done every day by the men and women of the Kuder, Inc. provides a crucial service to their community and our nation as a whole. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Kuder, Inc. for receiving this coveted award and thanking them for their invaluable efforts. It is an honor to represent the people who comprise this leading organization in the United States Congress, and I look forward to many more years of Kuder's innovative and positive impact in Iowa.