[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 88 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5149-H5184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 604 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. 4745.
  Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1901


                     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. 4745) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Woodall (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) had been postponed, and the bill had 
been read through page 83, line 23.


                    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:
  An amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for each electronic 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 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 154, 
noes 248, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 273]

                               AYES--154

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cotton
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garcia
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tsongas
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--248

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Cassidy
     Clark (MA)
     Davis, Danny
     Dent
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Griffith (VA)
     Hanabusa
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Lankford
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Owens
     Peters (MI)
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Smith (NJ)
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1905

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 273 on 
H.R. 4745, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have 
voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded

[[Page H5150]]

vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) 
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 127, 
noes 279, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 274]

                               AYES--127

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Camp
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Daines
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Harper
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoho

                               NOES--279

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McAllister
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Nugent
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Campbell
     Cassidy
     Clark (MA)
     Davis, Danny
     Dent
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Griffith (VA)
     Hanabusa
     Hunter
     Jackson Lee
     Lankford
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Owens
     Peters (MI)
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (SC)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1911

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


 Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of 
                                 Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
my request for a recorded voted on my amendment to the end that the 
amendment stand rejected by the earlier voice vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment stands rejected in accordance with 
the previous vote thereon.

                              {time}  1915

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        housing certificate fund

                        (including rescissions)

       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 2015 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 heretofore 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 
     rescinded is hereby appropriated, to remain available until 
     expended, for the purposes set forth under this heading, in 
     addition to amounts otherwise available.

  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, at a time when Congress should be working 
together to make long-term investments in our crumbling infrastructure, 
today's T-HUD bill compromises our ability to meet the transportation 
needs of our local communities.
  This bill significantly cuts funding to one of the Nation's most 
vital transportation programs--TIGER grants. Even worse, this bill 
significantly changes TIGER grant eligibility to prevent the funding 
for public transit, bike, and pedestrian projects. The significant 
funding and eligibility changes this bill makes have left this 
important program without any teeth. It seems that ``TIGER'' is no 
longer a fitting name. Instead, we should be referring to this bill's 
National Infrastructure Investments program simply as ``kitten 
grants.''
  TIGER grants support critical projects that are driving economic 
growth and job creation across America. This bill includes only $100 
million for TIGER grants, which is a reduction of more than 80 percent 
from this year's funding level. This move is ridiculous given that the 
current funding level can't even keep up with the demand of an 
incredibly popular program. Already, in the current grant application 
round, the U.S. Department of Transportation has received nearly

[[Page H5151]]

800 applications that are requesting a total of $9.5 billion--a request 
of more than 15 times what can be awarded. Additionally, the bill 
includes a bad policy rider with language that restricts TIGER 
eligibility to roads, highways, bridges, freight rail, and ports. This 
would be a devastating change for a wide variety of innovative projects 
that include public transportation, passenger rail, and bicycle and 
pedestrian programs.
  TIGER grants help us modernize our transportation and infrastructure 
and create the 21st century highway and public transit systems America 
desperately needs, and nowhere are these programs needed more than in 
cities like my hometown of Chicago. Back home, TIGER grants have 
supported updates to the Chicago Transit Authority, have advanced the 
sustainable transportation efforts of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency 
for Planning and local bike share programs, and have helped fund the 
Elgin O'Hare Western Access Project. Investing in a 21st century 
transportation system is essential for our economy, and more 
importantly, it will create jobs. Remember that every billion dollars 
invested in our infrastructure creates 30,000 jobs.
  I joined the House Committee on Appropriations to make the tough 
funding choices that shape our national priorities, but this year's 
budget allocations have only taken that power away from us, forcing us 
to vote on a bill that drastically cuts vital services that people 
around the country depend upon. As we consider the T-HUD bill, we must 
stand together and demand Congress take action on long-term, smart 
investments that will move our people and our country forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we invest in the roads, 
bridges, and railways that are vital to the economy of this great 
Nation. Businesses in the Eighth Congressional District need a strong 
transportation system to send their products across the country.
  The companies in my district are investing in their infrastructure, 
yet our Nation's transportation networks have not kept up. A recent 
study showed that more than 300 bridges in the Chicago area are 
structurally deficient. This is simply unacceptable. We need to invest 
in infrastructure initiatives because all Americans will benefit from 
the results, be they increases in job opportunities or in shorter 
drives to work.
  That is why I am appalled by the low TIGER funding in this bill as 
$100 million is nowhere near what my Eighth District and other projects 
around the country need to get people back to work and our economy 
moving again. One of these projects is the Fox River Bridge Improvement 
Project in Elgin, Illinois. This bridge has not been updated for over 
80 years and is crucial to the railways of the suburbs of Chicago that 
transport both commercial freight and commuters. I am disappointed that 
this bill does not make the investments that will create jobs and make 
our economy competitive globally.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to join with Mr. 
Quigley, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Waters, and other colleagues to call 
attention to the abysmally low funding contained in this bill for the 
TIGER program and to the need to increase and multiply this investment 
for the sake of our communities.
  We have many concerns with this T-HUD bill before us, but I want to 
talk particularly about the TIGER program, otherwise known as the 
National Infrastructure Investments. It is a critical grant program 
which provides a unique opportunity for the Department of 
Transportation to invest in shovel-ready projects across transportation 
modes that promise to achieve critical national objectives, laying the 
groundwork for our future prosperity.
  TIGER bridges critical gaps in formula funding programs to ensure 
that we are able to make investments in projects that are essential to 
both local and national goals. Each innovative project this program 
funds is multimodal, multijurisdictional and/or otherwise challenging 
to fund through existing transportation programs and funding streams.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us would reduce the program's landmark 
flexibility by restricting the eligibility for TIGER to only road, 
bridge, freight, and port projects. Now, there is nothing wrong with 
these kinds of projects, but the downside of this restriction is that 
there is no room for funding that involves pedestrian crossings or bike 
lanes or recreational trails or planning activities or public transit 
or inner city passenger rail.
  Many of us have benefited from having TIGER funding help a critical 
project in our districts. Let me just give one example, though, of a 
project that has gotten a lot of bipartisan praise, a project that 
would not have received funding if these eligibility restrictions had 
been in place. It is the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, which is a 
bicycle and pedestrian network that is one-third funded by TIGER. It is 
now touted as a draw to convention planners, as a central catalyst for 
hundreds of millions of dollars in new commercial and residential 
development, and it is the linchpin of a vibrant community. It simply 
could not have been funded if these restrictions which the majority has 
included in this bill had been in place. My district has been fortunate 
to receive TIGER funds to help build our multimodal Raleigh Union 
Station, but my community is not alone.
  Over the last five funding rounds, TIGER has provided $3.5 billion 
for 270 critical infrastructure projects that have covered all 50 
States, D.C., and Puerto Rico. That is just the tip of the iceberg. 
Previous TIGER funding rounds have shown significant latent demand for 
this type of Federal program. In TIGER rounds one through five, the 
U.S. DOT received more than 5,300 project proposals, seeking more than 
$115 billion, with between only 4 and 8 percent of grant applicants 
each year able to receive funding. In the current grant application 
round, the U.S. DOT has received nearly 800 applications, requesting 
$9.5 billion, with only $600 million to invest. That is a request of 
more than 15 times what can be awarded.

  The bill before us would make the situation even worse. Next year, 
rather than doubling down on these essential transportation 
infrastructure investments as the President's budget request would do, 
the bill before us calls for dramatic funding decreases of over 80 
percent to the TIGER program.
  Unfortunately, this is not the first time House Republicans have 
tried to cut or eliminate TIGER funding. It is hard to escape the 
conclusion that this is another example of reflexive opposition to 
anything coming from the Obama administration, because this is, in 
fact, a model program in terms of stretching Federal dollars. TIGER 
programs have been catalysts that have leveraged Federal funds to 
secure further investment from the private sector and other sources. 
Each dollar invested through TIGER has leveraged 3.5 non-Federal 
dollars.
  The projects that have received TIGER funding, along with those that 
are anxiously awaiting an award announcement, will help our local 
communities address transportation challenges, create good-paying jobs, 
spur local economic development, revive our city centers, and create 
regional integrated transportation solutions. We can do better than the 
bill before us today. Let's reexamine and restore the funding for these 
TIGER grants.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I must join with my colleagues Mr. 
Price and Mr. Quigley. The reference here to the TIGER grant program is 
really almost incomprehensible in terms of what one would think 
Congress and even our friends in the Republican majority should be 
supporting. These are amongst the most popular programs that we have 
had in transportation, and the goal of the TIGER program was to 
maximize the impact. It required local communities

[[Page H5152]]

to come together, often across jurisdictional boundaries, to figure out 
how to leverage the most impact from this program.
  Mr. Price referenced the heritage trail in Indianapolis. I have heard 
the mayor of Indianapolis give a spirited explanation of what 
difference that has made in the revitalization of that community. It is 
leveraging over $60 million to be able to improve the livability of 
Indianapolis. I was in Philadelphia, watching the program there, where 
the entire region came together for a $23 million program for bike and 
pedestrian, which would not be possible under the restrictions that the 
Republicans have inexplicably designed. Mr. Latham has a couple of 
TIGER grants in his district that would not be possible under this 
language. In Houston, a $200 million investment in bike and pedestrian 
trails has leveraged another $50 million from the private sector and is 
part of their effort to revitalize the downtown.
  It is a formula that is used across the country--being able to give 
people more choices--but instead, the committee has decided that they 
know better than the mayor of Indianapolis, that they know better than 
local communities about what they need to be able to make a difference.
  The irony is that the resources that are used for bike and pedestrian 
programs actually create more jobs than simply road construction. Talk 
to people around the country, as I have, about the ability to invest in 
making their children safer for cycling and pedestrian. It is not 
incidental. It is not something that should be just simply brushed 
aside.
  Mr. Chairman, this is part of what we should be doing. I have got two 
of these projects in my district that have leveraged private 
investment, that are wildly supported by the public. It is why we are 
seeing that there are thousands of requests for only a couple of 
hundred slots. To dramatically reduce the spending and restrict what 
the local communities can use it for, I think, is misguided. It is a 
step in the wrong direction, and it is not where America is going. It 
is not what we are seeing in communities--large and small, red States 
and blue States. What they want is to be able to revitalize their 
communities, to keep young, talented professionals there, to give 
people more choices, to cut down on pollution, and to be able to 
maximize transportation investment.
  I hope that this misguided language does not survive the legislative 
process. It would be a tragic mistake, and it is one that is actually 
going to end up undercutting some of the most progressive and energetic 
efforts we are seeing in communities, large and small. I respectfully 
urge my colleagues to think again--eliminate the restrictions, and look 
at where we are going to be able to maximize the impact. Where we are 
watching people in this Congress not willing to provide adequate 
resources for a transportation bill, we should be maximizing elements 
like the TIGER grants because we are going to need them more than ever.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Republican 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2015. This bill drastically underfunds critical 
transportation and housing programs.
  The bill's cuts to the TIGER program are particularly egregious. 
TIGER, formally known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic 
Recovery, is a competitive grant program that creates jobs by funding 
investments in transportation infrastructure.
  The Republican bill cuts TIGER from the 2014 level of $600 million 
down to a mere $100 million in 2015. Moreover, the bill includes 
restrictive language that limits TIGER grants by excluding public 
transit, passenger rail, bicycle, and pedestrian projects.
  Public transit is an essential part of a modern transportation 
system. A previous TIGER grant helped the Los Angeles County 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority to accelerate the construction of 
the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor, a light rail project that will 
reduce traffic congestion and improve transportation service in my 
district.
  Under the bill's restrictive language, this innovative project would 
never have qualified for a grant.
  TIGER needs to be expanded, not restricted, not cut. The President 
requested $1.25 billion for TIGER in fiscal year 2015 in order to 
create jobs and modernize our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  Earlier this year, I sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee 
urging support for the President's request, and 144 Members of Congress 
signed my letter.
  I urge my colleagues to strike the restrictive language in this bill, 
expand the TIGER program, and invest in a transportation system for the 
21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the appropriations bill before us includes 
only $100 million for the National Infrastructure Investment grants, 
otherwise known as TIGER grants. This is an 83 percent cut to this 
critical investment. This wrongheaded and foolish slashing of 
infrastructure monies will cost us far more than the money saved.
  TIGER grants have invested, as my colleagues have pointed out, in 
road, in rail, transit, and port projects that achieve vital national 
objectives all across this great Nation.
  Yet, the bill before us not only imposes a savage cut to the program, 
it restricts the use of these grants to highway, bridge, port, and 
freight rail intermodal projects only. It says that these are the only 
projects that can get done, meaning that transit, passenger rail, bike 
and pedestrian paths would no longer be eligible.
  Mr. Chairman, we face an infrastructure crisis in this country. The 
American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that we need to 
invest $3.6 trillion by 2020 to bring our Nation's infrastructure back 
to good condition.
  We also face a job crisis in this country, and TIGER creates jobs. A 
study last year on the Economic Impact of Public Transportation 
Investment found that every $1 billion invested supports 21,800 jobs, 
and these are jobs that cannot be outsourced. It generates $3 billion 
of additional business sales, and $432 million in Federal, State, and 
local tax revenues.
  We need to invest in our national infrastructure. We need to support 
projects that make our communities more livable and sustainable.
  In this project's history, we have found that so many of our 
colleagues in Arkansas and Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Arizona, Iowa, 
Pennsylvania, and, yes, Connecticut, Georgia, Utah, Washington State, 
Idaho, Florida, Virginia, Maine, California, Nevada, North Carolina, 
many of whom have received more than one TIGER grant, with the results 
that, the reason why they wanted these grants was because, in fact, it 
does make that investment in infrastructure. It creates jobs and 
creates future economic growth.
  TIGER grants are an excellent way to do this that make our 
communities more livable, more sustainable, and we should support them. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose this deep and this dangerous cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, first I wish to dedicate my remarks tonight 
in memory of our former colleague, James Oberstar, who knew the 
transportation system of this Nation like the back of his hand. And I 
know the first thing he would say if he were down here. He would say 
transportation investment, infrastructure investment is the largest job 
creator that this Congress and this Nation can provide to the American 
people.
  Infrastructure creates jobs. It is the highest form of development we 
can give to the American people. What are they asking this Congress 
for?
  They are asking us for jobs, and they are asking us to fix the roads. 
Every

[[Page H5153]]

place I go the public is complaining about potholes because of the bad 
winter in the part of the country that I represent.
  We know, where do these jobs come from? The construction industry, 
the landscape industry, the paving industry, the fencing industry, the 
stone quarries, the concrete manufacturers. The list is endless.
  In public transit we are talking about building rail cars to serve a 
growing population. America isn't declining in population. By 2050 we 
will have 500 million people in this country, up from 310 million 
today.
  So communities across our country are asking for our help. They asked 
for $9.5 billion in high-priority infrastructure projects just this 
year, 15 times more than the current funding.
  So what does the majority do?
  They cut the current funding by 80 percent, down to $100 million, 
when the American people are saying--the mayors, the county 
commissioners, the Governors across this country--help us out.
  TIGER has proven to be a successful program. It is not stove-piped. 
It is multimodal.
  The Vice President, Vice President Biden just visited Cleveland. What 
did he see? The largest transit point in Ohio, where Amtrak comes right 
next to the major switching stations for all of the rail cars that 
serve Cleveland, Ohio.
  Cleveland is waiting. It is only one of hundreds of places in America 
that are waiting for this Congress to do what the public wants us to 
do, and that is build this country forward.
  Underinvestment will only hurt our people and cost us more in the 
long run. We know TIGER works.
  The President recommended doubling the current funding to $1.25 
billion, up from 600 to $800 million, to begin to meet the needs of our 
country. But remember, I said the public was asking for $9.5 billion.

  TIGER has provided already $3.5 billion for 270 critical 
infrastructure projects across 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
  In prior years, we know that transit and rail passenger projects have 
received only about one quarter of TIGER funds available, and there is 
typically no other predictable dedicated funding source for this type 
of project.
  Without TIGER, and a few other Federal programs, mass transit and the 
shape of our Nation's highway system and rail system would be so much 
worse.
  Americans increasingly look to this Congress and say, what are they 
worth?
  This is one of the places where we should be worth something for the 
American people. So we rise tonight to say this is really a misguided 
decision. We need to take funds from elsewhere.
  We send funds all over the world. We are building dams in 
Afghanistan. Who is going to take care of it after we leave?
  Hundreds of millions of dollars in other places, and yet our own 
people are having to go get their cars realigned and buy new suspension 
systems because they are having to ride through all these potholes all 
over the country.
  We ought to do our job. We ought to find a way to fund this program 
and repair this country from one end to the other.
  I ask myself: If we had to build the Hoover Dam again, would this 
feckless Congress have the guts to do it?
  So we have a problem like TIGER that, coast to coast, works. Where's 
the majority? Out to lunch.
  No wonder the public doesn't have respect for the Congress of the 
United States. We are not at one with where the public is. The mayors 
are begging us. Our county commissioners are begging us. Our Governors 
are begging us. Our transit systems are saying measure up, Congress. 
Wake up. Wake up.
  I rise in strong support of restoring the funding and, frankly, 
funding at the level that the President has proposed, $1.25 billion. 
But even that is only about one-seventh of what the country has asked 
for, so it is severely underfunded for the needs of the Nation.
  We know it is the best job creator. We know it has a proven record, 
and we know the American people want it. What more do we need to know?
  I can just hear Jim Oberstar talking to me now.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENYART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ENYART. Mr. Chairman, infrastructure investment creates jobs in 
southern Illinois and nationwide while repairing highways, bridges and 
mass transit. The TIGER grant program is critical to infrastructure 
investment. We must fully fund this program.
  Two great examples of successful TIGER recipients are in southern 
Illinois. America's Central Port in Granite City, Illinois, which was a 
BRAC'd Army installation, has leveraged Federal dollars with State and 
local funding to connect rail lines and four interstate highways with 
the Mississippi River.
  Because of that investment, there are more private jobs at America's 
Central Port today than government jobs when it was an Army support 
center.
  Another Southern Illinois TIGER grant recipient, the Alton Regional 
Multimodal Transportation Center, will allow passenger transfers 
between high-speed Amtrak trains, regional transit, bicycle, and even 
pedestrian trails. TIGER not only creates jobs, but better ways to get 
to those jobs.
  At a time when we need to grow our economy and invest in our 
infrastructure here at home, it is a mistake to cut this critical 
program. I urge my colleagues to restore its funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, many of us here grew up in a time in this 
country when our parents and our politicians weren't afraid to invest 
in America.
  I have been having a series of meetings, along with other Members 
here, with the inspector general for Afghanistan. He has 250 
investigators. Of the last $100 billion in infrastructure that we have 
spent in Afghanistan, he can't find where the money has gone and/or 
where the projects have been completed.
  Yet, here we are today, with bridges falling down, roads crumbling, 
and we are debating legislation that gives an 80 percent cut in our 
transportation needs, imposes severe restrictions onto a program that 
is so crucial to our long-term economic growth here in this country.
  This program, the TIGER grant program, as you know, and the public 
needs to know, allows communities to compete for the funding of 
railroad upgrades, airport runways, highways, bridges, ports.
  Recently, at a meeting with the Transportation Committee, we had 
about 10 transportation leaders from business and commerce before the 
committee, and I asked the question of every one of them--every one of 
them: Is there any disagreement here that our roads, our bridges are 
crumbling? No.
  Make a note of it, Mr. Chairman.
  Second question, is there anyone here who disagrees with the notion 
that this is jeopardizing our economic growth and our ability to create 
good-paying jobs and facilitate the advancement of business interests?
  Nobody objects, Mr. Chairman. Make a note of it.

                              {time}  1945

  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, is there anybody here--now, mind you, all of 
the Democrats and Republicans were there. Is there anybody here on this 
committee that rejects the notion that we need to find more revenue for 
our transportation, our infrastructure, not less? Nobody disagreed.
  So where does this notion come from that we should pass an 80 percent 
reduction in our TIGER grant program? Clearly, someone is not listening 
to the business and commercial interests in this country, and they are 
making a tragic and serious mistake.
  Recently, Duluth Harbor, in my district, was a recipient of a $10 
million grant. As a result of that, we were able to restore an 
abandoned pier, dredge the harbor, so that the Great Lakes freighters 
could access it and extend the rail and the highway transportation 
accessing the terminal.

[[Page H5154]]

  We are losing $3 billion in business income a year through the Great 
Lakes because we are 10 years behind on the dredging. The Lakers are 
only operating at 80 percent of capacity. We are talking about real 
jobs. We are talking about real business income. We are talking about 
our future as a Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does contain some good and necessary 
increases in funding, such as the FAA and the Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, but an 80 percent cut in this program 
that spurs innovation, that boosts American manufacturing, creates 
good-paying jobs, that is no way to invest in our future. That is no 
way to have a pro-growth, pro-jobs economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of my colleagues: Let's come 
together here. We have common ground. Let's be bipartisan. Let's reject 
this 80 percent cut.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      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'') 
     $1,775,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2018: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, during fiscal year 2015 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 $8,000,000 shall 
     be to support ongoing Public Housing Financial and Physical 
     Assessment activities: Provided further, That up to 
     $5,000,000 shall be to support the costs of administrative 
     and judicial receiverships: 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 2015: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this heading $45,000,000 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 made available under this heading, up to 
     $15,000,000 may be used for incentives as part of a Jobs-Plus 
     Pilot initiative modeled after the Jobs-Plus demonstration: 
     Provided further, That the funding provided under the 
     previous proviso shall provide competitive grants to 
     partnerships between public housing authorities, local 
     workforce investment boards established under section 117 of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, and other agencies and 
     organizations that provide support to help public housing 
     residents obtain employment and increase earnings: Provided 
     further, That applicants must demonstrate the ability to 
     provide services to residents, partner with workforce 
     investment boards, and leverage service dollars: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary may set aside a portion of the 
     funds provided for the Resident Opportunity and Self-
     Sufficiency program to support the services element of the 
     Jobs-Plus Pilot initiative: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may allow PHAs to request exemptions from rent and 
     income limitation requirements under sections 3 and 6 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 as necessary to implement 
     the Jobs-Plus program, on such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary may approve upon a finding by the Secretary that 
     any such waivers or alternative requirements are necessary 
     for the effective implementation of the Jobs-Plus Pilot 
     initiative as a voluntary program for residents: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall publish by notice in the 
     Federal Register any waivers or alternative requirements 
     pursuant to the preceding proviso no later than 10 days 
     before the effective date of such notice: Provided further, 
     That from the funds made available under this heading, the 
     Secretary shall provide bonus awards in fiscal year 2015 to 
     public housing agencies that are designated high performers.

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a massive step 
backward for transportation and infrastructure funding, reducing funds 
for rail, transit, and highway programs that our communities 
desperately need.
  In addition to slashing TIGER grants by 80 percent, the bill 
restricts eligibility for these grants, effectively locking out public 
transportation and passenger rail projects from this critical funding 
stream.
  In my district, Sonoma and Marin Counties have come together to 
support the SMART rail project. This is a new public transit project 
that will provide a critical service to commuters, to students going to 
school, to tourists that are visiting and spending money in the local 
economy.
  The counties are putting a significant share forward in local 
funding. Over 90 percent of the cost of the project has come from these 
local sources, but they need the ability to access Federal assistance 
like TIGER grants to extend the first phase and close gaps in this 
important new system.
  This bill puts roadblocks in the path that the SMART project and 
projects similar to it all over this country. In addition, this bill 
contains a rider blocking funding for California's high-speed rail 
project. We shouldn't undermine State and local efforts to invest in 
transportation infrastructure and to promote economic development, and 
I urge a ``no'' vote on this unwise and unwarranted bill.
  With my remaining time, Mr. Chairman, I also want to encourage the 
FHA to expand their PowerSaver pilot program to address the unique 
condition of many Native American communities, where housing is often 
in great need and capital is difficult to access.
  Congress should enable homeowners to make cost-effective energy-
saving improvements to their houses. This body took an important step 
in 2009 by creating the PowerSaver pilot program, which has helped in 
financing and construction of energy-efficient homes.
  Since that time, homeowners all over the country have taken advantage 
of the program, worked with private lenders to purchase ENERGY STAR-
certified furnaces, air conditioners, improve insulation, and install 
solar units.
  This, in turn, has spurred investment in our housing sector. It has 
created jobs and saved money for homeowners. These are goals all of us 
should support.
  We should be expanding this program to Native American communities. 
Native American communities across the country, including the Karuk 
Tribe in my district, have embraced sustainable and energy-efficient 
housing. This is lowering their electrical bills, increasing the value 
of their homes, and reducing dependency on dirty energy sources.
  To enable other tribes, though, to make similar investments in their 
homes, the FHA will need to make substantive changes to the PowerSaver 
program, and I am very pleased that this underlying bill that we are 
considering already demonstrates support for Native American 
communities by fully funding the Indian Housing Block Grant and section 
184 programs, but I encourage the FHA to go further to build on that 
support by ensuring that these programs, like PowerSaver, are 
implemented with all communities in mind.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. First, Mr. Chair, let me just say that I join 
my other colleagues in opposition to the drastic cuts that this bill 
sets forth for the TIGER program, as well as language that would 
prohibit important environmentally sustainable projects from competing 
for these grants.
  We know that smart and targeted investments in infrastructure 
projects grow local economies, and they create good-paying jobs.
  I know firsthand the effectiveness of this program in my own 
district, at the Port of Oakland, for example, and the East Bay 
Greenway, where local agencies have leveraged flexible TIGER grant 
funds to bring projects toward completion. These cuts now will reduce 
private sector investments, which are

[[Page H5155]]

essential to public-private partnerships.
  These urban projects around the country need to be able to compete 
for this important source of funding, and these funding levels and 
policy provisions simply won't allow that to happen.
  We spend billions, mind you, billions on infrastructure projects in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Why not in our own country? TIGER grants allow us 
to nation-build here at home, and we need this desperately.
  I look forward to working with our ranking member and our chair, so 
that we can fix the funding level as this bill goes to conference. I 
think we know on both sides of the aisle that these grants have created 
jobs and economic opportunities and have helped create and fix our 
infrastructure. It is very important that we fully fund these TIGER 
grants.
  So, again, I thank the ranking member, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, this discussion tonight is, I think, 
exemplary of the dysfunctionality of this place. No matter whose fault 
it is, we are not serving the public.
  I just came in from the break on a Third World road from Dulles 
Airport here to the Capitol, and if anybody wonders whether or not we 
are falling behind other countries, visit China. Look at the percentage 
of their GDP being spent on infrastructure compared to ours.
  I would like to talk about what we call T-HUD, which affects 
Americans in every single State in this country.
  There is no Republican road. There is no Democratic road. There is no 
Independent road or Tea Party road or Black Panther road. We all have 
to live in this Nation and function on the roads we build, and the only 
people on this planet--the only people on planet Earth who can make a 
decision about TIGER and our infrastructure are people who were elected 
to sit in this place. It is us.
  In the first 4 years of TIGER, funds were awarded to all 50 States. 
TIGER funds are nearly evenly dispersed across the Central, South, 
West, North, and East regions of this great country. The Department of 
Transportation is required by statute to ensure TIGER funds are awarded 
to rural communities, as well as urban.
  These grants are used to build highways, repair badly damaged 
bridges, and upgrade rail. They are used to help communities who are 
struggling in this period of economic recovery to make key investments 
in their infrastructure and bolster local economies.
  This bill would decimate TIGER funding, destroying one of the most 
successful Federal programs in generating bottom-up transportation 
solutions to our Nation's crumbling infrastructure problem.
  TIGER has made a tremendous impact in my district, and I can recall 
the names of projects, from the Green Impact Zone, Troost Avenue Bridge 
over Brush Creek, all of these improvements in the communities have 
made my congressional district better.
  Then last year, TIGER provided $20 million to help finance the 2.2-
mile streetcar project in downtown Kansas City, Missouri. The streetcar 
project will encourage economic development and housing, and along the 
line, we will also see a whole new community being rebuilt.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what is going to happen, but I do hope 
that we can make a decision that, at least on the infrastructure, we 
can put partisanship and this political tribalism to the side and do 
what is in the best interest of the American public.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 85, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $7,100,000)''.
       Page 87, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $17,600,000)''.
       Page 156, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $24,700,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend from Missouri that 
Congress is dysfunctional.
  I am told by people that were here in the late seventies, eighties, 
nineties, that if a President started usurping power of the 
legislature, of the Congress, that very quietly, the leaders of the 
House and Senate from both parties would make a quick trip down 
Pennsylvania Avenue to tell the President that he either needed to stop 
usurping congressional authority, start living within the law, or quit 
being lawless, and that would have generally taken care of it, and it 
was a bipartisan and bicameral effort.
  Unfortunately, this body is dysfunctional, when you look at the 
efforts to protect an administration that keeps acting lawlessly.
  I would like to have had accurate numbers showing the percentage of 
section 8 housing that is being provided to people illegally; that is, 
providing section 8 housing to people who are not authorized, who are 
getting that housing against the law, mainly people illegally here, but 
the last official numbers that my staff and I could find go back to the 
January 1, 2009.
  Under the Bush administration, 0.4 percent of section 8 housing was 
going to people illegally. In other words, it was illegally going to 
people because they were not authorized to be here.
  There are indications from a report in 2010 that it increased to 1.17 
percent, but, Mr. Chairman, I just felt that it was imperative for us 
to send a message: if you are not going to provide the housing to 
Americans who desperately need it and you are going to continue to 
provide housing to people who are not legally authorized to have that 
housing, then we will make a small cut here.
  Then we will get more accurate numbers in the future, and we will 
continue to cut the program until the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development gets serious about making sure that only people authorized 
under the law to have the section 8 housing get it.
  So we took four-tenths of a percent times that set-aside for the 
Public Housing Capital Fund at line 3 and the same percentage from the 
Public Housing Operating Fund at line 24, page 87, and then added that 
to the spending reduction account.
  Why? Because this generation has shown that we are immoral. We, like 
no other generation before us, are spending lavishly on our own 
generation without regard for the massive millstone--or albatross, if 
you prefer--around future generations' necks. That is immoral. That is 
immoral that we cannot live within our means, and we would cast that 
upon future generations.
  So with that, I would argue for the passage of this amendment. It 
does not legislate. It simply appropriates a more appropriate amount.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate very much the gentleman raising the issue.
  I think we should remember, this is an appropriation bill. It is a 
funding bill. It is not an authorizing bill. This is an issue that 
should be dealt with by the committee of jurisdiction, which needs to 
make a lot of changes at HUD. There is no question about it.

                              {time}  2000

  This is a funding bill, and, Mr. Chairman, we have already made 
tough, responsible choices in the bill, and we have already cut the 
Public Housing Capital Fund by $100 million below last year. So while 
the gentleman wants to cut a little bit more, I understand that, but 
the fact of the matter is we are down $100 million from last year.
  The Public Housing Operating Fund is held at last year's level of 
$4.4 billion. I really think to cut any more out of this could possibly 
pose a risk to the health and safety of our housing capital.
  For those reasons, again, I appreciate the gentleman's bringing the 
issue forward, it is an authorizing issue, and on this, as a funding 
bill, I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5156]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I also rise in opposition. As the chairman has 
outlined, both funds are either underfunded or at the same level, and 
the consequence of additional cuts will probably cause many, many 
individuals who qualify for public housing to either leave public 
housing or not be able then to enter. For those reasons, we oppose the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. ESTY. I rise today to express my opposition to the funding 
priorities in this appropriations bill. While I am supportive of 
advancing the appropriations bills in a timely manner, this bill 
underfunds many important programs and initiatives, including TIGER 
grants, the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Program, housing 
assistance, and our rail and transportation initiative.
  In Connecticut, community leaders in Waterbury and Meriden have 
applied for TIGER grants to undertake important improvement projects in 
their cities. TIGER grants are critical for our communities to leverage 
Federal funds to create lasting, substantial improvements. But, 
unfortunately, this bill underfunds the TIGER grant program. This bill 
funds TIGER grants at $500 million less than last year, and $1.15 
billion less than the President's request. TIGER grants are essential 
to provide that leverage for our State and local communities to make 
those choices about what will create jobs and allow those created jobs 
we have be something people can get to by using the highways, as my 
colleagues have already mentioned the difficulty, particularly in the 
Northeast, with our aging infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to the TIGER provisions of the bill, one of 
the most important, life-saving programs is the Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction program. Approximately 23 million U.S. households have 
significant lead-based paint hazards. The Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction program gives funds for lead abatement in low-income 
communities, where the combination of lead paint and inadequate 
nutrition makes young children particularly vulnerable to learning 
disabilities.
  I am disappointed that this bill funds that program at $40 million 
below last year and $50 million less than the President's budget 
request. With 23 million households still having significant exposure 
to lead-based paint, we must fully fund this program to protect our 
children and young families.
  In Connecticut, we are still recovering from the recession, and we 
have the seventh-most-expensive housing market in the country. In 
Danbury, an individual making the minimum wage--which is higher in 
Connecticut than Federal minimum wage--would need 3.5 full-time jobs to 
afford a two-bedroom rental apartment.
  That is why HUD's public housing and housing choice vouchers are 
essential in my State and my community, and why it is so disappointing 
that HUD is not funded at a level to restore the housing vouchers that 
were lost during sequestration.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we need to get serious about investing in our 
highways and rail infrastructure. Just last Friday, the railroad bridge 
in Norwalk, Connecticut, failed, stranding thousands of passengers, 
including our colleague, Congressman Jim Himes. The bridge--which was 
built in 1895--is now 118 years old and in desperate need of repair. 
Earlier today, the entire Connecticut delegation sent a letter to the 
Department of Transportation asking that the State receive funding to 
repair this very old and crumbling bridge. We should not have to wait 
until the bridge falls down or the train derails to repair our 
country's infrastructure. Unfortunately, this bill does not adequately 
fund the needs of the Federal Transit Administration.
  Until we do our job together in this body and fully fund the 
Department of Transportation, our bridges and roads will continue to 
fail. These are, indeed, tough budgetary times, but we must fund our 
transportation and housing programs to protect and to serve the 
constituents we represent.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, in addition to all of the other 
problems that my colleagues have cited, this bill would exclude 
walking, biking, and transit projects from TIGER funding, wrongly 
suggesting that these are not crucial parts of our transportation 
network. Rails to trails projects, like the one championed by the Mount 
Washington Valley Trails Association in New Hampshire, are innovative 
and important. According to Transportation for America, more than 11 
percent of all trips are made by biking, and more than 12 percent by 
walking. We should continue to invest in transportation infrastructure 
that our constituents rely on and keep this TIGER program strong.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     public housing operating fund

       For 2015 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)), $4,400,000,000.

                    choice neighborhoods initiative

       For competitive grants under the Choice Neighborhoods 
     Initiative (subject to section 24 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v), unless otherwise 
     specified under this heading), for transformation, 
     rehabilitation, and replacement housing needs of both public 
     and HUD-assisted housing and to transform neighborhoods of 
     poverty into functioning, sustainable mixed income 
     neighborhoods with appropriate services, schools, public 
     assets, transportation and access to jobs, $25,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That 
     grant funds may be used for resident and community services, 
     community development, and affordable housing needs in the 
     community, and for conversion of vacant or foreclosed 
     properties to affordable housing: Provided further, That the 
     use of funds made available under this heading shall not be 
     deemed to be public housing notwithstanding section 3(b)(1) 
     of such Act: Provided further, That grantees shall commit to 
     an additional period of affordability determined by the 
     Secretary of not fewer than 20 years: Provided further, That 
     grantees shall undertake comprehensive local planning with 
     input from residents and the community, and that grantees 
     shall provide a match in State, local, other Federal or 
     private funds: Provided further, That grantees may include 
     local governments, tribal entities, public housing 
     authorities, and nonprofits: Provided further, That for-
     profit developers may apply jointly with a public entity: 
     Provided further, That such grantees shall create 
     partnerships with other local organizations including 
     assisted housing owners, service agencies, and resident 
     organizations: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     consult with the Secretaries of Education, Labor, 
     Transportation, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and 
     Commerce, the Attorney General, and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate and leverage 
     other appropriate Federal resources: Provided further, That 
     unobligated balances remaining from funds appropriated under 
     this heading and the heading ``Revitalization of Severely 
     Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI)'' in fiscal year 2014 and 
     prior fiscal years may be used for purposes under this 
     heading notwithstanding the purposes for which such amounts 
     were appropriated: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available under this paragraph may be used for a grant 
     to a recipient that has previously received a Choice 
     Neighborhoods Initiative implementation grant.

                        family self-sufficiency

       For the Family Self-Sufficiency program to support family 
     self-sufficiency coordinators under section 23 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, to promote the development of 
     local strategies to coordinate the use of assistance under 
     sections 8(o) and 9 of such Act with public and private 
     resources, and enable eligible families to achieve economic 
     independence and self-sufficiency, $75,000,000: Provided, 
     That the Secretary may, by Federal Register notice, waive or 
     specify alternative requirements under subsections b(3), 
     b(4), b(5), or c(1) of section 23 of such Act in order for 
     public housing agencies, owners and the Department to 
     administer and to facilitate the operation of a unified self-
     sufficiency program for individuals receiving assistance 
     under different provisions of the Act, as determined by the 
     Secretary.

[[Page H5157]]

                  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, 2019: 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, $3,000,000 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 as authorized under 
     NAHASDA: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     under the previous proviso, not less than $2,000,000 shall be 
     made available for a national organization as authorized 
     under section 703 of NAHASDA (25 U.S.C. 4212): Provided 
     further, That of the amounts made available under this 
     heading, $2,000,000 shall be to support the inspection of 
     Indian housing units, contract expertise, training, and 
     technical assistance in the training, oversight, and 
     management of such Indian housing and tenant-based 
     assistance, including up to $300,000 for related travel: 
     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 
     $16,530,000: Provided further, That the Department will 
     notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of 
     the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, 
     notwithstanding section 302(d) of NAHASDA, if on January 1, 
     2015, a recipient's total amount of undisbursed block grants 
     in the Department's line of credit control system is greater 
     than three times the formula allocation it would otherwise 
     receive under this heading, the Secretary shall adjust that 
     recipient's formula allocation down by the difference between 
     its total amount of undisbursed block grants in the 
     Department's line of credit control system on January 1, 
     2015, and three times the formula allocation it would 
     otherwise receive: Provided further, That grant amounts not 
     allocated to a recipient pursuant to the previous proviso 
     shall be allocated under the need component of the formula 
     proportionately among all other Indian tribes not subject to 
     an adjustment: Provided further, That the two previous 
     provisos shall not apply to any Indian tribe that would 
     otherwise receive a formula allocation of less than 
     $5,000,000: Provided further, That to take effect, the three 
     previous provisos do not require the issuance of any 
     regulation.

           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), $8,000,000, 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 $1,200,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided further, That up 
     to $750,000 of this amount may be 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.), $305,900,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2016, except that amounts 
     allocated pursuant to section 854(c)(3) of such Act shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall renew all expiring contracts for permanent 
     supportive housing that initially were funded under section 
     854(c)(3) of such Act from funds made available under this 
     heading in fiscal year 2010 and prior fiscal years that meet 
     all program requirements before awarding funds for new 
     contracts under such section, and if amounts provided under 
     this heading pursuant to such section are insufficient to 
     fund renewals for all such expiring contracts, then amounts 
     made available under this heading for formula grants pursuant 
     to section 854(c)(1) shall be used to provide the balance of 
     such renewal funding before awarding funds for such formula 
     grants: Provided further, That the Department shall notify 
     grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of 
     enactment of this Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 93, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $29,100,000)''.
       Page 114, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $29,100,000)''.
       Page 114, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $29,100,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, since 1992, the Housing Opportunity for 
Persons With Aids, or HOPWA, has provided a vital safety net for people 
living with HIV/AIDS. In the United States, 50,000 people become 
infected with HIV every year, and 1.1 million people are living with 
HIV/AIDS. More than 500,000 of those individuals will need some form of 
housing assistance during the course of their illness, but 145,000 of 
these individuals will have unmet housing needs.
  Housing interventions are critical in our continued fight against 
HIV/AIDS, and research clearly shows that stable housing leads to 
better health outcomes. Inadequately or unstably housed individuals are 
less likely to access routine medical care and more likely to rely on 
costly emergency and acute care that leads to far higher health care 
costs. Providing stable housing to people with HIV/AIDS has an 
immediate impact on the health outcomes, reducing the risk of 
transmission to a partner by 96 percent, reducing emergency room visits 
by 36 percent, and reducing hospitalizations by 57 percent. In other 
words, investing a modest amount in HOPWA today saves us millions, if 
not billions, of Federal taxpayer dollars in the future, not to mention 
many lives.
  HOPWA is the only Federal program to provide cities and States with 
dedicated resources to address the housing crisis facing people living 
with HIV/AIDS. And yet, despite the bipartisan agreement on HOPWA's 
effectiveness and the clear need for additional funding, this 
legislation provides only $305.9 million for HOPWA in FY15, a cut of 
more than $24 million from last year, and pushes HOPWA funding below 
its fiscal year 2008 funding levels, despite an estimated 300,000 
people being newly infected with HIV since that time. At this abysmally 
low funding level, thousands of families and individuals will lose 
access to HOPWA and face dire health consequences.
  My amendment would stop this devastating cut by increasing HOPWA 
funding by $29.1 million and restoring the program to $335 billion, the 
level it received 5 years ago in fiscal year 2010. I recognize $29 
million may sound small by Federal budgeting standards, but this 
additional funding will ensure that those families and individuals who 
rely on HOPWA for secure, stable housing will not suddenly find 
themselves back on the street with no access to lifesaving medical 
treatment.
  To protect those living with HIV/AIDS and to stay within the House 
rules, my amendment offsets this additional funding through cuts to 
HUD's Information Technology fund. I recognize--I recognize--the 
importance of providing HUD with phones and computers, but nothing is 
more important, quite simply, than saving lives. We must pass this 
amendment and give those families battling HIV/AIDS a fighting chance.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
appreciate very much the gentleman's effort to help more vulnerable 
households by increasing funding for HOPWA, but I simply cannot support 
this amendment.
  The increase is offset by a more than 30 percent reduction in funding 
for HUD's information technology systems. These systems are critical to 
HUD's ability to oversee billions of dollars in grants, subsidies, and 
loans. Many HUD systems are antiquated and require significant 
maintenance and investment to keep operating. A cut of this magnitude 
would undermine the

[[Page H5158]]

agency's ability to function, so I would urge a ``no'' vote and also 
remind folks that there is $305 million for HOPWA in the bill already, 
a slight reduction from last year, but with our allocation, very 
significant funding for this program.
  So I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. 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 New York 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       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, $3,060,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2017, unless otherwise 
     specified: Provided, That of the total amount provided, 
     $3,000,000,000 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 a metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local 
     government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or 
     indirectly receives funds under this heading may not sell, 
     trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of such funds 
     to another such entity in exchange for any other funds, 
     credits or non-Federal considerations, but must use such 
     funds for activities eligible under title I of the Act: 
     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: 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.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capito

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 94, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 94, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 97, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $100,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
would increase funding for a program critical for the development of 
our local communities.
  The Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, has been essential to 
helping our local communities address critical needs and improve 
residents' quality of life. Many of these communities struggle to find 
funds to improve lower-income or underutilized areas, and the CDGB is a 
lifesaver for these towns.
  In my home State of West Virginia, this program has funded critical 
sewer and infrastructure projects, improving residents' health and 
their quality of life. More than 92,000 West Virginians have benefited 
from $71 million in Community Development Block Grants over the last 5 
years. It is invaluable to rural States like West Virginia.
  Despite its proven track record, funding for the CDBG program has 
been cut every year. As we prioritize programs in this appropriations 
bill, it is my belief that the CDBG program and the residents it helps 
should be considered a priority. In this era of fiscal restraint and 
responsibility, we must use taxpayer dollars where they can have the 
most impact, and my amendment would increase the CDBG by $100 million, 
redirecting $100 million from the troubled HOME program.

                              {time}  2015

  This redirection makes my amendment budget-neutral. While the HOME 
program has had some success, the evidence shows it is a program 
struggling from dubious oversight that has been slow to adapt to 
improvements that have been suggested by the Government Accountability 
Office.
  States are not even using all of their HOME funds. Last year, HUD 
recaptured $16 million from States who didn't spend the funds that were 
granted. In the State of West Virginia, HUD has recaptured millions of 
dollars, and HUD officials have told me that the HOME program is 
scheduled to have even more funds recaptured due to inactivity.
  It is clear that the HOME program has more than enough money, and we 
should be reallocating these funds towards programs that work, like the 
CDBG. It is a vital program, and I ask my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who is a 
staunch supporter of CDBG.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  During meetings held the past 3 years with West Virginia government 
officials, they consistently state that the money for infrastructure 
upgrades like sewer and water lines is an absolute priority. The 
program that funds these projects is what the gentlewoman said, the 
Community Development Block Grant, known as CDBG.
  This amendment would provide much-needed funding for CDBG and provide 
vital funds for improving sewer and water lines throughout America, 
rehabilitating public buildings, and assisting economic development 
initiatives.
  The past 2 years and, again, this year, President Obama has cut 
crucial funding to the CDBG program. Therefore, I am honored to work 
with my fellow colleague from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito, on 
an amendment to once again put the money back into this program that 
the President took away.
  Mr. Chairman, the CDBG program has made a difference in the lives of 
Americans, thousands of people all across West Virginia, and this 
country. That is why, even in difficult financial times, we must make 
sure that the CDBG is fully funded. I urge support of this amendment.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his support. We 
know, in rural States like West Virginia, how important this program 
is, not to fund entire projects, but to backfill and frontfill projects 
that absolutely would not get done without the great help of the 
communities joining together and using the CDBG funds in the proper and 
right fashion to enhance the quality of life for so many across this 
country.
  With that, 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
think we should keep in mind that we have $3 billion in the Community 
Development Block Grant account. That is slightly less than last year 
by $30 million, but there are $3 billion in that.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's effort to increase funding, but the 
offset for that increase is a $100 million reduction to the HOME 
program, which is already reduced by $300 million, so we are already 
cutting HOME by $300 million from the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
  It is important to remember that, just a few years ago, the HOME 
program was funded at $1.6 billion. In this bill, it will be at $700 
million, so it is less than half of what it was at that time.
  The program is targeted to the development of affordable housing that 
benefits low-income families, and we don't believe, at this point, a 
further reduction is warranted. So while I appreciate the benefits of 
the block grants, I must urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, while I support the intention of

[[Page H5159]]

the amendment--I am a supporter of CDBG--the program that the Member 
seeks to increase is one that is worthwhile and successful, and if we 
had a better allocation, we would have provided more for CDBG.
  However, I must rise in opposition to the amendment because of the 
offset. It is my hope that we can improve the funding levels of this 
bill as we conference with the Senate.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. 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 gentlewoman from West 
Virginia will be postponed.


               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 94, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 94, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 156, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $200,000,000)''

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, two of my colleagues just came 
asking to increase the Community Development Block Grant program by 
$100 million, and actually, the bill itself has an increase above the 
President's request by $200 million.
  Sometimes, I agree with the President, and sometimes, I don't; and 
this is one time I do agree with the President. The President only 
requested $2.8 billion for the Community Development Block Grant 
program, and this bill would appropriate $3 billion.
  So my amendment would remove the $200 million increase over the Obama 
administration's FY 2015 budgetary request--and only increase--from the 
Community Development Block Grant program and transfer that amount to 
the spending reduction account. Why the committee has chosen to go 
above and beyond what even the President has requested fails me.
  Mr. Chairman, the Community Development Block Grant program is one of 
the most wasteful and ineffective programs found within the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development. It was originally proposed by 
President Gerald Ford in his effort to revitalize decaying and low-
income neighborhoods in American cities and towns.
  Unfortunately, CDBG has strayed from its original purpose. Today, 
many of these grants have been diverted to wasteful, parochial 
projects, such as funding a pet shampoo company, issuing risky business 
loans, paying for renovation of a wealthy multinational architectural 
company, and I can go on and on.
  I am not asking that we eliminate this program or even drastically 
cut its funding. Mr. Chairman, I am simply asking that we do not 
increase this funding above what the President has asked for and that 
we put the rest of this large increase toward paying down our Nation's 
debt. I urge my colleagues to support my 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This 
is obviously just the opposite of the previous amendment in the 
reduction of our proposed amount of $3 billion for the Community 
Development Block Grant.
  This amendment would accept the President's proposal to cut $230 
million from the Community Development Block Grant program. Our bill 
already has a small reduction, $30 million, from what was enacted last 
year.
  The CDBG program provides critical funding to State and local 
jurisdictions for affordable housing, economic development, and public 
service projects such as homeless shelters.
  What is great about the program is that the grants are very flexible, 
which empowers jurisdictions to identify and fund investments that meet 
local priorities. Also, these funds often attract significant 
coinvestment from private and other non-Federal sources.
  CDBG is an important source of Federal partnership and support in 
many of our jurisdictions, and so I must urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I would tell my colleague from 
Georgia: if there is one line item in this bill that has bipartisan 
support in terms of keeping the program and funding it at this level, 
this is it.
  So I would tell him that even I, because of the bipartisan agreement, 
that I would rise in opposition to his 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 amendment was rejected.


               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 94, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 94, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 156, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I will try again. This amendment 
is much like my previous amendment.
  As I noted before, this bill provides for a $200 million increase 
above the President's request in the Community Development Block Grant 
program, by his request, the President's request, the Democratic 
President's request for the FY 2015 budget.
  My previous amendment would have removed that $200 million increase 
above the President's request in its entirety. This amendment just cuts 
10 percent of that increase above the President's request, $20 
million--which is a lot of money to most Georgians, it seems to be not 
a lot of money around here, but it is a lot of money to me--and it 
transfers that sum to the spending reduction account.
  Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier about wasteful spending being funded by 
the Community Development Block Grant program, and I would like to take 
this opportunity to provide some examples.
  The State of Nebraska has directed approximately $500,000 in taxpayer 
funds, hard-earned money, from the CDBG grant program to a pet shampoo 
company.
  The State of Vermont has directed $255,000 of its Federally-funded 
Community Development Block Grant to support a program for graduates 
for the Center of Cartoon Studies.
  The Community Development Block Grant program has provided $356,000 
to pay for infrastructure improvements for a meat snack manufacturer 
that makes beef jerky.
  Mr. Chairman, I love pets--particularly dogs--I love cartoons, and I 
really like beef jerky, and I like these things as much as anyone, but 
I fail to see how it is appropriate for the Federal Government to 
provide taxpayer money to fund these projects.
  Again, I am not asking to eliminate the Community Development Block 
Grant program or even cut its funding below the FY 2014 levels.
  Obviously, my amendment to cut out the increase above the President's 
requested amount to CDBG failed. Now, I am just asking to cut out just 
20 percent of that increase above the President's level.
  So if my colleagues cannot bring themselves to cut the entire $200 
million increase over the President's budget request, then let's cut at 
least one small percentage of that increase, just 10 percent, and save 
the American taxpayers $20 million. I urge my colleagues to support my 
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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
will not go through the merits of the program again, but the fact of 
the matter

[[Page H5160]]

is we are $30 million less than the enacted level from last year, so 
there is a reduction in the account.
  A lot of people would say ``unfortunately,'' but there is, in fact, a 
reduction, and for that reason, I would oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I also rise in opposition to the amendment and 
oppose 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 Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         community development loan guarantees program account

                         (including rescission)

       Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, during fiscal year 2015, commitments to guarantee loans 
     under section 108 of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308), any part of which is 
     guaranteed, shall not exceed a total principal amount of 
     $500,000,000, notwithstanding any aggregate limitation on 
     outstanding obligations guaranteed in subsection (k) of such 
     section 108: Provided, That the Secretary shall collect fees 
     from borrowers, notwithstanding subsection (m) of such 
     section 108, to result in a credit subsidy cost of zero for 
     guaranteeing such loans, and any such fees shall be collected 
     in accordance with section 502(7) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974: Provided further, That all unobligated balances, 
     including recaptures and carryover, remaining from funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development under this heading are hereby permanently 
     rescinded.

                  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, $700,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2017: 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 allocations of such amount: 
     Provided further, That the requirements under provisos 2 
     through 6 under this heading for fiscal year 2012 and such 
     requirements applicable pursuant to the ``Full-Year 
     Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013'', shall not apply to any 
     project to which funds were committed on or after August 23, 
     2013, but such projects shall instead be governed by the 
     Final Rule titled ``Home Investment Partnerships Program; 
     Improving Performance and Accountability; Updating Property 
     Standards'' which became effective on such date: Provided 
     further, That funds provided in prior appropriations Acts for 
     technical assistance, which were made available for Community 
     Housing Development Organizations technical assistance, and 
     which 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: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount provided under this heading, up to 
     $10,000,000 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 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note).

                           capacity building

       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), $35,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2017, of which not 
     less than $5,000,000 shall be made available for rural 
     capacity-building activities. In addition, $5,000,000 shall 
     be made available for capacity building by national rural 
     housing organizations with experience assessing national 
     rural conditions and providing financing, training, technical 
     assistance, information, and research to local non-profits, 
     local governments, and Indian Tribes serving high-need rural 
     communities.

                       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, $2,105,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That any 
     rental assistance amounts that are recaptured under such 
     continuum of care program shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That not less than $200,000,000 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     available for such emergency solutions grants program: 
     Provided further, That not less than $1,800,000,000 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 $5,000,000 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 the Secretary may renew on an annual 
     basis expiring contracts or amendments to contracts funded 
     under the continuum of care program if the program is 
     determined to be needed under the applicable continuum of 
     care and meets appropriate program requirements, performance 
     measures, and financial standards, as determined by the 
     Secretary: 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 
     2015: Provided further, That with respect to funds provided 
     under this heading for the continuum of care program for 
     fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 provision of 
     permanent housing rental assistance may be administered by 
     private nonprofit organizations: 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.

                              {time}  2030


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Duffy

  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 99, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, this town, this Congress, spends a lot of 
money to alleviate the pain of poverty, of homelessness, and hunger, 
but a majority of that money is focused on urban centers. I don't take 
issue with that. There is a lot of poverty in the urban parts of our 
country. But so often, the rural parts of America are forgotten.
  I have to tell you, coming from rural America, the pain of poverty is 
just as great, and it affects our communities in rural America just 
like in urban America. Oftentimes, it can be a lot more complicated, 
poverty in rural America.
  The face of poverty is different in rural America. Instead of having 
families living on the street, oftentimes we see neighbors, two, three 
families move into a single-room apartment so they can give their kids 
shelter.
  Last year I hosted a homelessness and hunger summit where I brought 
in people who provide food and shelter for folks in rural Wisconsin. We 
had a conversation about what we can do better out of Washington to 
help them address the pain of this poverty in our community. In regard 
to the homeless shelters, their main point was that they need 
flexibility so that they can address the risks of homelessness in our 
community.
  In 2009, a program was included in the HEARTH Act called the Rural 
Housing Stability Assistance program. This program allows rural 
communities to serve individuals that don't necessarily meet HUD's 
definition of homelessness but are, in fact, without a stable home of 
their own.
  My amendment is very simple and doesn't cost a lot of money. It would

[[Page H5161]]

allow $10 million to be made available for the Rural Housing Stability 
Assistance program.
  Now, take a look at how much money we spend on homelessness--$2.1 
billion. My amendment asks for $10 million to be used for the Rural 
Housing Stability Assistance program. Let's not forget rural America.
  Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUFFY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman makes a very compelling argument, and we 
would accept the amendment.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, with that, I think this is important. I 
appreciate the chairman's support, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, Conyers No. 
1.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 99, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, this amendment seeks to 
increase funding for the National Homeless Data Analysis Project by $2 
million. This requested increase from $5 million to $7 million is 
consistent with both the President's budget request and the 
appropriations bill the Senate reported out of the committee late last 
week.
  The level of funding provided for in this bill falls below not just 
requested amounts, but also below the current enacted amount for this 
program. My amendment amount would solve this discrepancy.
  Mr. Chair, homelessness is not only corrosive to individual lives, 
but also to our national character. It is unthinkable that more than a 
million people routinely go homeless in the most prosperous nation this 
world has ever known.
  In the struggle to eliminate homelessness, the National Homeless Data 
Analysis Project is essential. In 2001, Congress directed HUD to ``take 
the lead on data collection'' on homelessness, and the result was this 
project. It provides critical resources to communities to improve data 
collection, reporting, and integration of data with other Federal 
funding streams.
  Over the past decade, the data collection, integration, and reporting 
produced by this project has allowed HUD and other agencies to move 
away from using largely anecdotal and often inconsistent evidence to 
using quality data for policy decisions.
  At the end of the day, no matter which side of the aisle we sit on, 
this is the type of initiative we should all support. Better 
information leads to better decisionmaking and, ultimately, better 
policy outcomes, particularly in times of shrinking budgets.
  In a policy arena as important as homeless assistance, this House 
cannot afford to underfund enhanced data collection initiatives. A vote 
for this amendment is a vote for smarter use of Federal funds and a 
vote to make every homeless assistance program better targeted and more 
effective.
  In my own district, homelessness is a chronic problem. In the Detroit 
area during 2012, over 19,000 people were homeless at some point. That 
figure includes nearly 4,000 children. In order to help them, however, 
we need to understand the circumstances that have forced them onto the 
streets.
  The 6,000 homeless families with children in Detroit have different 
needs than homeless adults. Certain similarities between those who are 
homeless because of unaffordable housing and those who are homeless 
because of mental illness or domestic violence may hide the critical 
differences that prevent help from achieving its intended goal.
  I fully support any project that would lead to a better accounting of 
the real experiences of the poorest people in my district or anyone 
else's and ultimately result in better decisionmaking in the provision 
and administration of Federal homeless assistance programs. I hope and 
feel certain that my colleagues feel the same.
  This measure is, quite simply, about good government. This measure is 
not a budget increase. This amendment would simply grant discretion to 
allocate up to $2 million of the already existing funding in the bill 
for homelessness assistance grants to the National Homeless Data 
Analysis Project. It would not increase the overall appropriations 
under the heading for homelessness assistance grants. Under the $2.1 
billion heading for homelessness assistance grant, there is still 
approximately $100 million in flexibility.
  I urge support for the National Homeless Data Analysis Project. I 
urge support for smarter usage of Federal funds; and I urge support for 
enhanced policy outcomes. I thank you for the time, and I hope that we 
can pass this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       brownfields redevelopment

                              (rescission)

       Unobligated balances, including recaptures and carryover, 
     remaining from funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development under this heading are hereby 
     permanently rescinded.

  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Chairman, I want to first off thank my good friend 
from Iowa, Chairman Latham, for the hard work he has put into this 
bill. There is a matter that I think we are going to have to do some 
more work on.
  The Federal Government, through the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, each year allocates a significant amount of taxpayer 
dollars to public housing authorities to provide affordable and safe 
housing for those in need.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, some public housing authorities, 
executives of public housing authorities, are taking home excessively 
generous compensation packages each year, partly paid for with Federal 
dollars. One needs to look no further than the public housing authority 
in Raleigh, North Carolina, the Raleigh Housing Authority, to see an 
example of excessive compensation.
  Audits that I requested from both the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development and the Raleigh Housing Authority itself have brought 
to light this fundamental problem with compensation. When the executive 
director of the Raleigh Housing Authority manages a housing authority 
that ranks somewhere near 400th in terms of overall size but still 
receives a total compensation package, Mr. Chairman, that puts him in 
the top ten of all public housing authority directors in terms of 
salary and other benefits, it certainly raises some red flags to me.
  Following the disclosure of the executive director's compensation 
package, which brought about outrage from the local community and 
Congress, the Raleigh Housing Authority board made what amounts to 
cosmetic changes to their compensation practices--which still flout 
Congress' intent, in my opinion.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Latham and the T-HUD subcommittee 
for including provision section 227 in the base text that continues a 
cap on how many Federal dollars public housing authorities can use to 
compensate a chief executive officer or any other official or employee 
of a public housing authority. So I commend for that. I want to thank 
the chairman for his work on this issue and hope we can examine 
additional measures that Congress can take to ensure that public 
housing authorities serve the public.
  So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read 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, $9,346,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be available on October 1, 2014 (in addition 
     to the $400,000,000 previously appropriated under

[[Page H5162]]

     this heading that became available October 1, 2014), and 
     $400,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be 
     available on October 1, 2015: Provided, That the amounts made 
     available under this heading shall be available for expiring 
     or terminating section 8 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 $210,000,000 shall 
     be available for assistance agreements with performance-based 
     contract administrators for section 8 project-based 
     assistance, for carrying out 42 U.S.C. 1437(f): 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); 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 or a Housing Finance Agency 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 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, 
     $420,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2018: 
     Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading, up 
     to $70,000,000 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.

                 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, $135,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2018: 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, $47,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2016, including up to 
     $4,500,000 for administrative contract services: Provided, 
     That grants made available from amounts provided under this 
     heading shall be awarded within 180 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.

                       rental housing assistance

       For amendments to contracts under section 101 of the 
     Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s) 
     and section 236(f)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1715z-1) in State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects, 
     $28,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such amount, together with unobligated balances from 
     recaptured amounts appropriated prior to fiscal year 2006 
     from terminated contracts under such sections of law, and any 
     unobligated balances, including recaptures and carryover, 
     remaining from funds appropriated under this heading after 
     fiscal year 2005, shall also be available for extensions of 
     up to one year for expiring contracts under such sections of 
     law.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 106, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 156, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will remove the $7 
million increase over current spending levels, this year, fiscal year 
2014 funding levels, to the rental housing assistance account to the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and transfer that 
amount to the spending reduction account.

                              {time}  2045

  I understand that times are tough nationwide. They are tough for 
families, they are tough for businesses, and everyone has had to cut 
back. Unfortunately, the fact remains that we as our Nation are in an 
incredible amount of debt. It is an unsustainable amount of debt.
  Let me be clear, I am not asking that we cut funding for this program 
at all above this year's level. I am just asking that we simply hold 
the line--fund what we have been funding, not increase it, as proposed 
by this legislation.
  I think it is irresponsible to continue expanding programs without 
being able to pay for them. We are in an economic emergency as a 
Nation. We are headed to an economic collapse of America if we don't 
stop spending money that we don't have. We have to restore fiscal 
sanity to Washington.
  I am just asking that we hold the line on this program. Cut the $7 
million increase that is proposed. I think that is reasonable. It is 
not a cut over current funding; it is holding the line.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and 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. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  The bill funds rental housing assistance at $28 million. This is the 
amount necessary to fund the 18,000 existing long-term project-based 
rental assistance contracts. This will ensure that these units remain 
available to low-income families. In fact, if the gentleman's amendment 
were adopted we would actually break contracts. We would not be able to 
fund contracts that we are legally obligated to do.
  The bill's funding levels are not arbitrary. We have scrubbed these 
accounts. We have held hearings and

[[Page H5163]]

made recommendations on what must be funded.
  Again, I must oppose it. There are no new contracts. We are not 
expanding the program; we are basically paying for what we already have 
in this account. Again, to have this reduction, we would, in fact, 
break our contract.
  With that, I oppose the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. This account renews long-term housing assistance contracts 
and the number varies from year to year. The amount needed to renew 
these contracts depends on how many agreements HUD entered into years 
ago, not the number we renewed last year.
  Reducing the funds in this account will threaten the viability of 
these units if the funding is not preserved.
  I oppose 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. 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 Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            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 $10,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $10,000,000 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 2015 so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2015 appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at zero, and fees pursuant to such section 620 
     shall be modified as necessary to ensure such a final fiscal 
     year 2015 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

       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, 
     2016: Provided, That during fiscal year 2015, obligations to 
     make direct loans to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) 
     of the National Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed 
     $20,000,000: 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, $130,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2016: Provided, That to the extent guaranteed 
     loan commitments exceed $200,000,000,000 on or before April 
     1, 2015, 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 $30,000,000,000 in total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided, That 
     during fiscal year 2015, 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, 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, 
     2016: Provided, That $22,000,000 shall be available for 
     necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of Government 
     National Mortgage Association: 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, and for 
     technical assistance, $40,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2016: 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: Provided further, That prior to obligation of 
     technical assistance, the Secretary shall submit a plan, for 
     approval, to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations on how it will allocate funding for this 
     activity.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 111, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 140, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, working with housing developments in 
my own district, there is an interest in making sure that the tenants 
are informed of their rights and responsibilities. This amendment 
provides for informing tenants of their rights and responsibilities.
  The amendment would increase funding to the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development's Policy Development and Research Office to support 
efforts to inform tenants of their rights and responsibilities.
  In 2012, 23.8 percent of Houstonians were living in poverty. 
According to the Christian Community Service Center, 17.3 percent of 
Houston families live below poverty. In the city of Houston, 31.3 
percent of children under the age of 18 live in poverty, and 33.6 
percent of children under the age of 5 live in poverty.
  The amendment will increase the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's Policy Development and Research funding. This amendment 
will support work by HUD to inform tenants of their rights and 
responsibilities. Those who provide shelter to residents of publicly 
subsidized housing may own monthly family dwellings or a single home.
  A relationship between the tenant and the property owner is very 
important to the long-term housing stability of those living in public 
or subsidized housing. Many residents of low-income communities may 
never have lived in a home of their own and may not have

[[Page H5164]]

the knowledge or experience to know the basics regarding their 
obligation as tenants to abide by rental agreements or the obligation 
of property owners to maintain safe and pest-free housing.
  It is my interest to continue to press forward for more information 
to the many housing developments that I have in my congressional 
district. I think it is important to give notice to the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development that a better job can be done.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read the following:

                   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, $46,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2016: 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.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 112, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 114, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 114, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is cosponsored by 
my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) who has been such 
a tremendous leader on fair housing and equal opportunity issues and 
civil rights issues since way before he came to Congress, but he has 
kept his passion and his focus on issues of fairness and justice even 
now to this day. So I just want to thank him for cosponsoring this 
amendment.
  Our amendment would increase funding for the Fair Housing Initiatives 
Program by 10 million, offset from Information Services. I want to 
thank the chairman, Mr. Latham, and Mr. Pastor for your assistance in 
helping us work through this and for your commitment to fair housing.
  Fair housing initiatives are a central component of our Nation's 
civil rights protections under the Fair Housing Act. Unfortunately, we 
know that despite gains, discrimination remains.
  This program funds competitive grants to provide nonprofit entities 
for critical education and enforcement services to prevent housing 
discrimination based on race, ethnicity, disability, veteran status, 
familial status, and other factors.
  In my home district, for example, in California, the Bay Area Legal 
Aid and Fair Housing of Marin have utilized these funds to provide 
critical education programs, including workshops on fair housing for 
domestic violence victims and investigations of discriminatory housing 
practices.
  In 2013, private fair housing organizations investigated more than 
twice as many housing complaints as government agencies. At the same 
time, however, many fair housing organizations have had to close or 
reduce their staffing capacity due to continuous cuts to this program.
  This program has a history of bipartisan support. And I know that my 
colleagues across the aisle acknowledge its vital role in ensuring that 
our constituents are not the subject of unfair and discriminatory 
practices in an increasingly competitive and uncertain housing market.
  While I am very pleased that we are able to provide this supplemental 
funding, I must also acknowledge that the funding levels across the 
bill are still far too low to truly provide the affordable housing 
resources that our Nation sorely needs.
  I want to thank again Congressman Al Green from Texas, Chairman 
Latham, and our ranking member, Mr. Pastor, for your support for this 
amendment and, more importantly, for this important program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Ms. Lee for her 
efforts and her work in trying to restore funding.
  Mr. Chairman, this does not bring it back to the FY14 funding level, 
but it does help. I am so grateful that Ms. Lee took the lead to get 
this done. She worked with the ranking member and the chair of the 
committee. I want to compliment and thank both of them for working with 
Ms. Lee to get this done.
  Let me mention this about this program. The Fair Housing Initiatives 
Program, affectionately known as FHIP, has been of great benefit to 
persons who are being discriminated against, especially veterans now. 
We have a good many veterans who are coming back. They don't return the 
way they left, and they are disabled. Many times when persons are 
discriminating against people, they don't know that the person is a 
veteran because the person happens to be in a wheelchair.
  This initiative allows for housing entities--NGOs--that are qualified 
and certified to actually do testing to ascertain whether or not this 
kind of invidious discrimination exists. When they do find that there 
is discrimination, most of the cases, about 70 percent, are resolved by 
way of reconciliation. There is not a lawsuit filed. There is a means 
by which people become educated, and they abide by the law.
  This opportunity for us to continue the program, notwithstanding the 
fact that it is not at the Senate level, it is not at the level that 
the President requested, but it is at an additional $10 million, and I 
am grateful to Ms. Lee for what she has done.
  Ms. Lee, I compliment you, and I am grateful that you took the time 
to work with our colleagues to show some bipartisanship in getting this 
done.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for your bipartisanship on this effort. Mr. 
Ranking Member, I thank you as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 112, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $150,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to raise by 50 
percent the cap on funding for the Limited English Proficiency 
initiative under the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity section of this 
bill, an amount more in keeping with the historical levels on spending 
for this initiative.
  This amendment passed by voice vote last year, and it is my hope that 
it will do so again this year. The Limited English Proficiency 
initiative within HUD is vital for ensuring that individuals who are 
not proficient in English are aware of their rights, are able to 
understand the terms of leases and other housing-related documents, and 
are able to receive important announcements that affect the health and 
safety of their households.

                              {time}  2100

  Additionally, this initiative educates HUD-assisted housing providers 
about their responsibilities under Federal law and HUD regulations to 
ensure that housing programs and activities are

[[Page H5165]]

fully accessible to all, regardless of national origin or English 
proficiency.
  Historically, the Limited English Proficiency initiative within HUD 
has been funded at $500,000. In the first year of its existence, 2008, 
it received $380,000. After that, from 2009 through 2011, it received 
$500,000. Then, with the change in leadership in this House, funding 
has slipped to $300,000 in recent years.
  Last year, however, this House--both Democrats and Republicans--did 
the right thing. It voted to raise the cap for this initiative, an 
initiative that translates documents outlining how to become a first-
time homeowner and how to avoid loan fraud and foreclosure, as well as 
fair housing information for disaster housing providers and survivors. 
I ask that we do so again here today.
  I want to point out that we are not taking away from any other 
programs. We are simply slightly lifting the cap on this particular 
initiative.
  We do have to realize that there are over 40 million Americans who do 
not speak English as their first language. This tiny program 
demonstrates to the American people that we have equal protection under 
the law, regardless of whether people are English-speaking, Spanish-
speaking, or speak some other language.
  Given the tiny amount of money that is involved here, this program 
has been extraordinarily effective. In the last year for which we have 
statistics, almost 30,000 people benefited for a program that cost the 
Federal Government only $300,000.
  I ask the majority and my friends across the aisle to consider the 
value of this program to every community across America, and I urge 
them to accept this amendment, as they did last year.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            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, $70,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2016: 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, 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.

                      Information Technology Fund

       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, $97,000,000, of which $82,000,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2016, and of which $15,000,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2017 for 
     Development, Modernization and Enhancement: 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 purposes for which such amounts were 
     appropriated: Provided further, That not more than 40 percent 
     of the funds made available under this heading for 
     Development, Modernization and Enhancement, including 
     development and deployment of a Next Generation Management 
     System and development and deployment of modernized Federal 
     Housing Administration systems may be obligated until the 
     Secretary submits to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Comptroller General of the United States a plan for 
     expenditure that--(A) provides for all information technology 
     investments: (i) the cost and schedule baselines with 
     explanations for each associated variance, (ii) the status of 
     functional and performance capabilities delivered or planned 
     to be delivered, and (iii) mitigation strategies to address 
     identified risks; (B) outlines activities to ensure 
     strategic, consistent, and effective application of 
     information technology management controls: (i) enterprise 
     architecture, (ii) project management, (iii) investment 
     management, and (iv) human capital management.

                      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, $124,861,000: Provided, That the 
     Inspector General shall have independent authority over all 
     personnel and acquisition issues within this office.

    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 2015 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.
       Sec. 203.  Sections 203 and 209 of division C of Public Law 
     112-55 (125 Stat. 693-694) shall apply during fiscal year 
     2015 as if such sections were included in this title, except 
     that during such fiscal year such sections shall be applied 
     by substituting ``fiscal year 2015'' for ``fiscal year 2011'' 
     and for ``fiscal year 2012'' each place such terms appear, 
     and shall be amended to reflect revised delineations of 
     statistical areas established by the Office of Management and 
     Budget pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(3), 31 U.S.C. 1104(d), 
     and Executive Order 10253.
       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 2015 
     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

[[Page H5166]]

     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 2016, 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.  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. 212. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     subject to the conditions listed under this section, for 
     fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development may authorize the transfer of some or all 
     project-based assistance, debt held or insured by the 
     Secretary and statutorily required low-income and very low-
     income use restrictions if any, associated with one or more 
     multifamily housing project or projects 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 subsection (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 to 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 assistance budget authority.
       (2) The transferring project shall, as determined by the 
     Secretary, be either physically obsolete or economically 
     nonviable.
       (3) The receiving project or projects shall meet or exceed 
     applicable physical standards established by the Secretary.
       (4) 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.
       (5) 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.
       (6) The Secretary determines that this transfer is in the 
     best interest of the tenants.
       (7) 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.
       (8) If the transferring project meets the requirements of 
     subsection (d)(2), 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.
       (9) 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 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
       (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 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) Public Notice and Research Report.--
       (1) 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.
       (2) The Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of the 
     transfer authority under this section, including the effect 
     of such transfers on the operational efficiency, contract 
     rents, physical and financial conditions, and long-term 
     preservation of the affected properties.
       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 II 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-20(g)), the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development may, until September 30, 2015, insure

[[Page H5167]]

     and enter into commitments to insure mortgages under such 
     section 255.
       Sec. 216.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     fiscal year 2015, 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 commitment authority funded by fees as 
     provided under the heading ``Community Development Loan 
     Guarantees Program Account'' 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. 218.  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. 219.  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. 220.  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 there is a 
     trained allotment holder for each HUD sub-office under the 
     accounts ``Executive Offices'' and ``Administrative Support 
     Offices,'' as well as each account receiving appropriations 
     for ``Program Office Salaries and Expenses'' within the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       Sec. 221.  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall report annually to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations on the status of all section 8 project-based 
     housing, including the number of all project-based units by 
     region as well as an analysis of all federally subsidized 
     housing being refinanced under the Mark-to-Market program. 
     The Secretary shall in the report identify all existing units 
     maintained by region as section 8 project-based units and all 
     project-based units that have opted out of section 8 or have 
     otherwise been eliminated as section 8 project-based units. 
     The Secretary shall identify in detail and by project the 
     most likely reasons for any units which opted out or 
     otherwise were lost as section 8 project-based units. Such 
     analysis shall include a review of the most likely impact of 
     the loss of any subsidized units in that housing marketplace.
       Sec. 222.  The Secretary of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall, for fiscal year 2015, 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 
     2015, 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. 223.  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. 224.  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 ``Administrative 
     Support Offices'' to any other office funded under such 
     heading: Provided, That no appropriation for any office 
     funded under the heading ``Administrative Support Offices'' 
     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, 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 ``Administrative Support Offices'' 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. 225.  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. 226. (a) The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall take the required actions under subsection 
     (b) when a multifamily housing project with a section 8 
     contract or contract for similar project-based assistance:
       (1) receives a Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) score 
     of 30 or less; or
       (2) receives a REAC score between 31 and 59 and:
       (A) fails to certify in writing to HUD within 60 days that 
     all deficiencies have been corrected; or
       (B) receives consecutive scores of less than 60 on REAC 
     inspections.

     Such requirements shall apply to insured and noninsured 
     projects with assistance attached to the units under section 
     8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), 
     but do not apply to such units assisted under section 
     8(o)(13) (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) or to public housing units 
     assisted with capital or operating funds under section 9 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g).
       (b) The Secretary shall take the following required actions 
     as authorized under subsection (a)--
       (1) The Secretary shall notify the owner and provide an 
     opportunity for response within 30 days. If the violations 
     remain, the Secretary shall develop a Compliance, Disposition 
     and Enforcement Plan within 60 days, with a specified 
     timetable for correcting all deficiencies. The Secretary 
     shall provide notice of the Plan to the owner, tenants, the 
     local government, any mortgagees, and any contract 
     administrator.
       (2) At the end of the term of the Compliance, Disposition 
     and Enforcement Plan, if the owner fails to fully comply with 
     such plan, the Secretary may require immediate replacement of 
     project management with a management agent approved by the 
     Secretary, and shall take one or more of the following 
     actions, and provide additional notice of those actions to 
     the owner and the parties specified above:
       (A) impose civil money penalties;
       (B) abate the section 8 contract, including partial 
     abatement, as determined by the Secretary, until all 
     deficiencies have been corrected;
       (C) pursue transfer of the project to an owner, approved by 
     the Secretary under established procedures, which will be 
     obligated to promptly make all required repairs and to accept 
     renewal of the assistance contract as long as such renewal is 
     offered; or
       (D) seek judicial appointment of a receiver to manage the 
     property and cure all project deficiencies or seek a judicial 
     order of specific performance requiring the owner to cure all 
     project deficiencies.
       (c) The Secretary shall also take appropriate steps to 
     ensure that project-based contracts remain in effect, subject 
     to the exercise of contractual abatement remedies to

[[Page H5168]]

     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 remedies set 
     forth above. To the extent the Secretary determines, in 
     consultation with the tenants and the local government, that 
     the property 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 report semi-annually on all properties covered by this 
     section that are assessed through the Real Estate Assessment 
     Center and have physical inspection scores of less than 30 or 
     have consecutive physical inspection scores of less than 60. 
     The report shall include:
       (1) The enforcement actions being taken to address such 
     conditions, including imposition of civil money penalties and 
     termination of subsidies, and identify properties that have 
     such conditions multiple times; and
       (2) Actions that the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development is taking to protect tenants of such identified 
     properties.
       Sec. 227.  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 2015.
       Sec. 228.  None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the doctoral dissertation research grant program at the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       Sec. 229.  None of the funds in this Act provided to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development may be used to 
     make a grant award unless the Secretary notifies the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full 
     business days before any project, State, locality, housing 
     authority, tribe, nonprofit organization, or other entity 
     selected to receive a grant award is announced by the 
     Department or its offices.
       Sec. 230.  Section 579 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing 
     Reform and Affordability Act (MAHRAA) of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f note) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2015'' each 
     place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 1, 
     2016''.
       Sec. 231.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require or enforce the Physical Needs Assessment 
     (PNA).
       Sec. 232.  None of the funds made available by this Act nor 
     any receipts or amounts collected under any Federal Housing 
     Administration program may be used to implement the 
     Homeowners Armed with Knowledge (HAWK) program.
       Sec. 233.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used by the Federal Housing Administration, the 
     Government National Mortgage Administration, or the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development to insure, 
     securitize, or establish a Federal guarantee of any mortgage 
     or mortgage backed security that refinances or otherwise 
     replaces a mortgage that has been subject to eminent domain 
     condemnation or seizure, by a state, municipality, or any 
     other political subdivision of a state.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2015''.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Himes

  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 140, after line 9, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 234. (a) Establishment of Budget-neutral Demonstration 
     Program for Multifamily Housing Energy and Water 
     Conservation.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall 
     establish a demonstration program under which, during the 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     ending on September 30, 2017, the Secretary may enter into 
     budget-neutral, performance-based agreements that result in a 
     reduction in energy or water costs with such entities as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate under which the 
     entities shall carry out projects for energy or water 
     conservation improvements at not more than 20,000 residential 
     units in multifamily buildings participating in--
       (1) the project-based rental assistance program under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f), other than assistance provided under section 8(o) of 
     that Act;
       (2) the supportive housing for the elderly program under 
     section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q); or
       (3) the supportive housing for persons with disabilities 
     program under section 811(d)(2) of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013(d)(2)).
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) Payments contingent on savings.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide to an entity a 
     payment under an agreement under this section only during 
     applicable years for which an energy or water cost savings is 
     achieved with respect to the applicable multifamily portfolio 
     of properties, as determined by the Secretary, in accordance 
     with subparagraph (B).
       (B) Payment methodology.--
       (i) In general.--Each agreement under this section shall 
     include a pay-for-success provision--

       (I) that will serve as a payment threshold for the term of 
     the agreement; and
       (II) pursuant to which the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall share a percentage of the savings at a 
     level determined by the Secretary that is sufficient to cover 
     the administrative costs of carrying out this section.

       (ii) Limitations.--A payment made by the Secretary under an 
     agreement under this section shall--

       (I) be contingent on documented utility savings; and
       (II) not exceed the utility savings achieved by the date of 
     the payment, and not previously paid, as a result of the 
     improvements made under the agreement.

       (C) Third-party verification.--Savings payments made by the 
     Secretary under this section shall be based on a measurement 
     and verification protocol that includes at least--
       (i) establishment of a weather-normalized and occupancy-
     normalized utility consumption baseline established pre-
     retrofit;
       (ii) annual third-party confirmation of actual utility 
     consumption and cost for owner-paid utilities;
       (iii) annual third-party validation of the tenant utility 
     allowances in effect during the applicable year and vacancy 
     rates for each unit type; and
       (iv) annual third-party determination of savings to the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Term.--The term of an agreement under this section 
     shall be not longer than 12 years.
       (3) Entity eligibility.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) establish a competitive process for entering into 
     agreements under this section; and
       (B) enter into such agreements only with entities that 
     demonstrate significant experience relating to--
       (i) financing and operating properties receiving assistance 
     under a program described in subsection (a);
       (ii) oversight of energy and water conservation programs, 
     including oversight of contractors; and
       (iii) raising capital for energy and water conservation 
     improvements from charitable organizations or private 
     investors.
       (4) Geographical diversity.--Each agreement entered into 
     under this section shall provide for the inclusion of 
     properties with the greatest feasible regional and State 
     variance.
       (c) Plan and Reports.--
       (1) Plan.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a detailed plan for the implementation of this 
     section.
       (2) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) conduct an evaluation of the program under this 
     section; and
       (B) submit to Congress a report describing each evaluation 
     conducted under subparagraph (A).
       (d) Funding.--For each fiscal year during which an 
     agreement under this section is in effect, the Secretary may 
     use to carry out this section any funds appropriated to the 
     Secretary for the renewal of contracts under a program 
     described in subsection (a).

  Mr. HIMES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Connecticut?
  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 from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking my 
colleagues, Mr. Ross of Florida and Mr. Delaney of Maryland, for 
cosponsoring this amendment.
  I would like to briefly outline the amendment by saying that this is 
an amendment that is a bipartisan proposal that has been included in 
the Senate T-HUD appropriations and the bipartisan Shaheen-Portman 
energy bill.
  It was also included in the President's budget, and more than 24 
separate groups support this amendment. It

[[Page H5169]]

presents no risk to the Federal Government, is budget neutral, and 
actually has the potential to reduce utility costs for HUD up to $7 
billion annually.
  In brief, HUD-assisted properties are generally older stock, with 
inefficient energy and water usage. There are lot of barriers to 
improving that situation and, therefore, realizing those savings.
  Under the pilot program proposed by this amendment, an intermediary 
will contract with HUD or with property owners to produce energy and 
water savings in exchange for a share of those ongoing savings.
  Relying on this contract, the intermediary will raise the capital to 
pay for energy and water conservation for the affected property. This 
private capital would be used to pay energy efficiency experts, such as 
NAESCO, to perform energy and water efficiency upgrades in HUD-assisted 
housing, such as housing for seniors and people with disabilities.
  Multifamily building owners would not take on any risk and would not 
need to spend any capital. The bill leverages the private sector to 
more effectively direct government resources and to ensure the best 
outcomes for the taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, we may not agree on some things in the underlying bill, 
but smart, innovative approaches to financing energy savings 
improvements are simply common sense.
  I hope the chairman and the ranking member will work with me and my 
fellow bipartisan cosponsors to ensure that this measure is ultimately 
enacted into law.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             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 imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Hearing none, the Chair finds that this amendment includes language 
imparting direction. 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.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      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, 
     $7,548,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received for publications and training expenses.

                     federal housing finance agency

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $45,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2016, to be derived from assessments collected from the 
     Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan Banks under 
     section 1106 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 
     2008.

                      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, 
     $25,499,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

  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, $24,499,000: 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 2016, the Inspector General shall 
     submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
     budget request for fiscal year 2016 in similar format and 
     substance to those submitted by executive agencies of the 
     Federal Government.


               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 141, line 23, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 156, line 16, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce 
Amtrak's Office of the Inspector General by $1 million and increase the 
spending reduction account by that same amount.

                              {time}  2115

  This reduction would eliminate a proposed increase to that account, 
keeping the funding level just like it is today for the coming year.
  I spoke about Amtrak's failings at length during the consideration of 
the first title of this bill.
  Amtrak consistently runs at a massive operating deficit. The long-
distance routes are continually in the red, and the food and beverage 
service only nets a 65 percent return on what it spends despite paying 
its staff six-figure salaries, which is way above what the average 
American can expect to make in salary.
  My colleagues who support Amtrak--and maybe even some who don't--will 
likely say that, if any part of this embattled entity deserves more 
funding, it is the inspector general. And, yes, the Office of the 
Inspector General has rooted out some fraud, and it has discovered some 
significant overpayments, but, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that health 
benefits fraud and overpayments are things that are just the tip of a 
very large and very obvious iceberg.
  It is not some great mystery why Amtrak is hemorrhaging money. The 
long-distance routes lose incredible amounts of money, and taxpayers 
are being bilked for this tremendous amount of loss. It is 
breathtaking, really, that we continue to turn a blind eye to more than 
a half a billion dollars lost year after year just to sustain these 
routes which carry fewer than 5 million passengers annually. That 
number may sound large, but meanwhile, in 2012, there were more than 
815 million ticketed airline passengers in the United States.
  How about the food and beverage service on Amtrak trains?
  Over the last 5 years, this service has resulted in nearly $400 
million in losses. Yes, the Office of the Inspector General does decent 
work, and I commend the Office for exposing and admitting Amtrak's 
history of cooking its books to make the losses sustained by these 
long-distance routes and the food and beverage service look slightly 
less awful than they actually are; but in this time of fiscal 
emergency, I think it would be prudent to tell the Amtrak OIG to work 
on the obvious issues first. Take care of the big problems before 
hiring new staff to look for new issues that are dwarfed by what we 
already know.
  I urge the support of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and 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. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  As you know, one of the very important functions of this committee is

[[Page H5170]]

oversight--ensuring agencies under our purview are effectively and 
efficiently managed.
  The bill provides the Amtrak OIG with $25 million for oversight 
studies and investigations into fraud, waste, and abuse at Amtrak. It 
is through these investigations that the Amtrak OIG has helped improve 
the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Amtrak's programs and 
operations.
  For example, Amtrak OIG developed a program that has identified 
improper or overpayments to the tune of $91.3 million. Amtrak has 
collected some of this back, which has saved taxpayer money. The impact 
of sequestration and unanticipated rail employee benefit cost increases 
wreaked havoc on Amtrak OIG and forced them to curtail or to suspend 
work on important initiatives and investigations. Amtrak needs more 
oversight, not less.
  I appreciate the gentleman for pointing out all of the problems at 
Amtrak, but the only people there to fix it are in the OIG office, so I 
think to reduce funding for that would not be in the best interest. The 
bill's funding levels are not arbitrary. We have scrubbed these 
accounts. We have held hearings and have made recommendations on what 
should be funded and where increases or reductions need to be.
  For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  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 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), 
     $103,000,000, 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), $132,000,000, of which $5,000,000 
     shall be for a multi-family rental housing program: Provided, 
     That in addition, $50,000,000 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 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 $2,500,000 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) Of the total amount made available under this 
     paragraph, up to $4,000,000 may be used for wind-down and 
     closeout of the mortgage foreclosure mitigation activities 
     program.
       (9) Mortgage foreclosure mitigation assistance grants may 
     include a budget for outreach and advertising, and training, 
     as determined by the NRC.
       (10) 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.

           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, 
     $3,500,000.

                                TITLE IV

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

       Sec. 401.  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. 402.  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. 403.  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. 404. (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

[[Page H5171]]

     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. 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 2015, 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 prior year enacted level, 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 and 
     its respective prior year enacted level 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 2015 from 
     appropriations made available for salaries and expenses for 
     fiscal year 2015 in this Act, shall remain available through 
     September 30, 2016, 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.  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 
     brownsfield as defined in the Small Business Liability Relief 
     and Brownsfield Revitalization Act (Public Law 107-118) shall 
     be considered a public use for purposes of eminent domain.
       Sec. 408.  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, 2015. Such report shall 
     include the contractor, the amount of the contract and the 
     rationale for using a sole-source contract.
       Sec. 409.  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. 410.  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 or her 
     period of active military or naval service, and has within 90 
     days after his or her 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 
     or her former position and has been certified by the Office 
     of Personnel Management as still qualified to perform the 
     duties of his or her former position and has not been 
     restored thereto.
       Sec. 411.  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'').
       Sec. 412.  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. 413.  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. 414.  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 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 and 
     made a determination that this further action is not 
     necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
       Sec. 415.  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 
     with 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. 416. 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.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 4__.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require the relocation, or to carry out any 
     required relocation, of any asset management positions of the 
     Office of Multifamily Housing of the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development in existence as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that will continue to 
ensure that the Department of Housing and Urban Development's 
Multifamily staff remains locally based, connected to communities and 
on the ground to serve as the eyes and ears of lawmakers.
  Specifically, this amendment would prohibit HUD from using any of the 
funds appropriated by this bill for the Multifamily Housing 
transformation initiative, which is designed to relocate asset 
management staff and to restructure HUD's Multifamily field offices 
nationwide.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would effectively stop HUD from closing 
any of the offices where asset management staff are currently located.
  When HUD announced its plans for a major restructuring of Multifamily 
field offices nationwide, I was deeply concerned. Under the plan, HUD 
will go from 50 Multifamily offices down to 12, with only five of them 
being designated as ``regional centers.'' The shortcomings of this plan 
are not more obvious than in my home district, where a decision was 
made to relocate the Los Angeles field office--one of the busiest hubs 
in the country. If undeterred, this plan would close the Los Angeles 
office, uproot its entire staff, and relocate its operations to another 
regional

[[Page H5172]]

center, which would now be responsible for more than double its current 
workload and would be facing the daunting task of serving 73 million 
people in 14 States across 1.8 million square miles.
  HUD promises that this plan will achieve significant savings without 
impacting program delivery. However, after careful review, I remain 
skeptical that HUD will be able to deliver on this promise. I join 
advocates, industry stakeholders and affected employees in expressing 
my continued, serious concern over the implications of this 
reorganization, and my concerns are numerous.
  First, HUD's plan does not seem to acknowledge the critical 
importance and value of having staff who are living and working in the 
communities they are serving. There are significant differences among 
local housing markets, and an awareness of each region's unique 
characteristics is essential to the work of the Multifamily Housing 
office.
  Second, reorganization would adversely affect the delivery of 
services by reducing the staff's ability to effectively respond to 
unique local concerns and to remain connected to community leaders. 
Staff would have less interaction with owners and managers, and 
responsive walk-in assistance would be eliminated for thousands of 
people who rely on Multifamily offices.
  California was one of the hardest hit States by the financial 
collapse, and too many families suffered from the subsequent wave of 
foreclosures. With our housing market still struggling to recover, we 
cannot afford to undercut what little progress we have made with a 
radical overhaul of HUD's infrastructure.
  I, for one, am still struggling to understand how this plan will save 
money while also preserving the quality of services delivered, and I 
have yet to receive satisfactory answers from HUD regarding my 
concerns. That is why I have been--and I remain--a vocal opponent of 
HUD's Multifamily transformation in its entirety. Today, I am urging 
HUD to more carefully consider the details and full implications of its 
plan.
  Although this amendment only addresses some of my concerns and would 
not stop the transformation altogether, it would codify the agreement 
between HUD and appropriators to keep asset management staff on site 
and to leave all existing Multifamily offices open. Moreover, it 
reflects language that just passed the Senate last week. For these 
reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
``aye'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Transportation to authorize a 
     person--
       (1) to operate an unmanned aircraft system in the national 
     airspace system for the purpose, in whole or in part, of 
     using the unmanned aircraft system as a weapon or to deliver 
     a weapon against a person or property; or
       (2) to manufacture, sell, or distribute an unmanned 
     aircraft system, or a component thereof, for use in the 
     national airspace system as a weapon or to deliver a weapon 
     against a person or property.

  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 Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to one that I 
brought to the floor of the House 2 years ago. During that 2 years, 
there has been a lot of discussion about the use of unmanned aircraft, 
commonly referred to as drones, in the U.S. national airspace.
  The constitutional protections that are important to so many of us 
can be infringed upon without constant vigilance to prevent abuse of 
such drones. Until recently, it was believed that the use of drones in 
the United States airspace was limited to surveillance. That is no 
longer the case.
  To date, at least 17 police departments and sheriffs' offices across 
the country have filed certificates of authorization with the FAA to be 
able to use a drone. Police chiefs and sheriffs in districts around the 
country have applied to the FAA for a certificate of authorization to 
use a drone in the national airspace.
  Some departments might be using the drones for surveillance. However, 
others have announced their intention to take the drones they are 
currently using and attach a weapons platform to patrol their 
jurisdictions.
  Further, over the past few years, the Obama administration's policy 
regarding drones has been cryptic. For instance, it is still not clear 
whether the President believes that he has the authority to kill an 
American citizen on American soil. This amendment would put an end to 
that ambiguity.
  This amendment does not affect the use of armed drones in a war zone. 
Armed drones have been used with precision and success to seek out the 
enemy hiding in places where ground troops would have difficulty going.
  But placing an unmanned drone over the skies of the United States is 
not only ill-advised, it flies in the face of the sincerely-held 
constitutional protections that we all hold dear.
  This amendment would prevent the Secretary of Transportation and the 
head of the FAA from approving any application to use an unmanned 
aircraft in the national airspace for the purpose of arming or 
weaponizing that aircraft.
  It does not affect surveillance. It does not affect weaponized drones 
being used outside the United States airspace in a war zone.
  In my opinion, this is a road that we should not travel. It is a 
classic example of the oft-used quote by Benjamin Franklin: ``Those who 
would give up liberty to purchase safety may deserve neither liberty 
nor safety.''
  It is an important provision, and I encourage the chairman of the 
subcommittee to consider it to allow it to come to a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             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 of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. BURGESS. With all affection and reverence for the chairman of the 
subcommittee, this issue has remained unresolved for the last 2 years. 
It was unresolved in the FAA reauthorization that passed the House 2 
years ago. It has been unresolved in rulemaking by the agency.
  This is an opportunity, through the limitation amendment in the 
appropriations bill, to prevent the type of activity that I described 
in the offering memorandum. I think it is appropriate. I think the time 
is now for us to take this action for the protection of our citizens.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  As the Chair ruled on June 27, 2012, the amendment violates clause 2 
of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $40 million less 
to the Community Development Block Grant program in fiscal year 2015 
than it did last year.
  I would have offered an amendment to maintain CDBG funding at last 
year's levels, but we know there is insufficient funding throughout 
this bill due to the budget caps.

[[Page H5173]]

  The CDBG program provides direct grants to 1,209 State and local 
governments. Since the start of the program in 1974, CDBG has invested 
over $135 billion in local economies, creating jobs, supporting local 
businesses, improving infrastructure, providing housing--including 
housing repairs and home ownership assistance--and services to low-
income veterans, seniors, children, special-needs populations and 
working families.
  The CDBG program grows local economies and improves the quality of 
lives for low and moderate-income citizens.
  Over the past 10 years, CDBG-related funding is estimated to have 
sustained 400,000 jobs in local economies across the country. In 2012 
alone, nearly 21,800 permanent jobs were created or retained using CDBG 
funds, and more than 32.5 million people benefited from CDBG-funded 
public facilities.
  The total amount appropriated to CDBG has declined almost every year 
since 2000. When measured in inflation-adjusted constant dollars, total 
program funding declined by 46.4 percent since fiscal year 2000.
  The CDBG program is essential for the functioning of more than 1,200 
cities and counties of all shapes and sizes across the country, and 
there continues to be an increased need for investment in job creation, 
essential services for vulnerable populations, and economic and 
infrastructure development.
  It is unfortunate that, due to an insufficient allocation of funds 
for projects throughout this bill, we must make cuts to vital programs 
like CDBG. We need to stop these cuts to our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to speak in favor of the amendment 
that was proposed by the ranking member, Ms. Waters, in support of the 
Multifamily Housing Office, which contributes to the development and 
preservation of healthy neighborhoods and communities. A core part of 
its mission is to maintain and expand home ownership, rental housing, 
and health care opportunities.
  In an effort to achieve cost savings, HUD plans to consolidate 50 
multifamily field offices organized into 17 hubs into just 12 locations 
organized into five regions. This would result in a severe loss of 
HUD's local presence in communities throughout the United States.
  This means that for constituents living in Las Vegas, the closest hub 
location would be over 500 miles away, and that hub would 
simultaneously be responsible for 73 million people in 14 States. 
Hundreds of HUD employees would be forced to relocate, accept a buyout, 
or take early retirement. This drastic consolidation of HUD locations 
would compromise the quality of services that HUD's multifamily office 
provides.
  It is, therefore, this reason that would create a problem at a 
project site in my district. There would be no local HUD employees to 
monitor and address the situation directly, or in a timely manner. Only 
if the situation rises to the level of an emergency would a HUD 
employee be able to send someone to investigate the issue, which would 
entail costly travel expenses on the taxpayers' dime.
  It is also difficult to believe that, under these circumstances, HUD 
would somehow still be able to deliver the same quality of services 
that it currently delivers today.
  HUD's plan to completely overhaul the multifamily office is both ill-
conceived and poorly timed, and that is why I support the ranking 
member's amendment. I am pleased that this body has adopted it, to 
ensure HUD's multifamily staff remains locally-based and connected to 
communities who are on the ground.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Hartzler

  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 319 of title 23, United States 
     Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward 
amendment to ensure highway dollars are spent wisely and are used for 
highways. Specifically, it prohibits our limited highway money from 
being used for highway beautification.
  We have over 65,000 bridges that are considered structurally 
deficient. We must ensure that our Federal highway dollars are spent 
improving our infrastructure.
  From 1992 to 2001, over $1.2 billion was spent on landscaping and 
scenic beautification, and these funds could have been put towards 
ensuring our roadways and bridges are safe.
  It does not make sense for the hardworking families in Missouri and 
all across this country to send in their money on April 15, every year, 
and to, perhaps, forego buying their child a new coat or shoes or 
making a house payment so that they can pay their taxes, just so that 
their tax dollars can go to planting flowers alongside the road.
  Now, I am for a beautiful highways, like everybody else, but I think 
a private solution is better. Why don't we, like we have adopt the 
highway sections for picking up trash and making our roads pretty, why 
don't we have adopt a corner for landscaping projects?
  Why don't we have local garden clubs adopt an intersection, or a Girl 
Scout troop or a Boy Scout troop?
  Why don't we leave that up to local community leaders and individuals 
to plant those flowers?
  I don't believe we should be using our hard-earned tax dollars to be 
doing this highway beautification, especially in a time when our roads 
are falling apart and our bridges are deficient.
  There are potholes in roads that are endangering our families, 
endangering our children, and yet we are spending these hard-earned tax 
dollars to plant flowers and bushes along the road. We can't afford 
luxuries like this anymore.
  It is time to spend our highway dollars on our highways, make sure 
our roads are safe, make sure our bridges are safe, make sure that 
those hard-earned tax dollars are used wisely.
  So that is why I am offering this simple amendment, and I would urge 
my colleagues to support my effort to make sure our highway dollars are 
spent where they need to be spent and to make sure our money is spent 
wisely. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, 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. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment. I very much understand where the gentlewoman is coming from 
with the tremendous needs that we have today in infrastructure, to have 
some of this money being diverted to other uses. I understand entirely.
  This really is an authorizing issue if there ever was one. We 
appropriate money in this bill. We don't authorize or set up the 
programs themselves. That should be addressed in a reauthorization of 
the MAP-21 bill.
  The funds here, oftentimes, go to erosion control. They preserve 
wetlands and meet some environmental regulations that the States have 
to comply with or the entities, government entities have to comply 
with.
  But the real big problem here is the fact that States may have 
contracts already out there that they are obligated to pay and, 
basically, what we are saying is we are not going to reimburse you, so 
the Federal Government, even though the States have the contracts in 
place, we are not going to do our part and help pay the bill, and that 
really is where the problem is.

                              {time}  2145

  We have an obligation, but we don't have the money. Again, that is 
why this goes back to an authorizing issue that needs to be looked at. 
I totally agree with the gentlewoman, and I reluctantly oppose the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with Chairman 
Latham that this is an authorizing issue, and it would cause great 
damage, especially to those contracts that are

[[Page H5174]]

already in place, and for that reason, I am in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. 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 gentlewoman from Missouri 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton

  Ms. NORTON. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the 5th or 14th Amendment to the 
     Constitution or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, in July, we will commemorate the 50th 
anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  My amendment enforces section 2000(d) of the act. It would require 
that no funds would be available or used to stop, investigate, detain, 
or arrest people on highways based on their physical appearance in 
violation of the Fifth and 14th Amendments and title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.
  The Supreme Court, in Whren v. U.S., has found that profiling based 
on physical appearance on highways violates equal protection of the 
laws. Title VI of the 1964 act enforces the 14th Amendment and applies 
to funding for all Federal agencies and departments. My amendment 
carries out this mandate in transportation funding as well.
  Federal guidance regarding the use of race by Federal law enforcement 
agencies finds that racial profiling is not merely wrong, but is also 
ineffective. Not only Blacks and Hispanics are affected, but many 
others in our country as well, given the increasing diversity of 
American society.
  The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Justice Statistics reports 
that Whites are stopped at a rate of 3.6 percent, but Blacks at 9.5 
percent and Hispanics at 8.8 percent, more than twice the rate of 
Whites.
  The figures are roughly the same, regardless of region or State. In 
Minnesota, for example, a statewide study of racial profiling found 
that African Americans, Hispanics, and Native American drivers were 
stopped and searched far more often than Whites, but contraband was 
found more frequently in cars where White drivers had been stopped.
  In Texas, where disproportionate stops and searches of African 
Americans and Hispanics were found to have taken place, it was also 
found that Whites more often were carrying contraband.
  Mr. Chairman, in 2005, I sponsored a transportation amendment that 
allowed a Federal grant to States who wanted to stop racial profiling. 
Nearly half of the States participated in this program.
  Unfortunately, it was not renewed in 2009. My amendment seeks to 
prevent citizens from being stopped, investigated, arrested, or 
detained based on their physical appearance.
  Considering our country's history and increasing diversity, we are 
late in barring profiling at the national level. At the very least, 
Federal taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize the 
unconstitutional practice of profiling by law enforcement officials in 
the States.
  Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. We agree to the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Daines

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to develop, issue, or implement regulations that 
     increase levels of minimum financial responsibility for 
     transporting passengers or property as in effect on January 
     1, 2014, under regulations issued pursuant to sections 31138 
     and 31139 of title 49, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, this April, the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration announced that it would be moving forward with a 
rulemaking that would increase the amount of required liability 
coverage for truck and bus companies.
  This comes despite findings by the Department of Transportation that 
less than 0.2 percent of truck-involved accidents have property and 
injury damages that exceed the current minimum liability coverage 
requirements, which is $750,000.
  Current proposals regarding the insurance increase call for minimum 
levels to go up by more than 500 percent, and this would lead to a 
significant reduction in insurance availability for motor carriers, 
especially small businesses. The bottom line is this: the trial lawyers 
win, the small businesses lose.
  It is estimated that premiums could increase by more than four times 
the current levels, up to $20,000 per truck and even more per bus. 
Further, more than 40 percent of currently operating motor carriers 
could go out of business due to these new requirements.
  There is no evidence supporting higher insurance requirements or that 
coverage levels result in the improved safety performance of a motor 
carrier. DOT's own report argued that increasing minimum insurance 
levels is not the best way to meet the needs of catastrophic accident 
victims.
  My amendment would prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration from moving forward with a rulemaking action that would 
increase the minimum financial liability insurance requirements for 
truck and bus companies during the 2015 fiscal year.
  Please join me in support of this effort to keep safe small business 
truck and bus companies on the road.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I appreciate all of the courtesies from my good friend from Montana. 
I understand the motivations behind this amendment, but I must speak 
against it because this amendment itself is a threat to the safety of 
Americans on the roadway.
  It is counter to the goal that we all share, of protecting and 
preserving Social Security and Medicare, two vital safety net programs 
in this country; and, above all, it destroys accountability in the 
safety rules in the trucking industry.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1980, Congress mandated that commercial motor 
carriers carry a minimum of $750,000 in liability coverage. This number 
has not been adjusted in more than 33 years. In present dollars, simply 
adjusting for inflation using a health care cost CPI, consumer price 
index, would require changing the $750,000 to $4.4 million.
  In fact, I have introduced, myself, H.R. 2730, the SAFE HAUL Act to 
do just that, simply to adjust for inflation over the 34 years that 
that $750,000 limit was in place.
  This past weekend, Mr. Chairman, Mr. James McNair, a talented 
comedian, died in New Jersey because of a tractor-trailer collision. 
Apparently, the tractor-trailer driver was awake for 24 hours, in 
violation of a myriad of hours of service requirements in the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety regulations. Tracy Morgan, his associate, remains 
in critical condition.
  To suggest that $750,000, with today's health care costs, is adequate 
to cover this kind of tragedy is ridiculous.
  In fact, the truth is that, since 1980, more than 100,000 people have 
died in tractor-trailer-related collisions. We are not talking about 
cases where

[[Page H5175]]

there was a genuine dispute about who was at fault for the accident.
  We are talking about cases where it was clear that the tractor-
trailer was at fault for the accident and people died, more than 
100,000 over the past 34 years.
  Mr. Chairman, in contradistinction to the comments of my good friend 
from Montana, a recent study conducted by the Trucking Alliance found 
that 42 percent of the value of settlements paid by trucking companies 
between 2005 and 2011 exceeded the minimum insurance requirement of 
$750,000.
  When you don't adjust for inflation, you are not doing the simple 
math that is required, and to suggest that adjustment for inflation is 
wrong somehow seems quite silly.
  So, Mr. Chairman, what we need to realize is that, when a truck is 
underinsured, when a truck doesn't have enough insurance to cover the 
harm that it causes, who pays the difference? What happens when a truck 
doesn't have enough insurance to cover the harm that it causes in 
medical bills, in lost wages?
  Well, what happens is the U.S. taxpayer picks up the difference, the 
U.S. taxpayer, paying into the Social Security system, paying into the 
Medicare system, the U.S. taxpayer picks up the difference; and what 
ends up happening is we get a form of corporate welfare, where trucking 
companies at fault for accidents that kill, maim, and disable people, 
all of a sudden, don't have to pick up the difference. It is the 
American taxpayer that picks up the difference.
  In a day and age when we should be doing everything and anything that 
we can to shore up Social Security and Medicare, this is not a policy 
decision that we want to be engaging in, protecting trucking companies 
at fault for death-dealing accidents from accountability for their 
actions.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I do oppose this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chair, just a reminder that the DOT's own study says 
that less than 0.2 percent of truck-involved accidents have property 
and injury damages that exceed the current requirements.
  The bottom line is this: let the small business owner decide what 
they want to insure above the already required $750,000. This is one 
more regulation that is going to benefit the trial lawyers at the 
expense of small businesses.
  Remember, again, what the DOT said. Raising the minimum insurance 
levels is not the best way to meet the needs of catastrophic accident 
victims.
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  MAP-21 required the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to 
review whether the minimum insurance requirements for trucks and buses 
were sufficient.
  This would freeze insurance claims at the current level. DOT is 
conducting a rulemaking to further evaluate the appropriate level of 
the financial responsibility. We ought to let the process go forward.
  I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. 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 Montana will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to approve a new foreign air carrier permit under 
     sections 41301 through 41305 of title 49, United States Code, 
     or exemption application under section 40109 of that title of 
     an air carrier already holding an air operators certificate 
     issued by a country that is party to the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-
     Norway Air Transport Agreement where such approval would 
     contravene United States law or Article 17 bis of the U.S.-
     E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement.

  Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that we dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oregon?
  Mr. LATHAM. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, these limitation amendments often don't go 
to matters of national security.
  Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. The reason I objected is we weren't sure as to what the 
amendment was, and we would accept the amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. We won't take much time if the gentleman just would 
allow me 1 or 2 minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. If the gentleman doesn't take much time, we will accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I agree. And Mr. Westmoreland will also be brief. This 
is extraordinarily important, and I thank the Chair for his indulgence 
and his support.
  We, in the Open Skies Agreement with the EU, anticipated that some 
countries might try and go forum shopping, that is--like the cruise 
line industry--look for a nation that has lesser laws regulating labor, 
safety, and then also allow outsourcing. This would be a model for 
Norwegian--for this airline, which does not fly to the United States, 
to incorporate in Ireland. They would then hire crews from Malaysia to 
fly planes based in Singapore and hope to serve the United States with 
these crews.
  This is the cruise line model. It is a recipe for disaster. You shop 
around the world to find the least regulated, least trained, and 
cheapest labor you can--as has happened with the cruise line industry--
and in this case, in aviation, it will both threaten consumers and 
national security given the Civil Reserve Air Fleet requirements of 
aviation.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, a subsidiary of the Norway-based Norwegian Air Shuttle, 
NAS, Norwegian Air International, is seeking to operate as an Irish 
airline and plans to conduct overseas flights from Europe to the U.S. 
NAI has been granted an Irish Air Operator's Certificate, but still has 
an application for a foreign air carrier permit pending with the U.S. 
DOT.
  It appears that the NAI plans for its pilots to work under individual 
employment contracts that are governed by Singapore law that contains 
wages and working conditions substantially inferior to those of NAS's 
Norway-based pilots. These contracts will be with a Singapore 
employment company that will rent the pilots to NAI. Although it seeks 
to become an Irish airline, it appears that NAI will not be operating 
air transportation services from Ireland. This raises a question about 
how regulatory oversight of NAI's operations will be conducted.
  The United States has the highest, most competitive airline industry 
in the world, the safest regulations, and so, I hope that we will adopt 
this DeFazio-Westmoreland amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. With that, 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. Chairman, I am going to accept the amendment, but I just want to

[[Page H5176]]

make it clear that this really states the obvious, that basically we 
are saying that you can't approve something that contravenes U.S. law 
or article 17 of the Air Transport Agreement. If so, it is obviously 
stating what is already law and really is nothing new.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is not 
so obvious with this administration. They are desperate for the TPP, 
they are desperate for the trans-America free trade agreement, and we 
are very worried that they would think that disapproving this 
application from Ireland representing Norway, who intends to operate a 
rent-an-airline, rent-a-crew from Singapore, would somehow derail their 
talks. So I don't think it is obvious. This is sending a message to the 
White House that we are not going to let this happen.
  With that, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     under the heading ``Federal Transit Administration--Transit 
     Formula Grants'' may be used in contravention of section 5309 
     of title 49, United States Code.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that 
the reading be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, let me, first of all, thank Mr. 
Latham and Mr. Pastor for their leadership on this important 
legislation and overall indicate that my amendment is important, but it 
restates a current law. In particular, what I think is important is 
that it emphasizes the nature of projects that create economic 
development, particularly in the transportation area.
  It cites 5309, title 49, the Secretary may make grants under this 
section to State and local government authorities to assist in 
financing, goes on to say new fixed guideway capital projects, small 
start projects, including acquisition of real property. It goes on to 
talk about car capacity improvements, including double tracking, and it 
specifically goes into the line of work that deals with projects on 
approved transportation plans.
  That is key. The language here says section grants to State and local 
governments, which means that when local governments propose their 
projects, the Secretary has the authority to go forward on them.
  Let me, for a moment, give some quotes from organizations that have 
supported light rail and the economic development of transportation.
  One statement says that we simply cannot afford to have limitations 
on Federal funding or turn away money that can be utilized to make our 
region a better place to live, work, and build businesses. It is well 
documented that economic development of transportation projects guides 
the Nation. Whether or not it is on the seaways, whether or not it is 
dams, whether it is highways, whether or not it is tollways, whether or 
not it involves other modes of transportation, they are economic 
engines. And it is important for the local community to be the drivers 
of that.
  One statement says that the region will not be able to maintain its 
economic vitality without the ability to create and preserve 
infrastructure that supports the movement of people and goods 
throughout our country.
  So this amendment clearly speaks to the global aspect of the 
Secretary of Transportation having the ability to work with our local 
and State governments. I would ask my colleagues to emphasize in the 
support of this amendment, to recognize that we are emphasizing the 
crucialness of the high transportation dollars to economic development.
  I would hope that this appropriations bill, which is focused on 
Housing and Urban Development in many ways, and focused on 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development as it serves sometimes 
the poorest people, transportation as it provides those same people the 
opportunity to seek employment or reach places of employment--they 
should not be constrained. Federal funding that is designated and 
provided should not be constrained.
  I would lastly make this point: that when you go through the 
environmental process through NEPA and that process is completed, and 
it has all the t's crossed and the i's dotted and the hearings are in, 
it is important that this authority that I just mentioned is allowed to 
proceed. Again, I emphasize the Secretary may make grants under this 
section to State and local government authorities to assist in the 
financing of any number of transportation projects.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and with that, I will 
yield back with the point that, again, this meets the test of 
recognizing that important cities across America have the ability to 
receive this funding, including the fourth-largest city in the Nation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain my amendment.
  Let me offer my appreciation and thanks to Ranking Member Pastor  and 
to Chairman Latham for their work on this legislation and long 
commitment and advocacy for sound domestic policy regarding our nations 
transportation systems and provide for affordable safe housing to our 
nation's citizens.
  Houston is the fourth most populous city in the country; but unlike 
other large cities, we have struggled to have an effective mass transit 
system.
  Over many decades Houston's mass transit policy was to build more 
highways with more lanes to carry more drivers to and from work.
  The city of Houston has changed course and is now pursuing Mass 
transit options that include light rail.
  This decision to invest in light rail is strongly supported by the 
increased use by Houstonians in the light rail service provided by 
previous transportation appropriations bills.
  The April 2014, Houston metropolitan transit Authority report on 
weekly ridership states that 44,267 used Houston's light rail Service 
representing a 6,096 or 16% change in ridership in April of last year.
  This increase in light rail usage outpaced ridership of other forms 
of mass transit in the city of Houston: metro bus had a 2.3% increase 
over April 2013; metro bus-local had a 1.3% increase over April 2013; 
and Metro bus-Park and ride had a 8.0% increase over April 2013.
  On February 5, 2013, the Houston Chronicle reported on the congestion 
Houston drivers face under daily commute to and from work.
  The article stated that Houston commuters continue to enjoy some of 
the worst traffic delays in the country, according to the 2012 urban 
mobility report, Houston area drivers wasted more than two days a year, 
on average, in traffic congestion, costing them each $1,090 in lost 
time and fuel.
  Funds made available under this deal should be available for the 
construction of the University rail line and support of local 
government decisions by the Houston Metropolitan transit Authority and 
the city of Houston to expand rail service.
  As elected officials and members of Congress we should allow local 
governments to decide how they will spend transportation dollars made 
available under this appropriations bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 156, after line 10, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  Unobligated funds made available to a State in 
     fiscal year 2010 for the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary 
     program under section 118(c) of title 23, United States Code, 
     as in effect on the day before

[[Page H5177]]

     the date of enactment of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 
     21st Century Act (Public Law 112-141), may be made available, 
     at that State's request, to the State for any project 
     eligible under section 133(b) of such title.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  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 California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, after speaking with the majority 
committee staff, and in deference to the wishes of the Chair, I want to 
be clear that I will be withdrawing this amendment at the conclusion of 
my control of time.
  In fiscal year 2010, a number of transportation projects, including 
critical seismic safety projects, received appropriations from Congress 
but were unable to receive the funding due to an incorrect account 
designation in the appropriations act. According to the Department of 
Transportation, the funds remain unobligated but inaccessible due to 
the congressional error in the account designation.
  Mr. Chair, crucial transportation projects needed to ensure public 
safety that were intended to be funded by Congress have been left 
without funding due to technical errors.
  My amendment would ensure that those unobligated funds currently 
stuck in limbo would be made available for the surface transportation 
program projects. This shouldn't be controversial. There is already 
language in the underlying bill before us that does something very 
similar. It transfers unobligated funds appropriated in previous years 
from one transportation program to another.
  I hope that, moving forward, the gentleman from Iowa will work with 
us to correct these accounting errors that have left crucial 
transportation projects without funding.
  Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSantis

  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available under title II 
     of this Act may be used to repay any loan made, guaranteed, 
     or insured by the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, my amendment prohibits the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development grants from being used to repay loans 
from the same agency.
  Under current practice, taxpayers can find themselves on the hook not 
only for loans to private developers, but also for repayments on those 
loans.
  Now, even if one agrees with the questionable practice of government 
money being used to finance the building of hotels, parks, arenas, and 
restaurants, it is absurd that the government grants are also being 
used to repay such loans when the projects fail. This practice 
encourages cronyism and economic distortion while throwing away 
taxpayer money on projects that couldn't survive on their own with 
private funding.
  Now, my amendment simply bars the use of grant money from the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development from being used to pay back 
loans from the same agency. This commonsense amendment will ensure that 
taxpayer money isn't used to bail out developers or local governments 
when they make poor investment decisions--especially when these bad 
investments were made using taxpayer-funded loans to begin with. And I 
would note that an identical amendment to the one I am offering now was 
offered in the U.S. Senate by Senator Tom Coburn in October 2011, and 
it passed that body 73-26.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2215


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec._. None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of its 
     principals if the offeror certifies, as required by the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of 
     its principals--
       (1) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 
     (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation 
     of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the 
     submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, 
     forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, 
     making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal 
     criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
       (2) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1); or
       (3) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.

  Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment is identical to other 
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every 
appropriations bill that has been considered under an open rule in this 
Congress.
  My amendment would expand the list of parties with whom the Federal 
Government is prohibited from contracting because of serious misconduct 
on the part of those contractors. It is my hope that this amendment 
will remain noncontroversial as it has always been, and again passed 
unanimously by the House.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
     retain any legal counsel who is not an employee of such 
     Department or the Department of Justice.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a simple amendment 
that will save taxpayers money and prevent HUD from hiring outside 
counsel. This wasteful practice has been utilized by the agency in the 
past to conceal questionable operations, stifle inspector general 
investigations, and limit overall transparency.
  Mr. Chairman, a recent report commissioned by Inspector General David 
Montoya revealed that the Philadelphia Housing Authority paid more than 
$30 million for outside legal services from April 2007 through August 
2010. That is nearly $10 million a year in outside legal fees for one 
public housing authority in this country.
  The inspector general report stated:

       Alarmingly, the Public Housing Authority could not 
     adequately support $4.5 million that it paid to outside 
     attorneys during that period, virtually the entire limited 
     amount we reviewed, raising questions about the propriety of 
     the remaining $26 million in payments that we did not review. 
     In addition, the Public Housing Authority made unreasonable 
     and unnecessary payments of $1.1 million to outside attorneys 
     to obstruct the progress of HUD Office of Inspector General 
     audits. The Public Housing Authority also allowed an apparent 
     conflict of interest situation to exist when it entered into 
     a contract with a law firm that employed the son of its board 
     chairman.


[[Page H5178]]


  Mr. Chairman, all of this fraud and abuse was revealed by 
investigating one-fifth of the spending of one public housing authority 
during a 3-year period. There are more than 3,000 other public housing 
authorities throughout the country.
  While not every public housing authority commits this type of abuse--
and to be fair, some are responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollar--
the bottom line is this is shameful and an unnecessary expenditure of 
taxpayer money. It is inexcusable and must not continue.
  The bill we are discussing here today provides nearly $100 million 
for the sole purpose of funding HUD's Office of General Counsel.
  As stated in the committee's report on the bill:

       It is the responsibility of the Office of General Counsel 
     to provide legal opinions, advice, and services with respect 
     to all programs and activities, and to provide counsel and 
     assistance to the development of the Department's programs 
     and policies.

  In addition to having their own counsel, HUD also has access to 
attorneys within the Department of Justice. There is no logical reason 
HUD should be spending millions of dollars a year on outside counsel. 
The inspector general agrees and has previously stated:

       We have been concerned for some time about the extent to 
     which some to public housing authorities use outside legal 
     counsel.

  I appreciate the inspector general for bringing forward this wasteful 
and fraudulent practice to the attention of Congress. I ask my 
colleagues to recognize the inspector general's recommendations and 
support this commonsense amendment.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on 
the committee.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
understand the gentleman's concern, but this can have some unintended 
consequences. But the main reason is that unfortunately this would not 
affect the public housing authorities at all. This would affect HUD 
employees. Public housing authorities are not HUD employees. So this 
amendment, and I wish the gentleman and I could have worked together on 
this, but it does nothing to the public housing authorities because it 
does not prohibit them from hiring outside legal, and that is 
unfortunate.
  We have been saying for years and years and years to the authorizers 
that these are issues they need to address, and they haven't been able 
to do it. Unfortunately, we get in an appropriation bill and end up 
with a lot of these issues. But again, the main reason to oppose it is 
because it does nothing to the public housing authorities. They would 
still be able to continue their practices as they are.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Would the gentleman understand that all grants under HUD 
go to public housing and, therefore, they are subject all under?
  Mr. LATHAM. All this would do is limit the employees of HUD, and it 
would do nothing to the PHA employees. PHA employees are not HUD 
employees; and all you are doing is limiting funding to HUD employees, 
so it would have no effect as far as the PHAs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I agree with the chairman's interpretation of 
the amendment because public authorities have their own employees which 
they hire and are not HUD employees. They receive money from HUD in 
grants, but that does not make the public authority employees HUD 
employees. And as I understand the amendment as read and explained, 
this amendment would only affect HUD and its employees, and it is too 
broad. It would not meet what the inspector general was trying to do in 
trying to limit public authorities from hiring outside counsel. So I 
rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to develop or implement any rule to modify the 
     criteria relating to citizenship that are applied in 
     determining whether a person is eligible to be an operator 
     (including a ship manager or agent) of a vessel in the 
     National Defense Reserve Fleet.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the United States Government maintains a 
series of ships that are standby, available to the Navy to be used in 
our national defense. Historically, these ships have been crewed, 
owned, and operated by American citizens.
  There may be an attempt underway to change that to allow these ships 
to be crewed, owned, and operated by foreign entities. This amendment 
would preclude that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the proposed 
     rule entitled ``Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing'', 
     published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     in the Federal Register on July 19, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 43710; 
     Docket No. FR-5173-P-01).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment intended 
to prevent yet another costly overreach by the Federal Government into 
the jurisdiction of local towns and communities.
  HUD has proposed a new regulation, titled Affirmatively Furthering 
Fair Housing, which would grant the Department authority to dictate 
local zoning requirements in any community across the country that 
applies for a Community Development Block Grant.
  According to reports, in 2012, this rule would have negatively 
impacted more than 1,200 municipalities throughout the country. A trial 
run of the rule already took place in New York. It failed miserably, 
and a local county was forced to reject $12 million in funds that would 
have benefited the community due to the impractical and unrealistic 
requirements associated with compliance.
  The county had intended to use a large portion of the block grant 
funds to establish public housing for individuals in need. Clearly, 
this flawed proposal by HUD will increase local taxes, depress property 
values, and cause further harm to impoverished communities that are 
actually in need of these funds.
  These new burdensome zoning rules being imposed by HUD bureaucrats on 
localities would be derived from tracked residential data based on 
citizens' race, sex, religion, and other federally protected 
demographics.
  Multiple watchdog groups have raised serious and valid concerns about 
HUD's proposal. Americans for Limited Government President Nathan 
Mehrens wrote me in support of this amendment and stated:

       We call on every Member of the House to support 
     Representative Gosar's amendment to defund HUD's scheme to 
     redraw zoning maps in any locality that accepts any part of 
     the $3.5 billion a year in Community Development Block Grants 
     from the Federal Government.

[[Page H5179]]

       The utopian goal of creating evenly distributed 
     neighborhoods based on racial composition and income is bad 
     policy, and it is unconstitutional. HUD has no place in local 
     zoning decisions. Under federalism, that is left up to 
     States, counties, and municipalities to determine for 
     themselves.
       At a time when the Supreme Court is roundly rejecting 
     racial quotas as unconstitutional, there is no place for 
     wasting taxpayer dollars on social engineering that will 
     never withstand judicial scrutiny.
       Housing discrimination based on race has been illegal since 
     the 1960s, and people should be allowed to choose for 
     themselves where they live without D.C. bureaucrats 
     nationalizing zoning decisions for political reasons.
       Representative Gosar deserves the thanks of all Americans 
     for his courage in taking on this backdoor attempt to 
     federalize our most basic living decisions.
       Americans for Limited Government strongly supports Gosar's 
     amendment to defund racial quotas in local zoning decisions.

  I sincerely appreciate the strong support of this respected watchdog 
group. I completely agree that this misguided proposal by HUD is a 
clear infringement by the Federal Government on municipalities. HUD is 
essentially creating a thinly veiled set of rules and regulations by 
which these communities must conform or face losing out on billions of 
dollars in grant money.
  What has been so wrong with the process thus far? Are there a 
plethora of examples of discriminatory applications of these grants? 
Couldn't the Federal Government simply deny further moneys to those 
grantees proved to have engaged in discrimination?
  American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they 
would like to live and not be subject to Federal neighborhood 
engineering at the behest of an overreaching central government.
  Further, the Federal Government must not hold hostage what are 
traditionally grant moneys to improve communities based on its quixotic 
ideas of what it believes every community should resemble. Local zoning 
decisions have traditionally been and should always be made by local 
communities, not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

                              {time}  2230

  I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment because it 
keeps the Federal Government from reorganizing communities to a 
fantastical standard.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because its aim is to 
treat municipalities and individual citizens as capable and intelligent 
rather than disenfranchised, divided, and coddled groups in need of 
protection from a problem that does not exist.
  As always, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
continued work on the committee, and with that, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The amendment prohibits HUD from implementing a new rule that was 
published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2013. The rule provides 
more data to local communities to comply with the Fair Housing Act and 
carry out their duties under the Fair Housing Act.
  The rule does not change the statutory obligations of communities. It 
does not create social engineering, but rather asks for a more 
comprehensive report. The Fair Housing Act has been law for the past 45 
years, and this rule does not change that law. This rule simply 
provides communities with more data to comply with their existing 
duties under the law.
  I support fair housing, and I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's point and his 
advocacy for the Fair Housing Act.
  As I mentioned, I abhor racial discrimination, but to my knowledge, 
there is no widespread examples of these block grants being used for 
discriminatory practices.
  Has the Community Development Block Grant system thus far been such a 
failure to warrant this rule? My concerns are numerous, but I will 
outline the main two.
  First and foremost, this is a major violation of federalism. The 
Federal Government has a long history of infringing upon states' rights 
and the Tenth Amendment. This rule seeks to go even further and puts 
the Federal Government down into the municipal planning process. This 
overreach is disturbing and unfortunately all too common in the Obama 
administration.
  Second, it really opens up a Pandora's box of problems related to 
unconstitutional practices. The government is essentially using this 
rule as a thinly veiled attempt to implement some sort of social 
justice.
  But this rule leaves a lot to interpretation, not only at the Federal 
level, but at the local level. It is not difficult to imagine lawsuits 
flying in both directions if this rule is finalized.
  For instance, HUD is trying to lay out a framework by which it wishes 
to see these grant monies used to better integrate societies, a 
solution which seems to be in search of a problem. In doing so, HUD 
places a large burden on communities to write plans and grant 
applications which necessitate unconstitutional and prejudicial 
practices. Jim Crow is dead, and the free market and local policies 
have driven decisions such as community planning for years now.
  How does a community make plans to enact these types of social 
justice without taking into consideration factors which we frown upon, 
factors such as racial demographics?
  Let's move to the next step in the process, which is when the 
community is submitting their plan and an application to HUD for 
consideration. That is also incredibly difficult. For instance, one 
portion of the application which would simply be meant to appease HUD's 
quixotic standards of utopian society may open up the applicant 
municipality for lawsuits from the left and right.
  Then HUD is charged with evaluating these applications to determine 
whether or not to award the grant. What exact criteria will HUD use to 
make these determinations? Might it be possible that HUD will deny 
grant monies to applicants based on HUD's opinion that the zoning plan 
did not do enough to integrate racial or religious clusters? The mere 
idea that HUD will be making such approvals or denials based even 
partially on these factors is counterintuitive and runs contrary to 
American values.
  Imagine a denial letter from HUD on one of these applications. It 
will read one of two basic ways:
  The first scenario is: Dear Community A, your block grant application 
has been denied because your plan did not integrate people of different 
races, ethnicities, or religions into one area. That would likely lead 
to an immediate lawsuit in which the court would uphold the 
municipality's case.
  The second scenario would be a lengthy and wordy denial which is 
vague enough so that HUD does not open itself up to a lawsuit, but also 
so vague that the applicant will likely never know how to correctly 
plan and apply for one of these grants.
  We see there are two separate and distinct avenues by which major 
lawsuits could fly and constitutional challenges arise. Both the 
Federal Government and the local government would be setting themselves 
up for failure.
  If these issues arise and court challenges ensue, we have seen the 
recent patterns from the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of racial quotas 
and attempts at racial diversity. Again, the solution is looking for a 
problem. The mere notion that the Federal Government must step in and 
tamper with the most local of politics to integrate people of various 
races, economic statuses, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds is 
offensive to me and many of my constituents.
  Mr. FLEMING. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H5180]]

the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have one last amendment at the desk, 129.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to administer the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration's National Roadside Survey.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to save taxpayers 
money, to protect the civil liberties and privacy of my constituents in 
accordance with the Fourth Amendment, and to champion efforts of local 
law enforcement and those advocacy groups which work hand-in-hand to 
curb citizens from driving under the influence.
  My amendment is simple. It seeks to prohibit funds from being used to 
administer the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
National Roadside Survey. This ``survey'' looks like and acts like a 
police checkpoint and uses uniformed officers to pull cars over.
  Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. We would be more than happy to accept the amendment in 
the interest of time if we could move on.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is in the midst of a 
transportation and infrastructure crisis. In California alone, we have 
over 2,500 structurally deficient bridges in dire need of repair.
  Current investments into transportation infrastructure are barely 
able to cover our Nation's most pressing needs, and critical projects 
in my district are the foundation of our growing economy. That is why 
in 2009 Congress created the Transportation Investment Generating 
Economic Recovery grant program, known as TIGER. TIGER grants have 
successfully funded projects to revitalize and expand infrastructure 
across the country.
  A grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was to 
provide roughly 50 percent of the funding needed to upgrade the SunLine 
Transit Agency's operations management system in my district. These 
upgrades allowed SunLine to integrate vehicle location technology, 
scheduling systems, and automatic passenger counters into their Web 
site to provide riders with a gateway for simple information, like when 
the next bus is going to arrive and if it will have room for 
passengers, which is important for my constituents to reduce wait times 
outside in our desert heat. This technology has improved ridership, 
taken vehicles off the road, reducing our carbon footprint. There are 
other projects in my district that could receive TIGER funding should 
we adequately fund it.
  The Coachella Valley Association of Governments has developed a CV 
Link project to connect eight cities in the Coachella Valley, with a 
new alternate transportation route to the busiest corridor in our 
valley. A TIGER award paired with local investment would be enough to 
make it a reality. The project would create 690 jobs and potentially 
generate $147 billion in economic benefits through 2035 from sources 
such as increased tourism, reduced vehicle emissions, improved health 
conditions, and new jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, this is why it is essential that we do not cut 
successful grant programs like TIGER, especially as our economy 
continues to recover and unemployment rates remain high. Ultimately, 
this is just part of the lack of funding for transportation 
infrastructure's story.
  Within a few short months, the highway trust fund, which is 
responsible for the vast majority of Federal transportation funding, 
will run out of money. This will bring hundreds of transportation 
projects across the Nation to a grinding halt, eliminate the thousands 
of jobs they support, and jeopardize our economic recovery.
  As Representatives, it is our responsibility to put aside our 
differences and work together to find a pragmatic, fiscally sound 
solution to fix the highway trust fund. Our communities in our 
districts are depending on us to demonstrate leadership to help them 
rebuild roads and bridges and operate public transit lines that take 
people to work, to their doctor's appointments, to grocery stores and, 
ultimately, keep our economy moving forward.
  We must serve the people we represent by doing our jobs to find a 
bipartisan solution that addresses a highway trust fund crisis so 
critical infrastructure projects in my district and across the country 
are not ignored. I look forward to working with Chairman Shuster and 
Ranking Member Rahall of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee to get this done. I encourage all my colleagues to put aside 
partisanship and problem-solve this critical issue.
  I want to thank Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor for your 
great service. Thank you so much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Fleming

  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I have amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to acquire a camera for the purpose of collecting or 
     storing vehicle license plate numbers.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
Transportation-HUD appropriations bill that will prohibit the purchase 
of automated license plate readers that can record and indefinitely 
store innocent Americans' whereabouts as they drive by.
  In the wake of the revelations about NSA data collection, Americans 
are now learning that police cars and traffic cameras are similarly 
accumulating a picture of their lives. In many States, there is no 
policy for how long the government may store the data, and so it is 
being retained indefinitely.
  Just like phone metadata, this geo-location data with time stamps can 
be used to reconstruct intimate details of our lives, who we visit, 
where we worship, from whom we seek counseling, and how we might 
legally and legitimately protest the actions of our own government.
  This language expands upon the prohibitions already adopted under 
previous MAP-21 reauthorizations preventing Federal funds from being 
used to purchase cameras for purposes of traffic law enforcement. 
Despite this prohibition, transportation grants can still currently be 
used to purchase cameras that collect and store license plate data even 
when no crime has been committed.
  Certain highway safety grants within this bill can be used to 
purchase traffic monitoring systems that we see along highways. This 
amendment would not stop the purchase of such traffic monitoring 
cameras. It would only prohibit cameras that have the ability and the 
purpose of capturing and indefinitely storing the license plate 
information of innocent Americans.
  Citizens of each State should have the opportunity to decide the 
question, but citizens of one State who oppose this policy should not 
subsidize such monitoring in other States. This amendment does not stop 
States from purchasing these cameras on their own. Each State should 
have an open and fair debate in their legislatures about what their 
citizens are comfortable with. This amendment gives States and local 
governments a 1-year pause on purchasing these cameras until Congress 
can deal with the issue more fully.
  Therefore, I ask the support of all in this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the issue the 
gentleman is trying to get at.

[[Page H5181]]

                              {time}  2245

  I must oppose the amendment because I think there are some unintended 
consequences. As far as the way the amendment itself is written, in 
effect you are banning DOT or HUD from ever purchasing another camera 
for any use, in essence, because of the possibility it might capture a 
license plate somewhere.
  It simply will also have a lot of wide unanticipated operational 
impacts across all of the programs in this bill. There could be a 
prohibition on purchases of aircraft control surveillance technologies 
at the FAA, an unintended ban on cameras used for safety purposes at 
airports and air traffic control facilities.
  The prohibition could prevent Federal and State motor carrier 
inspectors from using camera-based technology to screen vehicles for 
compliance with safety regulations.
  The broad nature of this prohibition will negatively affect key 
research program studies and crash investigations for the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  The prohibition could undermine revenue collection systems on several 
large toll-funded routes who take pictures of a license plate--and that 
is how they charge--and put Federal loans at risk of default not having 
that means of collecting those revenues.
  At HUD, the prohibition, being as broad as it is, could prevent 
housing authorities from purchasing or operating security systems that 
are critical to the health and safety of the residents in the public 
housing and the surrounding communities.
  I totally understand the gentleman's point, but there are some 
ramifications here. I think that maybe we could tailor it better, 
working on it together in the future, but at this point I would have to 
oppose the amendment, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLEMING. 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 Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for recapitalization of the Ready Reserve Force of 
     the National Defense Reserve Fleet except in a manner 
     consistent with chapter 83 of title 41, United States Code 
     (popularly referred to as the ``Buy American Act'').

  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 California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to take 5 minutes, but 
this issue is rather important.
  In the long history of the United States Navy, we have always built 
our ships in America. The Ready Reserve Fleet is part of our national 
defense system. It provides ships that are necessary for the hauling of 
cargo that are always ready and available for the military to move its 
equipment--men, supplies, women--wherever they may need to go across 
the oceans.
  That reserve fleet is going to need to be recapitalized and replaced 
over the next several years. The question before us is whether that 
fleet and those new ships will be built in America or in China or Japan 
or Korea.
  This amendment would simply require that they be built in America, as 
they have in the past.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             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 imposes additional duties.
  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. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The point of order issue has been rather flexible, as 
we have seen in previous appropriation bills that have been on this 
floor. When the majority wants to change the law, it seems as though a 
point of order isn't appropriate. But when someone else wants to 
address a crucial national issue, such as making sure our shipyards 
have the work and our Navy and the Ready Reserve Fleet is American 
built, then I suppose a point of order seems to have some further 
power. Therefore, I don't think a point of order is appropriate.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the 
gentleman from California.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination of whether certain actions are consistent with a 
provision of law not otherwise applicable to these actions.
  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. grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to make bonus awards to contractors for work on 
     projects that are behind schedule or over budget.

  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.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple good government 
provision. It says that when a contractor goes over budget or is behind 
schedule the contractor should not be rewarded for that. None of the 
funds made available in this act may be used to pay for bonus awards to 
contractors who work on projects that are behind schedule or over 
budget.
  The provision that we are talking about here appears in the Senate 
Transportation, Housing Appropriations bill that was reported out of 
the committee in the Senate last week. It should appear in our bill and 
it should be signed into law.
  Nothing in this amendment places a blanket ban on bonuses to 
contractors. What this amendment does, however, is to demonstrate that 
Congress expects Federal projects to be delivered on time and on 
budget.
  We have heard so many words over the years in this Chamber about 
waste, fraud, and abuse. This simple amendment accurately cracks down 
on those examples of waste, fraud, and abuse that arise and prevents 
taxpayer money from being squandered. If projects are not delivered on 
time and on budget, this amendment simply ensures that bad contractors 
are not rewarded extra for that poor performance.
  With regard to the terms that are used, the term ``bonus award'' 
refers to the Federal acquisition regulation, title 48 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, subpart 16.4, having to do with incentive 
contracts. That term is defined in that provision.
  With regard to the term ``work on projects,'' that simply refers to 
the contractor's contract.
  With regard to the term ``behind schedule,'' that refers to the time 
of delivery. That is a provision that is in every contract in FAR 
52.211-8 or FAR 52.211-9. The regulations specifically provide for time 
of delivery with a delivery schedule, and that is the term that is used 
in the regulation, and also in the contract itself. Those provisions

[[Page H5182]]

are proscribed in the Federal Acquisition Regulations in 48 C.F.R., 
subpart 11.4, specifically FAR 11.404.
  The term ``over budget'' is very simply a reference to the contract 
award itself. The Federal Acquisition Regulations proscribes a specific 
form for that purpose in 48 C.F.R. 53, and that is Standard Form 33. In 
Box 22 of Standard Form 33 is the contract award amount. If the 
contractor goes over budget, the contract has exceeded the amount that 
appears in FAR 52.3 of 33 in the award amount box, in Box 20. The 
provision refers to cost reimbursement awards and it refers to time and 
material awards. If the goes over budget on a firm fixed price award, 
the contractor bears that expense. If the contractor goes over budget 
on a time and materials award or a cost reimbursement award and then 
seeks a bonus on top of that from the government, then that is what we 
are prohibiting here.
  These are terms that are well recognized in the world of Federal 
contracting. This provision accurately targets overpayment to 
contractors, extra payment to contractors, bonus payment to 
contractors, when they have gone behind schedule or they are over 
budget.
  I submit that the Senate was wise to include this in its bill. We 
should do the same.
  I ask my colleagues respectfully for their support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             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 imposes additional duties.
  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. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, it is simply not the case that this is 
legislating. It is simply not the case this imposes any additional 
duties.
  As I indicated a few moments ago, the terms that are in this 
provision are terms that are ascertainable from every single government 
contract that is awarded. Every single government contract that is 
awarded by the Federal Government is done so through Standard Form 33. 
That lists the amount of the contract award.
  Every single government contract that is awarded that has a delivery 
schedule--and not every one does--but every one that has a delivery 
schedule has a delivery schedule in the form of a provision in FAR 
52.211-8 or 52.211-9.
  All the government would have to do is simply observe the terms of 
its own contract and be able to ascertain these facts. When the 
government is looking at the terms of its own contract, that is 
something the government does every day; therefore, there is no 
additional legislating that is involved here.
  I respectfully submit that this is not legislating. This is not 
asking the government to do anything in addition to what the government 
already is required to do. It is simply prohibiting a waste of 
expenditure, a waste of funds, and that is exactly a primary purpose of 
these appropriation bills.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, the rationale for the point of order is 
projects can be broad in scope, both in terms of the purpose of the 
project and the number and types of contractors involved.
  For an agency to determine whether a specific bonus can be awarded, 
this amendment would require the agency to also determine whether the 
project as a whole is over budget or behind schedule, not simply the 
part of the project pertaining to the agency awarding the bonus.
  So I, again, would insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard to respond to the last 
comment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will hear further argument from the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, responding to the last point, 
respectfully, again, these are contract terms that are defined in the 
contract itself.
  The gentleman has a point that the term ``project'' is one that could 
be taken to refer to something other than a contract if we were not 
talking about Federal contracting. Here we are talking about Federal 
contracts only, so the term ``project'' refers to what the contractor 
is working on.
  There is no ambiguity here. Either the contract is on schedule or it 
is off schedule. Either the contract is over budget or it is on budget 
or it is under budget. There is simply no ambiguity involved here.
  If we were legislating, then I would see the gentleman's point, but 
in this particular case we are not. Therefore, I respectfully request 
that the point of order be overruled and we be allowed to proceed to a 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the 
gentleman from Iowa.
  The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order that the amendment 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI by requiring a new determination by a 
relevant Federal official.
  Specifically, the amendment would require each contracting official 
to determine whether any aspect of a project is behind schedule or over 
budget, especially if multiple agencies have entered into separate 
contracts on the same project.
  Absent a showing that this determination is already required by law, 
the Chair is constrained to find that the amendment violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 417.  None of the funds made available by this Act and 
     administered by the Department of Transportation may be used 
     on a transportation project unless all contracts carried out 
     within the scope of the applicable National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 finding, determination, or decision are 
     Buy America compliant. If the Secretary finds that such a 
     requirement is not in the public interest, this requirement 
     can be waived, but only if the designation is justified and 
     made available for public comment 30 days before the waiver 
     takes effect.

                              {time}  2300

  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 California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of order. We are 
going to be facing that with my other six amendments, but I would like 
to speak to this issue and also to the others at the same time, and I 
will drop the other amendments.
  Yesterday, I had the pleasure of driving across San Francisco Bay on 
the brandnew east San Francisco Bay Bridge, a multibillion-dollar 
project. The steel of that project in its main section was built in 
China. It was fabricated in China. The Chinese steel company built a 
new steel mill, the most advanced in the world. There were 3,000 
Chinese jobs and zero American jobs.
  The way they are able to get around the Buy American provisions is 
that the State of California segmented the multibillion-dollar project 
into 20 different pieces, therefore avoiding the Buy America provisions 
on this crucial center span of that bridge. This amendment would 
prohibit that from ever happening again.
  The other amendments speak to the $50 billion that is going to be 
spent by this bill and would require, in various

[[Page H5183]]

ways, that that money be spent here in America on American-made goods, 
American steel, American products, and on American workers.
  We ought to buy in America. We ought to make this other national 
policy. We ought never have another Bay Bridge. We ought to do what we 
did in the American Recovery Act that required that some $800 million 
for Amtrak locomotives be spent on 100 percent American-made. Indeed, 
Siemens, a German company, has established a manufacturing plant in 
Sacramento to manufacture those locomotives.
  One of the other amendments I will not be taking up tonight deals 
specifically with the rolling stock for public transportation, that it, 
too, be American-made and that we increase the percentage of American 
content from 60 percent to 100 percent.
  This is American taxpayer money. That money ought to be spent in 
America. American taxpayers should demand it. The Members of Congress 
should demand that their taxpayers' money be spent on American-made 
equipment, goods, and services. This is part of the Make It In America 
agenda.
  It is most specific here at this time, as we are about to, in the 
next day, spend $50 billion of American taxpayer money. Are we going to 
spend it on American-made equipment, American goods and services? Or 
are they going to be coming from China or somewhere else in the world?
  The question is very straightforward for all of us. Unfortunately, 
because of the point of order that will be raised on this and the other 
six amendments, we will not have a chance tonight, tomorrow, and 
perhaps in the days ahead, to really do something for America in 
rebuilding our manufacturing sector by requiring that our taxpayer 
money be spent on American-made goods, services, and on American 
workers.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             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. The Chair finds that this amendment includes 
language requiring a new determination of compliance with a law not 
otherwise applicable.
  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. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to authorize, approve, or implement a toll on 
     existing free lanes on any segment of Interstate 4 in the 
     State of Florida.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds 
appropriated by this bill from being used for the purpose of 
establishing a toll on any existing free lane of Interstate 4 in the 
State of Florida.
  I-4, as we call it back home, is the most traveled road in the 
central Florida region. Thousands of my constituents, each day, commute 
to and from work using the road. To use their hard-earned tax dollars 
to implement a new fee on our commutes just seems wrong to me, and that 
is why I am offering this amendment.
  I don't think Floridians should be treated any differently in this 
bill than, frankly, Texans are on pages 31 and 32 of this bill.
  My constituents would like to keep their freeway free, and I don't 
blame them, particularly when ground has been broken on new toll lanes 
that will run right down the middle of I-4.
  Local authorities are free to build new lanes and expressways, as is 
the Federal Government, and provide for construction as they see fit, 
but I am here to make sure that the existing free lanes on I-4 remain 
untolled.
  I urge support for this amendment. After all, a toll is very much 
like a tax, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should 
recognize.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
There are multiple toll finance projects along the I-4 corridor that 
could potentially be disrupted by this prohibition.
  Further, this prohibition could undermine the creditworthiness of 
pending applications for Federal loans to support critical projects 
along I-4.
  This route crosses multiple Members' districts, and it is not clear 
what effect it may have on future I-4 projects.
  Therefore, I must urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment was originally drafted to 
apply to both new and existing lanes. This amendment was redrawn and 
redrafted to specifically limit it to existing free lanes.
  All of the contract work that is being done in central Florida, and 
in fact around the country at this point, would not be affected by this 
amendment because it applies to only existing free lanes.
  My question to the gentleman from Iowa is, Did the gentleman realize 
that the amendment had been modified before the gentleman opposed the 
amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona controls the time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.
  Yes, we were aware of it. We have been advised by the DOT of the 
ramifications of this amendment in the revised form. That is why I rise 
in opposition. It is DOT's concerns we are raising.
  Mr. GRAYSON. I thank the gentleman for the clarification.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide a per-passenger subsidy in excess of $250 
     under the Essential Air Service program.

  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.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, the Essential Air Service program, or EAS, 
is an expensive government handout. It is, in effect, welfare for 
airplanes.
  Page 9 of this bill states that, under the EAS, the per-passenger 
subsidy for flights that would otherwise not exist to rural 
communities, excluding Hawaii and Alaska, is capped at $500 per 
passenger. That is simply too high.
  I don't see any reason why we should be paying people $500 to fly 
from communities like Muscles Shoals, not when this Congress is cutting 
food aid programs and development block grants to communities.
  I think this is a very poor use of taxpayer funds. It is an example 
of the waste, fraud, and abuse that we constantly decry.
  My amendment would reduce the $500 per passenger subsidy allowed 
under the EAS to a still very high $250 because $500 per passenger is 
simply outrageous.
  If passengers don't want to fly those aviation routes, then those 
subsidies

[[Page H5184]]

shouldn't exist, and in fact, the routes should exist.
  For $500 per passenger, we could rent a limousine for every single 
person that boards these EAS flights and drive them to the nearest 
commercial airport.
  I understand the need for rural services for necessary aspects of 
life like Postal Service, telephones, and even the Internet, but I 
cannot understand the need to subsidize regular airline flights that 
would otherwise not exist to the tune of $500 per passenger.
  Many of these flights fly empty. Many have only one or two or three 
passengers on them on a large airplane. They exist only because the 
government is paying the bill. We are taxing people to subsidize other 
people's airfare.
  The bill before us today would cut funding for transit starts by 13 
percent, TIGER grants by 80 percent, public housing modernization by 5 
percent, and the home program for 30 percent, among other things. Under 
these circumstances, I cannot stand here in good conscience and allow a 
subsidy like this to continue.
  I offer this amendment today because it is more important to put a 
roof over the heads of the poor in this housing bill and to make sure 
that people have a means to gets to work and to get to their families 
and their loved ones in this transportation bill, than it is to hand 
out corporate welfare to United Airlines.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             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 with respect to the 
calculation of a per-passenger subsidy.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on this 
point of order?
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, this very same bill limits this subsidy to 
$500 per passenger. Earlier on in this bill, that is a determination 
that this bill requires to be made. I am simply changing that figure 
from $500 to $250. It is, shall I say, unwarranted.
  To say that that is expecting any new law, enacting anything new, it 
is simply modifying another provision in this specific act.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair finds that this amendment includes 
language requiring a new determination.
  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.
  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. 
Latham) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, 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. 4745) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________