[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4079-H4135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
General Leave
Mr. LATHAM. 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. 5972 and that I may include tabular
material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 697 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5972.
Will the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) kindly take the
chair.
{time} 1228
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5972) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes,
with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
June 26, 2012, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Broun) had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page
74, line 6.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I submit the following for the Record.
[[Page H4080]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.001
[[Page H4081]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.002
[[Page H4082]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.003
[[Page H4083]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.004
[[Page H4084]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.005
[[Page H4085]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.006
[[Page H4086]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.007
[[Page H4087]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.008
[[Page H4088]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.009
[[Page H4089]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.010
[[Page H4090]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.011
[[Page H4091]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.012
[[Page H4092]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.013
[[Page H4093]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.014
[[Page H4094]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.015
[[Page H4095]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.016
[[Page H4096]]
{time} 1230
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 74, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $6,500,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,500,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. My amendment would reduce the proposed funding
for salaries and expenses of the Office of Public and Indian Housing by
$6.5 million. This is one of 13 offices which would receive increases
for administrative expenses in the underlying bill.
Madam Chairman, we're in an economic emergency as a Nation. We're
broke. We absolutely must stop spending money that we don't have. We're
borrowing 40 cents or more on every dollar that the Federal Government
expends. Raising the funding for the Office of Public and Indian
Housing by $6.5 million while we're broke makes no fiscal sense to me.
This particular increase is among the highest for all the offices
funded under this legislation. My amendment would simply freeze funding
for this office for this next year. Passage of my amendment would bring
this account back to this year's FY 2012 levels.
I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. LATHAM. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
It's a good talking point, reducing administration accounts that
received increases. We've scrubbed these accounts. We've held hearings,
asked questions, and made recommendations about what should be funded
rather than looking at an arbitrary number. The bill cuts $4 billion
from fiscal year 2012, which is a fiscally responsible level.
I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. The amendment that has been offered removes a 3 percent
increase in the administrative account for the Office of Public and
Indian Housing. I rise to oppose the amendment.
In this instance, the cuts in the Office of Public and Indian Housing
cover a number of things, including the VASH program. We're adding $75
million for additional VASH vouchers--veterans' homelessness vouchers--
and that has to be administered. The arbitrary $6.5 million simply does
not help with that effort. It hurts that effort.
The Office also implements the operating and capital funds for public
housing and the Native American housing grants. All of these require
either layoffs, removal of people, because the salaries and expenses of
the Office are subject to normal increases, small increases year by
year for salaries for people in those places, and they are clearly
going to end up having to reduce the number of personnel while they're
administering more, and particularly the housing and the homeless
program for veterans.
So on that basis, I think this is an unwise reduction and one that is
unjustified as well as unwise, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
community planning and development
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of
Community Planning and Development, $103,500,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 74, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,500,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,500,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. My amendment would reduce the proposed funding
for salaries and expenses for the Office of Community Planning and
Development by $3.5 million.
This amendment, like the ones I presented last night and the one I
just presented, would freeze the funding for these offices. I've heard
my good friend from Iowa and my good friends on the other side talk
about how the underlying bill has cut expenses for this whole
underlying bill, but here in the House of Representatives, we've
reduced our expenses by over 11 percent. It seems to me that it just
makes fiscal sense to freeze funding for these offices in the
underlying bill and not raise them.
We're in an economic emergency as a Nation. We are spending money
that we simply do not have. We've got to stop the outrageous spending
that's going on here in Washington, and I'm just asking a simple thing:
let's freeze all of these offices at the current year's levels for 1
more year. Hopefully, next year we'll have policy put in place that
will increase our economy and start creating jobs here in this Nation,
but we're not doing that this year with this administration and the
policies that we see in the other body on the other side of the Hill.
So let's just freeze the expenses of this office, and I'm proposing
to freeze the expenses of virtually all the offices in this bill--most
of them, anyway--and my amendment would bring the spending level that's
proposed back to the current spending level of 2012.
When families and businesses get overextended, they don't continue to
raise their spending levels, and we should not be raising this one
either. My amendment would just freeze it at the current spending
levels.
I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. OLVER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. This amendment again, as the gentleman has said, is an
amendment that would freeze at the level of the 2012 funding here for
salaries and expenses of the Office of Community Planning and
Development.
Now, this office, it turns out, administers and implements the CDBG
program, which in the bill, as presented by my chairman, is increased
substantially--several hundred million dollars in the CDBG program--and
increases the funding for the HOME program, which had been held at a
much lower level in last year's program. In both of those cases, they
were considerably lower.
{time} 1240
And just last night, we added an amendment to increase the funding
for HPWA, Helping Persons With AIDS, one of those vulnerable
populations that we have, and our housing programs--as with veterans
who are homeless, others who are homeless, those who are vulnerable
such as those living with AIDS--have proven to be rather strong
programs that have strong support.
Furthermore, already, across the board in HUD, there has been a
reduction in personnel services and in the salaries and expenses of $20
million already compared with last year's overall within HUD. So this
is a duplicate and hitting at vulnerable populations that we do not
want to or should not want to be reducing. The reduction again requires
that there be some reduction in personnel because people's salaries go
up. They go up because people get a COLA, or a cost-of-living increase,
of some sort with their salaries, or they move up in their category
because of
[[Page H4097]]
longevity. So it ends up putting people who have jobs out of work and
reducing the personnel to provide service to the American people and
slows down the work of the offices in all these places where I think we
all have a stake in making certain that they are efficiently
implemented.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
We went through the hearing process. We have worked on these numbers
to, number one, stay within our allocation, which we have done--we are
actually cutting $4 billion in this bill--but also to prioritize.
There's no one more sensitive about hardworking taxpayer dollars than I
am. But the fact of the matter is, this is an absolutely critical
function. The increase that is here is extremely important so that
these programs are carried out properly without waste, fraud, and
abuse.
For that reason, I would again urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
housing
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of
Housing, $396,500,000, of which at least $8,200,000 shall be
for the Office of Risk and Regulatory Affairs.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 74, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, my amendment would reduce the
proposed funding for salaries and expenses of bureaucrats here in
Washington at the Office of Housing by $5 million. That's absolutely
correct.
This amendment, as well as all of my amendments, will not cut the
programs. It will not cut the programs one iota. What this does is it
reduces the salaries.
I just heard my good friend from Massachusetts talking about Federal
bureaucrats getting raises. I have frozen the salaries of people who
work for me, and I know many Members of Congress have, for the last 2
years. Why should we be giving Federal bureaucrats more money when the
American people are not getting raises? It makes no sense to me,
particularly as we are in an economic emergency. We are spending money
we don't have. We have to stop the outrageous spending that's going on
here in Washington. Enough is enough. And raising this office, as well
as all these offices, above the 2012 makes no economic sense to me
whatsoever. Let's be fiscally responsible.
My good friend from Iowa, who I have the utmost respect for, has done
a tremendous job in this bill, and I do appreciate the tremendous hard
work that he and his committee has done. And I appreciate the $4
million that they've cut. But why raise the salaries of Federal
bureaucrats?
My amendment would simply reduce the proposed funding back to the
2012 levels. I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I again rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment. There are some factors that we need to take into
consideration. For one thing next year, next fiscal year, we have an
additional compensable day which has to be paid for. We have GSA that
has raised rents. We have already cut $14 million out of salaries and
expenses, so we would not be able to meet our requirements. We are not
giving Federal employees raises, but there are additional costs that
come into play because of rents, because of the additional day that our
Federal workers will be working next year. And for those reasons--and
again, I want to reiterate, we have cut $14 million out of this
account--I would just urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. In this instance, it is again a case of freezing a
salaries and expenses account at the previous year's level. But this
one has an interesting sidelight in that, in the legislation that we
have before us, we have adopted a Presidential recommendation for a
partial-year funding for project-based section 8 vouchers, which is
going to cause considerable additional administration than the usual
program of doing full-year continuation of those voucher programs.
There is going to be much uncertainty if this goes on all the way to
adoption. There would be much uncertainty for the people who are the
owners and providers of that housing, and probably some loss in actual
affordable housing available under the project-based section 8 program.
So this is a case where they need that assistance. This is where we
administer the housing programs for the elderly and disabled, the so-
called 202 programs and 811, chapters 202 and chapter 811 for elderly
and disabled people, as well as housing counseling assistance.
In addition, we have the Federal Housing Administration, which is
having a much larger level of activity as we are trying to dig out of
the foreclosure crisis from the past, and that agency needs to have
personnel that are qualified and able to do the right job.
So again here--and by the way, I made an error in my previous
comments when I said there was a reduction across the board for HUD.
What I should have indicated was that it was a reduction in the
salaries and expenses account over a period of time going back to 2010
of $20 million across the programs of salaries and expenses within HUD
over that time.
{time} 1230
So I made a mistake saying it was a $20 million reduction in 1 year.
But for all those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
policy development and research
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of Policy
Development and Research, $22,326,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 74, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $115,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $115,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, again I rise to propose an
amendment just to freeze the salaries of this Office of Policy
Development and Research by a mere $115,000.
Madam Chairman, I hear colleagues around here talking as if millions
of dollars, tens of millions--hundreds of millions of dollars is
nothing. Well,
[[Page H4098]]
most of my constituents at home in Georgia, most Americans think that
$1 million is a lot of money, and I certainly think $1 million is a lot
of money. But we have proposed, in this underlying bill, to raise the
administrative expenses and salaries.
My good friend from Massachusetts, in the previous amendment, said we
need to increase the salaries of the bureaucrats. I hope my good friend
from Iowa (Mr. Latham), when he stood up on the last amendment saying
that we weren't going to increase salaries of Federal bureaucrats, is
factual. I hope that that goes in the Record and it becomes true that
we're not going to raise the salaries of Federal bureaucrats.
But they're proposing raising the administrative expenses and
salaries in all of these offices, so I'm proposing just to freeze these
expenses for 1 more year. Let's bring this account back down to this
current year's levels of spending.
We cannot continue on this road.
Madam Chairman, I'm a medical doctor. As a medical doctor, part of my
medical practice for many years has been involved in treating
addictions, drug and alcohol addictions. In addiction medicine, we have
a saying: When there's no denial, there's no addiction.
Congress and government have a spending addiction. It's a spending
addiction, and there's a tremendous amount of denial here in this
city--in all branches of government, actually. We need to face the
fact: We're broke as a Nation. We've got to stop the outrageous
spending.
I'm proposing just a mere $115,000 to freeze the expenses for this
office and salaries for this office for 1 more year. I don't think
that's too much for me to ask. I don't think that's too much for the
American taxpayer, the hardworking American taxpayer to ask for us to
freeze the salaries of these bureaucrats here in Washington and freeze
their expenses for 1 more year--not only for this amendment, but for
the amendments that I've already presented and the ones that I will
present. Let's freeze this spending for 1 more year, keep it at the FY
2012 levels.
I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairperson, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. The gentleman from Georgia just wants to freeze
everything. But our personnel, in an agency like this, they are subject
to the civil service laws, to the personnel laws under OPM, and they
are assigned in grades and then steps. They add several steps as they
gain seniority and go from step 1 to step 7, and then they may sit for
a while. But you end up with people--unless you're really trying to put
people out of work. Unless you're trying to put people out of work--and
there's no reason to do that for this kind of an agency at all--then
there has to be a slow, small increase for those people who move from
step to step along the salary scale.
So this is an amendment that would essentially cause disruption in
the processing and in the personnel system for the agency, which has
lots of work to do. We should be worrying about how to get productivity
in the processing rather than about trying to jigger and freeze a step
system's pay scale for the people who do the work at these agencies.
I again urge that this amendment not be adopted, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I rise to disagree with the rhetoric and
the mythology propounded here by the gentleman from Georgia.
The mythology is that we have a tremendous spending binge that we
must reduce, that the country is broke, and it's broke because we're
spending much too much money and we've got to reduce the spending. It's
simply not true.
Twelve years ago, in 2000, we were looking at a $5.6 trillion surplus
over the next 10 years. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan
Greenspan, testifying in favor of President Bush's tax reductions, said
we have to reduce taxes, because if we don't, we will pay off the
entire national debt by 2012 and that would be a bad thing, for some
reason which I won't go into now. He thought it would be a bad thing if
we paid off the entire national debt.
The entire debate between the two candidates, Bush and Gore, then
was: What should we do with this $5.6 trillion surplus.
How did we change from a $5.6 trillion surplus to the budget deficits
we have right now? Not by increasing spending. If you look at the
spending amount other than military, if you look at the discretionary
spending of the Federal Government other than military, adjusted for
inflation and population growth, it has not increased by a nickel since
2001, not by a nickel.
What has changed? What has changed to create the deficit? Because if
you want to solve the deficit, you have to know what created it to undo
it. What has changed to create the deficit is several things:
One, 40 percent of the deficit is caused by the Bush tax cuts, which
will expire at the end of the year unless we change that. Forty percent
of the current and anticipated deficits were caused by the Bush tax
cuts of 2001 and 2003;
Second, two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--the first time in
American history we fought major wars without increasing taxes to pay
for them;
Third, aside from the wars, completely aside from the wars, we have
doubled Pentagon spending since 2001 in real terms; and
Finally, we have a depression, or a recession. When you have a
recession that started in 2007 or 2008, tax receipts go down. Expenses
on things like food stamps and unemployment insurance goes up. That's
when you should run a deficit. You should run a surplus in good times;
you should run a deficit during a depression or recession in order to
stimulate the economy and get it back up.
If we want to deal with the deficit--and we should deal with the
deficit--we shouldn't reduce necessary government spending and
certainly not nickel-and-dime step pay increases for Federal employees.
If we want to reduce the deficit, we should undo most of the Bush tax
cuts for the rich, because most of the Bush tax cuts went to rich
people and to very large corporations. We are only collecting about 14
or 15 percent of GDP in taxes this year.
{time} 1300
The normal range is between 19 and 21 percent. And I say ``normal,''
meaning the entire post-World War II period ranges between 18 or 19 and
22 percent. We're collecting 14 or 15 percent in the last couple of
years because, one, the recession, and, two, because we greatly reduced
effective taxes on multi-national corporations and on rich people.
We used to have in this country, under President Reagan, 25 different
tax brackets. Someone making $5 million paid a higher tax rate than
someone making $1 million, who paid a higher tax rate than someone
making $250,000 and so forth. Now, the highest tax rate kicks in at
below $250,000, and someone making $250 million pays no higher tax rate
than someone making $175,000 or $200,000. There's something very wrong
with that.
So if we want to deal with the deficit, deal not with the nonexistent
problem, which is the huge nonexistent spending surge that didn't
occur. And we have great needs in this country. We have to fix our
highways, our roads, our bridges, our hospitals, our broadband. We have
to invest so this country will be economically competitive, and our
schools and our teachers and our cops and all of these things.
If you want to fix the deficit, don't shortchange what we should be
doing to invest in this country. Get rid of the Bush tax cuts, or most
of them, or get rid of those portions of the Bush taxes that went to
rich people, high-income people and to big corporations. Make
corporations, the large corporations, pay an effective tax rate again,
instead of a large number of our top corporations paying zero dollars
in taxes.
Reduce the Pentagon budget, which we can do. We no longer need all
those troops in Germany to protect against a Soviet tank invasion,
which is not likely to occur since the Soviets don't exist anymore.
That's what we ought to be doing.
But the key thing is don't have this mythology that we have greatly
expanded Federal spending over the last
[[Page H4099]]
10 years, or even over the last 3 years, which is simply not the case.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
fair housing and equal opportunity
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity, $72,904,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 74, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $304,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $304,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, again I rise just to freeze the
funding for salaries and office expenses for the Office of Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity by a meager $304,000. If we cannot cut out
$115,000 or $304,000, what are we going to cut?
And as my friend from Massachusetts already said, actually, on two of
my amendments, that it's to increase salaries of Federal bureaucrats.
We've got to freeze the salaries of these bureaucrats. We've got to be
fiscally responsible.
My amendment doesn't cut any program, doesn't cut any service,
doesn't cut out any part of the necessary aspects of the Federal
Government. All it does is it freezes the salaries and the expenses of
this office, as the other amendments would do. It freezes it at this
year's levels. Doesn't even go backwards, freezes it at this year's
levels.
I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. OLVER. I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chair, now at this point we have--I think this is
the last of this group of amendments that have been proposed in this
area, in essence. And when you put them together, because one was for
$6.5 million, one was for about $5 million, then there were a couple
that were a little--there was one that was a little over $1 million and
then a couple that were smaller--the sum total of people who will be
taken out of the--who this would require, the freeze, in that way,
would require that some number around 200-or-so employees would be put
out of positions.
Now, the gentleman from Georgia thinks that, well, they're Federal
bureaucrats; but they're providing a service. In this instance, it is
the service in the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, which
has a budget, total budget, of $70-million-or-so. And this 300,000 is
only a couple of percent out of it.
Most of the salaries and expenses, most of these agencies that he has
been affecting are mostly done in salaries and expenses of the
operation of the office. But they all provide a public service to
people. In this instance, it's the Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity.
Well, it ensures that Americans have the same right, that all
Americans have the same right to housing and investigates instances
where those rights have been violated. So we are, in every instance of
them, and we dealt with a couple of similar ones last night before in
the other department under this bill--they only serve to slow down the
effective operation of those offices to provide services across the
whole gamut of things which have been given to them to do, whether it
be public housing, whether it be the Veterans Administration program,
here the Fair Housing Administration program, the FHA, the housing for
elders, housing for disabled people. All of them are the same ilk.
There's no reason to do anything other than the same thing that we have
done in the past. And so I'm urging, again, a ``no'' vote on this.
I yield back the balance of my time;
Mr. LATHAM. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I understand the gentleman, and I appreciate
the fact that he wants to cut spending. We have, in fact, in this bill
cut the spending from the request $1.4 million on this particular line
item in the budget.
The fact of the matter is, Madam Chair, we have additional rent that
we have to pay. We have an extra day of work for the Federal workers
next year that we have to pay. So there's not going to be any increase.
It's basically going to maintain where we are in this function.
But, again, we have already cut from the President's request, $1.4
million. And there are additional costs we're going to incur just to
stay even from last year. So with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
office of healthy homes and lead hazard control
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of
Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, $6,816,000.
Public and Indian Housing
tenant-based rental assistance
For activities and assistance for the provision of tenant-
based rental assistance authorized under the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.)
(``the Act'' herein), not otherwise provided for,
$15,134,283,000, to remain available until expended, shall be
available on October 1, 2012 (in addition to the
$4,000,000,000 previously appropriated under this heading
that became available on October 1, 2012), and
$4,000,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be
available on October 1, 2013: Provided, That amounts made
available under this heading are provided as follows:
(1) $17,237,948,000 shall be available for renewals of
expiring section 8 tenant-based annual contributions
contracts (including renewals of enhanced vouchers under any
provision of law authorizing such assistance under section
8(t) of the Act) and including renewal of other special
purpose incremental vouchers: Provided, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, from amounts provided under this
paragraph and any carryover, the Secretary for the calendar
year 2013 funding cycle shall provide renewal funding for
each public housing agency based on validated voucher
management system (VMS) leasing and cost data for the prior
calendar year and by applying an inflation factor as
established by the Secretary, by notice published in the
Federal Register, and by making any necessary adjustments for
the costs associated with the first-time renewal of vouchers
under this paragraph including tenant protection and HOPE VI
vouchers: Provided further, That none of the funds provided
under this paragraph may be used to fund a total number of
unit months under lease which exceeds a public housing
agency's authorized level of units under contract, except for
public housing agencies participating in the Moving to Work
(MTW) demonstration, which are instead governed by the terms
and conditions of their MTW agreements: Provided further,
That the Secretary shall, to the extent necessary to stay
within the amount specified under this paragraph, pro rate
each public housing agency's allocation otherwise established
pursuant to this paragraph: Provided further, That except as
provided in the following provisos, the entire amount
specified under this paragraph (except as otherwise modified
under this Act) shall be obligated to the public housing
agencies based on the allocation and pro rata method
described above, and the Secretary shall notify public
housing agencies of their annual budget not later than 60
days after enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the
Secretary may extend the 60-day notification period, with the
prior written approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That up to $75,000,000
shall be available only: (1) for adjustments in the
allocations for public housing agencies, after application
for an adjustment by a public housing agency, that
experienced a significant increase, as determined by the
Secretary, in renewal costs of vouchers resulting from
unforeseen circumstances or from portability under section
8(r) of the Act; (2) for vouchers that
[[Page H4100]]
were not in use during the 12-month period in order to be
available to meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13)
of the Act; (3) for adjustments for costs associated with
HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) vouchers;
and (4) for adjustments in the allocations for public housing
agencies that experienced a significant increase, as
determined by the Secretary, in renewal costs as a result of
participation in the Small Area Fair Market Rent
demonstration: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
allocate amounts under the previous proviso based on need as
determined by the Secretary;
(2) $75,000,000 shall be for section 8 rental assistance
for relocation and replacement of housing units that are
demolished or disposed of pursuant to section 18 of the Act,
conversion of section 23 projects to assistance under section
8, the family unification program under section 8(x) of the
Act, relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to
combat crime in public and assisted housing pursuant to a
request from a law enforcement or prosecution agency,
enhanced vouchers under any provision of law authorizing such
assistance under section 8(t) of the Act, HOPE VI vouchers,
mandatory and voluntary conversions, and tenant protection
assistance including replacement and relocation assistance or
for project-based assistance to prevent the displacement of
unassisted elderly tenants currently residing in section 202
properties financed between 1959 and 1974 that are refinanced
pursuant to Public Law 106-569, as amended, or under the
authority as provided under this Act: Provided, That when a
public housing development is submitted for demolition or
disposition under section 18 of the Act, the Secretary may
provide section 8 rental assistance when the units pose an
imminent health and safety risk to residents: Provided
further, That the Secretary may only provide replacement
vouchers for units that were occupied within the previous 24
months that cease to be available as assisted housing,
subject only to the availability of funds: Provided further,
That of the amounts made available under this paragraph,
$10,000,000 may be available to provide tenant protection
assistance, not otherwise provided under this paragraph, to
residents residing in low-vacancy areas and who may have to
pay rents greater than 30 percent of household income, as the
result of (1) the maturity of a HUD-insured, HUD-held or
section 202 loan that requires the permission of the
Secretary prior to loan prepayment; (2) the expiration of a
rental assistance contract for which the tenants are not
eligible for enhanced voucher or tenant protection assistance
under existing law; or (3) the expiration of affordability
restrictions accompanying a mortgage or preservation program
administered by the Secretary: Provided further, That such
tenant protection assistance made available under the
previous proviso may be provided under the authority of
section 8(t) or section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)): Provided further, That the
Secretary shall issue guidance to implement the previous
provisos, including, but not limited to, requirements for
defining eligible at-risk households within 120 days of the
enactment of this Act;
(3) $1,575,000,000 shall be for administrative and other
expenses of public housing agencies in administering the
section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program, of which up
to $50,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary to
allocate to public housing agencies that need additional
funds to administer their section 8 programs, including fees
associated with section 8 tenant protection rental
assistance, the administration of disaster -related vouchers,
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers, and other
special purpose incremental vouchers: Provided, That no less
than $1,525,000,000 of the amount provided in this paragraph
shall be allocated to public housing agencies for the
calendar year 2013 funding cycle based on section 8(q) of the
Act (and related Appropriation Act provisions) as in effect
immediately before the enactment of the Quality Housing and
Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-276):
Provided further, That if the amounts made available under
this paragraph are insufficient to pay the amounts determined
under the previous proviso, the Secretary may decrease the
amounts allocated to agencies by a uniform percentage
applicable to all agencies receiving funding under this
paragraph or may, to the extent necessary to provide full
payment of amounts determined under the previous proviso,
utilize unobligated balances, including recaptures and
carryovers, remaining from funds appropriated to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development under this
heading from prior fiscal years, notwithstanding the purposes
for which such amounts were appropriated: Provided further,
That all public housing agencies participating in the MTW
demonstration shall be funded pursuant to their MTW
agreements, and shall be subject to the same uniform
percentage decrease as under the previous proviso: Provided
further, That amounts provided under this paragraph shall be
only for activities related to the provision of tenant-based
rental assistance authorized under section 8, including
related development activities;
(4) $60,000,000 shall be available for family self-
sufficiency coordinators under section 23 of the Act;
(5) $111,335,000 for the renewal of tenant-based assistance
contracts under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), including necessary
administrative expenses;
(6) $75,000,000 for incremental rental voucher assistance
for use through a supported housing program administered in
conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs as
authorized under section 8(o)(19) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937: Provided, That the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development shall make such funding available,
notwithstanding section 204 (competition provision) of this
title, to public housing agencies that partner with eligible
VA Medical Centers or other entities as designated by the
Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, based on
geographical need for such assistance as identified by the
Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, public
housing agency administrative performance, and other factors
as specified by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development in consultation with the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may waive, or
specify alternative requirements for (in consultation with
the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs), any
provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development administers in connection with
the use of funds made available under this paragraph (except
for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination,
labor standards, and the environment), upon a finding by the
Secretary that any such waivers or alternative requirements
are necessary for the effective delivery and administration
of such voucher assistance: Provided further, That assistance
made available under this paragraph shall continue to remain
available for homeless veterans upon turn-over; and
(7) The Secretary shall separately track all special
purpose vouchers funded under this heading.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 75, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $460,000,000)''.
Page 75, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $460,000,000)''.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
{time} 1310
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, we spend a lot of time talking about how
we need to do more with less. The reality is that, all too often, we do
less with less. This is the unfortunate reality facing our rental
assistance programs if the House-proposed funding levels are enacted.
The Housing Choice Voucher program, more commonly known as section 8,
provides rental assistance to over 2 million households with very low
incomes. Half of these households are of seniors or people with
disabilities. Most of the rest are of families with children.
Experts agree with HUD's assessment of section 8. It is a cost-
effective means of delivering decent, safe, and affordable housing to
low-income families in the private market. Because of the widely
accepted success of the program, section 8 has enjoyed bipartisan
support for many years.
Despite agreement among policy experts and politicians, section 8
funding levels continue to come up short of the actual need. The
National Low Income Housing Coalition found that, according to the
latest census data, for every 100 households with extremely low
incomes, only 30 rental units are affordable and available. Three-
quarters of renters with extremely low incomes pay housing costs that
exceed half of their incomes, placing them at a high risk of housing
instability and homelessness. Yet, because of limited funds, only one
in four eligible families receives rental assistance.
Without increasing funds beyond what is included in this bill for the
section 8 program, an estimated 58,000 low-income families will lose
their existing rental assistance next year, putting these families at
risk of homelessness. Even the more conservative estimate of the
section 8 budget shortfall by the OMB finds that 30,000 low-income
families will be at risk of losing their current vouchers and,
therefore, of losing their homes.
With housing instability and homelessness comes the destabilizing of
families and the possible long-term negative impacts on kids. That's
why I'm offering this amendment.
This amendment would increase funding for section 8 voucher renewals
[[Page H4101]]
by $460 million to cover the actual costs of ensuring that existing
vouchers will continue and that no family will lose an existing section
8 voucher. This does not increase the number of vouchers, though I
would love to do that, but it does ensure that no families would lose
their currently existing section 8 vouchers.
Additionally, by funding section 8 at the figures necessary to
continue existing vouchers, we can make sure that it would be
unnecessary for HUD to implement its proposal for $75 minimum rent even
if that $75 exceeds the normal section 8 rental limit of 30 percent of
income. To most of us here, $75 may not seem like a lot of money as
it's a meal for two in many Washington and New York City restaurants,
but for 500,000 of the poorest HUD-assisted families, families who have
annual incomes of less than $3,000--that's around $250 a month--$75 is
a lot of money. For 400,000 HUD-assisted families, $75 minimum would be
a 50 percent rent increase from what they're paying now, leaving these
families with less money for food, transportation, and other basic
necessities. We're talking about families with annual incomes of $2,000
or $2,500 annually.
Madam Chairman, our first objective must be to prevent further
hardship to the poorest people in our country and to prevent additional
potential homelessness among vulnerable low-income families. To do
this, we must ensure that we do not lose current section 8 assistance
and that we do not impose a new minimum rent that could be way beyond
30 percent of income for people earning $2,000 and $2,500. This
amendment is necessary in order to do that, so I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the
bill.
The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House
Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:
It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, the necessity for this amendment is
undeniable.
The hardship and the suffering this budget would cause without this
amendment, by imposing minimum rentals way beyond 30 percent of income
on people with incomes of $2,000 to $2,500 annually, is undeniable.
That this Congress should do such a thing is regrettable, to put it
mildly.
I understand the rule. The rule would require an offset of an equal
amount of money; but in this overly restrictive bill to start with,
there is no way of finding such an offset of that amount of money
without hurting people in an equal fashion in other ways. So that says
that we have a choice of really injuring ``these'' people or of really
injuring ``those'' people. It's not an acceptable choice. I understand
the rule. That is regrettable.
I hope that as we progress with this budget that we can find a way of
finding the funds that we have in this amendment for this purpose so
that we do not injure all of these thousands and thousands of very low-
income people.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York violates section
3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5.
Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
housing certificate fund
(rescission)
Unobligated balances, including recaptures and carryover,
remaining from funds appropriated to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under this heading, the
heading, ``Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing'', and
the heading ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'', for fiscal
year 2013 and prior years may be used for renewal of or
amendments to section 8 project-based contracts and for
performance-based contract administrators, notwithstanding
the purposes for which such funds were appropriated:
Provided, That any obligated balances of contract authority
from fiscal year 1974 and prior that have been terminated
shall be rescinded: Provided further, That amounts previously
recaptured, or recaptured during the current fiscal year,
from section 8 project-based contracts from source years
fiscal year 1975 through fiscal year 1987 are hereby
rescinded, and an amount of additional new budget authority,
equivalent to the amount permanently cancelled is hereby
appropriated, to remain available until expended, for the
purposes set forth under this heading, in addition to amounts
otherwise available.
public housing capital fund
For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program to carry out
capital and management activities for public housing
agencies, as authorized under section 9 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) (the ``Act'')
$1,985,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, during fiscal year 2013 the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development may not delegate to any Department
official other than the Deputy Secretary and the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian Housing any authority under
paragraph (2) of section 9(j) regarding the extension of the
time periods under such section: Provided further, That for
purposes of such section 9(j), the term ``obligate'' means,
with respect to amounts, that the amounts are subject to a
binding agreement that will result in outlays, immediately or
in the future: Provided further, That up to $15,345,000 shall
be to support the ongoing Public Housing Financial and
Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment
Center (REAC): Provided further, That of the total amount
provided under this heading, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall
be available for the Secretary to make grants,
notwithstanding section 204 of this Act, to public housing
agencies for emergency capital needs including safety and
security measures necessary to address crime and drug-related
activity as well as needs resulting from unforeseen or
unpreventable emergencies and natural disasters excluding
Presidentially declared emergencies and natural disasters
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) occurring in fiscal year 2013:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading $50,000,000 shall be for supportive services,
service coordinator and congregate services as authorized by
section 34 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1437z-6) and the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.): Provided further, That of the
total amount provided under this heading, up to $5,000,000 is
to support the costs of administrative and judicial
receiverships: Provided further, That from the funds made
available under this heading, the Secretary shall provide
bonus awards in fiscal year 2013 to public housing agencies
that are designated high performers.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 84, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $110,000,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $110,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, the underlying bill is
suggesting that Congress allot an increase of $110 million in Federal
funding for the Public Housing Capital Fund from this fiscal year, from
fiscal year 2012.
My amendment would simply freeze funding at our current level and
reduce the proposed funding by $110 million. We've got to stop
spending. That's what all my efforts are geared towards. We can
continue to perform the necessary functions of the Federal Government
for those who need it. My amendment would just freeze the proposed
increase in funding so that we keep it at this current year's level.
I urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment, which
would save over $110 million for the hardworking taxpayers of America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
[[Page H4102]]
Mr. OLVER. The amendment that the gentleman from Georgia has now
offered has to do with the Public Housing Capital Fund.
The public housing infrastructure currently has an estimated $26
billion of maintenance backlog. In fact, capital repairs accumulate at
the rate of something over $3 billion a year, which is considerably
higher than $1.9 billion that is contained in this--$1.985 billion
that's contained in this bill. So what we are doing is, year by year,
continuing to provide maintenance funding: the replacement of
utilities, the replacement of appliances, as well as such simple
maintenance as painting if it's needed, and so on.
{time} 1320
In our more than a million housing units, in the 3,500 or so of our
total housing authorities around the country, we are steadily putting
these in a situation where we're building a further capital maintenance
backlog gap year by year by year.
This is never a wise thing to do when it's at the extent that we are
presently doing it. But the $110 million at least is a little bit
better than not having the $110 million, which would be an even greater
increase in the backlog gap that we have for maintenance, repair, and
upgrading of our housing units.
All of those housing units are intended to last for many years and be
used long into the future. If we don't maintain them properly in a
reasonable way, then eventually we will lose those units. It is much
more expensive to replace the units with new units than it is to
maintain them in a proper way.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment so that we do not continue to
dig our hole deeper on the maintenance needs for the stock of housing
that we have in our 3,500 public housing authorities around the
country.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of this
amendment. This is a $110 million increase in spending, and it is
simply too much under the circumstances.
I want to first of all, though, certainly commend Chairman Latham and
all those who have worked on this bill because the material that has
been provided to our office said that this bill overall contains a 7.1
percent decrease in funding, which I think is the biggest cut of any
appropriations bill that we've dealt with so far. I also want to
commend and salute the gentleman from Georgia for trying even harder to
rein in spending, because I think almost everyone on both sides of the
aisle knows that we have to reduce spending and we have to do more than
we've been doing.
This $110 million increase is double the rate of inflation. The
amendment by the gentleman from Georgia does not reduce the funding of
this agency. It just holds it at the same level. We've cut our own
budgets, Madam Chairwoman, for the last couple of years. We've tried to
cut many other things. But megabillions have been poured into this
program over the last 10 or 15 years. Even with the gentleman's
amendment, this fund will still get $1.765 billion. I can tell you most
people around the country think that's an awful lot of money.
I rise in support of this amendment. I certainly hope that if this
amendment does not pass, that we will at least pass the much smaller
cut in the gentleman's next amendment. But I think this is a good
amendment.
We have to get serious about cutting spending when we're facing a
national debt of over $16 trillion, which is going much higher and much
faster. Unless we want this country to become a gigantic Greece and
have the problems that we're seeing all over the world, then we've got
to do more than we're doing.
So I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back
that balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
We have been fiscally responsible in this bill by reducing the public
housing capital fund by $85 million below the budget request, and we're
hearing that this funding level will be a challenge because there's a
backlog, Madam Chairman, of over $25 billion in capital projects.
However, this does represent one of the toughest choices we've had to
make to meet our allocation in this bill. A deeper cut to this account
will merely defer projects to future years and I believe will cost more
money in the future by running up the cost of those projects in the
years ahead.
With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I was going to introduce
another amendment to this same program which would have been a decrease
of just 10 percent of the increase. As I see things going on here
today, we can't even cut out $115,000. Cutting out $11 million, I'm
sure, is out of the question for my colleagues.
Madam Chair, we've just got to stop this outrageous spending here in
Washington. So I'm not going to offer the other one. I would anticipate
a point of order being brought against it, and rightfully so. So I'm
not going to introduce that amendment.
I just ask my colleagues--and I hope that they hear from Americans
all over this country--to stop the spending.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
public housing operating fund
For 2013 payments to public housing agencies for the
operation and management of public housing, as authorized by
section 9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437g(e)), $4,524,000,000: Provided, That in
determining public housing agencies', including Moving to
Work agencies', calendar year 2013 funding allocations under
this heading, the Secretary may, contingent on authorization,
take into account the impact of changes in minimum rents,
flat rents, and medical expense thresholds on public housing
agencies' formula income levels.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 86, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $562,150,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $562,150,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairwoman, the underlying bill increases
funding for the public housing operating fund by over $500 million for
fiscal year 2013.
My amendment would simply return the funding back to this year from
the proposed levels. It's a $500 million increase at a time when our
Nation is broke and American taxpayers are struggling to put food on
their tables and looking for jobs.
It is imperative that we look for commonsense cuts wherever we can,
and this is one of those. It's a lot of money, $500 million. Some would
say it's a very small amount compared to the overall funding level
proposed in this bill, but it's still $500 million. We just have to
stop spending money that we don't have.
I urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment that would
save over $500 million, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's
[[Page H4103]]
amendment. This is an amendment that on face value is somewhat
confusing, shall we say.
While it appears that there is a large increase in this account when
it says $562 million over last year, this account is approximately
level funded from last year because last year we went in and took $500
million out of reserve funds of the public housing authorities that
were sitting there that were unexpended balances.
{time} 1330
Those reserves are no longer there. So what we're having to do in
this bill basically to stay virtually even is to have the $562 million
over last year.
This fund provides many of the necessary operating and maintenance
activities for our housing authorities, including health, safety, and
sanitation. Our funding levels for public housing build in savings from
reform proposals that we urge the authorizers to complete before we go
to a final conference on this bill. Again, in this entire bill, while
you talk about the highway bill, financial services doing their work,
but that would be extremely helpful if, in fact, we had authorizations
that would actually limit spending and that we could follow.
But again, I just wanted to reiterate: We used $500 million a year
ago out of the funds that were available, sitting there idle. So what,
in fact, this does is basically even from last year. While it appears
to be a large increase, it, in fact, is not because the use of those
funds from last year, the reserve funds.
I believe we are providing a responsible level of funding for this
program. And again, I want to reiterate, Madam Chairman, we are cutting
about $4 billion in this appropriation bill--I think the gentleman
earlier mentioned that's the largest percentage cut of any bill so far
on the floor. But this particular issue, this particular amendment
would be extremely devastating because of funding issues in the reserve
account that we used last year. With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote
on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. OLVER. I'm not sure I have anything much to add to what my
chairman has said, other than to just point out, if you look back at
the number of dollars that were assigned for the fiscal year '11 bill,
that was over $4.6 billion. So in 2012, the amount of money brought
that down to under $4 billion. The $500-plus million that the gentleman
from Iowa had pointed out was part of the reserves that were taken from
those housing authorities around the country that had substantial
reserves. So that has been done. That was a one-shot kind of a deal.
And now the funding has to go back to something that is in line with
the yearly fundings, going back to a period of time of well into a
decade ago, that were on a different guide path. So this is just
returning to that.
It is at the President's request. It's below the amount that has been
granted in the other body's allocation. They had a larger allocation in
their numbers for it. This particular account is well below ours. It's
$70 million or so below what has been provided by the chairman in the
mark for this year.
So I think this is entirely appropriate, given the size of the
maintenance gaps and the need to keep maintaining your facilities, your
housing quality so that you don't end up losing that or ending up with
much higher expense for replacement. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
native american housing block grants
For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as
authorized under title I of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (25
U.S.C. 4111 et seq.), $650,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2017: Provided, That, notwithstanding the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
of 1996, to determine the amount of the allocation under
title I of such Act for each Indian tribe, the Secretary
shall apply the formula under section 302 of such Act with
the need component based on single-race census data and with
the need component based on multi-race census data, and the
amount of the allocation for each Indian tribe shall be the
greater of the two resulting allocation amounts: Provided
further, That of the amounts made available under this
heading, $2,000,000 shall be contracted for assistance for
national or regional organizations representing Native
American housing interests for providing training and
technical assistance to Indian housing authorities and
tribally designated housing entities: Provided further, That
of the amount provided under this heading, $2,000,000 shall
be made available for the cost of guaranteed notes and other
obligations, as authorized by title VI of NAHASDA: Provided
further, That such costs, including the costs of modifying
such notes and other obligations, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize the total principal amount of any notes and other
obligations, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $20,000,000: Provided further, That the Department
will notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60
days of enactment of this Act.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hanabusa
Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 88, after line 2, insert the following:
native hawaiian housing block grant
(including transfer of funds)
For the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program, as
authorized under title VIII of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4221
et seq.), $13,000,000, to remain available until expended,
which amount shall be derived by transfer from the amount
provided in this title under ``Management and
Administration--Administration, Operations, and Management''
for the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. HANABUSA. My amendment inserts the amount of $13 million for the
Native Hawaiian housing block grant. This is in line with the
President's budget. The President provided for the same amount and
states that the Native Hawaiian block grant that is authorized under
title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self
Determination Act of 1996, easier called NAHASDA. The block grant
authorizes an annual grant to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for
housing and housing-related assistance.
Madam Chair, let us understand the significance of this block grant
to this Congress and the Nation. In 1921, the Congress passed into law
the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. Congress recognized that it was
necessary to return Native Hawaiians to their land to support self-
sufficiency, and the preservation of their values, traditions, and
culture.
Madam Chair, in 1893, when the queen was overthrown, Hawaii was a
vibrant, modern nation. And what happened after the overthrow resulted
in the need--and Congress saw the need--to look at the return of Native
Hawaiians to their lands.
In essence, a trust relationship was created by the creation of the
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act made
very clear that only Hawaiians of 50 percent blood quantum qualify,
that the lands could only be leased, not owned, and it also restricted
the ability to mortgage and have occupancy restrictions as well.
This block grant assists in fulfilling the special trust relationship
which was created and acknowledged in the Hawaiian Homes Commission
Act. It assures the return to the land of Native Hawaiians, which was
the concern of Congress. If this provision is authorized and people
vote for it, what it will do is it will permit the existing and ongoing
projects, along with those planned, to be competed with the ultimate
goal of putting Native Hawaiians on the land, which was the purpose of
[[Page H4104]]
the trust relationship that we created in the Hawaiian Homes Commission
Act of 1921.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized
program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule
XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as
an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Madam Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a
program that has not been authorized. The amendment, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek to be heard on the point of
order?
The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized.
Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chair, I understand the point of order that has
been raised. But let me, with all due respect, say that when we look at
the language of any rule--the language that is, I guess, suspect here
is not previously authorized by law--in fact, as stated by the
President, as well as in my amendment, this provision has been
authorized by law, and it is found in NAHASDA, title VIII.
{time} 1340
When we look at the wording ``not previously authorized,'' the
technical argument may be that it was authorized at some point in time
and then expired in 2005. However, that is not what the rule says. The
rule says: not previously authorized. And this has been previously
authorized.
In the recent United States Supreme Court case of Lamie v. U.S.
Trustee, it's very clear. And we can borrow from the Supreme Court when
it gives its opinion as to what it means. The plain language is what
controls in any interpretation of any statute or any rule. It is
clearly plain language that what is being referred to here is the fact
that it was not previously authorized. And it has been previously
authorized.
In addition to that, I would also like to say that there is an
exception to this rule that says that you can continue appropriations
for public works and objects that are already in progress. And to that,
Madam Chair, I point out that, as we have said, this money is used for
the return of the Native Hawaiians to the lands, and it includes, of
course, construction and public works.
They are projects ongoing that need this money in Kakaina, Waimanalo;
Piilani Mai ke kai, phase II in Anahola on the island of Kauai; Laiopua
on the Big Island on the Kona side; Lalamilo, Waimea; Kanehili,
Kapolei; and East Kapolei, II, also in Kapolei, Kapolei being on the
island of Oahu.
So on this point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe that it has been
misinterpreted. The words are ``not previously authorized.'' And in
addition to that, this specific provision has been authorized. In
addition to that, the exception is for public works projects in
progress. And the public works projects are the ones that I have
listed, which as we know, is the object of the grant of the Native
Hawaiian Housing Block Grant.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member seek to be heard on the point
of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I will insist on my point of order. The fact
of the matter is this program is not currently authorized. There are no
ongoing public works in progress.
So, once again, I would insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The proponent of an item of appropriation carries
the burden of persuasion on the question whether it is supported by an
authorization in law.
Having reviewed the amendment and entertained arguments on the point
of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of
appropriation in question is authorized in law. In response to one of
the specific arguments. An authorization that has lapsed does not
qualify under the rule.
The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
indian housing loan guarantee fund program account
For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section
184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 1715z-13a), $6,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal,
any part of which is to be guaranteed, up to $633,000,000:
Provided further, That up to $750,000 of this amount may be
used for administrative contract expenses including
management processes and systems to carry out the loan
guarantee program.
Community Planning and Development
housing opportunities for persons with aids
For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity
Act (42 U.S.C. 12901 et seq.), $330,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2014, except that amounts
allocated pursuant to section 854(c)(3) of such Act shall
remain available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That the
Secretary shall renew all expiring contracts for permanent
supportive housing that were funded under section 854(c)(3)
of such Act that meet all program requirements before
awarding funds for new contracts and activities authorized
under this section: Provided further, That the Department
shall notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60
days of enactment of this Act.
community development fund
For assistance to units of State and local government, and
to other entities, for economic and community development
activities, and for other purposes, $3,404,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2015, unless otherwise
specified: Provided, That of the total amount provided,
$3,344,000,000 is for carrying out the community development
block grant program under title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (the ``Act''
herein) (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.): Provided further, That
unless explicitly provided for under this heading, not to
exceed 20 percent of any grant made with funds appropriated
under this heading shall be expended for planning and
management development and administration: Provided further,
That $60,000,000 shall be for grants to Indian tribes
notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of such Act, of which,
notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section
204 of this Act), up to $3,960,000 may be used for
emergencies that constitute imminent threats to health and
safety: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available under this heading may be used for grants for the
Economic Development Initiative (``EDI'') or Neighborhood
Initiatives activities, Rural Innovation Fund, or for grants
pursuant to section 107 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5307): Provided further,
That the Department shall notify grantees of their formula
allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Chaffetz
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 89, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $396,000,000)''.
Page 89, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $396,000,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $396,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I first want to applaud and thank the committee for
their work. They've reached the laudable goal of reducing the overall
expenditures by $4 billion. And that is much appreciated and noted. I
just happen to think we can do just a little bit better.
I'm looking at the committee report regarding the committee's
recommendation on the Community Development Fund, specifically the
Community Development Block Grants. And I read:
``This is $396 million above both fiscal year 2012 and the budget
request.''
So you have the President making a budget request, and you have last
year's expenditures. What this amendment does is reduces by $396
million to get it back to where we were. Again, I think the President
is even also on the same page.
Now, Madam Chair, we have to recognize what a dire financial strait
we're in in this country. We have to understand that we have a
multitrillion-dollar challenge. We talk about a trillion with a capital
T and it's hard to get your arms around it. But if you were to spend a
million dollars a day everyday, it would take you almost 3,000 years to
get to $1 trillion.
So when we're racking up a trillion-plus-dollar deficit each year,
when our
[[Page H4105]]
national debt at the end of this year will approach $16 trillion, when
we're spending more than $600 million a day in interest on our national
debt, we're going to have to cut some spending.
To actually bring back and reduce this to the proper level, I think
would be more appropriate. I encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment. It returns the funding to the fiscal year 2012 level. Again,
as the committee report says, this is $396 million above both fiscal
year 2012 and the budget request. I think this is reasonable. I hope
the committee would find a place where we can join on this, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Madam Chair, this is an amendment that would take a huge
chunk out of the CDBG program. This is one of the areas in which I have
been particularly, I thought, most commendable about what the
chairman's mark is in the bill for the CDBG.
The CDBG is a hugely popular program in communities around the
country. We have, as I have mentioned in my opening remarks at the
beginning of this bill, 65 percent of our population living in
communities in metropolitan areas with over half a million people, and
close to 90 percent of our people live in communities with over 50,000
people. It's roughly around 50,000 people that are entitlement
communities and get an amount of money that they may use in a flexible
kind of a way in their cities and towns of large size, and can directly
get that money to use for things that they need in their cities. Their
cities and towns have suffered greatly in the Great Recession that we
have had before us, and they have housing needs which are very
substantial.
Now I would point out to the gentleman from Utah that the amount for
the CDBG program as proposed by Chairman Latham I am commending him for
and strongly support his allocation for this. The amount that he has
provided in this bill within the allocation and with the $4 billion
reduction that the bill entails is below the number that CDBG was given
all the way back in 2008. It has varied up and down, depending upon the
allocations and depending upon what has gone on. But this one still is
below. And I strongly support it and would urge that it be maintained.
And by the way, about 20 percent of the whole amount goes directly to
States, which then can use it in a discretionary way in groups of
smaller communities. So it actually gets into rural areas and small
communities--in communities like those of the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, whose district has no community larger than
about 15,000 people. But his district manages to get a considerable
amount of money through the State of Kentucky for the congressional
district.
{time} 1350
So it is something that goes to everybody in their districts in a
flexible way for things that are eligible under the law.
But when it is being used for the development of housing, then it
ends up clearly directly providing for jobs. If it's used in the way of
social services through nonprofit organizations, again it is providing
jobs for people who are doing great service for our population. So I'm
a strong supporter of this.
I certainly urge that the amendment be defeated, and I will stop
there because other people wish to speak, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition
to this amendment. I will be brief because I know we have many more
amendments to consider, but I want to focus on this one because I think
this proposal to cut the Community Development Block Grant program by
$396 million is particularly ill-advised, and I suspect Members on both
sides of the aisle will understand that and will agree. We are all,
after all, hearing from our mayors and from our local communities with
great regularity that CDBG is money well spent.
First of all, this program has been much better funded in past years.
Even with the increase in the current bill, for which we commend the
chairman, even with that, the funding is much less than could be
utilized.
We know the CDBG program has some very strong virtues. One of them is
flexibility and community self-determination in terms of how this money
is spent, how it is applied, and the kind of leverage that this money
represents, for bringing forth participation and funding from other
sources.
This is a program that has stood the test of time, that has strong
bipartisan support in this Chamber and across the country. So I think
the notion that we would cut back this appropriation by hundreds of
millions of dollars is most unwise, and I urge defeat of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Community Development Block Grant program is very important to
cities and States across the country. There is a great deal of local
control in this program. Communities use the block grants to meet local
needs such as building water and sewer infrastructure, community
centers, housing for low-income families, and other development
important to their local communities. Although the bill increases the
funding, this funding level is still well below what it was in fiscal
year 2010. The bill actually is $1.046 billion below the level of 2010,
to be exact.
Madam Chair, as we were going through this bill, we had many Members
on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, request
additional funding for these grants. For many Members, there is strong
constituent support for these programs. We have seen individual cases
of abuse, not unlike a lot of other government programs, but really the
way to fix those reforms, and we're not going to do it through the
appropriations process, is through the authorizers, to have them do
their work and make sure that these programs are well run, that they're
focused and they actually do what the intention is.
Again, I want everybody to understand that we are actually below
fiscal year 2010 levels on a very, very important program, and I would
recommend and urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 89, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $0)''.
Page 89, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $0)''.
Page 89, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $60,000,000)''.
Page 90, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
to $3,960,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,404,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, this amendment finishes the good work
begun by the gentleman from Utah on the previous amendment. It saves
$3.4 billion by eliminating all funding for the Community Development
Block Grant program.
This program was created in 1974 with the stated objective of
eliminating blight and providing affordable housing, but in the nearly
four decades since then, it has degenerated into a Federal slush fund
for pet projects of local politicians and politically connected
businesses. It is plagued by profligate waste and outright fraud.
[[Page H4106]]
This is an unauthorized expenditure. The legal authority for it
expired back in 1994, 18 years ago, and Congress has not bothered to
renew it ever since, but we keep shoveling money at it year after year.
Madam Chair, $3.5 billion averages to almost $50 from the earnings of a
family of four, and they have a right to know where their $50, taken
from their family budgets, is going.
Senator Coburn gave some examples in his Back to Black report: Summit
County, Ohio, spent $100,000 of CDBG funds to create a doggie daycare
and kennel last year, and Nyack, New York, directed $10,000 of CDBG
funds to Amazing Grace Circus in 2009 to put on ``A Day At the
Circus.''
CDBG funds are being spent creating a ``hip'' atmosphere for
employees of an L.A. architectural firm, providing decorative sidewalks
in a wealthy Virginia community, and upgrading Victorian cottages in
Alabama. Indeed, some communities use these funds to pay off Federal
loans they've taken out on projects that are now defaulting because
they've utterly failed to produce all of the benefits they've promised.
Even in the best of circumstances, these are all projects that
exclusively benefit local communities or private interests and ought to
be paid for exclusively by those local communities or private
interests. They are of such questionable merit that no city council is
willing to face its constituents and say, This is how we have spent
your local taxes. But they are more than happy to spend somebody else's
Federal taxes, so we end up robbing St. Petersburg to pay St. Paul for
projects so dubious that the purported beneficiaries won't pay for
them.
And that's all before we discuss the realm of fraud. This program is
replete with individuals directing six-figure sums to their personal
bank accounts or political activities. The Office of Management and
Budget has repeatedly branded this program as ``ineffective.'' That's
its official designation for government programs that cannot ascertain
how their funds are spent. HUD's own inspector general found that, in a
relatively short 2-year timespan, over 150 criminal indictments were
issued for false claims, bribery, fraudulent contracts, theft,
embezzlement, or corruption in connection with this program.
This a slush fund that cries for abolition, and it should be one of
the first places that we look to bring spending under control and stop
wasting our constituents' money. Once again, though, this unauthorized
program is not targeted for elimination by the Appropriations
Committee. It is not even targeted for a token reduction in spending.
As we just discussed, the Appropriations Committee proposes spending
$400 million more than we spent last year, indeed, $400 million more
than even the President requested.
Now, let's be very clear on this. The House Appropriations Committee,
with a Republican majority that has a clear mandate to stop wasting
money, is about to appropriate $400 million more than requested by the
most spendthrift administration in our Nation's history on a program
with no Federal nexus, with a solid history of fraud, and that funds
the most unworthy of local projects and special interest handouts.
{time} 1400
The rules of the House were specifically written to prevent this type
of unauthorized expenditure, and they provide for a point of order to
be raised if it's included in an appropriations bill. That is exactly
what we have here. But, alas, that rule is routinely waived when these
measures are brought to the floor, making this amendment necessary.
Madam Chairwoman, this is another critical test of the Republican
majority's intention to stand by the promises it made to the American
people in the most dangerous fiscal crisis in our Nation's history. I
pray that we rise to the occasion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I believe, with the
offering of this amendment, we are in great need of a reality check in
this Chamber. After all, it was President Nixon, and it was a strong,
bipartisan majority, with the Republicans playing a leading role, that
first initiated the Community Development Block Grant programs, and I
assume that this amendment will be rejected today by that same kind of
bipartisan coalition.
The whole idea of the CDBG program was to get away from inflexible,
one-size-fits-all approaches to urban development. The whole idea was
to get away from top-down bureaucratic direction. CDBG was designed to
empower communities, to give them flexibility, to maximize the
possibility for leverage of private sector funds, to let the community
determine its own projects and its own priorities.
All of us have experience with this program, I dare say. My
experience has been that the bang for the buck from CDBG is virtually
unmatched in any other Federal program. Housing rehabilitation, for
example, is one of the main uses in many communities of CDBG funds.
What you're doing with housing rehabilitation is not building public
housing from scratch. You're not totally developing new neighborhoods,
but you're taking houses that are likely to deteriorate, where a
relatively small investment can rehab those houses, can salvage those
houses, and can make quality housing available more widely in the
community.
Another major use of CDBG funds is infrastructure. How many Habitat
for Humanity communities have been built across our country with CDBG
funds furnishing the basic infrastructure, and from there the volunteer
efforts take off?
The gentleman sponsoring this amendment made the incredible statement
that these are projects that communities wouldn't undertake on their
own. On the contrary, no CDBG project is going to be undertaken without
community participation, financial and otherwise, without community
self-determination that this is a priority.
So there's an air of unreality about this debate. These are programs
that maximize the values that many of our colleagues profess--self-
determination, flexibility, leveraging of private funds. They're
programs that have stood the test of time. And we, in this bill, should
be proud to appropriate CDBG funds, because we know these funds will
have great multiplier effects throughout this country. So I very
strongly urge colleagues to reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. I rise to oppose the amendment--the same, basically, that
I said before: we are below fiscal year 2010 levels. Certainly, I
believe the authorizing committee must set very strict parameters as to
how these dollars should be used, but we are below fiscal year 2010,
and I would urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered
by Mr. Diaz-Balart
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 90, line 12, before the period insert the following:
Provided further, That unless explicitly provided for under
this heading, not to exceed 25 percent of any grant made with
funds appropriated under this heading may be expended for
public services (as such term is defined for purposes of
section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305))
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H4107]]
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this amendment is
subject to a point of order, but I'd like to discuss what this
amendment is attempting to address.
As we all know, the Community Development Block Grant program, which
is known as the CDBG grant program, is one of the most widely utilized
sources of assistance by local governments. These block grants are
intended to address housing, community development and economic
development needs as determined by local officials.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very straightforward. It simply
gives greater flexibility to the local communities and the cities and
the counties, et cetera, for part of their CDBG funding. It increases
the cap of what is known as public services expenditures from the
current 15 percent up to 25 percent.
Now, public services, in reference to this legislation, deals with
issues like child care, senior services, disabled services, educational
programs, medical services, transportation services, domestic violence,
crime prevention, food banks, and others.
The current 15 percent public service cap was enacted into statute
over 30 years ago; and it, frankly, just doesn't reflect the reality of
today. We all acknowledge, obviously, the tremendous fiscal challenges
that we are facing here in Congress, that our country is facing; but we
also acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, the challenges that our local
communities are facing.
CDBG public services funds have really played a key role in providing
crucial aid to our most at-risk, our most vulnerable populations,
especially during difficult times like these. The restrictive and,
frankly, outdated cap has denied many communities, Mr. Chairman, the
option of providing their residents with the most basic services within
the framework of the existing CDBG program. So this amendment provides
flexibility to local leaders to meet certain unique challenges.
Now, I want to make something very clear: this amendment does not
increase or decrease CDBG funds, does not change the formula, and does
not require those communities that are entitled to use more of their
funds on public services. It simply grants those cities and counties
greater flexibility in their usage of certain CDBG funds. Let me
mention that my colleague, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, has a standalone
piece of legislation that I'm honored to be a cosponsor of.
It's imperative that the authorizing committee, the Financial
Services Committee, work to update the CDBG program--for a lot of
reasons. I also need to mention that Chairman Latham is well aware of
these concerns. I want to thank him and his staff for really trying to
accommodate us on this issue, but unfortunately we were not able to do
it at this time for a number of different reasons. I'd like to continue
to work with Chairman Latham and the Financial Services chairman,
Chairman Bachus, on finding real solutions that will give local
communities flexibility to meet their unique challenges and to make
sure that those funds are well utilized.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Diaz-Balart
amendment and to draw attention to a crisis that will soon hit the city
of Miami and many other cities throughout south Florida, our State of
Florida, and indeed throughout the Nation.
We are all aware of the difficult funding decisions that will need to
be made by many departments and programs. Programs like the Community
Development Block Grant may see overall reductions because of the sad
realities of the current budget constraints and in the interest of
fiscal responsibility. However, because of an arbitrary Community
Development Block Grant expenditure cap, countless vulnerable citizens
in the city of Miami and throughout the United States will lose their
only means of sustenance.
{time} 1410
This amendment is not about increased funding, Mr. Chairman, nor is
it about changing the overall formula of the Community Development
Block Grant. It is simply about providing greater flexibility to cities
on how they allocate their CDBG funds. Currently, only 15 percent of
Community Development Block Grant funds can go toward public services.
Now, what are public services? Well, they include food for senior
citizens, the disabled, the homeless, the abused, or neglected
children. They also may be used for child care, for health services,
for job training services.
The city of Miami, which I am proud to represent, currently provides
these vital services, especially meals, through the current Community
Development Block Grant public services. But, because of the overall
decrease in CDBG allocations, many disadvantaged men, women, and
children will be without the vital support that they deserve and need.
This amendment is simply a painless solution to this development,
allowing cities the flexibility they need in how they expand their CDBG
funds. It would allow up to 25 percent of CDBG funds to go to public
services, a position that has been endorsed by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors and the National League of Cities.
The current 15 percent public service expenditure cap was enacted
with the original statute over 30 years ago. It does not reflect the
evolution of this program, nor the necessity to provide flexibility to
local leaders on how funds should be expended during this time of belt
tightening. The current restrictive and outdated limit has denied many
communities the option of providing their residents with the most basic
and necessary services within the framework established by the program.
CDBG public services have played a key role in providing crucial aid
to our most at-risk and vulnerable constituents, especially during this
enduring recession. Cities across our country have had to do more with
less, and this amendment will help them accomplish just that.
I wish to thank Chairman Latham and his staff for working with
Congressman Diaz-Balart and me on trying to give this flexibility
through the proper channel to our local leaders.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point
of order?
Mr. LATHAM. I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. I just want to make the point that I want to continue to
work with these two great Members from Florida. It is a real problem
for the community, and I will do everything possible to try to be of
assistance with addressing this real problem for them.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Miami.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, again, want to thank you
and your staff, who have been great on this issue, understanding the
problem.
At this time I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw
my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, HUD, and
Related Agencies, Mr. Latham, and also with Mr. Wolf on the Driver
Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS.
I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to engage in a colloquy
with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman. As the gentlemen are aware, the
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, NHTSA, has been
working on a public-private research program known as the Driver
Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS, that would develop a
passive technology to detect if a driver's
[[Page H4108]]
blood alcohol content is above the legal limit.
I would urge the chairman to consider funding for the DADSS program
as this bill moves forward, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, and rise to support
his initiative.
Mr. Chairman, too many times a mother or a father or a loved one has
gotten that dreaded call in the middle of the night that someone has
been killed in an accident involving a drunk driver. And I appreciate
my friend from Maryland raising the DADSS program, and also urge my
good friend, the chairman, to look at this program as the bill moves
forward.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlemen from Maryland and Virginia. I
appreciate their taking the time to raise this very important issue. I
will be mindful of their concerns as the process moves forward.
Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
community development loan guarantees program account
For the cost of guaranteed loans, $6,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2014, as authorized by section
108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5308): Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further,
That these funds are available to subsidize total loan
principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $244,000,000, notwithstanding any aggregate limitation
on outstanding obligations guaranteed in section 108(k) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. McClintock
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 90, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $0)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates funding for
the Community Development loan guarantee program. Like the Community
Development Block Grants that we just discussed, these loan guarantees
support strictly local projects that have no Federal nexus.
Now, unlike the House Appropriations Committee, President Obama has
requested no taxpayer subsidies for this program, and that's a pretty
profound statement. Remember, this is the same President who had no
problem placing billions of taxpayer dollars at risk for failed schemes
like Solyndra, for which he was soundly and rightly criticized by many
in this House.
But even the architect of the Solyndra fiasco is unwilling to risk
taxpayer money on this loan guarantee program, so, enter the House
Appropriations Committee that apparently has money to burn.
What are the recent projects funded by these loan guarantees? Well,
$7 million went to the city of Hartford to buy a 393-room Hilton Hotel;
$15 million went to build a movie studio in Norristown, Pennsylvania; a
$10 million loan to Bass Pro Shops to redevelop the Memphis Pyramid.
Now, why would we put our taxpayers' money at risk for these
ventures? Obviously, private investors were unwilling to risk their own
money. Obviously, President Obama sees these loans as far riskier than
anything that he's loaned in the Solyndra fiasco. But we're about to
put our constituents' hard-earned money at risk to prop up these
projects.
Now, when Bass Pro Shops takes $10 million to redevelop the Memphis
Pyramid, will this mean more jobs in Memphis? Well, yes. And will it
mean precisely that many fewer jobs in other regions as, once again, we
take from one community to give to another? Unfortunately, the answer
is yes to that question as well.
My amendment simply takes taxpayer exposure to these risky loans down
to the level of fiscal restraint proposed by the least fiscally
restrained President in the history of our Nation. I'd invite my
Republican colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to follow.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, here we have kind of the yang that went with
the yin. The gentleman's amendment here a few minutes ago, the last one
that he offered, was $3.5 billion, and taking that out of this
allocation.
{time} 1420
In this case, it's a $6 million amount. That's about 5,000 times as
much as the six. The first was 5,000 times as much as this one. Maybe
I'm off by an order of magnitude. I'm not quite sure.
The gentleman from California has pointed out that the President did
not want to do this at all. Well, actually, the President had asked the
committee to create a user fee to pay for this rather than the
mechanism by which this really very small program--this $6 million
program of loan guarantees--has been functioning, which was to pay for
any risk involved. The gentleman is claiming, if there were any serious
risk, that it should be paid for out of the subsequent years'
allocations under CDBG.
It turns out, for those places that would use this program, the loan
guarantee program, there has never been a penny lost of the Federal
taxpayers on any of the section 108 projects that we have issued in
this program, and there have been a number of them. It actually is one
of the most flexible. The Community Development loan guarantee program
is exceedingly flexible and very creative. It has been used to create
larger projects, projects that create jobs and that may be part of the
revitalization of a whole target area, and it always ends up bringing
in substantial additional private investment into the neighborhood.
So it's creating jobs. It is used often for the reuse of old factory
buildings that are no longer viable in the forms that they were.
Particularly in my part of the country, it has been used in that kind
of a way--and successfully--to make a project that may turn out to be
housing, that may turn out to be a business incubator or whatever. This
is a very flexible program and one that the Federal taxpayer has never
lost money on.
The creation of jobs and the development of new businesses that come
into a place that may be part of a development of this sort is what
gives us a robust economy. A robust economy is the best way we have of
reducing the deficit because you can end up cutting and cutting and
cutting programs, and if you do not end up creating jobs in the long
run, you're simply not going to return to a robust economy. I think we
know that.
So I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think it is a
counterproductive thing to do. It's very small. It has never lost any
money. It operates quite well. The chairman, with my assent--though he
didn't need my assent--certainly left it in there. I support his
position very strongly, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I also oppose the amendment.
The Community Development Block Grant program is very important to
cities and States throughout our country. As a former mayor, I can
attest to the fact of the impact the Community Development Block Grants
have on our local communities. This year, we had many Members, both
Republicans and Democrats, request funding for CDBG programs. For many
Members, there is strong constituent support for the program.
The section 108 CDBG loan guarantee is a good community development
tool because it does something that we should be interested in doing,
and that is leveraging funding. With only $6 million provided in the
bill, HUD is able to
[[Page H4109]]
make nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in loan guarantees for
community development. So it's a small amount of Federal money that
creates a pretty significant impact. Now, if a fee is warranted, we
would encourage the authorizing committee to enact legislation to
create a fee and lower the cost of the program.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
home investment partnerships program
For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized
under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act, as amended, $1,200,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2015: Provided, That notwithstanding the
amount made available under this heading, the threshold
reduction requirements in sections 216(10) and 217(b)(4) of
such Act shall not apply to allocation of such amount:
Provided further, That funds made available under this
heading used for projects not completed within 4 years of the
commitment date, as determined by a signature of each party
to the agreement, shall be repaid: Provided further, That the
Secretary may extend the deadline for 1 year if the Secretary
determines that the failure to complete the project is beyond
the control of the participating jurisdiction: Provided
further, That no funds provided under this heading may be
committed to any project included as part of a participating
jurisdiction's plan under section 105(b), unless each
participating jurisdiction certifies that it has conducted an
underwriting review, assessed developer capacity and fiscal
soundness, and examined neighborhood market conditions to
ensure adequate need for each project: Provided further, That
any homeownership units funded under this heading which
cannot be sold to an eligible homeowner within 6 months of
project completion shall be rented to an eligible tenant:
Provided further, That no funds provided under this heading
may be awarded for development activities to a community
housing development organization that cannot demonstrate that
it has staff with demonstrated development experience:
Provided further, That funds provided in prior appropriations
Acts for technical assistance, that were made available for
Community Housing Development Organizations technical
assistance, and that still remain available, may be used for
HOME technical assistance notwithstanding the purposes for
which such amounts were appropriated: Provided further, That
the Department shall notify grantees of their formula
allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 91, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $200,000,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $200 million from
the HOME Investment Partnership and transfer the savings to the deficit
reduction account. This simply takes the level of funding to where it
was last year.
We are often told we need to cut spending. I think we need to. Yet,
with this program, we're actually increasing the funding from $1
billion to $1.2 billion, so it's about a 20 percent increase. This is
the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments,
designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income
households.
In 2011, a nationwide investigation by The Washington Post described
the program as:
a dysfunctional system that delivers billions of dollars to
local housing agencies with few rules, safeguards or even a
reliable way to track projects.
This was The Washington Post saying this. It wasn't some conservative
Republicans. This was The Washington Post. According to The Post:
These lapses have led to widespread misspending and delays
in a two-decade-old program meant to deliver decent housing
to the working poor. Nearly 700 projects awarded $400 million
have been idling for years while the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development has largely looked the other
way. It does not track the pace of construction, and it often
fails to spot defunct deals. Instead, they're trusting local
agencies to police projects.
Again, that was a quote from the investigation.
In 2009-2010, HUD's Office of Inspector General came out with reports
that questioned not only HUD's ability to monitor these HOME project
funds but also whether the program was in compliance with its own
rules. In addition, several Members of Congress have acknowledged
concerns about HUD's ability to ensure that HOME funds are used in a
way that produce the program's intended results.
The full Financial Services Committee has held congressional hearings
in response to these concerns. In a spending bill just last year,
Congress included language that placed additional restrictions on the
use of HOME funds for FY12. The problem is those are the funds that are
being implemented now. We don't even know if they're following the
guidelines and are doing what we asked them to do. Yet here we're
appropriating $200 million more to them rather than saying, Hey, we
wanted you to do these things. Let's check and see if you've done them
before we award you with more money.
It's difficult to evaluate these projects when they haven't been done
yet. That's the reason we ought to cut back and simply go level with
the funding of last year. Again, it's not a cut from last year. It's
level funding from last year. It's the least we can do when running
these kinds of deficits and when we have this kind of debt and when
we've found massive, massive problems with this program.
{time} 1430
The remedy isn't to award a 20 percent increase. If anything, we
ought to be cutting the program. I'm simply saying with this amendment,
let's take it back to where it was last year. What is the point of
oversight that we exercise here in Congress if we exercise that
oversight, we find problems, we ask for a remedy, and then we award
money before we even see if the remedy was actually entered into? We
have oversight here. We have the power of the purse. Let's use it.
This program is troubled. It has problems. It's not just people on
one side of the aisle that recognize that. The Congress as a whole
does. So why in the world are we awarding 20 percent more funding this
year than we had last year? This amendment would take it back to last
year's funding level.
I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I rise today to speak on the Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill on the floor.
First off, I want to say that whether it's the mayor of Jacksonville,
Florida; Orlando; California; or Texas, every single mayor that I've
talked to--Democrats or Republicans--support Community Development
Block Grants and are very concerned with what we're doing here and
making sure that we send funds that they can decide how the community
is to use the funds to meet their needs.
In addition, I want to talk about transportation. I've been on the
Transportation Committee for the entire 20 years that I've been here in
Congress, and transportation has always been bipartisan. It did not
matter who the President was, and it did not matter who the Speaker
was. In fact, when Newt Gingrich was the Speaker and President Clinton
was the President, the House passed the transportation bill over both
of them and funded the Transportation Committee for 6 years.
This House has not been able to pass a transportation bill. For the
first time, you see people who really don't want to put America to work
because
[[Page H4110]]
the Transportation Committee is the committee that put the American
people to work. When you look at the engineers or architects, they rate
America as a ``D minus,'' as far as our infrastructure is concerned.
Yet you have people that do not want to put the American people back to
work.
In my home State of Florida, we received close to $3 billion for a
high-speed train from Orlando to Tampa. What did we do? We sent it
back. Eighteen States have our money, and they are putting people to
work. We're talking about transportation money.
When you have people with other agendas besides putting people to
work, that is a real problem in the area of transportation. We know
that for every $1 billion we invest, it generates 44,000 permanent
jobs. Yet you have people in this House with a different agenda, and
their agenda has nothing to do with jobs and putting people to work. It
is a sad state of affairs. But I've often said you can fool some of the
people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of
the time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that
is ostensibly before us.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we were talking about the amendment that the
gentleman from Arizona has offered, and he has offered an amendment
that would take $200 million out of the HOME Investment Partnership
program as recommended by Chairman Latham and the subcommittee and
through the procedures of the subcommittee and the full committee
actions before coming to the floor.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There have been some
controversies with the HOME Investment Partnership program; but there
were statutory changes last year, and HUD is now in the process of
finishing the rule to go along with those statutory changes. So those
reforms are now basically in place.
To my understanding, at least, there has been no instance of our
actual loss of money from the HOME Partnership program at any time, but
there have been projects that have been stalled. This is one of the few
programs that we have in this bill that actually results in the
construction of housing. Most affordable housing projects use multiple
sources to complete a development, and occasionally it is possible that
the private development monies don't materialize to a project that has
been approved for the HOME Partnership program. If that happens, then
HUD takes the money back and uses it someplace else. It doesn't in any
way end up resulting in a loss to the taxpayers of the country.
The HOME program is, as I say, one of the few programs that actually
funds newly constructed housing under this legislation. These funds are
used. They provide needed jobs in our communities; they ease the
unemployment in the construction sector; they produce housing; and they
don't end up costing the taxpayers any money.
To the degree that that is followed and we can produce housing, then
I am certainly in favor of it and strongly support Chairman Latham's
assignment of the additional money. I would point out that the level of
the funding at the level that has been recommended by the
Appropriations Committee and by the subcommittee that Mr. Latham
chairs, that the amount of money that has been assigned is below the
amount that was assigned 5 years ago for the 2008 budget.
We have been through ups and downs on this one over time, and I
certainly would urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
{time} 1440
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise to associate myself with the remarks of our
esteemed ranking member, John Olver of Massachusetts, and rise to
oppose Mr. Flake's proposal.
Now, if Mr. Flake came to the floor and cut money from well-larded
Arizona projects, I might ponder that type of amendment--but I don't
support cuts in HOME. With the devastation that's occurred across our
housing market, we shouldn't harm housing for sure. But, if he would
take the money to balance the budget from the subsidized Central
Arizona Water Project, or if he would take the funds from the major
Federal monuments that are stacked wall-to-wall in his State of
Arizona, or if he would take the funds from all the defense facilities
that help to employ and hold up the economy of his State--those might
be worthy of debate.
It's very interesting where he cuts money from--from among the
poorest areas in this country, some of the most devastated parts of
America that are trying to rebuild themselves. It's very curious to me
when he proposes amendments, whether it be this one or other ones in
subcommittee, he always leaves his home turf sacrosanct.
Mr. FLAKE. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. Yes. I would be interested in the gentleman's response.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio.
For all I know, this cuts money from my district as well. I have not
discriminated in where I have taken money from. I think everybody who
has followed the process over the past several years knows that.
With regard to the Central Arizona Project, Arizona repays the
Federal Government to the tune of about $55 million a year, still after
all these years. The fact that we are 83 percent publicly owned in
Arizona means that our local communities have to run their facilities
and run their services on just a narrow sliver of private land.
Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, all those loans were subsidized and
capital was made available at very favorable terms compared to my
region of Arizona. That paid its own way. Just look where federal
dollar flow to Arizona--if one looks at the defense bases across
northern Ohio, we don't have anything like Arizona has. Defense dollars
flow heavily to Arizona. Or, if we look at the kinds of subsidies we
are providing for water in the West--The Central Arizona project or for
Bureau of Land Management projects, for all of the investments that
have been made to allow Arizona to even get water, federal funds have
built Arizona--and then to say to the part of the country that said,
Well, we want the West to develop. So we're going to help you out. But
now you say, No, no, no, no. Now we're going to take money away from
Cleveland and Toledo and Detroit and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and
Chicago and Milwaukee--all of the places that taxed themselves for the
development of the modern West.
So I would say to the gentleman, I think the answer to the problem we
have is economic growth, and we have to invest in that. The housing
sector has been dead in the water since 2008, largely because of the
nonregulation of the Bush administration during those years when the
Wall Street house of cards and derivatives were created. So let's look
at what happened back then.
But, please, don't take it out of the hides of the most stressed
communities in America that, despite all the odds, are in the process
of reinvesting and rebuilding themselves to fuel recovery.
So I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). Oppose the Flake amendment. Support
programs that will help the revitalization of the housing sector of
this country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Bachus
Mr. BACHUS. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 92, line 16, before the period insert the following:
: Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, up to $200,000,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for necessary expenses for
[[Page H4111]]
activities authorized under the HOME Investment Partnerships
Act (42 U.S.C. 12721 et seq.) related to disaster relief,
long-term recovery, restoration of housing and
infrastructure, and economic revitalization in the most
impacted and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster
declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in
2011: Provided further, That such disaster relief funds shall
be awarded only to States and units of general local
government that were awarded funds under section 239 of
Public Law 112-55 (125 Stat. 703), shall be awarded directly
to such States and units of general local government at the
discretion of the Secretary, and shall be awarded in
accordance with such formula or requirements as the Secretary
shall establish, except that such formula or requirements
shall give preference to awards based on a county's unmet
housing needs for renter occupied units: Provided further,
That prior to the obligation of such disaster relief funds a
grantee shall submit a plan to the Secretary detailing the
proposed use of all such funds, including criteria for
eligibility and how the use of these funds will address long-
term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided
further, That such disaster relief funds may not be used for
activities reimbursable by, or for which funds are made
available by, the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the
Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That such disaster
relief funds allocated under this heading shall not be
considered relevant to the other non-disaster formula
allocations under this heading: Provided further, That a
State or subdivision thereof may use up to 5 percent of its
allocation of such disaster relief funds for administrative
costs: Provided further, That in administering such disaster
relief funds under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development may waive, or specify alternative
requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation
that the Secretary administers in connection with the
obligation by the Secretary or the use by the recipient of
these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to
fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the
environment), upon a request by a State or subdivision
thereof explaining why such waiver is required to facilitate
the use of such funds or guarantees, if the Secretary finds
that such waiver would not be inconsistent with the overall
purpose of the HOME Investment Partnerships Act: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that the
Secretary administers pursuant to HOME Investment
Partnerships Act no later than 5 days before the effective
date of such waiver
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
Bachus amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BACHUS. Let me acknowledge the point of order is due to be
granted.
I am, however, here to ask for the cooperation of the appropriating
committee as we move forward on addressing a problem that we found as a
result of the many tornadoes that devastated our country last year. And
I will use an example from the city of Tuscaloosa.
In the aftermath of the tornado that struck Tuscaloosa on April 27,
HUD came in and calculated the loss of residences and rental units.
Part of their charge was to replace the critical needs. However--and I
will just use one census tract as an example--they came into a census
tract that includes University Boulevard, which is a census tract made
up almost entirely of rental units. However, according to HUD's
calculation, they came in and they simply surveyed the owner-occupied
units. Now, there were 23 owner-occupied units that were destroyed in
the census tract, but there were 440 rental units that were destroyed
in this same tract. So almost all the loss of property was rental
units. It left the city of Tuscaloosa, a university town, woefully
inadequate in its number of rental units.
In their calculation, they only take the owner-occupied units, and
they extrapolate from that what they consider the number of rental
units to be in that same census tract. Well, you can't really base a
calculation of how many rental units there are based on how many owner-
occupied dwellings there are. And to tell you how much they missed it,
they calculated that there were no rental units destroyed, which is
obviously a tremendous miscalculation.
So we've offered an amendment today which essentially will say that
you have to consider--and your survey must include--both owner-occupied
units and rental units and that you must calculate both of them, not
simply the owner-occupied units.
HUD's model, in short, needs to be changed. We believe that our
authorizing committee will correct this in future cases, but there's an
urgent need to replace the rental housing that was lost in last year's
tornadoes throughout the Nation. And my amendment simply creates a
mechanism to do so and directs HUD to develop a formula for
distributing assistance to communities that have already suffered
damage. This will restore what we think is fairness and a more correct
calculation.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you for allowing me to explain the purpose of the amendment
that my colleague Congresswoman Terri Sewell and I are proposing.
Communities in the State of Alabama and other states are still
recovering from the devastating tornadoes of April 27, 2011.
A critical issue is replacing rental housing that was destroyed by
the tornadoes. Rental housing is an important and affordable option for
individuals and families, especially in larger cities.
Unfortunately, the methodology used by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to award recovery assistance may be weighted--in some
cases--against rebuilding rental housing.
To provide an example, according to a study by the office of Mayor
Walt Maddox, one census tract in Tuscaloosa sustained tornado damage to
463 housing units: 23 owner-occupied units and 440 rental units. Rather
than document the actual damage and distribute recovery aid
accordingly, HUD used a mathematical model to calculate the damage.
The result is that only 2.2% of the units in this devastated
neighborhood were deemed to have been severely damaged. None of the
rental properties were included in the formula, regardless of their
damage.
This bureaucratic discrepancy has put Tuscaloosa and other
communities at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to receiving
funding for the restoration of their rental housing stock.
HUD's model needs to be changed. We are working to correct it for
future cases, but there is an urgent need to replace the rental housing
that was lost during last year's tornadoes.
Our amendment creates a mechanism to do that. It directs HUD to
develop a formula for distributing assistance to communities that have
already suffered damage. This will help restore fairness and promote
the continued recovery of our communities from some of the most
devastating tornadoes in the history of the State of Alabama and our
nation.
Point of Order
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting
direction to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Ms. SEWELL. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of order; but I rise
today in support of this amendment by my fellow colleague from Alabama,
which adds critical funding to assist communities devastated as a
result of last year's severe weather.
This bipartisan amendment would add $200 million to the underlying
bill and direct it towards communities that received CDBG disaster
assistance in FY 2012. Prior to awarding of these new funds, this
amendment directs HUD to establish a formula of funding that would give
preference to applicants based on a county's unmet housing need,
including renter-occupied units.
Currently, there is still an ongoing and urgent need for housing
options, particularly rental units, across several parts of my district
as well as my colleague's district. This amendment would help
communities like Tuscaloosa, Alabama, receive adequate funds to help
repair and rebuild the rental housing units that were destroyed by the
April 27 tornadoes. This would help to provide rental housing units
that will provide critical shelter for women, children, and families.
[[Page H4112]]
{time} 1450
A recent report released by HUD estimated that the amount of unmet
housing needs for Tuscaloosa County alone would exceed $56 million.
Most of this figure was associated with unmet rental housing need.
The devastation and destruction that was caused by the April tornados
across the State of Alabama is still being felt, especially in places
that already have economically disadvantaged areas. This amendment
would provide the additional funds needed for these affected areas to
continue their efforts toward full recovery.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program
For the Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity
Program, as authorized under section 11 of the Housing
Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996, as amended,
$60,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015:
Provided, That of the total amount provided under this
heading, $20,000,000 shall be made available to the Self-Help
and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program as authorized
under section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension
Act of 1996, as amended: Provided further, That $35,000,000
shall be made available for the second, third and fourth
capacity building activities authorized under section 4(a) of
the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 9816 note), of
which not less than $5,000,000 may be made available for
rural capacity-building activities: Provided further, That
$5,000,000 shall be made available for capacity-building
activities for national organizations with expertise in rural
housing, including experience working with rural housing
organizations, local governments, and Indian tribes: Provided
further, That no funds made available for capacity building
activities under this heading in this Act or any prior Act
may be set-aside, reserved, or awarded in connection with the
Department's demand-response initiative, described in section
V(A)(3)(d) of the Notices of Funding Availability for fiscal
years 2010, 2011, and 2012: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any requirement in any Notice of Funding
Availability, grant application, grant agreement, or work
plan, any unexpended amounts provided under this heading for
capacity building activities in fiscal years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013 may not be used in connection with such
demand-response initiative or any similar initiative, unless
a grantee, in its sole discretion, decides to undertake or
continue such a project: Provided further, That prior to
undertaking, or asking others to undertake, any further
demand-response or similar place-based initiatives, the
Department shall submit for Congressional approval in its
operating plan and budget proposal a detailed justification
of such initiative, including how it fits within the
Department's overall capacity building efforts, why it is
consistent with authorizing legislation, and how the
Department plans to implement it effectively.
homeless assistance grants
(including transfer of funds)
For the emergency solutions grants program as authorized
under subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act, as amended; the continuum of care program as
authorized under subtitle C of title IV of such Act; and the
rural housing stability assistance program as authorized
under subtitle D of title IV of such Act, $2,000,000,000, of
which $1,995,000,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2015, and of which $5,000,000 shall remain available
until expended for project-based rental assistance with
rehabilitation projects with 10-year grant terms and any
rental assistance amounts that are recaptured under such
continuum of care program shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That not less than $286,000,000 of the
funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for
such emergency solutions grants program: Provided further,
That not less than $1,650,000,000 of the funds appropriated
under this heading shall be available for such continuum of
care and rural housing stability assistance programs:
Provided further, That up to $6,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be available for the
national homeless data analysis project: Provided further,
That all funds awarded for supportive services under the
continuum of care program and the rural housing stability
assistance program shall be matched by not less than 25
percent in cash or in kind by each grantee: Provided further,
That for all match requirements applicable to funds made
available under this heading for this fiscal year and prior
years, a grantee may use (or could have used) as a source of
match funds other funds administered by the Secretary and
other Federal agencies unless there is (or was) a specific
statutory prohibition on any such use of any such funds:
Provided further, That all awards of assistance under this
heading shall be required to coordinate and integrate
homeless programs with other mainstream health, social
services, and employment programs for which homeless
populations may be eligible, including Medicaid, State
Children's Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, Food Stamps, and services funding through the
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Block Grant, Workforce
Investment Act, and the Welfare-to-Work grant program:
Provided further, That all balances for Shelter Plus Care
renewals previously funded from the Shelter Plus Care Renewal
account and transferred to this account shall be available,
if recaptured, for continuum of care renewals in fiscal year
2013: Provided further, That the Department shall notify
grantees of their formula allocation from amounts allocated
(which may represent initial or final amounts allocated) for
the emergency solutions grant program within 60 days of
enactment of this Act.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 94, line 19, after each of the first and second dollar
amounts, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 95, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 110, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I offer this amendment on behalf of citizens
who feel that they have no voice in this Congress; people who have
given up hope altogether. These are citizens who earn money by
scavenging through alleys to find empty bottles and cans and get their
return deposits. They survive by rummaging through garbage dumpsters to
find food to eat. These are citizens who have no place to live. They're
on the street.
According to the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries, every night in
the city of Detroit there are nearly 20,000 people who are in need of
shelter and who are homeless. Nearly a quarter of these people are
children. And what is perhaps most tragic is that many of these
citizens--and I have spoken to them as I have seen them in the alleys--
are men who have sacrificed themselves and proudly served this country
in the military. Many of the homeless in the city of Detroit are
veterans.
Some of the folks on the street I know personally. I grew up with
them. They need help. They need substance abuse treatment. They need a
place to stay. And in Detroit, because of the housing crisis, because
foreclosures forced many people out of their homes, we also have many
apartment buildings that are now vacant--vacant, but could be
rehabilitated and renovated to provide a home to our veterans who are
currently on the street.
This amendment that I offer will add $5 million to homeless
assistance grants to provide our homeless veterans with a home, but
also with the hope and dignity that all Americans deserve.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. I would just tell the gentleman that we accept your
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 134, line 11, be considered as read, printed
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:
Housing Programs
project-based rental assistance
For activities and assistance for the provision of project-
based subsidy contracts under the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) (``the Act''), not otherwise
provided for, $8,300,400,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be available on October 1, 2012 (in addition
to the $400,000,000 previously appropriated under this
heading that became available October 1, 2012), and
$400,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be
available on October 1, 2013: Provided, That the amounts made
available under this heading shall be available for expiring
or terminating section 8
[[Page H4113]]
project-based subsidy contracts (including section 8 moderate
rehabilitation contracts), for amendments to section 8
project-based subsidy contracts (including section 8 moderate
rehabilitation contracts), for contracts entered into
pursuant to section 441 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11401), for renewal of section 8
contracts for units in projects that are subject to approved
plans of action under the Emergency Low Income Housing
Preservation Act of 1987 or the Low-Income Housing
Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, and for
administrative and other expenses associated with project-
based activities and assistance funded under this paragraph:
Provided further, That of the total amounts provided under
this heading, not to exceed $260,000,000 shall be available
for performance-based contract administrators for section 8
project-based assistance: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may also use such
amounts in the previous proviso for performance-based
contract administrators for the administration of: interest
reduction payments pursuant to section 236(a) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1(a)); rent supplement payments
pursuant to section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); section 236(f)(2) rental
assistance payments (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1(f)(2)); project rental
assistance contracts for the elderly under section 202(c)(2)
of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q(c)(2)); project
rental assistance contracts for supportive housing for
persons with disabilities under section 811(d)(2) of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
8013(d)(2)); project assistance contracts pursuant to section
202(h) of the Housing Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-372; 73
Stat. 667); and loans under section 202 of the Housing Act of
1959 (Public Law 86-372; 73 Stat. 667): Provided further,
That amounts recaptured under this heading, the heading
``Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing'', or the heading
``Housing Certificate Fund'' may be used for renewals of or
amendments to section 8 project-based contracts or for
performance-based contract administrators, notwithstanding
the purposes for which such amounts were appropriated:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, upon the request of the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, project funds that are held in residual
receipts accounts for any project subject to a section 8
project-based Housing Assistance Payments contract that
authorizes HUD to require that surplus project funds be
deposited in an interest-bearing residual receipts account
and that are in excess of an amount to be determined by the
Secretary, shall be remitted to the Department and deposited
in this account, to be available until expended: Provided
further, That amounts deposited pursuant to the previous
proviso shall be available in addition to the amount
otherwise provided by this heading for uses authorized under
this heading.
housing for the elderly
For capital advances, including amendments to capital
advance contracts for housing for the elderly, as authorized
by section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended, and
for project rental assistance for the elderly under section
202(c)(2) of such Act, including amendments to contracts for
such assistance and renewal of expiring contracts for such
assistance for up to a 1-year term, and for senior
preservation rental assistance contracts, as authorized by
section 811(e) of the American Housing and Economic
Opportunity Act of 2000, as amended, and for supportive
services associated with the housing, $425,000,000 to remain
available until September 30, 2016: Provided, That of the
amount provided under this heading, up to $90,000,000 shall
be for service coordinators and the continuation of existing
congregate service grants for residents of assisted housing
projects: Provided further, That amounts under this heading
shall be available for Real Estate Assessment Center
inspections and inspection-related activities associated with
section 202 projects: Provided further, That the Secretary
may waive the provisions of section 202 governing the terms
and conditions of project rental assistance, except that the
initial contract term for such assistance shall not exceed 5
years in duration: Provided further, That, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, in this fiscal year and
hereafter, upon the request of the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, project funds that are held in residual
receipts accounts for any project subject to a section 202
Project Rental Assistance Contract that requires surplus
project funds to be deposited in an interest-bearing residual
receipts account and be remitted to the Secretary upon
termination of the contract, shall be remitted to the
Secretary and deposited in this account upon termination of
such contract, to be available until expended for capital
advances and other eligible assistance for housing for the
elderly, as authorized by section 202 of the Housing Act of
1959, as amended: Provided further, That amounts deposited in
this account pursuant to the previous proviso shall be
available in addition to the amounts otherwise provided by
this heading for uses authorized under this heading.
housing for persons with disabilities
For amendments to capital advance contracts for supportive
housing for persons with disabilities, as authorized by
section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), for project rental assistance
for supportive housing for persons with disabilities under
section 811(d)(2) of such Act and for project assistance
contracts pursuant to section 202(h) of the Housing Act of
1959 (Public Law 86-372; 73 Stat. 667), including amendments
to contracts for such assistance and renewal of expiring
contracts for such assistance for up to a 1-year term, for
project rental assistance to State housing finance agencies
and other appropriate entities as authorized under section
811(b)(3) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Housing Act, and
for supportive services associated with the housing for
persons with disabilities as authorized by section 811(b)(1)
of such Act, $165,000,000 to remain available until September
30, 2016: Provided, That amounts made available under this
heading shall be available for Real Estate Assessment Center
inspections and inspection-related activities associated with
section 811 Projects.
Housing Counseling Assistance
For contracts, grants, and other assistance excluding
loans, as authorized under section 106 of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, $45,000,000,
including up to $2,500,000 for administrative contract
services: Provided, That grants made available from amounts
provided under this heading shall be awarded within 120 days
of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That funds shall
be used for providing counseling and advice to tenants and
homeowners, both current and prospective, with respect to
property maintenance, financial management/literacy, and such
other matters as may be appropriate to assist them in
improving their housing conditions, meeting their financial
needs, and fulfilling the responsibilities of tenancy or
homeownership; for program administration; and for housing
counselor training.
other assisted housing programs
payment to manufactured housing fees trust fund
For necessary expenses as authorized by the National
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.), up to $4,000,000, to remain
available until expended, which is to be derived from the
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund: Provided, That not to
exceed the total amount appropriated under this heading shall
be available from the general fund of the Treasury to the
extent necessary to incur obligations and make expenditures
pending the receipt of collections to the Fund pursuant to
section 620 of such Act: Provided further, That the amount
made available under this heading from the general fund shall
be reduced as such collections are received during fiscal
year 2013 so as to result in no fiscal year 2013
appropriation from the general fund estimated and fees
pursuant to such section 620 shall be modified as necessary
to ensure such a final fiscal year 2013 appropriation:
Provided further, That for the dispute resolution and
installation programs, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may assess and collect fees from any program
participant: Provided further, That such collections shall be
deposited into the Fund, and the Secretary, as provided
herein, may use such collections, as well as fees collected
under section 620, for necessary expenses of such Act:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding the requirements of
section 620 of such Act, the Secretary may carry out
responsibilities of the Secretary under such Act through the
use of approved service providers that are paid directly by
the recipients of their services.
Federal Housing Administration
mutual mortgage insurance program account
(including transfers of funds)
New commitments to guarantee single family loans insured
under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund shall not exceed
$400,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2014: Provided, That during fiscal year 2013, obligations to
make direct loans to carry out the purposes of section 204(g)
of the National Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed
$50,000,000: Provided further, That the foregoing amount in
the previous proviso shall be for loans to nonprofit and
governmental entities in connection with sales of single
family real properties owned by the Secretary and formerly
insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund. For
administrative contract expenses of the Federal Housing
Administration, $215,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2014, of which up to $71,500,000 may be
transferred to and merged with the Working Capital Fund:
Provided further, That to the extent guaranteed loan
commitments exceed $200,000,000,000 on or before April 1,
2012, an additional $1,400 for administrative contract
expenses shall be available for each $1,000,000 in additional
guaranteed loan commitments (including a pro rata amount for
any amount below $1,000,000), but in no case shall funds made
available by this proviso exceed $30,000,000.
general and special risk program account
New commitments to guarantee loans insured under the
General and Special Risk Insurance Funds, as authorized by
sections 238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715z-3 and 1735c), shall not exceed $25,000,000,000 in total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed:
Provided, That during fiscal year 2013, gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized by
sections 204(g), 207(l), 238, and 519(a) of the National
Housing Act,
[[Page H4114]]
shall not exceed $20,000,000, which shall be for loans to
nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with the
sale of single family real properties owned by the Secretary
and formerly insured under such Act.
Government National Mortgage Association
guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account
New commitments to issue guarantees to carry out the
purposes of section 306 of the National Housing Act, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall not exceed
$500,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2014: Provided, That $20,500,000 shall be available for
necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of Government
National Mortgage Association: Provided further, That to the
extent that guaranteed loan commitments will and do exceed
$155,000,000,000 on or before April 1, 2013, an additional
$100 for necessary salaries and expenses shall be available
until expended for each $1,000,000 in additional guaranteed
loan commitments (including a pro rata amount for any amount
below $1,000,000), but in no case shall funds made available
by this proviso exceed $3,000,000: Provided further, That
receipts from Commitment and Multiclass fees collected
pursuant to title III of the National Housing Act, as
amended, shall be credited as offsetting collections to this
account.
Policy Development and Research
research and technology
For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs
of research and studies relating to housing and urban
problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title
V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C.
1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out the functions of the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under section
1(a)(1)(I) of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $52,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That
with respect to amounts made available under this heading,
notwithstanding section 204 of this title, the Secretary may
enter into cooperative agreements funded with philanthropic
entities, other Federal agencies, or State or local
governments and their agencies for research projects:
Provided further, That with respect to the previous proviso,
such partners to the cooperative agreements must contribute
at least a 50 percent match toward the cost of the project:
Provided further, That for non-competitive agreements entered
into in accordance with the previous two provisos, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall comply with
section 2(b) of the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-282, 31 U.S.C. note)
in lieu of compliance with section 102(a)(4)(C) with respect
to documentation of award decisions.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
fair housing activities
For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise
provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987, as amended, $68,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2014, of which $42,500,000
shall be to carry out activities pursuant to such section
561: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the
Secretary may assess and collect fees to cover the costs of
the Fair Housing Training Academy, and may use such funds to
provide such training: Provided further, That no funds made
available under this heading shall be used to lobby the
executive or legislative branches of the Federal Government
in connection with a specific contract, grant or loan:
Provided further, That, of the funds made available under
this heading, $300,000 shall be available to the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development for the creation and promotion
of translated materials and other programs that support the
assistance of persons with limited English proficiency in
utilizing the services provided by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes
lead hazard reduction
For the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, as authorized by
section 1011 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, $120,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2014: Provided, That up to $10,000,000 of
that amount shall be for the Healthy Homes Initiative,
pursuant to sections 501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1970 that shall include research, studies,
testing, and demonstration efforts, including education and
outreach concerning lead-based paint poisoning and other
housing-related diseases and hazards: Provided further, That
for purposes of environmental review, pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and other provisions of the law that further the
purposes of such Act, a grant under the Healthy Homes
Initiative, Operation Lead Elimination Action Plan (LEAP), or
the Lead Technical Studies program under this heading or
under prior appropriations Acts for such purposes under this
heading, shall be considered to be funds for a special
project for purposes of section 305(c) of the Multifamily
Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994: Provided
further, That of the total amount made available under this
heading, $45,000,000 shall be made available on a competitive
basis for areas with the highest lead paint abatement needs:
Provided further, That each recipient of funds provided under
the third proviso shall make a matching contribution in an
amount not less than 25 percent: Provided further, That each
applicant shall certify adequate capacity that is acceptable
to the Secretary to carry out the proposed use of funds
pursuant to a notice of funding availability: Provided
further, That amounts made available under this heading in
this or prior appropriations Acts, and that still remain
available, may be used for any purpose under this heading
notwithstanding the purpose for which such amounts were
appropriated if a program competition is undersubscribed and
there are other program competitions under this heading that
are oversubscribed.
Management and Administration
working capital fund
For additional capital for the Working Capital Fund (42
U.S.C. 3535) for the development of, modifications to, and
infrastructure for Department-wide and program-specific
information technology systems, for the continuing operation
and maintenance of both Department-wide and program-specific
information systems, and for program-related maintenance
activities, $175,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2014: Provided, That any amounts transferred to this Fund
under this Act shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That any amounts transferred to this Fund
from amounts appropriated by previously enacted
appropriations Acts may be used for the purposes specified
under this Fund, in addition to any other information
technology the purposes for which such amounts were
appropriated: Provided further, That not more than 25 percent
of the funds made available under this heading for
Development, Modernization and Enhancement, including
development and deployment of a Next Generation of Voucher
Management System and development and deployment of
modernized Federal Housing Administration systems may be
obligated until the Secretary submits to the Committees on
Appropriations a plan for expenditure that--(A) identifies
for each modernization project: (i) the functional and
performance capabilities to be delivered and the mission
benefits to be realized, (ii) the estimated life-cycle cost,
and (iii) key milestones to be met; (B) demonstrates that
each modernization project is: (i) compliant with the
department's enterprise architecture, (ii) being managed in
accordance with applicable life-cycle management policies and
guidance, (iii) subject to the department's capital planning
and investment control requirements, and (iv) supported by an
adequately staffed project office; and (C) has been reviewed
by the Government Accountability Office.
office of inspector general
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of
Inspector General in carrying out the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $125,600,000: Provided, That the
Inspector General shall have independent authority over all
personnel issues within this office.
transformation initiative
For necessary expenses of research, evaluation, and program
metrics activities; program demonstrations; and technical
assistance and capacity building, $50,000,000 to remain
available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That with
respect to amounts made available under this heading for
research, evaluation and program metrics or program
demonstrations, notwithstanding section 204 of this title,
the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements funded
with philanthropic entities, other Federal agencies, or State
or local governments and their agencies for research
projects: Provided further, That with respect to the previous
proviso, such partners to the cooperative agreements must
contribute at least a 50 percent match toward the cost of the
project.
General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 201. Fifty percent of the amounts of budget
authority, or in lieu thereof 50 percent of the cash amounts
associated with such budget authority, that are recaptured
from projects described in section 1012(a) of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 1437 note) shall be rescinded or in the case of cash,
shall be remitted to the Treasury, and such amounts of budget
authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or remitted to
the Treasury shall be used by State housing finance agencies
or local governments or local housing agencies with projects
approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
for which settlement occurred after January 1, 1992, in
accordance with such section. Notwithstanding the previous
sentence, the Secretary may award up to 15 percent of the
budget authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or
remitted to the Treasury to provide project owners with
incentives to refinance their project at a lower interest
rate.
Sec. 202. None of the amounts made available under this
Act may be used during fiscal year 2013 to investigate or
prosecute under the Fair Housing Act any otherwise lawful
activity engaged in by one or more persons, including the
filing or maintaining of a nonfrivolous legal action, that is
engaged in solely for the purpose of achieving or preventing
action by a Government official or entity, or a court of
competent jurisdiction.
[[Page H4115]]
Sec. 203. Sections 203 and 209 of division C of Public Law
112-55 (125 Stat. 693-694) shall apply during fiscal year
2013 as if such sections were included in this title, except
that during such fiscal year such sections shall be applied
by substituting ``fiscal year 2013'' for ``fiscal year 2011''
and ``fiscal year 2012'', each place such terms appear.
Sec. 204. Except as explicitly provided in law, any grant,
cooperative agreement or other assistance made pursuant to
title II of this Act shall be made on a competitive basis and
in accordance with section 102 of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545).
Sec. 205. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act
or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available,
without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses,
for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for
utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of
the Federal National Mortgage Association, Government
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or
any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured
bank within the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1).
Sec. 206. Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or
through a reprogramming of funds, no part of any
appropriation for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development shall be available for any program, project or
activity in excess of amounts set forth in the budget
estimates submitted to Congress.
Sec. 207. Corporations and agencies of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the
Government Corporation Control Act are hereby authorized to
make such expenditures, within the limits of funds and
borrowing authority available to each such corporation or
agency and in accordance with law, and to make such contracts
and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of such Act as may be necessary in
carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for 2013
for such corporation or agency except as hereinafter
provided: Provided, That collections of these corporations
and agencies may be used for new loan or mortgage purchase
commitments only to the extent expressly provided for in this
Act (unless such loans are in support of other forms of
assistance provided for in this or prior appropriations
Acts), except that this proviso shall not apply to the
mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of these
corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are
necessary to protect the financial interest of the United
States Government.
Sec. 208. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations regarding all uncommitted,
unobligated, recaptured and excess funds in each program and
activity within the jurisdiction of the Department and shall
submit additional, updated budget information to these
Committees upon request.
Sec. 209. The President's formal budget request for fiscal
year 2014, as well as the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's congressional budget justifications to be
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall use the identical
account and sub-account structure provided under this Act.
Sec. 210. A public housing agency or such other entity
that administers Federal housing assistance for the Housing
Authority of the county of Los Angeles, California, the
States of Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi shall not be required
to include a resident of public housing or a recipient of
assistance provided under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 on the board of directors or a similar
governing board of such agency or entity as required under
section (2)(b) of such Act. Each public housing agency or
other entity that administers Federal housing assistance
under section 8 for the Housing Authority of the county of
Los Angeles, California and the States of Alaska, Iowa and
Mississippi that chooses not to include a resident of public
housing or a recipient of section 8 assistance on the board
of directors or a similar governing board shall establish an
advisory board of not less than six residents of public
housing or recipients of section 8 assistance to provide
advice and comment to the public housing agency or other
administering entity on issues related to public housing and
section 8. Such advisory board shall meet not less than
quarterly.
Sec. 211. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
subject to the conditions listed in subsection (b), for
fiscal years 2013 and 2014, the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development may authorize the transfer of some or all
project-based assistance, debt and statutorily required low-
income and very low-income use restrictions, associated with
one or more multifamily housing project to another
multifamily housing project or projects.
(b) Phased Transfers.--Transfers of project-based
assistance under this section may be done in phases to
accommodate the financing and other requirements related to
rehabilitating or constructing the project or projects to
which the assistance is transferred, to ensure that such
project or projects meet the standards under section (c).
(c) The transfer authorized in subsection (a) is subject to
the following conditions:
(1) Number and bedroom size of units.--
(A) For occupied units in the transferring project: the
number of low-income and very low-income units and the
configuration (i.e. bedroom size) provided by the
transferring project shall be no less than when transferred
to the receiving project or projects and the net dollar
amount of Federal assistance provided by the transferring
project shall remain the same in the receiving project or
projects.
(B) For unoccupied units in the transferring project: the
Secretary may authorize a reduction in the number of dwelling
units in the receiving project or projects to allow for a
reconfiguration of bedroom sizes to meet current market
demands, as determined by the Secretary and provided there is
no increase in the project-based section 8 budget authority.
(2) The net dollar amount of Federal assistance provided to
the transferring project shall remain the same as the
receiving project or projects.
(3) The transferring project shall, as determined by the
Secretary, be either physically obsolete or economically
nonviable.
(4) The receiving project or projects shall meet or exceed
applicable physical standards established by the Secretary.
(5) The owner or mortgagor of the transferring project
shall notify and consult with the tenants residing in the
transferring project and provide a certification of approval
by all appropriate local governmental officials.
(6) The tenants of the transferring project who remain
eligible for assistance to be provided by the receiving
project or projects shall not be required to vacate their
units in the transferring project or projects until new units
in the receiving project are available for occupancy.
(7) The Secretary determines that this transfer is in the
best interest of the tenants.
(8) If either the transferring project or the receiving
project or projects meets the condition specified in
subsection (d)(2)(A), any lien on the receiving project
resulting from additional financing obtained by the owner
shall be subordinate to any FHA-insured mortgage lien
transferred to, or placed on, such project by the Secretary,
except that the Secretary may waive this requirement upon
determination that such a waiver is necessary to facilitate
the financing of acquisition, construction, and/or
rehabilitation of the receiving project or projects.
(9) If the transferring project meets the requirements of
subsection (d)(2)(E), the owner or mortgagor of the receiving
project or projects shall execute and record either a
continuation of the existing use agreement or a new use
agreement for the project where, in either case, any use
restrictions in such agreement are of no lesser duration than
the existing use restrictions.
(10) The transfer does not increase the cost (as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended) of any FHA-insured mortgage, except to the extent
that appropriations are provided in advance for the amount of
any such increased cost.
(d) For purposes of this section--
(1) the terms ``low-income'' and ``very low-income'' shall
have the meanings provided by the statute and/or regulations
governing the program under which the project is insured or
assisted;
(2) the term ``multifamily housing project'' means housing
that meets one of the following conditions--
(A) housing that is subject to a mortgage insured under the
National Housing Act;
(B) housing that has project-based assistance attached to
the structure including projects undergoing mark to market
debt restructuring under the Multifamily Assisted Housing
Reform and Affordability Housing Act;
(C) housing that is assisted under section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959 as amended by section 801 of the
Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act;
(D) housing that is assisted under section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959, as such section existed before the
enactment of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable
Housing Act;
(E) housing that is assisted under section 811 of the
Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act; or
(F) housing or vacant land that is subject to a use
agreement;
(3) the term ``project-based assistance'' means--
(A) assistance provided under section 8(b) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937;
(B) assistance for housing constructed or substantially
rehabilitated pursuant to assistance provided under section
8(b)(2) of such Act (as such section existed immediately
before October 1, 1983);
(C) rent supplement payments under section 101 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965;
(D) interest reduction payments under section 236 and/or
additional assistance payments under section 236(f)(2) of the
National Housing Act;
(E) assistance payments made under section 202(c)(2) of the
Housing Act of 1959; and
(F) assistance payments made under section 811(d)(2) of the
Housing Act of 1959;
(4) the term ``receiving project or projects'' means the
multifamily housing project or projects to which some or all
of the project-based assistance, debt, and statutorily
required low-income and very low-income use restrictions are
to be transferred;
(5) the term ``transferring project'' means the multifamily
housing project which is transferring some or all of the
project-based
[[Page H4116]]
assistance, debt and the statutorily required low-income and
very low-income use restrictions to the receiving project or
projects; and
(6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development.
(e) The Secretary shall publish by notice in the Federal
Register the terms and conditions, including criteria for HUD
approval, of transfers pursuant to this section no later than
30 days before the effective date of such notice.
Sec. 212. No funds provided under this title may be used
for an audit of the Government National Mortgage Association
that makes applicable requirements under the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
Sec. 213. (a) No assistance shall be provided under section
8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f)
to any individual who--
(1) is enrolled as a student at an institution of higher
education (as defined under section 102 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002));
(2) is under 24 years of age;
(3) is not a veteran;
(4) is unmarried;
(5) does not have a dependent child;
(6) is not a person with disabilities, as such term is
defined in section 3(b)(3)(E) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(3)(E)) and was not receiving
assistance under such section 8 as of November 30, 2005; and
(7) is not otherwise individually eligible, or has parents
who, individually or jointly, are not eligible, to receive
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).
(b) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a person
to receive assistance under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), any financial
assistance (in excess of amounts received for tuition and any
other required fees and charges) that an individual receives
under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.), from private sources, or an institution of higher
education (as defined under the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1002)), shall be considered income to that
individual, except for a person over the age of 23 with
dependent children.
Sec. 214. The funds made available for Native Alaskans
under the heading ``Native American Housing Block Grants'' in
title III of this Act shall be allocated to the same Native
Alaskan housing block grant recipients that received funds in
fiscal year 2005.
Sec. 215. Notwithstanding the limitation in the first
sentence of section 255(g) of the National Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1715z-g), the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may, until September 30, 2013, insure and enter
into commitments to insure mortgages under section 255(g) of
the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20).
Sec. 216. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
fiscal year 2013, in managing and disposing of any
multifamily property that is owned or has a mortgage held by
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and during
the process of foreclosure on any property with a contract
for rental assistance payments under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 or other Federal programs, the
Secretary shall maintain any rental assistance payments under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and other
programs that are attached to any dwelling units in the
property. To the extent the Secretary determines, in
consultation with the tenants and the local government, that
such a multifamily property owned or held by the Secretary is
not feasible for continued rental assistance payments under
such section 8 or other programs, based on consideration of
(1) the costs of rehabilitating and operating the property
and all available Federal, State, and local resources,
including rent adjustments under section 524 of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (``MAHRAA'') and (2) environmental conditions that
cannot be remedied in a cost-effective fashion, the Secretary
may, in consultation with the tenants of that property,
contract for project-based rental assistance payments with an
owner or owners of other existing housing properties, or
provide other rental assistance. The Secretary shall also
take appropriate steps to ensure that project-based contracts
remain in effect prior to foreclosure, subject to the
exercise of contractual abatement remedies to assist
relocation of tenants for imminent major threats to health
and safety after written notice to and informed consent of
the affected tenants and use of other available remedies,
such as partial abatements or receivership. After disposition
of any multifamily property described under this section, the
contract and allowable rent levels on such properties shall
be subject to the requirements under section 524 of MAHRAA.
Sec. 217. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall report quarterly to the House of Representatives and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on HUD's use of all sole-
source contracts, including terms of the contracts, cost, and
a substantive rationale for using a sole-source contract.
Sec. 218. During fiscal year 2013, in the provision of
rental assistance under section 8(o) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) in connection with a
program to demonstrate the economy and effectiveness of
providing such assistance for use in assisted living
facilities that is carried out in the counties of the State
of Michigan notwithstanding paragraphs (3) and (18)(B)(iii)
of such section 8(o), a family residing in an assisted living
facility in any such county, on behalf of which a public
housing agency provides assistance pursuant to section
8(o)(18) of such Act, may be required, at the time the family
initially receives such assistance, to pay rent in an amount
exceeding 40 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family by such a percentage or amount as the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development determines to be appropriate.
Sec. 219. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
recipient of a grant under section 202b of the Housing Act of
1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q) after December 26, 2000, in accordance
with the unnumbered paragraph at the end of section 202(b) of
such Act, may, at its option, establish a single-asset
nonprofit entity to own the project and may lend the grant
funds to such entity, which may be a private nonprofit
organization described in section 831 of the American
Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000.
Sec. 220. The amounts provided under the subheading
``Program Account'' under the heading ``Community Development
Loan Guarantees'' may be used to guarantee, or make
commitments to guarantee, notes, or other obligations issued
by any State on behalf of non-entitlement communities in the
State in accordance with the requirements of section 108 of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974: Provided,
That any State receiving such a guarantee or commitment shall
distribute all funds subject to such guarantee to the units
of general local government in non-entitlement areas that
received the commitment.
Sec. 221. Public housing agencies that own and operate 400
or fewer public housing units may elect to be exempt from any
asset management requirement imposed by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development in connection with the
operating fund rule: Provided, That an agency seeking a
discontinuance of a reduction of subsidy under the operating
fund formula shall not be exempt from asset management
requirements.
Sec. 222. With respect to the use of amounts provided in
this Act and in future Acts for the operation, capital
improvement and management of public housing as authorized by
sections 9(d) and 9(e) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g(d) and (e)), the Secretary shall not
impose any requirement or guideline relating to asset
management that restricts or limits in any way the use of
capital funds for central office costs pursuant to section
9(g)(1) or 9(g)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437g(g)(1), (2)): Provided, That a public housing
agency may not use capital funds authorized under section
9(d) for activities that are eligible under section 9(e) for
assistance with amounts from the operating fund in excess of
the amounts permitted under section 9(g)(1) or 9(g)(2).
Sec. 223. No official or employee of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development shall be designated as an
allotment holder unless the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer has determined that such allotment holder has
implemented an adequate system of funds control and has
received training in funds control procedures and directives.
The Chief Financial Officer shall ensure that, not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a trained
allotment holder shall be designated for each HUD subaccount
under the heading ``Administration, Operations, and
Management'' as well as each account receiving appropriations
for ``Program Office Salaries and Expenses'' within the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Sec. 224. Payment of attorney fees in program-related
litigation must be paid from individual program office
personnel benefits and compensation funding. The annual
budget submission for program office personnel benefit and
compensation funding must include program-related litigation
costs for attorney fees as a separate line item request.
Sec. 225. The Secretary of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development shall for fiscal year 2013 and subsequent
fiscal years, notify the public through the Federal Register
and other means, as determined appropriate, of the issuance
of a notice of the availability of assistance or notice of
funding availability (NOFA) for any program or discretionary
fund administered by the Secretary that is to be
competitively awarded. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for fiscal year 2013 and subsequent fiscal years, the
Secretary may make the NOFA available only on the Internet at
the appropriate Government Web site or through other
electronic media, as determined by the Secretary.
Sec. 226. The Secretary of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development is authorized to transfer up to 5 percent
or $5,000,000, whichever is less, of the funds appropriated
for any office funded under the heading ``Administration,
Operations, and Management'' to any other office funded under
such heading: Provided, That no appropriation for any office
funded under the heading ``Administration, Operations, and
Management'' shall be increased or decreased by more than 5
percent or $5,000,000, whichever is less, without prior
written approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That the Secretary is
authorized to transfer up to 5 percent or $5,000,000,
whichever is less, of the funds appropriated for any account
funded under the general heading ``Program Office Salaries
and Expenses'' to any other account funded under such
heading: Provided further,
[[Page H4117]]
That no appropriation for any account funded under the
general heading ``Program Office Salaries and Expenses''
shall be increased or decreased by more than 5 percent or
$5,000,000, whichever is less, without prior written approval
of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations:
Provided further, That the Secretary may transfer funds made
available for salaries and expenses between any office funded
under the heading ``Administration, Operations, and
Management'' and any account funded under the general heading
``Program Office Salaries and Expenses'', but only with the
prior written approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 227. The Disaster Housing Assistance Programs,
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, shall be considered a ``program of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development'' under section
904 of the McKinney Act for the purpose of income
verifications and matching.
Sec. 228. None of the funds made available by this Act, or
any other Act, for purposes authorized under section 8 (only
with respect to the tenant-based rental assistance program)
and section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) may be used by any public housing agency
for any amount of salary, for the chief executive officer of
which, or any other official or employee of which, that
exceeds the annual rate of basic pay payable for a position
at level IV of the Executive Schedule at any time during any
public housing agency fiscal year 2013.
Sec. 229. Paragraph (1) of section 242(i) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-7(i)(1)) is amended by striking
``July 31, 2011'' and inserting ``July 31, 2016''.
Sec. 230. Subsection (d) of section 184 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a) is
amended to read as follows:
``(d) Guarantee Fee.--The Secretary shall establish and
collect, at the time of issuance of the guarantee, a fee for
the guarantee of loans under this section, in an amount not
exceeding 3 percent of the principal obligation of the loan.
The Secretary may also establish and collect annual premium
payments in an amount not exceeding 1 percent of the
remaining guaranteed balance (excluding the portion of the
remaining balance attributable to the fee collected at the
time of issuance of the guarantee). The Secretary shall
establish the amount of the fees and premiums by publishing a
notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary shall deposit
any fees and premiums collected under this subsection in the
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund established under
subsection (i).''.
Sec. 231. (a) Subsection (b) of section 225 of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
12755) is amended by inserting at the end the following
sentence: ``Such 30 day waiting period is not required if the
grounds for the termination or refusal to renew involve a
direct threat to the safety of the tenants or employees of
the housing, or an imminent and serious threat to the
property (and the termination or refusal to renew is in
accordance with the requirements of State or local law).''.
(b) Section 231 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12771) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by striking ``make such funds
available by direct reallocation'' and all that follows
through ``were recaptured'' and inserting ``reallocate the
funds by formula in accordance with section 217(d) of this
Act (42 U.S.C. 12747(d))''; and
(2) by striking subsection (c).
Sec. 232. Notwithstanding Section 24(o) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(o)), amounts made
available in prior appropriations Acts under the heading
``Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE
VI)'' or under the heading ``Choice Neighborhoods
Initiative'' may continue to be provided as assistance
pursuant to such Section 24.
Sec. 233. The proviso under the ``Community Development
Fund'' heading in Public Laws 109-148, 109-234, 110-252, and
110-329 which requires the Secretary to establish procedures
to prevent duplication of benefits and to report to the
Committees on Appropriations on all steps to prevent fraud
and abuse is amended by striking ``quarterly'' and inserting
``annually''.
The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that portion of the
bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 234. Title II of division K of Public Law 110-161 is
amended by striking the item related to ``Flexible Subsidy
Fund''.
Amendment Offered by Mr. LaTourette
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 134, after line 14, insert the following new section:
Sec. 235. Notwithstanding the 13th proviso of the second
undesignated paragraph under the heading ``Community Planning
and Development--Community Development Fund'' in title XII of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 218) and section 1497(a) of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(Public Law 111-203; 124 Stat. 2209), a State or unit of
general local government in a State may use not more than 75
percent of any amounts made available from a grant under such
second undesignated paragraph or under such section 1497 for
the purpose set forth in section 2301(c)(4)(D) of the Housing
and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 5301 note), at
the sole discretion of the State or unit of general local
government.
Mr. LaTOURETTE (during the reading.) I ask unanimous consent to
dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for reserving the point of
order. I think when I'm done consuming my 5 minutes, he will perhaps
relent and think that that's a bad idea.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Fund has been a valuable tool all
across America in helping to revitalize neighborhoods. I would suggest
it has one fatal flaw. There are some homes in every community in
America, whether it's Detroit, Los Angeles, Cleveland, where I'm from,
where some homes just aren't coming back, and you can't revitalize the
neighborhoods until you tear those houses down and start afresh.
One of the difficulties with the Neighborhood Stabilization Fund is
it restricts the ability for a local community to use those funds to
demolish homes. I will tell you from touring a number of these
properties in my good friend Marcia Fudge's district on the east side
of Cleveland, these are firetraps, these are rattraps. The last two
Cleveland police officers who have been injured in the line of duty
have been injured as they entered a dilapidated home. We toured one
home in fact where the expression ``everything but the kitchen sink''
didn't apply because people had actually taken the kitchen sink, the
toilet, the wiring, the gutters, and all of the copper.
Cities are stepping up all across the country to take care of this
problem. In the State of Ohio, our Attorney General has devoted $75
million from the settlement with the top five big banks to this
purpose. Mayor Jackson in Cleveland has expended a considerable amount
of money. And Ms. Fudge and I have introduced legislation that would
authorize bonds through the Department of Treasury to supplement the
great work that land banks all across this country are doing.
But because that bill languishes in the Ways and Means Committee,
this simple amendment would give increased flexibility to communities
that want to take grants that they've received from the Federal
Government to stabilize their neighborhoods to give them the
opportunity to use them for demolition if they reach the conclusion
that in order to protect the neighbors in that neighborhood who are
paying their taxes or keeping up their house, who are paying their
mortgage but whose property values continue to plummet because they
have this eyesore next door, that if the mayor of Cleveland or the
mayor of Toledo or the mayor of Los Angeles reaches the conclusion that
it's better in that instance to rip that house down and start over and
work with the land banks that are popping up all across the country,
they do that.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask for passage of this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order,
but I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the gentleman from Ohio
that I have really no problem with the intent of his amendment, that I
think he is talking about something that is very real to a lot of
folks.
My understanding is that waivers that have been asked for have all
been accepted in the past, and the Secretary has said that if there's a
waiver needed, that they would be glad to oblige. But having said that,
I just want the gentleman to know that the reason why I must insist on
the point of order is simply for consistency on the bill. We have
struck on point of order every
[[Page H4118]]
other authorizing language that has come before the subcommittee or to
the floor today. So with that, while I share his concerns that he has
stated, I must insist on my point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. LATHAM. 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 waives existing law.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized on the point
of order.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my great friend from Iowa for
those kind words. I know his heart is in the right place, even if his
legislative initiatives at this moment are not.
A lot of people don't realize the history of rule XXI. I've had great
conversations in the past with the prior Parliamentarians, the last
two, Mr. Sullivan and Charlie--I can't remember Charlie's last name. We
talked about the notion of equity. We're not only bound by the rules of
the House, but just like in courts all across the country, the Chair
has the power of equity in his possession.
Rule XXI has its origins in 1844 when John Quincy Adams, the only
President of the United States to come back and serve in the House of
Representatives, decided that the appropriations process was bogging
down and, therefore, we should have rule XXI to prohibit authorizing on
appropriations bills. It was designed to keep the appropriators from
poaching on the territory of the authorizing committees.
We don't have that here. The chairman of the authorizing committee
was just here, Mr. Bachus. He doesn't have any problem with this. The
only person who is raising the point of order and has a problem with
this is the distinguished subcommittee chair of the Appropriations
Committee. So that's my first argument on equity.
Secondly, because I had some spare time today, I also looked at the
precedents of the House, and I would suggest to the Chair that this is
a matter of first impression. The last time that this came to the
attention of the Parliamentarian was in 2006. And, sadly, there is a
big problem with getting the Congressional Record online, but we did
get the previous one, which was in 1995 when the gentlelady from
Missouri at the time, Ms. Danner, whom many of us remember, was
attempting to make a provision in order on the Transportation, it
wasn't Transportation-HUD at that time, it was the Transportation
appropriations bill. And in construing the context of clause 2, rule
XXI, the Chair at that time indicated that what she was attempting to
do is--we have out of the highway trust fund, 2.8 cents goes to
transit. That yields a certain amount of money, and she was attempting
to wall off $26 million to go specifically to additional transit
projects. The Chair in that instance specifically, and I think
correctly, found that you cannot mandate or limit the discretion of the
Secretary or another Federal official, nor can you mandate that money
be used in a certain way that's not contemplated by the law. As a
matter of fact, in section 1057 of the House manual that we all revere
here very much, it cites the indications where this has been considered
before.
The common theme with all of them is that the person offering the
amendment or the Appropriations Committee attempting to implement the
policy was attempting to mandate action on the part of a Federal
official or mandate that money be spent in a certain way.
I brought up the June 9, 2006, ruling by the Chair, which occurs on
page 10673, for those who may be following this at home, and in that
instance the offending language was that the statement could not say
that not less than a certain sum would be expended on that particular
purpose.
This amendment was very carefully crafted. As the Chair, I know being
a student of the law and parliamentary procedure, will note that we
don't have the words ``not less than,'' it's ``not more than.'' Already
the existing legislation, the Dodd-Frank Act, contemplates that States
who receive--so there's no change in the Federal appropriation. If the
city of Cleveland gets a $100,000 neighborhood stabilization fund, they
get to spend it. It doesn't change. There's no Federal involvement
after that. It's then up to Mayor Jackson to figure out how to expend
it.
This expands the contemplated purpose of that that says a portion is
already permitted to be used for demolition. This just says ``not more
than.'' It's not a limitation. It just is increased flexibility for the
communities that have received these grants. And honest to gosh, you
know, with all of the problems that we have around this place, to go
back and violate the spirit of John Quincy Adams' understanding of why
we needed rule XXI, to prevent State and local communities from having
the flexibility to demolish homes where fires are occurring, where
people are selling drugs, where people are being murdered, is really
beyond me.
So I appeal to the Chair not only based upon the precedents of the
House, but upon the inherent authority of the Chair to exercise equity
and understand that there might be a ``t'' not crossed or an ``i'' not
dotted in this particular instance, but the equitable arguments are on
the side of this amendment, and I respectfully ask the Chair to
overrule the point of order.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized.
Ms. KAPTUR. Normally I enjoy working on a bipartisan basis,
especially with our good colleague from eastern Ohio (Mr. LaTourette)
and so in a way I reluctantly rise in opposition to his proposal.
Let me mention that in a way we're into quite a 200-year extensive
history of the rules of the House, but in essence the legislation as
enacted works. Every single community that I represent that has ever
asked HUD for any type of waiver, if the percentage was operating in
there to their detriment, it has been granted. And so I think the
legislation as is works. It keeps the focus on reinvestment. But if a
mayor or if a council wants to use more of their funds for demolition,
they merely ask HUD. And, quite frankly, HUD acts in quite an
expeditious manner. So I think in a way this is a solution in search of
a problem.
I think the gentleman, we welcome his concern about the neighborhoods
of this country that have been devastated by the Wall Street-induced
housing crisis and lack of regulation here in Washington, but I really
don't think it is necessary, and I would support the subcommittee chair
and ranking member in their concern by raising a point of order here.
I've expressed my interest in working with the gentleman on any
community that you may represent that's facing this situation because
every single one that we've had come to us, we have resolved with HUD's
full cooperation. So I would support the subcommittee chair's invoking
of a point of order on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment explicitly supersedes existing
law, namely, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The
amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in
order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The Clerk will report
the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 134, after line 14, insert the following new section:
Sec. 235. Notwithstanding any other provision of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f et seq.),
any amounts made available under this title under the heading
``Public Housing Operating Fund'' and allocated to a public
housing agency for activities under section 9(e)(1) of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g(e)(1)), and any public housing operating
reserve amounts for a public housing agency, may be used by
such agency for any eligible activities under section
9(d)(1), in addition to the other purposes for which the
amounts
[[Page H4119]]
may be used under such heading: Provided, That an activity
funded pursuant to this section shall be subject to the
requirements otherwise governing activities under such
section 9(d)(1).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an
amendment that is of great importance to some of the strongest and
best-managed housing authorities in our country.
Currently, housing authorities in our districts receive Federal funds
through two distinct streams. One funds day-to-day operations, and the
other provides capital funds for construction projects and important
modernizations to our Nation's housing stock. Both streams are
currently underfunded, not only in this bill but also in the fiscal
2013 administration request.
{time} 1510
Now, I believe it's prudent to maintain these two distinct funding
streams, but some of our housing authorities do need additional
flexibility in tough funding years. Currently, some well-performing
housing authorities, like the Raleigh Housing Authority in my district,
have created efficiencies in their operating budget and pinched pennies
in every way imaginable.
Unfortunately, in order to reallocate these operations savings to
urgent capital needs, they have to go through a very cumbersome and
cost-ineffective program, that is, HUD's Operating Fund Financing
Program. This program requires authorities to go through a financial
middleman rather than just letting authorities use their operating
funds and savings directly. This process costs unneeded interest
payments and it adds unnecessary red tape.
While I hope that our authorizers will be able to improve and
streamline this process, I propose that this committee allow housing
authorities to use unused operating funds for capital projects directly
without having to go through the Operating Fund Financing Program.
My amendment is narrow in scope as it's targeted to 2013 funds and
existing reserves only. It's not prospective.
This stopgap solution would provide flexibility for housing
authorities, incentivize the wise spending of operating dollars, and
help clear up the public housing capital improvement backlog at a time
when the construction industry is still reeling from the recession.
This amendment would be a win for Americans who need public housing and
a win for Americans who are looking for jobs.
This is not a new endeavor for the Transportation and Housing
Appropriations bill; indeed, it's a continuation of the public housing
operating fund offset discussion that we held last year.
However, I understand that there is a point of order. So I will
register the hope that the authorizers can conclude their work to
address this issue before the end of the year.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LATHAM. 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 waives existing law.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? Seeing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment explicitly supersedes existing
law. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in opposition to this
underlying bill, the Republican Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development appropriations bill for the coming fiscal year, commonly
referred to as THUD. This bill drastically underfunds critical
transportation, infrastructure, and housing programs.
First, on transportation, the American Society of Civil Engineers'
2009 report for America's infrastructure estimated that there is a
$549.5 billion shortfall in investments in roads and bridges, and an
additional $190.1 billion shortfall in investments in transit. Yet this
bill provides no funds for the Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery program, better known as TIGER.
Now, TIGER would finance a wide variety of innovative highway,
bridge, and transit projects in urban and rural communities across the
country, provided there is sufficient funding. One such project is the
Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor in Los Angeles County, a light-rail
project that will run through my district. TIGER grants could be used
to finance stations along this corridor in the communities of Leimert
Park and Westchester, thereby ensuring that these communities have
access to light-rail.
Last week, I introduced H.R. 5976, the TIGER Grants for Job Creation
Act, which would provide a supplemental emergency appropriation of $1
billion over the next 2 years for the TIGER program, and 48 of my
colleagues have already cosponsored the bill.
Last night, I offered an amendment to fully fund TIGER at the
requested level, without cutting funding for other programs.
Representatives Betty McCollum, Barbara Lee, Emanuel Cleaver, Karen
Bass, Laura Richardson, Bobby Rush, and Doris Matsui joined me in
offering this amendment. The Republicans objected to this amendment to
their appropriations bill because it was not in order under their rule.
So this bill has no funding for this critical program to create jobs by
rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
Why did we have so much support on this legislation? Why do we have
so many people who are signing on to basically beg for TIGER funding?
It is because TIGER funding will create millions of jobs. It's because
jobs are needed so desperately in this economy. It is because not only
will we create millions of jobs, our infrastructure is in great
disrepair. We have bridges that have been designated as unsafe. We have
roads, we have water projects, we have all kinds of infrastructure
needs that are unmet. This is the least that the American public could
expect.
This transportation bill has been waited on in many communities
across this country. People thought when we passed this bill that we
truly were going to expand job opportunities, that we truly were going
to repair the infrastructure, but we find that this bill does not do
this.
But in addition to the disappointment that we are all experiencing
because of the objection to repair of the infrastructure and job
creation, we find that the same thing is happening in housing. We
bemoan the fact that our veterans are homeless and they are on the
streets, and that our shelters are all full, and that when we go into
many of these communities--not only in our inner cities, but in our
rural areas also--we find that people are not only sleeping on the
streets, but under these bridges that are in great disrepair.
This legislation cuts money from the homeless program. This will cut
$231 million in homeless assistance grants compared to the President's
budget request. At this level, HUD would be unable to fund all renewals
of existing grants, jeopardizing assistance to approximately 25,000 of
our most vulnerable citizens.
This bill provides less than $2 billion for the Public Housing
Capital Fund, despite a $30 million backlog of needed repairs. This is
a huge cut, even when compared to funding during the Bush
administration. In fact, in fiscal year
[[Page H4120]]
2008, the capital account received $2.4 billion in funding. This
underfunding means that we will continue to lose public housing units
as they fall into disrepair and long-term capital needs are neglected.
The people who are serviced by this account are vulnerable, and so I
would simply ask that this be given some real consideration and yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, Americans need to know that Tea
Party Republican obstructionism has brought us to the brink of yet
another manufactured crisis.
We have less than 2 days to pass critical highway and student loan
bills that will keep Americans on the job and prevent student loan
rates from doubling. Yet Tea Party Republicans are wasting time on
frivolous amendments and on a purely meritless, political, and partisan
vote to hold the Attorney General in contempt.
Reports indicate that bipartisan Senate leadership has reached a deal
on student loans and the highway bill as well, a deal which is now
being blocked in the House by the Tea Party Republicans. This is not
governing, ladies and gentlemen; it's Tea Party gridlock.
Americans long for a Congress that is capable of honest debate and
compromise in solving the important issues of the day. That's what the
Founders and the Framers intended of us.
It's been over 100 days since the Senate passed a bipartisan highway
bill with 74 votes. While the House Tea Party Republicans quibble, they
put 1.9 million jobs at risk.
{time} 1520
Mr. Chairman, if the Tea Party Republicans prevent a deal on student
loans, over 7.4 million students will see their interest rates double,
costing students $6 billion.
They brought us to the brink of a government shut down in February of
2011. Last summer they brought the country to the brink of default and
caused the first downgrade in the history of the United States of our
credit rating. This year, they opposed the middle class tax cut, and
they have successfully ignored and blocked the President's job act.
Mr. Chairman, we should listen to the American people, not the big-
dollar corporate backers of the Tea Party. I, myself, never knew that
any of the real Tea Partyers of 1776 were millionaires or even wealthy.
They were people like the working people of today. We call them the
middle class.
Today, we are debating cut after draconian cut to our Nation's
transportation and housing programs, which impact and hurt the middle
class. These cuts put good, middle class jobs at risk. They make it
harder for small businesses to operate, and they cause harm to low-
income Americans who are struggling to put food on the table and a roof
over their heads.
The Tea Party-millionaire Republicans will spend all week circling
the toilet bowl drain and debating these amendments that have no chance
of becoming law, when we should be lowering student loan rates and
passing a long-term highway bill.
Mr. Chairman, this is a great country, but how long can we withstand
the best efforts of this millionaire Tea Party Republican Congress to
bring America to its knees?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret to anyone in
this Chamber that the American people are unhappy with Congress. In
fact, our approval ratings could only be described as terrible. As much
as television personalities might like to analyze why, I don't think
it's difficult to understand. Time and time again, Mr. Chairman, our
work ignores their priorities.
Now, under Republican leadership, we have spent months arguing over
eliminating regulations, shrinking government, and crippling the Obama
administration. Yet since the lowest point of economic downturn in
2008, the American people have cared mostly about two things: good jobs
and stable housing. These are issues that have hit the African American
community especially hard, which is why I come to the floor today with
several of my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus.
Today, Mr. Chairman, unemployment among African Americans is above 13
percent, much higher than the national average. Concerns about stable
housing are really nothing new, but they have been especially difficult
since the start of our recession. In fact, 42 percent of homeless
families with children are African American. So we were all glad to see
the House take up the Transportation-HUD bill this week. We hoped to
see some relief for our struggling communities.
But sadly, this bill falls short. It fails to adequately fund
project-based section 8 rental assistance for low-income families. That
means over 1.2 million families, Mr. Chairman, would be at risk of
losing their homes. These are primarily seniors, families with
children, and people with disabilities, including many who are in the
great Hoosier State in my district.
The bill cuts homeless assistance grants, leaving an estimated 25,000
people without the assistance they need to get back on their feet. It
entirely eliminates the Choice Neighborhoods program. In Indianapolis,
we need these funds to rebuild blighted public housing projects,
improve economic development and job opportunities in surrounding
neighborhoods for low-income families.
It also eliminates the Sustainable Communities, which coordinates
Federal, State and local public housing investments, helping
communities make the best with limited funding.
I also want to add that I plan to strongly oppose any amendment that
makes it harder to enforce the Fair Housing Act. Congress should not
restrict HUD's work to end housing discrimination, intentional or
unintentional.
These cuts, Mr. Chairman, strike at the very heart of what my
constituents care about, having a stable place for their families to
live and stay.
Over the last several months, Mr. Chairman, there has been one topic
we have all agreed on, transportation projects equal jobs. Now, sadly,
this bill defunds some of our most important job-creating programs. It
eliminates funding for TIGER grants, which have put thousands of people
to work across this country. My district received one of these grants
to construct our great cultural trail. Many of my constituents worked
to construct this trail, and today it is absolutely revitalizing
neighborhoods and growing businesses and creating long-term job
opportunities.
This bill also eliminates funding for high-speed rail, which early
estimates predict could have created thousands of jobs in the great
Hoosier State. Now, of course, there are other issues; but there are
too many to name at this time.
But in talking today, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my
disappointment. This week we are finally considering the one bill each
year that must address top priorities for all Americans, jobs and
housing. Instead, we're cutting programs.
My question to these people is, Mr. Chairman, and those
obstructionists, what are you expecting our communities to do?
These are programs that work. They employ our constituents, Mr.
Chairman, and they also improve our society.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chairman, here we are once again. We find
ourselves debating a bill that is under veto threat due to the
Republicans my-way-or-the-highway posture.
Mr. Chairman, last month saw the largest drop in construction jobs in
2 years, workers who joined the more than 2.2 million construction
workers who are out of work.
However, instead of providing certainty to our Nation's construction
workers by investing in the TIGER program and light-speed rail, the
Republican majority has actually zeroed these programs out completely.
Apparently, the majority seems to only believe in certainty when it
means historically low tax rates for multi-millionaires and
billionaires.
[[Page H4121]]
Mr. Chairman, the majority's lack of investment in our Nation's
infrastructure is bad enough. Unfortunately, it gets even worse. At a
time when the need for HUD programs is growing, this bill drastically
undercuts homeless assistance grants, putting 25,000 Americans at risk
of losing assistance. It jeopardizes assistance to homeowners
attempting to stay in their homes and actually zeroes out the Choice
Neighborhoods program. Why?
Mr. Chairman, why we would essentially eliminate a program that
improves economic development and viability and job opportunities for
our Nation's most vulnerable is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Mr. Chairman, the American people have made it abundantly clear that
the number one priority of the 112th Congress ought to be job creation.
{time} 1530
By bringing this bill to the floor, the majority is saying to the
American people, not only doesn't their unemployed status or opinions
matter, but don't expect any relief from this Republican-led Congress
as our Nation struggles to cope with the worst economic downturn since
the Great Depression.
Mr. Chairman, this is just totally unbelievable. I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2013''.
TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES
Access Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Access Board, as authorized
by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
$7,400,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received for publications and training expenses.
Federal Maritime Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission
as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act,
1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 307), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or
allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902,
$25,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 135, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $900,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $900,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the
proposed funding for salaries and expenses for the Federal Maritime
Commission by $900,000. This is not a cut. This is just to keep those
salaries at what they are, to cap it at the 2012 levels. This is one of
13 offices that would receive increases for salaries or administrative
expenses in the underlying bill.
I urge the support of my amendment, which would just freeze these
salaries.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Maritime Commission is
responsible for resolving disputes between shippers--both foreign and
domestic--and the public, protecting consumers from unfair business
practices, and monitoring ocean transportation and trade.
The increase in this account has to do with the annualization of
already onboard personnel and of the increases in the claims and the
workload of the Federal Maritime Commission. To reduce this account,
you will affect the backlog of cases and claims, thus costing
businesses, exporters, and ports time and money while they wait for the
FMC to adjudicate their claims.
Usually, we are in the business of trying to reduce backlogs and
delays in doing business. With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I will be very brief.
I merely want to concur in the position of the chairman of the
subcommittee, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Inspector General
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation to carry out
the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $25,000,000: Provided, That the Inspector General
shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out the
duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended (5
U.S.C. App. 3), to investigate allegations of fraud,
including false statements to the government (18 U.S.C.
1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation
by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Provided
further, That the Inspector General may enter into contracts
and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and
other services with public agencies and with private persons,
subject to the applicable laws and regulations that govern
the obtaining of such services within the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation: Provided further, That the Inspector
General may select, appoint, and employ such officers and
employees as may be necessary for carrying out the functions,
powers, and duties of the Office of Inspector General,
subject to the applicable laws and regulations that govern
such selections, appointments, and employment within Amtrak:
Provided further, That concurrent with the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2014, the Inspector General shall
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
budget request for fiscal year 2014 in similar format and
substance to those submitted by executive agencies of the
Federal Government.
National Transportation Safety Board
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the National Transportation
Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at
rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902),
$102,400,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for
official reception and representation expenses. The amounts
made available to the National Transportation Safety Board in
this Act include amounts necessary to make lease payments on
an obligation incurred in fiscal year 2001 for a capital
lease.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation
For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as
authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $145,300,000: Provided, That in
addition, $80,000,000 shall be made available until expended
to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for mortgage
foreclosure mitigation activities, under the following terms
and conditions:
(1) The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (``NRC'')
shall make grants to counseling intermediaries approved by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (with
match to be determined by the NRC based on affordability and
the economic conditions of an area; a match also may be
waived by the NRC based on the aforementioned conditions) to
provide mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance primarily
to States and areas with high rates of defaults and
foreclosures to help eliminate the default and foreclosure of
mortgages of owner-occupied single-family homes that are at
risk of such foreclosure. Other than areas with high rates of
defaults and foreclosures, grants may also be provided to
approved counseling intermediaries based on a geographic
analysis of the Nation by the NRC which determines where
there is a prevalence of mortgages that are risky and likely
to fail, including any trends for mortgages that are likely
to default and face foreclosure. A State Housing Finance
Agency may also be eligible where the State Housing Finance
Agency meets all the requirements under this paragraph. A
HUD-approved counseling intermediary shall meet certain
mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance counseling
requirements, as determined by the
[[Page H4122]]
NRC, and shall be approved by HUD or the NRC as meeting these
requirements.
(2) Mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance shall only
be made available to homeowners of owner-occupied homes with
mortgages in default or in danger of default. These mortgages
shall likely be subject to a foreclosure action and
homeowners will be provided such assistance that shall
consist of activities that are likely to prevent foreclosures
and result in the long-term affordability of the mortgage
retained pursuant to such activity or another positive
outcome for the homeowner. No funds made available under this
paragraph may be provided directly to lenders or homeowners
to discharge outstanding mortgage balances or for any other
direct debt reduction payments.
(3) The use of Mortgage Foreclosure Mitigation Assistance
by approved counseling intermediaries and State Housing
Finance Agencies shall involve a reasonable analysis of the
borrower's financial situation, an evaluation of the current
value of the property that is subject to the mortgage,
counseling regarding the assumption of the mortgage by
another non-Federal party, counseling regarding the possible
purchase of the mortgage by a non-Federal third party,
counseling and advice of all likely restructuring and
refinancing strategies or the approval of a work-out strategy
by all interested parties.
(4) NRC may provide up to 15 percent of the total funds
under this paragraph to its own charter members with
expertise in foreclosure prevention counseling, subject to a
certification by the NRC that the procedures for selection do
not consist of any procedures or activities that could be
construed as an unacceptable conflict of interest or have the
appearance of impropriety.
(5) HUD-approved counseling entities and State Housing
Finance Agencies receiving funds under this paragraph shall
have demonstrated experience in successfully working with
financial institutions as well as borrowers facing default,
delinquency and foreclosure as well as documented counseling
capacity, outreach capacity, past successful performance and
positive outcomes with documented counseling plans (including
post mortgage foreclosure mitigation counseling), loan
workout agreements and loan modification agreements. NRC may
use other criteria to demonstrate capacity in underserved
areas.
(6) Of the total amount made available under this
paragraph, up to $3,000,000 may be made available to build
the mortgage foreclosure and default mitigation counseling
capacity of counseling intermediaries through NRC training
courses with HUD-approved counseling intermediaries and their
partners, except that private financial institutions that
participate in NRC training shall pay market rates for such
training.
(7) Of the total amount made available under this
paragraph, up to 5 percent may be used for associated
administrative expenses for the NRC to carry out activities
provided under this section.
(8) Mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance grants may
include a budget for outreach and advertising, and training,
as determined by the NRC.
(9) The NRC shall continue to report bi-annually to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as well as the
Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services
Committee on its efforts to mitigate mortgage default.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 137, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $12,300,000)''.
Page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $12,300,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Funding for the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation is over $12 million higher than what the President's budget
request was. Now, the President and I don't typically see eye to eye on
most spending issues, but I am proud to support his requested level of
funding for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.
By supporting my amendment, why don't we show the American people
that we are serious about our Nation's fiscal crisis and that both
parties are capable of working together by setting the funding back to
the President's requested funding level for the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation, which would save the American taxpayers over
$12 million.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. This is one of those cases in which we've gone back and
forth here today with the gentleman from California. This must be the
eighth or ninth of these, and it's hard to find ways of being very
creative or original about what you're saying.
The interesting thing here is that, for some of the time, the
gentleman has been going back to whatever we had done several years
ago, going back arbitrarily to some point in the past. Here, of course,
he is supporting the President's position. I was not aware that the
gentleman from California supported the President's position in much of
anything.
Mr. LATHAM. If the gentleman would yield, the gentleman is from
Georgia.
Mr. OLVER. Excuse me. Thank you very much.
Please forgive me. You don't even look alike. I think I was mistaking
you for a different member of the California delegation.
I thank the gentleman from Iowa for correcting me.
In any case, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentleman's
amendment would take the position of this subcommittee down by $12.3
million. Basically, the position of the subcommittee has been that we
are providing a little bit more for the NeighborWorks program than the
President requested and that we are providing a little bit less for the
HUD Counseling program than the President requested. Together, though,
they would be about the same.
NeighborWorks, which is what the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation's common name is, is a major nonprofit organization that
operates all over the country. It has affiliates in 50 States, and I'm
sure it has an affiliate somewhere in the gentleman's district. The
NeighborWorks program is a group that we relied on very heavily to do
counseling during the very height of the foreclosure crisis 3 or 4
years ago. We relied on it to go out there and actually contract with
and manage the process of providing counseling to hundreds of thousands
of people who were engaged in or who were subject to foreclosure.
So we on our side, on this side--in this branch at least--have felt
that NeighborWorks has been a very good organization, which is in large
part why we have given them a little bit more and why we have given a
little bit less to the HUD program.
We argued the HUD program last night. They leverage something close
to $4 billion in direct investments to serve low- and moderate-income
families through all of their affiliates in all the work that they do.
It's a very, very good and reliable organization that we've come to
value very highly.
They also administered this Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling
program, which gives targeted assistance to families at risk of losing
their homes. The gentleman seems to cut this account because it is
above the President's request, but I think I have explained that we're
slightly above on this one and slightly below on the other one.
Again, I would say I was not aware that the gentleman from Georgia--I
went to California again, didn't I?--was such a fan of the President's
request numbers, that he valued them so highly. I believe--and I think
that my chairman believes--that NeighborWorks is deserving of this
small increase, and I believe that Chairman Latham has thoughtfully
targeted resources in this area. I hope the amendment will be defeated,
and I urge the Members to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1540
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
NeighborWorks really is a program that has some metrics in place to
make sure that the dollars are used correctly in a proper way. In Iowa
and across the country, about every dollar that goes through
NeighborWorks leverages $48 in non-Federal direct investment because of
it.
I just want to reiterate that we've gone through every line in this
appropriations bill, tried to make decisions that would increase
growth, job creation, tried to do the very best job we could. We've
looked at every area. There are some priorities of things
[[Page H4123]]
that actually work that we've tried to sustain funding for.
I just don't want folks to forget overall in this bill, we are nearly
$4 billion below last year's funding level. That's a cut of $4 billion.
It's $2 billion below the President's request. I think, as one
gentleman here today stated, this is the largest percentage reduction
of any appropriation bill yet to come to the floor. We're trying to be
fiscally responsible, to actually prioritize spending in this bill to
things that actually work.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in opposition to this
amendment and to say to the gentleman from Georgia that I don't really
know where you might live in Georgia, but imagine neighborhoods in our
country where there is no private lender with competitive rates;
imagine neighborhoods that are crammed at the edges with payday lenders
who are more than willing to bilk people who have checks to cash, maybe
even Social Security checks, and they charge them royally for that;
imagine a neighborhood where there is no church-run credit union, maybe
a multilingual neighborhood with no lending arm of any reputable
institution. If there is somebody in the neighborhood willing to make a
loan, such as a loan shark, they charge fees. Imagine the trouble that
a family can get into. Imagine how difficult it is in those
neighborhoods to accumulate capital to make a loan because everything
is being taken out by predatory practices and nothing is put back in.
NeighborWorks is one of the few institutions in this country that has
proven itself and works in exactly those kinds of neighborhood.
NeighborWorks tries to save families and give them a chance to get on
the ladder up to opportunity. Particularly during this time, when we
know we've had the largest transfer of wealth in American history from
Main Street to Wall Street. NeighborWorks is a lifeline. People have
had their equity taken away, including in neighborhoods like I'm
talking about, where people were beginning to own their own homes for
the first time, where they needed financial counseling, mortgage
counseling, advice on if you're going to buy a home, what a reasonable
down payment is, based on how much do they earn. People need sound
advice on mortgages--that you shouldn't pay more than this out of your
check so you don't get in trouble. People need advice as they try to
find reputable people to repair their homes so they get a decent price
on their roof and gutters--it all seems so simple if you live in the
suburbs, and you've got enough money, and the region is not
disinvested, and you're not living at the edge.
NeighborWorks is one of those programs that is needed, particularly
at this time in our country with the housing market being in the
condition that it is. With the enormous challenges facing built
communities in the built environment in city after city, NeighborWorks
serves community after community, both urban and rural. It's amazing
what's happened even to rural small towns in this country and their
emptying out that is really historic in nature.
A program like NeighborWorks has proven itself time and again. It
pays back to the American people their equity not being lost, in
helping capital accumulate in some of the most forgotten corners of
this country, and with their staff that are highly trained and highly
reputable.
I would not want to be without NeighborWorks in Ohio, not in the
housing situation that we're facing today. I'm not sure about Georgia.
But I would bet in Atlanta they value NeighborWorks if they have one,
and I assume that they do. But you have to imagine yourself living in a
place like you may not know. And for the American Dream to happen,
organizations like NeighborWorks are absolutely essential.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think it may be well
intentioned, but I think it's going to achieve exactly the wrong
result. I think Chairman Latham of the full committee and Ranking
Member Olver have reached an accommodation here to help our housing
market recover in some of the most forgotten places and not to have any
more hemorrhaging of equity and investment capital across this country.
I urge a no vote on the Broun Amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I was on the floor about a half an hour
ago and went back to my office stunned by the defeat at the hands of
Mr. Latham and his point of order and the ruling of the Parliamentarian
and the Chair at the time and the interesting comments from my friend
from western Ohio, who I trust, after she has the opportunity to meet
with Mr. Rokakis and Mr. Kildee in Michigan and Cleveland, will have a
different view on whether or not the Neighborhood Stabilization fund,
without additional resources to demolish homes, is working well.
When I got back to the office, I turned on the television and I saw--
I like a good Republican bashing as much as other folks, but a string
of speakers came to the microphone and just bashed the lack of a
Republican plan on transportation.
I'm not going to go back to 1844, but I am going to go back to
September of 2009, the last bill, SAFETEA-LU, expired in September of
2009. In September of 2009--people who know the answer, you can shout
it out--the President of the United States was a Democrat, Barack
Obama, who is currently the President today. The majority leader in the
United States Senate--shout it out if you know it--was Harry Reid, a
Democrat of Nevada. The Speaker of the House was the first woman-
elected Speaker in the history of the United States, Nancy Pelosi of
California.
The Democratic Party controlled all three levers of the Federal
Government. They had in position as the chairman of the Transportation
Infrastructure Committee a gentleman who has forgotten more about
transportation than most of us will ever learn, Jim Oberstar of
Minnesota. Mr. Oberstar prepared a 6-year fully funded, robust Federal
transportation 6-year reauthorization. He was not allowed by the
leadership within the Democratic Party to bring that bill forward.
So for people to come to the floor and say that Mr. Latham is not
doing his job, this negotiation that is going on on the transportation
authorization currently is somehow a failure of Republican leadership,
I say get up and look in the mirror. You have to take a look at the
fact that everybody is responsible for this mess, and everybody knows
that you don't fix the Nation's infrastructure unless you provide the
necessary resources to fund the trust fund. Both parties are guilty of
being absent without leave, but to blame it and to hang it on the
Republican Party is worse than nonsense. It completely ignores
historical fact.
One other factoid about the President of the United States, President
Obama. He has become the first President since Dwight Eisenhower to not
send up his vision of a comprehensive transportation reauthorization
bill. A lot of people in this House weren't even born when Dwight
Eisenhower was the President of the United States, but he became the
first President. And our good friend and former colleague, Mr. LaHood,
who is the Secretary of Transportation, he would come before the
subcommittee year after year after year and had no ideas, no gas tax,
no vehicle miles traveled, no idea how we're going to replenish the
highway trust fund until this year. Until this year, he came and said:
I've got this
[[Page H4124]]
brainy idea. We're going to fund it with OCO, the overseas contingency
account, that the United States has used to support our troops in
conflicts around the world.
It was worse than fiction; it was a fantasy. And he knew it, but he
delivered it with a straight face. I give him a lot of credit for that.
But to come to the floor and attempt to hang this around the
Republicans for failing to lead on transportation is laughable. Ours is
the party of Teddy Roosevelt and the Panama Canal, Abraham Lincoln and
the transcontinental railroad, Dwight Eisenhower and the interstate
highway system. Ronald Reagan and George Bush all supported working
wages to build our infrastructure.
{time} 1550
We will not take a back seat, nor will we be criticized by a party
that completely failed in its mandate given to them in the election of
2008 to do a single thing, to employ people in the transportation
sector and to move this country forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
operating expenses
For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries,
authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the
rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and
consultants under section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code) of the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness in carrying out the functions pursuant to title
II of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended,
$3,300,000.
TITLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT
Sec. 401. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2013 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or
previous appropriations Acts.
Sec. 402. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for
the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses
of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening
in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Sec. 403. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal
year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations,
unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 404. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract
pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures
are a matter of public record and available for public
inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing
law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to
existing law.
Sec. 405. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, none
of the funds provided in this Act, provided by previous
appropriations Acts to the agencies or entities funded in
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2013, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury derived by the collection of fees and available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that:
(1) creates a new program;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by
the Congress;
(4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity
by either the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations
for a different purpose;
(5) augments existing programs, projects, or activities in
excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less;
(6) reduces existing programs, projects, or activities by
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures a branch,
division, office, bureau, board, commission, agency,
administration, or department different from the budget
justifications submitted to the Committees on Appropriations
or the table accompanying the explanatory statement
accompanying this Act, whichever is more detailed, unless
prior approval is received from the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That not later than
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, each agency
funded by this Act shall submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives to establish the baseline for application of
reprogramming and transfer authorities for the current fiscal
year: Provided further, That the report shall include:
(A) a table for each appropriation with a separate column
to display the President's budget request, adjustments made
by Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if
appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level;
(B) a delineation in the table for each appropriation both
by object class and program, project, and activity as
detailed in the budget appendix for the respective
appropriation; and
(C) an identification of items of special congressional
interest: Provided further, That the amount appropriated or
limited for salaries and expenses for an agency shall be
reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after the required
date that the report has not been submitted to the Congress.
Sec. 406. Except as otherwise specifically provided by
law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances
remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2013 from
appropriations made available for salaries and expenses for
fiscal year 2013 in this Act, shall remain available through
September 30, 2014, for each such account for the purposes
authorized: Provided, That a request shall be submitted to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for
approval prior to the expenditure of such funds: Provided
further, That these requests shall be made in compliance with
reprogramming guidelines under section 405 of this Act.
Sec. 407. All Federal agencies and departments that are
funded under this Act shall issue a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on all sole-source
contracts by no later than July 30, 2013. Such report shall
include the contractor, the amount of the contract and the
rationale for using a sole-source contract.
Sec. 408. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be obligated or expended for any employee training that--
(1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills,
and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of
official duties;
(2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of
emotional response or psychological stress in some
participants;
(3) does not require prior employee notification of the
content and methods to be used in the training and written
end of course evaluation;
(4) contains any methods or content associated with
religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age''
belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
(5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants'
personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or
otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing
directly upon the performance of official duties.
Sec. 409. No funds in this Act may be used to support any
Federal, State, or local projects that seek to use the power
of eminent domain, unless eminent domain is employed only for
a public use: Provided, That for purposes of this section,
public use shall not be construed to include economic
development that primarily benefits private entities:
Provided further, That any use of funds for mass transit,
railroad, airport, seaport or highway projects as well as
utility projects which benefit or serve the general public
(including energy-related, communication-related, water-
related and wastewater-related infrastructure), other
structures designated for use by the general public or which
have other common-carrier or public-utility functions that
serve the general public and are subject to regulation and
oversight by the government, and projects for the removal of
an immediate threat to public health and safety or
brownfields as defined in the Small Business Liability Relief
and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Public Law 107-118) shall
be considered a public use for purposes of eminent domain.
Sec. 410. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriations Act.
Sec. 411. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to pay the salary for any person
filling a position, other than a temporary position, formerly
held by an employee who has left to enter the Armed Forces of
the United States and has satisfactorily completed his period
of active military or naval service, and has within 90 days
after his release from such service or from hospitalization
continuing after discharge for a period of not more than 1
year, made application for restoration to his former position
and has been certified by the Office of Personnel Management
as still qualified to perform the duties of his former
position and has not been restored thereto.
Sec. 412. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may
be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in
expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections
2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c,
popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi
Mr. GARAMENDI. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 148, line 11, after ``entity will'', insert ``ensure
that domestic content makes up 85 percent of all steel, iron,
and manufactured goods, including rolling stock, and''.
[[Page H4125]]
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we just heard a rather strong plea from
one of my Republican colleagues about the transportation program and
whether Democrats and Republicans should continue to fight about who
did what when or didn't do it.
This amendment is something that we all ought to agree to. This
amendment is something that both Democrats and Republicans should be
supporting. This amendment is about American jobs--not foreign jobs,
not about shifting our jobs overseas, but rather about bringing those
jobs back home. This amendment is about making it in America. This
amendment is about no longer allowing our tax money to be spent on
foreign-made equipment but, rather, to require that our tax money be
spent on American-made equipment so that there will be American jobs.
This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. This is an all-
American issue. This is about making it in America. It simply says that
the current 60 percent requirement is insufficient and that we ought to
have a higher requirement of 85 percent. And I will argue strongly--and
I think correctly--that 85 percent is achievable.
I'll give two examples: In a recent contract for the new BART trains,
the Bay Area Rapid Transit trains, one bidder--a French company,
Alstom--said that they could build those trains at 95 percent. A second
bidder--foreign, Bombardier--said they would do it at 66 percent.
Unfortunately, BART decided to go with the 66 percent because it was a
couple of percentage points cheaper. $1 billion in American jobs were
lost.
Within a month after that, Los Angeles wanted to build some new
transit cars. Siemens said they could build those transit cars at 85
percent American content. They lost that bid to a Korean company
because there was a couple of percentage points difference. Again,
millions of American jobs, millions of dollars spent overseas, and
American jobs lost.
It's time for us to bring the jobs home. It's time for us to onshore.
It's time for us to make it in America. And it's time for us, as
Democrats and Republicans, to do just that. And that's what this
amendment does.
I suspect it will be ruled out of order. What a shame. What a shame
that we cannot stand here on the floor, amend a bill that's going to,
over time, spend $60 billion, and not require that that money, our tax
money, be spent in America.
What's wrong with making it in America? Oh, I suppose it has to do
with some point of order. Do you think the American public really wants
to hear a point of order? Or do they want to hear about American-made
equipment and American jobs? No. We'll do a point of order, which I
will appeal and probably lose. And thousands upon thousands of American
jobs will be lost because of a point of order rather than for this
House to stand up and say, We're going to make it in America. We're
going to spend our tax money on American jobs, on American-made
equipment.
So give me your point of order, and let's see what the American
public has to say about your point of order.
I yield back the balance of my time
Mr. LATHAM. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we had a markup this morning in
Appropriations, and I supported an amendment about American content.
And I believe that this is probably a very, very good amendment.
To be consistent--and I have raised points of order against some
things that I support today, one offered by my good friend from Ohio,
and other amendments that I would otherwise be supportive of if they
were not breaking precedent to the rules of the House.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. LATHAM. 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.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to speak on the point of
order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. On the point of order, I thank the chairman for his
thoughts on the issue. But for his consistency, I cannot thank him. I
think I understand that we seem to operate on rules, unless we don't
want to operate on those rules.
I understand that the chairman is interested in this issue and has
worked, as chairman of the subcommittee, to try to raise the level of
American-made, and I thank him for that.
We have an opportunity here to really take this issue up and put
aside the rules and do what's good for America. This is about billions
and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. We ought to
put it aside, put aside the consistency and deal with American jobs.
I don't know what my opportunity will be to overrule the point of
order. But I'm going to do everything I possibly can to see that we
have American-made jobs and that we spend our tax money on American-
made equipment.
I do understand the chairman's position and the bind that he's in.
But sometimes consistency doesn't lead to the right result.
{time} 1600
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section
3, language in an appropriation bill that is subject to a point of
order under clause 2 of rule XXI but is permitted to remain, such as by
waiver in House Resolution 697, may be modified by germane amendment
that does not contain additional legislation.
Section 412 of the bill constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI that has been permitted to remain. The amendment
by the gentleman from California would expand section 412 by imposing
on entities by the bill an additional restriction on expenditure of
funds in the bill, to wit: that 85 percent of a certain class of goods
be procured domestically. That expansion constitutes additional
legislation.
The point of order is sustained.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I have an amendment that would prohibit funds
from being used to enforce congressionally mandated Temporary Flight
Restrictions, or TFRs, for sports stadiums. These permanent TFRs, to be
quite honest with you, are impractical, they're ineffective, and they
create serious problems for hundreds of thousands of pilots, countless
air shows, aerial surveyors, and a whole lot of other small businesses
and individuals that utilize aviation.
In 2004, Congress mandated the FAA to impose permanent TFRs in the
airspace above and around sports stadiums with a seating capacity
greater than 30,000. Think of these as restricted airspace bubbles that
basically extend 3,000 feet high and they have a 3\1/2\ mile-wide
radius that is in effect 1 hour prior to the event to 1 hour just after
the event. And in any given year, there are roughly 3,000 of these
stadium TFRs.
Now, proponents of these claim that they bolster national security
and mitigate an aerial threat. I can't help but absolutely laugh at
that assertion. First, there's absolutely no realtime mechanism or
capability to prevent an aerial attack originating within or outside
the 3\1/2\ miles at 3,000 feet above ground level, and the logic would
apply even if the restrictions were expanded exponentially. In fact, if
you take a jet traveling at 500 miles an hour, it's just going to take
a few seconds to penetrate that TFR to reach that stadium.
[[Page H4126]]
It's also very convenient that the proponents of these TFRs are exempt
from the restrictions that they successfully sought after.
The bottom line is the FAA doesn't want or need these congressionally
mandated TFRs. In fact, the FAA publicly stated they would not issue
these TFRs absent the congressional mandate, but, rather, they would
use their existing authority to coordinate with local law enforcement
to issue them on a case-by-case basis. That's what we're trying to get
at.
Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to reiterate these stadium TFRs do
nothing to improve security. And I would yield time to anybody out
there, any Member, that would like to try and make the argument while
keeping a straight face that they do improve security.
These TFRs are about banner towers, which is to prevent what sports
groups call ``guerilla advertisers,'' from operating within the
airspace around these stadiums. That's all this is about. And what was
Congress's solution? We simply gave complete control of the airspace to
sports teams and exempted them from their own restrictions. And I think
that's wrong.
In light of the fact that I would like to solve this issue eventually
instead of trying to ram an issue through or try to push something
through that could fail or be passed, I'd rather come up with a good
piece of legislation that actually solves the problem and addresses
some of the concerns. That's basically what I was trying to do.
Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman for his comments today. He has been
a tremendous advocate for this position. We have talked on many
occasions about this particular subject. He is working very hard to
resolve the issue.
I would hope that we could have some public hearings and actually get
input to make sure that we make the right decisions, and I certainly
would want to work with the gentleman to make sure that we do get a
full hearing on this issue, that everything can be brought to light,
and we're all concerned about homeland security, safety issues, all
those things. I think the gentleman makes a very, very good point, and
would just offer to do everything we can to work with him.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I want to thank the chairman for the comments
and look forward to working on this. I think this is an issue that we
can solve and an issue that we can fix ultimately for all those pilots
out there and the folks that are concerned.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 413. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act shall be made available to any
person or entity that has been convicted of violating the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
Sec. 414. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for first-class airline accommodations in
contravention of sections 301-10.122 and 301-10.123 of title
41, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 415. None of the funds made available under this Act
or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its
affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.
Sec. 416. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to any corporation
that was convicted (or had an officer or agent of such
corporation acting on behalf of the corporation convicted) of
a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the
preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of
the conviction, unless the agency has considered suspension
or debarment of the corporation, or such officer or agent,
and made a determination that this further action is not
necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Sec. 417. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation
that any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed,
for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been
exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a
timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority
responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the
awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless
the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the
corporation and made a determination that this further action
is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
SPENDING REDUCTION ACCOUNT
Sec. 418. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Sixth amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Seventh amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Eighth amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Ninth amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Tenth amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Eleventh amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Twelfth amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Thirteenth amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Fourteenth amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
An amendment by Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.
Second amendment by Mr. McClintock of California.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. McClintock of California.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the sixth amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168,
noes 256, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 424]
AYES--168
Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Conaway
Cravaack
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--256
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
[[Page H4127]]
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--8
Engel
Gohmert
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1636
Ms. SEWELL, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mrs.
NAPOLITANO, Messrs. CARTER, CRENSHAW, COFFMAN of Colorado, Mrs. BONO
MACK, and Messrs. ELLISON and HUNTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. TERRY and ISSA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the seventh amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 240, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 425]
AYES--178
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--240
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--14
Andrews
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Engel
Gohmert
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Pence
Schrader
Stivers
Sullivan
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1640
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H4128]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the eighth amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 248, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 426]
AYES--174
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--248
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--10
Andrews
Conyers
Gohmert
Hall
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1644
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the ninth amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 229, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 427]
AYES--193
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Culberson
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--229
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
[[Page H4129]]
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--10
Burton (IN)
Gohmert
Hall
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Schmidt
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1648
Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the tenth amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 247, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 428]
AYES--178
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Conaway
Cravaack
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--247
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--7
Gohmert
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1652
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the eleventh amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
[[Page H4130]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 250, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 429]
AYES--169
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Conaway
Cravaack
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--250
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--13
Bass (CA)
Conyers
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Meeks
Schakowsky
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
Waters
{time} 1655
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 429, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the twelfth amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 264, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 430]
AYES--160
Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Conaway
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--264
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
[[Page H4131]]
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--8
Gohmert
Harris
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1658
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the thirteenth amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,
noes 249, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 431]
AYES--172
Adams
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Conaway
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Hartzler
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--249
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Akin
Carson (IN)
DeFazio
Gohmert
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (NY)
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1702
Mr. POLIS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the fourteenth amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,
noes 250, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 432]
AYES--172
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett
Benishek
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cravaack
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
[[Page H4132]]
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--250
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--10
Bilirakis
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1705
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Chaffetz
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157,
noes 267, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 433]
AYES--157
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Culberson
Denham
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thornberry
Upton
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)
NOES--267
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nugent
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
[[Page H4133]]
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1710
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 80,
noes 342, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 434]
AYES--80
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Bartlett
Black
Blackburn
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Conaway
Culberson
Denham
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Harris
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Long
Lummis
Manzullo
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Royce
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
NOES--342
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nugent
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Miller (FL)
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1713
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 434, had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 123,
noes 300, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 435]
AYES--123
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Culberson
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Long
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paul
Pence
Petri
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Stearns
Stutzman
Thornberry
[[Page H4134]]
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)
NOES--300
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nugent
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Bass (CA)
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1717
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 242, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 436]
AYES--178
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cravaack
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lipinski
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--242
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
[[Page H4135]]
NOT VOTING--12
Berg
Bucshon
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Paul
Rehberg
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1720
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass of New Hampshire, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 5972) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes,
had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________