John Delaney

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chair, we all know that hard-edged partisan politics has not only eroded the confidence that the American people have in our government, but it has caused government to function to a very low standard. In my 4 years that I have been in this Congress, I have never seen a better example of that than what we have here today. Because today, we are considering a budget that is not only fiscally irresponsible, it doubles our deficits across 10 years, increases the national debt by $10 trillion, but its sole purpose is to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The purpose of today's budget is not to amend the Affordable Care Act to preserve its strengths and tackle it weaknesses, nor is the purpose of today's budget to repeal the Affordable Care Act and put something in place that has been well thought through and shared with the American public. The purpose of today's bill is to repeal the Affordable Care Act in a cold, hard way and let the chips fall where they fall. And this is not being done because it is good policy. Anyone who is serious about healthcare policy--even people who oppose the Affordable Care Act--who has looked at this issue, has concluded, by any measure, the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed without a replacement. It is being done for political reasons because my colleagues, unfortunately, for years, have told their supporters that they would repeal this bill at all cost, without having the courage or convictions to explain to them the consequences of repeal without replacement; nor without the determination to do the work to come up with an alternative. The Affordable Care Act was passed 8 years ago. It was passed on a straight party-line basis, which was unfortunate. It had three important goals, which it has achieved: to expand health care in over 20 million people; to lower the overall cost of health care in this country, which is the most important number in our fiscal health; and to improve the quality of health care. Is it perfect? No. Are we addressing its problems today? No. Are we repealing it without any replacement? Yes. By any measure, will that be bad for the public health and potentially cause a public health crisis in the United States of America? The answer to that is yes. I urge my colleagues to reject the budget proposal.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the community of Rohrersville and join with them in celebration of the Rohrersville Band Hall's 100th Year Anniversary. The Rohrersville Band Hall was built by the community band and first opened its doors in 1916. The Rohrersville Band Hall has served as a rehearsal space, Town Hall, and concert venue to the people of Rohrersville for the last 100 years. The Rohrersville community's commitment to preserving and maintaining this historic building is nothing short of inspiring. It is so critical to preserve and celebrate local history. So much has changed since 1916, but this building and the band who calls it home have stood the test of time.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 16, 2016 the House voted on 26 amendments to H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Congressman Conyers offered an amendment, roll call vote number 327, to block funds from being used to transfer or authorize the transfer of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia. Amendment votes are taken in quick succession, with two minutes allowed for each. I mistakenly voted NO when I meant to vote AYE on Mr. Conyers' amendment. Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally in the Middle East, supporting our counterterrorism efforts in the region. As with many allies, the United States enters into agreements to sell military equipment to help achieve mutual goals. Included in the sale with Saudi Arabia were cluster munitions. Alarmingly, Saudi Arabia has used cluster munitions contrary to U.S. law which prohibits the use of this weapon in populated areas and those that have a failure rate of above 1 percent. Cluster munitions contain multiple, explosive submunitions that are released mid-air and spread out, making targeting a specific location difficult and may put civilians in harm's way. The weapon is designed to kill enemy personnel and destroy their transportation and infrastructure. When used improperly, the cluster munitions are a danger to innocent civilians. Additionally, unpredictable landings and explosive remnants can put civilians in danger long after the violence had ended. This is a human rights issue. President Obama recently blocked the sale of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen amid reports by human rights organizations that have documented killing and wounding of civilians in violation of U.S. law. I support the President's decision to halt the sale of these dangerous weapons and support Congressman Conyers' amendment to prevent the sale of cluster munitions in the Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Texas for yielding me this time, and I want to express my support for his comments and associate myself with his comments. He has been a singular champion of the TANF program and the goals that it represents. I appreciate his work and the opportunity to work with him on this bill. I also want to thank my good friend and colleague from Indiana. We have spent a considerable amount of time working on this piece of legislation together, talking to groups, and he has been a wonderful champion and it has been a real pleasure to work with him on this concept. Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress, I spent my whole career as an entrepreneur in the private sector building businesses. The one thing I would observe from that experience whenever I would travel around the United States, or around the world for that matter, whenever you saw good economic outcomes and broad-based prosperity for the citizens, you always found a situation where the government, the nonprofit sector, and the private sector worked well together to solve the problems in society, and it is that spirit that animates the social impact partnership that we are here to discuss this evening. If you think about what is going on in the world today, Mr. Speaker, and the changes that are playing out in our economy based on technological innovation and global interconnection, you realize that it has helped many of our citizens and it has helped billions of people around the world, but it has also hurt many of our citizens. It happened too fast; we weren't quite prepared for it; and chronic and vexing issues like poverty, educational disparities, income and opportunity disparities have only grown based on these trends. To make a difference against these problems, Mr. Speaker, we need to do several things. First, we need to invest. You cannot definitionally make transformative changes, whether it be in the private sector or the public sector, unless you make investments. The second thing we need, Mr. Speaker, is we need innovation. We need the best ideas to be applied against some of these very difficult challenges that we have. Mr. Speaker, we also need a new sense and spirit of collaboration and cooperation among all the stakeholders because the government right now has three significant problems when it tries to tackle these issues. The first problem it has is a funding problem. Whether it is the condition of the Federal budget or the State budget, it is very difficult for the government to make investments. The second issue the government has is an innovation problem. Mr. Speaker, I think we all know that the government has never been the incubator necessarily of great innovation. It has been good at investing, but we find more innovation often outside of government. Right now that gap is growing. So the government has an innovation problem. The third problem the government has is a transparency problem. I used to say in business that if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. And we are not getting enough data in terms of a positive feedback loop to look at some of these issues and see what works and what doesn't work. That is why Pay for Success frameworks and social impact partnerships can make such a big difference because it solves those problems, it creates pathways for more capital, more investments to flow from the nonprofit sector or the private sector against issues that have traditionally been funded by the government. It creates pathways for innovation and best ideas and new ideas to flow into the government sector, and it creates a pathway and a framework for more transparency and more metrics as it relates to what the results are. Whether it is supplied against early childhood education, recidivism issues, chronic healthcare issues like asthma, whatever the framework can be, this approach can create an opportunity for more investment, which we need; more innovation, which we need; greater metrics and transparency, which we need; and a renewed spirit of cooperation between the government, the private sector, and the nonprofit sector to make a difference against these problems, which is why I am very supportive of the social impact partnership framework, the Pay for Success framework. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, but I also encourage my colleagues to think seriously about what my colleague from Texas said about the larger TANF program, because there is so much more to be done. I do believe launching the social impact partnership framework can lead to transformative changes against these very, very difficult issues and create a situation where prosperity is shared more broadly and there is more opportunity for Americans, particularly our American colleagues who have been so affected negatively by some of the larger changes that are going on in the world. I encourage adoption of the bill.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. I want to thank my friend from Oregon for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today, my friends on the other side of the aisle are making four points. The first point they are making is that they don't believe in science, because the science around climate change is unassailable. The second point they are making is that they don't worry about American prosperity, because from an economic perspective and national security, the military, we should be reminded, has called climate change a threat multiplier. This is a very significant risk to long- term American prosperity. The third point they are making is that they don't believe in the power of markets to change behavior at its core. They are not acknowledging the power of a capitalistic economic model to change people's behavior. And the fourth thing they are saying is that they don't trust U.S. businesses to innovate into opportunities and around challenges. These are extraordinary statements. And contrast that with our approach. I have a piece of legislation called the Tax Pollution, Not Profits Act, which puts in place a carbon pricing mechanism, which has been proven to be the most effective way--more effective than a regulatory approach--to change behavior and reverse some of the trends and bend the curve on climate change. We take the revenues that are generated by that bill and we use it to offset all of the costs that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say exist through tax credits to individuals. We set aside money to take care of the retirement of all the coal workers in the United States of America for the rest of their lives, and then we take the remaining revenues and we pay for a significant and substantial cut to business taxes. So this piece of legislation, unlike what my colleagues are proposing, has a double bottom line. It will reverse the negative effects of climate change and the threat to our prosperity, and it is a pro-growth policy because it puts money back in the economy and it makes a bet on U.S. businesses that they can innovate and grow into opportunities and around challenges. It is reflective of the view of businesses in 2016, not the view of businesses from the 1950s.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have a looming retirement crisis in this country. People are living longer, the cost of retirement is greater than it has ever been, Americans haven't been able to save for retirement because wages have not gone up, and across the last several decades we have shifted the risk of retirement from institutions to individuals. In that context, the notion that we would allow, perhaps, upwards of 20 percent of hardworking Americans' savings to be eroded because of conflicted investment advice is preposterous. It is for that reason I am a strong supporter of the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule and stand here in opposition, against any efforts to undermine it. The notion that average Americans, low-income Americans, and middle class Americans won't receive service in the context of this new rule is also invalid. One of the greatest expenses financial institutions have is customer acquisition, in other words, the amount of money they invest to acquire customers. The idea that they would somehow get rid of millions and millions of customers that they have already invested huge amounts of money in acquiring I find to be not only a bad business decision, but not logical in the context of the private market, the way we understand it. Also, to the extent that they would do that, I believe right now, as we speak, there are entrepreneurs and investors sitting in conference rooms all over this country with whiteboards figuring out new business models that will deliver high-quality, fiduciary-level, nonconflicted financial advice to average Americans in an efficient manner that meet the standards of this fiduciary rule. For all these reasons, I support the rule. I stand in opposition against any efforts to undermine it. This is an important step in dealing with our looming retirement crisis, and it is the proper role of government to level the playing field and then to allow the private market to solve the problem.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize the lifetime work and achievements of Mr. Art Ping Lee who has worked tirelessly to advocate on behalf of the overseas Chinese community. Born in Taishan County, Guangdong Province of the Republic of China, Lee immigrated to the United States in 1936 and began his advocacy work soon thereafter. Mr. Lee is one of the Founders of the Chinese Youth Club which has served the Asian community of the Greater Washington DC area since 1939. The CYC program helps young people celebrate their cultural identity and serve the community. Additionally, Lee was one of the founders of the National Chinese Welfare Council (NCWC) in 1957. The NCWC spearheaded successful advocacy efforts which included lifting the limitations on Chinese immigrant quotas and establishing permanent residency status and other social benefits for Chinese immigrants to the United States. Mr. Lee, who turns 102 this year, continues to contribute to his community where he serves as an Honorary Elder of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (CCBA) of Washington, DC, a Senior Advisor to the Overseas Community Affairs Council of the Republic of China (Taiwan), and an Honorary Elder to The Lee Family Association in the United States. Mr. Art Ping Lee has led an incredible career of service and is widely respected for his work to better the lives of Chinese-Americans. He is the recipient of the Hua Kuang Medal, First Class from the government of Republic of China (Taiwan) which is the top honor for Chinese who have made special contributions in overseas Chinese affairs. I would like to honor Mr. Art Ping Lee today and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievement of the Fort Hill Sentinels, an extraordinary group of young men from Western Maryland who have inspired their community and gained recognition across the state. This month, Fort Hill High School of Cumberland won their third consecutive state football title, winning the Class 1A Maryland State Championship. On December 5, the Sentinels defeated Havre de Grace 44-14 behind a powerful rushing attack and a strong defense. The Sentinels averaged over 10 yards per play, led by fullback Raen Smith who ran for 234 yards. Fort Hill is 40-1 over the last three seasons. The results produced by the Sentinels--win after win after win for three seasons--are a testament to their dedication, teamwork and intelligence, all qualities that we should celebrate. After winning the state title Coach Todd Appel told the Cumberland Times-News the team would be back in the weight room the next week, a testament to the hard work and commitment of the team. The achievement of the Fort Hill Sentinels should be recognized and recorded for posterity. Congratulations to the Fort Hill Sentinels, Coach Appel and his staff and everyone who played a part in this championship season.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Damascus High School Swarmin' Hornets for capturing the 2015 Maryland Class 3A State Football Championship last week in Baltimore. The victory by Damascus capped a perfect 14-0 season and is the school's eighth state championship. I'd like to congratulate the Swarmin' Hornets, Coach Eric Wallich and his staff, and everyone associated with the team who made this championship season possible. The Swarmin' Hornets defeated Dundalk 55-14, a dominating victory that included a record-setting performance by running back Jake Funk, who broke the state mark for touchdowns in a championship game. The team also set the state record for the most points scored in a season. As the Washington Post headline made clear, the Swarmin' Hornets left ``no doubt'' that they were the best team in the state. Importantly, the team reached these heights after facing adversity and heartbreak. Last season, the team was defeated in the championship game, but rebounded with an even stronger performance in 2015. That experience--working together for months to persevere and accomplish a goal even after a painful setback--will inform and inspire the young people who compose this team for years to come. The Damascus community is extremely proud of their team and their achievement, excellence and perseverance should be permanently reflected in the official record of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Dr. William Kirwan for his service to the people of Maryland. Earlier this year, Dr. Kirwan retired after serving as Chancellor of the University System of Maryland for 12 years. The system includes 12 universities, which run from Frostburg State in Western Maryland to Salisbury University on the Eastern Shore. Nine of these universities have ranked among the best in their category by the US News and World Report. Dr. Kirwan began his career in 1964 as a math professor at the University of Maryland--College Park. For the next five decades--fifty one years--he dedicated himself to higher education. I believe part of why Dr. Kirwan was such an effective leader was the depth and range of his experience. Prior to leading our University System, he was a professor, he was the Chair of the Math Department, he was a provost and he was ultimately President of the University of Maryland College Park and President of Ohio State University. I believe Dr. Kirwan should be an example to us all. He was a skilled administrator who never lost sight of what education is all about--students learning in the class room. To conclude, thank you Dr. Kirwan. Thank you for your service to the people of Maryland, to the students and parents of Maryland. Your dedication, insight and passion for education will be missed.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 671. Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 671, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Georgia talks about the certainty that will be obtained by this bill. There will be certainty. There will be an absolute certainty that we will continue to underinvest in our infrastructure in the United States of America for the next 6 years. Mr. Speaker, because of recent funding levels, we have caused the infrastructure in this country to be underinvested by a huge number. People estimate we have a $6 trillion shortfall in our infrastructure. Well, that is a huge challenge. It is also a huge opportunity. If we could actually increase our investment in infrastructure, we would create jobs, we would improve the lives of our constituents, and we would make our country more competitive. Instead, we are looking at a bill that locks in infrastructure spending at current levels for another 6 years. How anyone could possibly look at the facts, look at the data, and look at the situation of the infrastructure in this country and conclude that that is the right answer is beyond my comprehension. The only way to stop this chronic underinvestment in our infrastructure that will cause the infrastructure crisis in this country to continue to build is to reject this rule and reject the underlying bill so that this Congress can go back to the drawing board and figure out smart ways to increase our funding in infrastructure. There are bipartisan solutions. We have heard about some of them today. One of the ones that I have worked on for years is to tie increasing our investment in infrastructure to international tax reform, where we have trillions of dollars sitting overseas trapped. If we can create pathways for that money to come back, we can allocate additional revenue towards infrastructure and increase our investment in infrastructure so we will not continue to have the problem of chronic underinvestment in our infrastructure and we can rebuild America.

Mr. DELANEY

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

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, recent data suggests that climate change is accelerating. As a result, the destabilizing effect it has on our environment is worsening. To my mind, this is a clear threat to American prosperity and global stability. Mr. Chairman, consider the fact that the Governor of the Bank of England in a speech recently said that he is very concerned that unless we respond to climate change, there will be a dramatic reduction in value of carbon assets, which will cause a financial crisis. As a country with the largest financial markets in the world, we should be concerned about that. Mr. Chairman, consider the fact that Citigroup recently put out a research report that said unless we deal with climate change, the effect on global GDP will be $44 trillion to the negative by 2050. That is twice the size of the U.S. economy. Mr. Chairman, consider the fact that the U.N. has estimated that unless we deal with climate change, 150 million people will be forced to be relocated by 2050; 20 million, alone, in Bangladesh. Put that in the context of the fact that in Syria we are seeing the effects of 7 million people being forced to be relocated. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a clear threat to American prosperity, and the bad news is that our environment is worse. The good news is the technology is better for dealing with this problem. Consider the fact that, as we have doubled the installed base of solar energy in this country, we have reduced the cost of energy by 23 percent. It has happened over the last several cycles of doubling solar, and people expect it to continue. This is occurring because of good old-fashioned American innovation. And while I believe there should be policy prescriptions from the government that effectively cost and price carbon, at a minimum, Mr. Chairman, we should agree that by investing in clean energy technology, we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will lower energy costs for the American public, and we will increase national security. That is what the amendment that I have here today is designed to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELANEY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and my friend from Texas for accepting this amendment. I want to thank my colleague from New York and my colleague from Florida for their support of their amendment and their insight into this issue. Again, I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment. It is very simple. It simply says that investing in basic research and investing in American innovation will, in fact, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which it has been proven to do; will, in fact, lower energy costs, which it has been proven to do; and will, in fact, increase national security in this great country. So, again, I want to I thank my colleagues for their support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. I want to thank the ranking member for her support and leadership on this legislation. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his support. Most importantly, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, for giving me the opportunity to coauthor this piece of legislation with him. Mr. Speaker, emerging growth companies that raise capital from private investors have two options available to them to give their investors a return. The first option is to take the company public, and the second option is to sell the business. The data overwhelmingly suggests that, when companies go public, the companies are very likely to take the capital they raise in a public offering, invest it in the business, create jobs, and hire Americans, as compared to when companies are sold, which are often done for strategic reasons that are based on consolidations and often result in jobs being lost. So, while companies are completely free to make whatever choices they want to make, we, as policymakers, should certainly be trying to level the playing field as it relates to initial public offerings in order to make them more accessible for emerging growth companies, particularly if they can be done without compromising investor protection. I believe strongly that H.R. 2064 does, in fact, do that. My colleague from Tennessee went through the specifics in terms of the processes that are being improved by the bill. I have some firsthand experience with this process in having started two businesses in the private sector and in having taken them both public on the New York Stock Exchange, experiences that taught me that a company's initial public offering, as it relates to due diligence and scrutiny and oversight, is the day when they have the most focus by regulators and investors and underwriters. So it is certainly a time where we have an opportunity for more flexibility around timing, which I believe this bill does and will do successfully. It will lead to more initial public offerings. It will hopefully reverse the trends that we have seen across the last several decades where the number of initial public offerings have decreased. As I said in my opening comments, the more IPOs we have, the more likely companies are to invest in their businesses, create jobs and hire Americans. It is good for our economy. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2064.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 375. Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 375, I would have voted ``aye.'' personal explanation

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his support and, once again, thank him for his singular leadership and for his insights into the importance of the Fisher House program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can build, as the gentlewoman from Michigan said, more Fisher House facilities to allow the family members of our veterans to be with them at this great time of need. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to start by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for their unwavering support of our national defense and our veterans. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the funding for a program called Fisher House from $5 million to $10 million, and it funds that increase by reducing the amount in the operation and maintenance account by $5 million. Mr. Chairman, the Fisher House is a very successful and very well- regarded nonprofit with a single mission, which is to provide free housing and lodging to families of veterans. The facilities are located near veterans hospitals and military hospitals in VA facilities. The purpose of this housing is to allow the families of veterans to be with their loved ones, the servicemen or -women who have served our country and are receiving medical care at one of these facilities. Mr. Chairman, we know how important that is for the families and for the loved ones, but we know in particular how important that is for our veterans when they are receiving care incurred in the service to our great Nation for them to have their families with them. The Fisher House program has been in business for 25 years, and they have been a proven and exceptional steward of taxpayer money. They operate 65 facilities all around the country. Again, these facilities are near military hospitals or a veterans facility. They operate to a very high standard. They have a deep pipeline of new facilities that they want to build. Unfortunately, there is a great need for these facilities, which is why we are proposing to increase their funding from $5 million to $10 million. I have introduced this amendment for the past 3 years. It has enjoyed bipartisan support. This year, it also has the support of the gentlewoman from Michigan. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. DELANEY. I am opposed.

Mr. DELANEY. Madam Speaker, this is a final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Madam Speaker, imagine if this Congress were focused on how the forces of innovation and globalization were changing our economy and making it harder for our businesses to compete, large and small. Madam Speaker, imagine if this Congress were focused on the fact that, while we are creating jobs, we are increasingly creating two types of jobs--high-skilled jobs, which are reserved for those people with the best educations, and low-skilled, low-paid jobs. Increasingly, we are not creating middle-skilled jobs--the kind of jobs that have supported middle class families for decades. Madam Speaker, imagine if this Congress were focused on the fact that, while the standard of living of average Americans is going down, the friction in their lives is going up, including the fact that so many of them have longer commutes--overbearing commutes--because of inadequate transportation, commutes that are taking time away from their families and from their communities. Madam Speaker, if this Congress were focused on those three things, then it would quickly conclude that our top domestic economic priority should be increasing our investment in our infrastructure because this Congress would understand that rebuilding America makes us more competitive. This Congress would understand that a national infrastructure program is the best jobs program we could have because it creates good jobs, and it is sound economics. This Congress would understand that better infrastructure improves the quality of life of our constituents; and because it has been so bipartisan for so many years, it could be something that unifies us, and it would understand that rebuilding America is not an expense but an investment, and we would probably score it that way dynamically. But unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that is not the Congress we have here this evening because we are doing precisely the opposite this evening, and we are cutting our investment in infrastructure. When you look at the facts, that is a strange conclusion indeed. But, Madam Speaker, I am optimistic. I am optimistic that one day, hopefully soon, this Congress can do something transformative around infrastructure and rebuild our country. I believe we can pay for it by fixing our broken international tax system, where we have trillions of dollars trapped overseas, and creating pathways for that money to come back to rebuild our country. While we wait for that day to happen, Madam Speaker, we still should be doing smart and sensible things to improve our infrastructure. My amendment does that. My amendment increases funding for Amtrak so they can better implement the positive train control system, which is technology that is proven to make commuter rail trains safer. The National Transportation Safety Board has said that, if this system were in place since 2004, we would have had 30 fewer accidents, including preventing that terrible tragedy that we all stood here and mourned about 30 days ago in Pennsylvania. So I ask my colleagues to support the amendment to increase funding for Amtrak so that they can better implement smart technology, the positive train control system. Like most investments in infrastructure, it is good for our constituents--in this case, public safety--and it is also a good investment for our country. I urge support of the Democratic motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DELANEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.