Several members from New York in particular spoke against the transfer of funds: Reps.  Louise Slaughter (D), Jerrold Nadler (D), Paul Tonko (D), Carolyn Maloney (D) and Laura Richardson (D). Others speaking against it were Reps. John Olver (D-Mass.), David Price (D-N.C.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Al GreenAlexander (Al) N. GreenThis week: Time running out for Congress to avoid shutdown Lewandowski: ‘We’ve got a real problem’ if Dems retake the House House Dems plan measure to censure Trump over 's---hole countries' remarks MORE (D-Texas), Corrine BrownCorrine BrownFormer Florida rep sentenced to five years in prison for fraud, tax evasion Genuine veteran charities face a challenge beating the fakes Former Florida rep found guilty of tax evasion, fraud MORE (D-Fla.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Sheila Jackson LeeSheila Jackson LeeOvernight Cybersecurity: Feinstein shocks by releasing Fusion GPS testimony | House passes bill to boost oversight of cyber vulnerabilities | FBI director calls encryption 'public safety issue' House passes Homeland Security cybersecurity oversight bill American Airlines apologizes after accusing NBA G League players of stealing blankets MORE (D-Texas), and Hansen Clarke (D-Mich.).

"In cutting funding for high-speed rail projects in this bill, the majority is threatening as many as 60,000 jobs," DeLauro said. "This is the majority's answer to last week's extremely disappointing jobs report that showed that we are mired in unacceptably high 9.2 percent unemployment after adding only 18,000 jobs in June."

DeLauro argued that the House should take money from oil companies or stop making payments to the Brazilian cotton industry if it needs to find funding.

On the other side were Republicans from Missouri and Louisiana, who argued that the $1 billion in funds in question were unobligated. They also argued that while Democrats might prefer not to pay for flood repairs along the Missouri, Mississippi and other rivers, Republicans are trying to keep government spending under control.

Reps. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), Rodney Alexander (R-La.), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), Steve Scalise (R-La.), Steve WomackStephen (Steve) Allen WomackWomack wins initial support to become Budget chairman Overnight Finance: Trump promises farmers 'better deal' on NAFTA | Clock ticks to shutdown deadline | Dems worry Trump pressuring IRS on withholdings | SEC halts trading in digital currency firm This week: Clock ticks toward shutdown deadline MORE (R-Ark.), Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) and Rick CrawfordRichard (Rick) CrawfordOvernight Tech: Senate Dems want FCC chief recused from Sinclair merger | Tech rallies on Capitol Hill for DACA | Facebook beefs up lobbying ranks Tech companies, groups push for DACA legislation on Capitol Hill Lobbying World MORE (R-Ark.) spoke in favor of moving the funds for repairs cause by flood damage, which has threatened U.S. agricultural production.

"At the end of the day, I think that it's critical that people's lives and people's livelihoods be protected," Emerson said. "We must rebuild and we must restore these levies before the next big flood comes again, so we can protect our wonderful food source in the United States."

But Democrats responded by arguing that Republicans are taking away funds that would help their districts. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) argued that there are already "huge subsidy programs" for farmers, and that it is unfair to take away key funding for nonrural districts.

"I think what you're seeing here on our side is that we have members on this side of the aisle who believe that investments need to be made in our communities too," Ryan said.

But by the end of the nearly two-hour debate, Democrats did not propose an amendment to the bill, H.R. 2354, to address their complaint.

-- This story was updated at 1:56 p.m. and 2:16 p.m. to add details of the debate.