Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 88 (Monday, June 9, 2014)

[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

[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

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

[[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

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

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

____________________