corporations. we are only collecting about 14% or 15% of g.d.p. in taxes this year. the normal range is between 19% and 21%, i say normal meaning the entire post-world war ii period. we are collecting 14%, 15% the last couple years. because of one, the recession, and two, because we greatly reduced effective taxes on multinational corporations and on rich people. . under president reagan, we had 25 different tax practs. somebody making $25 million paid a higher tax than someone making $1 million, paid a higher tax rate than $250,000. now the highest tax rate makes -- kicks in at under $250,000. so someone making $1 million doesn't pay my ness than -- any less than someone making $250

million. we have great needs in this country. we have to fix our highways, our roads, our bridges, our hospitals our broadband. we have to invest so this country will be economically competitive. our schools, teefers -- teachers, cops, if you want to fix the deficit, change what we should be doing to invest in this country. get rid of the bush tax cuts, or most of them, which went interly -- or get rid of the ones that went to rich people, high income people, corporations, make large corporations pay an effective tax rate again, instead of a large number of corporations paying $0 in taxes. reduce the pentagon budget. with eno longer need the troops in germany to protect against a soviet tank invasion, since the soviets don't exist anymore. but don't have the mythology

that we have a greatly expanded federal spending over the last 10 years or even the last three years which is simply not though case. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will reread. -- will read. the clerk: page 74, line 17, fair housing opportunities $72,904,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia seeks recognition? mr. broun: yes, ma'am, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of fwea, page 74, line 19, after the dollar

amount insert reduced by $304,000. page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $304,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized to explain his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. again i rise just to freeze the funding for salaries and office expenses for the office of fair housing and equal opportunity. by a meager $304,000. if we cannot cut out $115,000 or $304,000, what are we going to cut? as my friend from massachusetts already said, actually on two of my amendments, that it's to increase salaries of federal bureaucrats. we've got to freeze the salaries of these bureaucrats. we've got to be fiscally responsible. my amendment doesn't cut any program, doesn't cut any service, doesn't cut out any part of the necessary aspects

of the federal government. all it does is it freezes the salaries and expenses of this office as the other amendments would do so. it freezes it at this year's levels. doesn't even go backwards. freezes it at this year's levels. i urge support of my amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. olver: um, i seek to -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olver: time in opposition. madam chairwoman, now at this point, i think, i think this is the last of this group of amendments that have been proposed in this area. and when you put them together, when you put them together, because one was for $6.5 million, one was for about $5 million, and there were a

couple that were a -- there was one a little over $1 million, a couple that were smaller. the sum total of people who will be taken out of the -- who this would require the freeze in that way, it would require that some number around 200 or so employees would be put out of positions. now the gentleman from georgia thinks that, well, they're federal bureaucrats. but they're providing a service. in this instance, it is the service as the -- in the office of fair housing and equal opportunity, which has a budget, toe tl budget of $70 million. or so. and this $300,000 is only a couple of percent out of it. most of the salaries and

expenses, most of these agencies that he has been affecting are mostly done in salaries and expenses of the operation of the office. but they all provide a public service to people. in this instance, it's the office of fair housing and equal opportunity. well, the truth is americans have the same right, all americans have the same right too housing and investigate instances where those rights have been violated. so we are in every instance of them, and we dealt with a couple of similar ones last night before, in the other department, under this bill, they only serve to slow down the effective operation of those offices to provide services across the whole gamut of things which have been given to them to do, whether it be

public housing, whether it be the veterans' administration program, the fair housing administration program, the f.h.a., the housing for elders, housing for disabled people, all of them are the same ilk. there's no reason to do anything other than the same thing that we have done in the past and so i'm urging again a no vote on this and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i thank you, madam chairwoman. i understand the gentleman and i appreciate the fact that he wants to cut spending. we have in fact in this bill cut the spending from the request $1.4 million on this

particular line item in the budget. the fact of the matter is, madam chairwoman, we have additional rent that we have to pay, we have an extra day of work for the federal workers next year that we have to pay. so there's not going to be any increase, it's basically going to maintain where we are in this function. but again, we have already cut from the president's request $1.4 million and there are additional costs we're going to incur just to stay even from last year system of with that, i would urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 74, line 20. office of healthy homes and lead hazard control, $6,618,000. public and indian housing, tenant based rental assistance, $15,134,283,000. the chair: the gentleman from new york seeks recognition, for what purpose? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman specify which nadler amendment? mr. nadler: i only have one at the desk. it's the one -- the one we dealt with last night se the only other one. the clerk: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will reminority amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in the congressional record offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa

seek recognition? mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is is reserved. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: we spend a lot of time talking about how we need to do more with less. the reality is all too often we do less withless. this is the unfortunate reality facing our rental assistance program. the housing choice voucher, section 8, provides rental assistance to two million households with very low incomes. half of these are senior or people with disabilities, most of the rest are families with children. experts agree with h.u.d.'s section 8. because of the widely accepted success of the program, section 8 has enjoyed bipartisan support for many years. despite agreement among policy experts and politicians,

section 8 funding levels continue to come up short of the actual need. the national low income housing coalition found that according to the latest census data, for every 100 households, only 30 rental units are affordable and available. three quarters of renters with extremely low incomes pay hoing costs that exceed half their incomes. placing them at high risk of housing instability and homelessness. yet because of limited funds, only one in four eligible families receives rental assistance. without increasing funds beyond what is included in this bill for the section 8 program, an estimated 58,000 low income families will lose their rental assistance next year. their existing rental assistance. putting these families at risk of homelessness. even the more conservative estimate of the section 8 budget shortfall by the o.m.b. finds that 30,000 low income families will p be at risk of losing their current vouchers and therefore of losing their homes. with housing instability and

homelessness comes the destabilizing of families and possible long-term negative impacts on kids. that's why i'm offering this amendment. this amendment would increase funding for section 8 voucher renewables by $48 -- of $468 million. to ensure that existing vouchers will continue and no family will lose a section 8 voucher this does not increase the number of vouchers, though i'd love to do that, but it ensures that no family will lose their section 8 voucher. by funding section 8 at the level to continue funding existing vouchers, we make sure it's unnecessary for h.u.d. to implement its proposal for $75 minimum rent. even if that $75 exceeds the normal section 8 rental limit of 30% of income. to most of us, $75 doesn't seem like a lot of money.

it's a meal for two in many restaurants. but for thousands of h.u.d.-assisted families with less than $250 a month income, $ 5 is a lot of money. for 400,000 h.u.d. assisted families, $ 5 would be a 50% increase, leaving them with less money for food and other necessities, talking about families with $2,000 or $2,500 annually. our first objective must be to prevent further hardship to the poorest people in our country and to prevent additional potential homelessness among low income families. we must ensure we don't lose current section 8 assistance, we do not impose a new minimum rent that could be way beyond 30% of income for people earning $2,000 or $2,500. this amendment is necessary to do that. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i thank you

and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: madam chairwoman, the amendment proposes a net increase in the bill. it is not in order under section 3j3 which states it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a knelt increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section and i would ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, madam

speaker. madam speaker, the necessity for this amendment is undeniable. the hardship and the suffering this budget would cause without this amendment by imposing minimum rentals way beyond 30% of income on people with incomes of $2,000 or $2,500 annually is undeniable. that this congress should do such a thing is regrettable, to put it mildly. i understand the rule. the rule would require an offset of an equal amount of money. but in this overly restrictive bill to start with, there is no way of finding such an overly -- such an offset of that amount of money without hurting people in equal amounts -- in equal fashion in other ways. so that says that we have a choice of really injuring these people or really injuring those people.

it's not an acceptable choice. i understand the rule, that is regrettable. i hope that as we progress with this budget that we can find a way of finding the funds we have in this amendment for this purpose so that we do not injure all these thousands and thousands of very low income people. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. section 3-j-3, establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in the budget authority in the pending bill. the chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate of the chair on the committee of the budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in oreder.

the clerk will read. the clerk: page 83, line 17. housing certificate fund. an obligated balance including recaptures remaining from funds appropriated to the kept may be used for renewal of or amendments to section 8 project-based contracts. public housing capital fund, $1,985,000,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman specify which amendment he's referring to? mr. broun: i have it as amendment number 160. i think that's the designation. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page 84, line 19, after the dollar amendment insert reduced by $110 million. page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount insert increased

by $110 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. the underlying bill is suggesting that congress allot an increase of $110 million in federal funding for the public housing capital fund from this fiscal year, from fiscal year 2012. my amendment would simply freeze funding at our current level and reduce the proposed funding by $110 million. we got to stop spending. that's what all my efforts are geared towards. we can continue to give necessary function of the federal government to those who need it. my amendment would just freeze the increase -- proposed increase in funding. we keep it at this current year level. i urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment that would save over $110 million for the hardworking taxpayers

of america and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. olver: madam chairwoman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olver: the amendment that the gentleman from georgia has now offered has to due with the public housing capital fund. and the -- and i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the public housing infrastructure currently has an estimated $26 billion of maintenance backlog. in fact, capital repairs accumulate at the rate of something over $3 billion a

year which is considerably higher than $1.9 billion that is contained in this $1.985 billion that's contained in this bill. so what we are doing is year by year continuing to provide maintenance funding, capital -- the replacement of utilities, the replacement of appliances and such simple maintenance as painting, if it's needed, and so on in our more than a million housing facilities, housing units in the 3,500 or so of our total housing authorities around the country.

we are putting steadily these in a situation where we're building a further capital maintenance backlog gap year by year by year. so this is -- this is never a wise thing to do when it's at the extent we are presently doing it, but the $110 million at least is a little bit better than not having the $110 million which would be an even greater increase in the backlog gap that we have for maintenance and repair and upgrading of our housing units. all those housing units are intended to last for many years and be used long into the future. and if we don't maintain them properly in a reasonable way, then eventually we will lose

those units and it is much more expensive to replace the units with new units than it is to maintain them in a proper way. so i urge a no vote on this amendment so that we do not continue to dig our hole deeper on the maintenance needs for the stock of housing that we have in our 3,500 public housing authorities around the country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> madam chairwoman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam chairwoman, i rise in support of this amendment. this is a $110 million increase in spending and is simply too much under the circumstances.

mr. duncan: i want to commend chairman latham and all those who worked on this bill because the materials that was provided to our office says it contains a 7.1% decrease in funding which i think is the biggest cut of any appropriations bill that we've dealt with so far. but i also want to commend and salute the gentleman from georgia for trying even harder to rein in spending because i think almost everyone on both sides of the aisle know that we have to reduce spending and we have to do more than we've been doing. this $110 million increase is double the rate of inflation. the amendment by the gentleman from georgia does not reduce the funding of this agency. it just holds it at the same level. we've cut our own budgets, madam chairwoman, for the last couple of years. we've tried to cut many other things, but megabillions have been poured into this prram

over the last 10 or 15 years. even with the gentleman's amendment, this fund will still get $1,765,000,000 and i know most people think that's an awful lot of money. i tell you i rise in support of this amount. i -- this amendment. i certainly hope if this is not passed then we will pass the much smaller cut in the gentleman's next amendment. this is a good amendment. we have to get serious when it comes to spending. unless we want this country to become a gigantic greece and have the problems we are seeing all over the world, then we got to do more than what we're doing, so i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. latham: i thank you, madam chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. we have been fiscally responsible in this bill by reducing the public housing capital fund by $85 million below the budget request. and we're hearing that this funding level will be a challenge because there's a backlog, madam chairman, of over $25 billion in capital projects. however, this does represent one of the toughest choices we've had to make to meet our allocation in this bill. a deeper cut to this account will merely defer projects to future years and i believe will cost more money in the future by running up the cost in those projects in the years ahead. with that i would urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: madam chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. mr. broun: madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: i was going to introduce another amendment to the same program which would be a decrease of just 10% of the increase. and as i see things going on here today, we can't even cut out $115,000. cutting out $11 million i'm sure is out of the question by my colleagues. madam chair, we just got to stop spending. i am not going to offer the other one. i would anticipate a point of order being brought against it

and rightfully so. so i'm not going to produce -- introduce that amendment. i just ask that my colleagues and i hope that they hear from americans all over this country that we got to stop the spending. i yield back. the chair: and the gentleman yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 86, line 8. public housing operating fund. $4,524,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. if the gentleman could specify which amendment. mr. broun: madam chairman, it's amendment 162. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. page 86, line 12, after the dollar amount insert reduced by

$562,150,000. page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount increase by $562,150,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized to explain his amendment. mr. broun: the underlying bill increases funding for the public housing operating fund by over $500 million from this year, from fiscal year 2012. my amendment would simply return the funding back to this year from the proposed level. it's $500 million increase. at a time when our nation is broke and american taxpayers are struggling to put food on their tables and looking for jobs, it is imperative that we look for commonsense cuts wherever we can, and this is one of those. it's a lot of money. $500 million.

some would say it's very small amount compared to the overall funding level proposed in this bill, but it's still $500 million. we just have to stop spending money that we don't have. i urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment that would save over $500 million and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i thank you, madam chairman, and i speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latham: i thank the chairwoman. i do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. this is an amendment on face value that is somewhat confusing, shall we say. while there appears to be a large increase in this account, year, this account is

approximately level funded from last year because last year we went in and took $500 million out of reserve fund in the public housing authority that was sitting there that were unexpended balances. those reserves are no longer there, and so what we're having to do in this bill basically to stay virtually even is to have the $562 million over last year. this fund provides many of the necessary operating maintenance activities for housing authorities including health, safety and sanitation. our funding levels for public housing build in savings from reform proposals that we urged the authorizers to complete before we go to final conference on the bill and, again, in this entire bill, whether you talk about the highway bill, financial services doing their work but that would be extremely helpful

if in fact we had authorizations that would actually limit spending and that we could follow. but, again, i just want to reiterate we used $500 million a year ago out of the funds that were available sitting there idle and so what in fact this does is basically even from last year while it appears to be a large increase and in fact is not because of the use of those funds from last year, the reserve funds. i believe we're providing a responsible level of funding for this program and again i want to reiterate, madam chairman, we are cutting about $4 billion in this bill, in this appropriations bill, i think the gentleman earlier mentioned that the largest percentage cut of any bill so far on the floor, but this particular issue, this particular amendment, would be

extremely devastating because of the funding -- funding issues and reserve account that we used last year. with that, i would urge a no vote on the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. olver: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olver: i'm not sure i have much to add to what think chairman has said other than to point out, you look back at the number of dollars that was assign nerd fiscal year 202 -- assigned for the fiscal year 2011 bill, that was over $6 billion system of last year's, in 2012, the amount of money brought that down to under $4 billion. the $500-plus million that the gentleman from iowa pointed out was part reserves that were taken from those housing

authorities around the country who had substantial reserves. so that has been done. that was a one-shot kind of deal. and now the funding has to go back to something that is in the line of yearly fundings going back a period of time, going back well into a decade ago, that were on a different guide path. so this is just returning to that. it is at the president's request. it is below the amount that has been awarded, given to this in the other bodies -- body's allocation, they had a larger allocation and their number for this particular account is well below ours. it's $70 million or so dollar best low what has been provided

by the chairman in the mark for this year. so i think this is entirely appropriate, given the size of the maintenance fwaps -- gaps and the need to keep maintaining your facility, your housing quality, so that you don't end up losing that or ending up with much higher expense for replacement. i urge a no vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i ask for a recorded vote, please, ma'am. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read.

the clerk: page 86, line 20, native american housing block grants, $650 million to remain available until september 30, 2017. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii, page 88, line 2, insert the follork native american housing block grant, including transfer of funds. for the native hawaiian block grant program authorized under the native american title assistance and self-determination act of 1996, $13 million to remain available until expended which amount shall be derived by transfer from the amount provided in this title under management and administration, administration operations and management, for the office of the chief human capital officer. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition?

mr. olver -- mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: i would like to support -- speak in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. my amendment inserts the amount of $13 million for the native hawaiian housing block grant. this is in line with the president's budget. the president provided for the same amount and states that the native hawaiian block grant is authorized under title 8 of the native american housing and self-determination act of 1996. the black grant authorizes an annual grant to the hawaiian homelands for housing and housing-related assistance. let us understand the significance of this block grant to this and to the

nation. in 1921, the congress passed into law the hawaiian homes commission act. congress recognized that it was necessary to return native hawaiians to their land to support self-sufficiency the preservation of their values, traditions and culture. madam speaker, at the time, 1893, the queen was overthrown, hawaii was a vibrant, modern nation. and what happened after the overthrow resulted in the need and congress saw the need, that we needed to look at the return of native hawaiians to their land. in essence, a trust relationship was created by the creation of the hawaiian homes commission act. the hawaiian homes commission act made very clear that only hawaiians of 50% blood would qualify, that the lands could only be leased, not owned, and it restricted their ability to mortgage and haddock pansy

restrictions as well this block grant assists in fulfilling the special trust relations which were created and acknowledged in the hawaiian homes commission act. it assures the return to the land of native hawaiians, which was a concern of congress. if this provision is authorized and people vote for it, what it will do is it will for mt. -- permit the existing and ongoing projects to be completed with the ultimate goal of putting native hawaiians on the land which was the purpose of the trust relationship that we created in the hawaiian homes commission act of 1921. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i make a point of order against the amendment because it provides appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of

rule 21. clause of rule 21 states in pertinent part, an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. madam chair, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that's not been authorized. the amendment therefore violates clause 2, rule 21, and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any member seek recognition to be heard on the point of order? ms. hanabusa: madam speaker, i seek recognition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hanabusa: i understand the point of order that has been raised but with let me with all due rment say, when we look at the language of any rule, the language that is against the suspect here is not previously authorized by law. in fact, as stated by the president, as well as in my amendment, this provision has been authorized by law and it is found in the hasda, title 8. when we look at the wording not

previously authorized, a technical argument may be that it was authorized at some point in time and then expired in 2005. however that is not what the rule says. the rule says, not previously authorized. this has been previously authorized. the reason -- the recent united states supreme court court of lamey vs. u.s. trustee is very clear. we can borrow from the supreme court when it gives its opinion as to what it means. the plain language is what controls. any interpretation of any statute of any rule. it is clearly plain language that what is being referred to here is the fact that it was not previously authorized, and it has been previously authorized. in addition to that, i would also like to say that there is an exception to this rule that says that you can continue appropriations for public works and objects that are already in

progress. and to that, madam speaker, i point out that as we have said, this money is used for the return of the native hawaiians to the land, it includes, of course, construction and public works. they are prompts ongoing that need this money. on the islands thorninge big island thorninge kona side, and other areas, so on this point of order, madam speaker, i believe that it has been misinterpreted, the words are not previously authorized and in addition to that, and this specific provision has been authorized and in addition to that, the exception is for public works projects in progress and the public works

projects are the ones that i have listed which as we know is the object of the grant, of the native hawaiian housing block grant. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. do any other members wish to seek time on the point of order. mr. latham: i will insist on my point of order. the fact of the matter is, this program is not currently authorized, there are no ongoing public works in progress and so once again, i would insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of persuasion on the question whether it is supported by an authorization in law. having reviewed the amendment and entertained arguments on the point of order, the chair is unable to conclude that the item of appropriation in question is authorized by law. an authorization that has lapsed does not qualify under the rule.

the chair is there are constrained to sustain the point of order under clause 2-a of rule 21, the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 88, line 3, indian housing loan guarantee fund program account, $6 million. community planning and development housing opportunities for persons with aids, $330 million, to remain available until september 30, 2014. community development fund, $3,404,000,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. chaffetz of utah, page 89, line 13, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $396 million. page 89, line 15, after the

dollar amount, insert reduced by $396 million. page 150, line nine, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $396 million. chip the gentleman from utah is reck -- the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized to explain his amendment. mr. chaffetz: thank you, madam chair. i want to applaud and thank the committee for their work. they've reached a laudable goal of reducing the overall expenditures by $4 billion and that is much appreciated and noted. i just happen to think we can do a little bit better. i'm looking at the committee report, page -- regarding the committee recommendations on the community development fund, specifically the community development block grant. i quote, this is $396 million above both fiscal year 2012 and the budget request. the president is making a budget request and you have last year's expenditures.

what this amendment does is reduced this by $396 million to get it back to where we were, again, i think the president even also on the same page. madam chair, i just, we have to recognize what a dire financial strait we're in this -- we're in in this country. we have to understand we have a multitrillion dollar challenge. trillion, with a capital t, and it's hard to get your arms around that, but if you were to spend $1 million a day, every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion. $1 trillion. so when we're wracking up a trillion-plus-dollar deficit each year, at the end of this year the deficit will approach $16 trillion, when we're spending $100 million a day on our national debt, we have to cut some spending. so to bring back and reduce this to the proper level, i think would be more appropriate. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, it

returns the funding to fiscal year 2012 levels, as the committee report says, it's $396 million above fiscal year 2012 and the budget request. i think this is reasonable. i hope the committee would find a place where we can join this. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek reck mission? mr. olver: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olver: this is an amendment that would take a huge chunk out of the cdbg program. this is one of the areas which i have been particularly commend -- thought was most commendable about what the chairman's mark in the bill for this -- for the cdbg.

the cdbg is a hugely popular program in community around the country. we have, as i have mentioned in my opening remarks at the beginning of this bill, we have 65% of our population living in communities in metropolitan areas with over half a million people and close to 90% of our people live in communities -- in communities with over 50,000 people. it's roughly around 50,000 people that are entitlement communities and get an amount of money that they may use in a flexible kind of a way in their cities, cities and towns of large size can directly get that money to use for -- in a flexible way for things that they need in their cities.

their cities and towns have suffered greatly in the great recession that we have had before us. and they have housing needs which are very substantial. now, i would point out to the gentleman from utah that the amount for the cdbg program is as proposed by chairman latham that i am commending him for and strongly support, his allocation for this, the amount that he has provided in this bill within the allocation and with the $4 billion reduction that the bill entails that this amount is below the number that cdbg was given all the way back in 2008. it is very up and down, depending upon the allocations and depending upon what's gone on but this one is still below

and i strongly support it and would urge that it be -- that it be maintained. it provides -- because a considerable amount goes into, not in every place. it's flexible moneys that the cities or towns, the large cities or towns and, by the way, about 20% of the whole amount gets -- it goes directly to states which then can use it in a discretionary way in groups of smaller communities so it actually gets into rural areas and small communities and communities like those of the chairman of the appropriations committee whose district has no community larger than about 15,000 people. but his district mansion to get a considerable -- manages to get a considerable amount of money through the state of kentucky. so it's something that goes to

everybody in their districts in a flexible way for things that can -- that are eligible under the law. but when it's being used for the development of housing, then it ends up clearly directly providing for jobs. if it's used in the way of social services through nonprofit organizations, again, it is providing jobs for people who are doing great service for our population. so i'm a strong supporter of this. i think that -- i certainly urge that the amendment be defeated and i will stop there because other people wish to speak. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. miller: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment and i would also be brief because i know we have many more amendments to consider. i really do want to focus on this one. mr. price: because i think this proposal to cut the cdbg program, the community block grant program by $396 million is particularly ill-advised and i suspect members on both sides of the aisle will understand that and agree that. we are hearing from our mayors, from our local communities, from people we know over the years. first off, this program has been much better funded in past years. even with this increased for which we commend the chairman in the current bill, even with that the funding is much less than could be utilized. we also know the cdbg program has some strong virtues. one of them is flexibility,

community self-determination in terms of how this money is spent and how it is applied. the kind of leverage that this represents for bringing forth participation and funding from other sources. this is a program that has stood the test of time, that has strong bipartisan support in this chamber and across the country so i think the notion that we would cut is most unwise and i urge defeat of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latham: i thank the chairwoman and i rise in opposition to the amendment. the community development block grant program is very important to cities and states throughout the country. there is a great deal of local control in this program. communities use the block grants to meet local needs such as building water and sewer

infrastructure, community centers and things important to their communities. although the bill increases the funding, this funding level is stilwell below what it was in fiscal year 2010 which then was $1 billion. the bill actually is $46 million below that level in 2010, to be exact. madam chairman, this bill, as we were going through it, we had many members, both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, request additional funding for these grants. for many members there is a strong constituent support for these programs, and, you know, we have seen individual cases of abuse. not unlike a lot of other government programs, but really the way to fix those reforms --

and we are not going to do it through the appropriation process. the through the authorizers, and to have them do their work, to make sure these programs are well run, that they're focused and that they actually do what the intention is. so, again, i want everybody to understand that we are fuelly below fiscal year 2010 levels and a very, very important program and i would recommend and urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed. the clerk will read.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcclintock: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. after the dollar amendment insert reduced to zero dollars. page 89, line 15, after the dollar amount insert reduced to zero dollars. page 89, line 24, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $60 million. page 90, line 2, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $3,960,000. page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount insert increased by $3,404,000,000. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized to explain his amendment. mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam chairman. this amendment finishes the good work begun by the gentleman from utah in the previous amendment. it saves 3.4 billion dollars by

eliminating all funding for the community development block grant program. this program was created in 1974 with the stated objective of eliminating blight and providing affordable housing. but in the nearly four decades since then, it has degenerated into a federal slush fund for pet projects for local politicians and politically connected businesses. it is plagued by profligate waste and outright fraud. this is an unauthorized expenditure. the legal authority for it expired back in 1994, 18 years ago, and congress has not bothered to renew it ever since but we keep shoveling money at it year after year. $3.5 billion averages to almost $50 from the earnings of a family of four, and they have a right to know where their $50 taken from their family budget is going. senator coburn gave some

examples in his back to black report. summit county, ohio, spent $100,000 of kked funds to create -- cdbg funds to create a doggie daycare. and an incorporated in 2009 to put on a day at the circus. cdbg funds are spent creating a hip atmosphere for employees of an l.a. architecture firm, providing decorative sidewalks in a wealthy virginia community and upgrading victorian cottages in alabama. indeed, some communities use these funds to pay off federal loans they've taken out on projects that are now defaulting because they have utterly failed to produce of the benefits they promised. now, even in the best of circumstances these are all projects that exclusively benefit local communities or

private interests and ought to be paid for exclusively by those local communities or private interests. they are such questionable merit that no city council is willing to face its constituents and say, this is how we have spent your local taxes, but they are more than happy to spend somebody else's federal taxes so we end up robbing st. petersburg to pay st. paul for projects so dubious that the purported beneficiaries won't pay for them. and that's all before we discuss the realm of fraud. this program is replete with individuals directing six figure sums to their personal bank accounts or political activities. the office of management and budget has repeatedly branded this program as ineffective. that's its official designation for government programs that cannot ascertain how their funds are spent. h.u.d.'s own inspector general found that in a relatively

short two-year time span over 150 criminal indictments were issued for false claims, bribery, fraudulent contracts, theft, embezzlement or corruption in connection with this program. this is a slush fund that cries for abolition and it should be one of the very first places we look to bring spending under control and stop wasting our constituents' money. once again, though, this unauthorized program is not targeted for elimination by the appropriations committee. it is not even targeted for a token reduction in spending. as we just discussed, the appropriations committee proposes spending $400 million more than we spent last year. indeed, $400 million more than what the president requested. now, let's be very clear on this. the house appropriations committee, with a republican majority that has a clear mandate to stop wasting money is about to appropriate $400

million more than requested by the most spent administration in history on a program with no federal nexus with a solid history of fraud and it funds the most unworthy of local projects and special interest handouts. the rules of the house were specifically written to prevent this type of unauthorized expenditure, and they provide for a point of order to be raised if it's included in an appropriations bill. that is exactly what we have here. . that rule is routinely waived when those measures are brought to the floor making this amendment necessary. this is another critical test of the republican majority's intention to stand by the promises it made to the american people in the most dangerous fiscal crisis in our nation's history. i pray that we rise to the occasion, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise?

mr. price: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i believe with the offering of this amendment we are in great need of a reality check in this chamber. after all, it was president nixon, it was a strong bipartisan majority with republicans playing a leading role that first initiated the community development block grant programs, and i assume that this amendment will be rejected today by that same kind of bipartisan coalition. the whole idea of the cdbg program was to get away from inflexible, one-size-fits all approaches to urban development. the whole idea was to get away from top-down bureaucratic operations. cdbg was designed to empower communities, to give them

flexibility, to maximize the possibility for leverage or private sector funds. to let the community determine its own projects and its own priorities. all of us have experience with this program, i dare say, and my experience has been that the bang for the buck from cdbg is virtually unmatched in any other federal program. housing rehabilitation, for example, one of the main uses in many communities of cdbg funds. what you are doing with housing rehabilitation is not building public housing from scratch, you're not totally furnishing new neighborhoods, but you are taking houses that are likely to deteriorate where a small investment, a relatively small investment, can rehab those houses, can salvage those houses, and can make quality housing available to the community. another major use of cdbg funds is infrastructure.

how many habitat for humanity communities have been built across our country with the cdbg funds furnishing the basic infrastructure? and then from there on the volunteer efforts take off. the gentleman sponsoring this amendment may the incredible statement that these are projects that communities wouldn't undertake on their own. on the contrary, no cdbg project is going to be undertaken without community participation, financial and otherwise. without community self-determination that this is a priority. so there is a kind of air of unreality about this debate. these are programs that maximize the values that many of our colleagues profess, self-determination, flexibility, leveraging of private funds. they are programs that have stood the test of time, and we in this bill should be proud to appropriate funds because we know these funds will have great

multiplier effects throughout this country. so i very strongly urge colleagues to reject this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition -- strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i rise to oppose the amendment and basically what i said before. we are below fiscal year 2010 levels. certainly i believe the authorizing committee must set very strict parameters as to how these dollars should be used, but we are below fiscal year 2010, and i would urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in the across-the-board offered by mr. diaz-balart of florida. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the

gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from florida is recognized. for five minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i recognize this amendment is subject to a point of order but i would like to discuss what this amendment is attempting to address. as we all know the community development block grant program, known as the cdbg grant program, is one of the most -- widely utilized sources of assistance by the local governments. these block grants are intended to address housing, community development, economic development needs as determined by local officials. this amendment is very straightforward. it simply gives greater flexibility to local communities and cies and counties, etc., for part of their cdbg funding. it increases the cap of the public services expenditures from 15% to 25%. public services in reference to this legislation deals with issues like childcare, senior services, disabled services,

educational programs, medical services, transportation services, domestic violence, crime prevention, food banks, and others. the current 15% public service cap was enacted into statute over 30 years ago. and it frankly doesn't reflect the reality of today. sew we all acknowledge the tremendous fiscal challenges that we are facing here in congress, that our country is facing. we also acknowledge, mr. chairman, the challenges our local communities are facing. cdbg public services funds have played a key role in providing crucial aid to our most at-risk, most vulnerable populations, especially during difficult times like these. the restrictive and frankly outdated cap has denied many communities, mr. chairman, the option of providing their residents with the most basic services within the framework of the existing cdbg program. so this amendment provides flexibility to local leaders to meet certain unique challenges. i want to make something clear, this amendment does not increase

or decrease the funds. does not change the formula and does not require those communities that are entitled to use more of their funds on public services. it simply grants certain -- those cities and counties greater flexibility in their usage of certainty cdbg funds. we mentioned my colleague, congresswoman ros-lehtinen, has a stand alone piece of legislation that i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of. it's imperative the authorizing committee look to update the cdbg program. for a lot of reasons. i also need to mention that chairman latham is well aware of these concerns. i want to thank him and his staff for really crying to accommodate us on this issue, but unfortunately we were not able to do it at this time for a number of different reasons. i'd like to continue to work with chairman latham and the financial services chairman, chairman ba cass -- baucus, on finding real solution that is would give local communities the flexibility to meet their

challenges and make sure those fuppeds are well utilized. now, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? mr. ros-lehtinen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the gentleman. i rise to support the diaz-balart amendment and draw attention to a crisis that will soon hit the city of miami and many other cities throughout south florida, our state of florida, and indeed throughout the nation. we are all aware of the difficult funding decisions that will need to be made by many departments and programs. programs like the community development block grant may see overall reductions because of the sad realities of the current budget constraints, and in the interest of fiscal responsibility. however, because of an arbitrary community development block grant expenditure cap, countless

vulnerable citizens in the city of miami and throughout the united states will lose their only means of sustenance. this amendment is not about increased funding, mr. chairman, nor is it about changing the overall formula of the community development block grant. it is simply about providing greater flexibility to cities on how they allocate their cdbg funds. currently only 15% of community development block grant funds can go towards public services. now, what is public services? they include food for senior citizens, the disabled, the homeless, the abused or neglected children, they also may be used for childcare, for health services, for job training services. the city of miami, of which i am proud to represent, currently provides these vital services, especially meals through the

current community development block grant public services. but because of the overall decrease in cdbg allocations, many disadvantaged men, women, and children will be without the vital support that they deserve and need. this amendment is simply a painless solution to this development. allowing cities the flexibility they need and how they expand their cdbg funds. it would allow up to 25% of cdbg funds to go to public services, a position that has been endorsed by the u.s. conference of mayors and the national league of cities. the current 15% public service expenditure cap was enacted with the original statute over 30 years ago. it does not reflect the evolution of this program, nor the necessity to provide flexibility to local leaders on how funds should be expenned --

expended ding this time of belt tightening. the current restricted and outdated limit has denied many communities the option of providing their residents with the most basic and necessary services within the framework established by the program. cdbg public services have played a key role in providing crucial aid to our most at-risk and vulnerable constituents, especially during this enduring recession. cities across our country have had to do more with less and this amendment will help and accomplish just that. i wish to thank chairman latham and his staff in working with congressman diaz-balart and me on trying to give this flexibility through the proper channel to our local leaders. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latham: i thank the chairman. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of order? mr. latham: i do. the chair: point of order is reserved. the gentleman is recognized. mr. latham: i just wanted to make the point that i want to continue to work with these two great members from florida and it is a real problem for the community and i would be more than happy to -- i will do everything possible to try to be of assistance with addressing this real problem. with that i yield to the gentleman from miami. million diaz-balart: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you and your staff who have been great on this issue, understanding the problem. at this time i would ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to withdraw my amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the

gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sarbanes: i rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman on the subcommittee of transportation, h.u.d., and related agencies, mr. latham and mr. wolf, on the i dryer alcohol detection system for safety. i yield to the gentleman. mr. latham: i would be glad to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf. mr. sarbanes: i thank the chairman. as the gentlemen are aware the national highway transportation safety administration, nhtsa, has been working on a public -private research program known as the driver alcohol detection system for safety, or dads, that would develop a path of technology to detect if a driver's blood alcohol content is above the legal limit.

i would urge the chairman to consider funding for the dads program as this bill moves forward and i yield to the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman from maryland and rise to support his initiative. mr. chairman, too many times a mother or father or loved one has gotten that dreaded call in the middle of the night that someone has been killed in an accident involving a drunk driver. i appreciate my friend from maryland raising the dads program and also urge my good friend, the chairman, to look at this program as the bill moves forward. mr. sarbanes: i yield to the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: i thank the gentlemen from maryland and virginia. i appreciate their taking the time to raise this very important issue. i will be mindful of their concerns as the process moves forward. . the chair: the gentleman yields back his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk has not read to that point yet. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 90, line 13, community development loan graurnts program account, $6 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. home investment partnership program. $1,200,000,000. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment eliminates funding for the community development loan guarantee program. like the community development block grant that we just discussed, these loan guarantees supports strictly local projects that have no federal nexus. now, unlike the house appropriations committee, president obama has requested no taxpayer subsidies for this program, and that's a pretty profound statement. remember, this is the same president who had no problem placing billions of taxpayer dollars at risk for failed schemes like solyndra for which he was soundly and rightly criticized by those in the house. even the architect of the solyndra fiasco is not willing to risk taxpayer money on this loan guarantee program so enter the house appropriations committee which apparently has money to burn. what are the recent projects

funded by these loan guarantees? $7 million went to the city of hartford to by a 393-room hilton hotel. $15 million went to build a movie studio in norristown, pennsylvania. a $10 million loan to bass pro shops to redevelop the memphis pyramid. now, why would we put our taxpayers' money at risk for these ventures? obviously private investors were unwilling to risk their own money. obviously president obama sees these loans far riskier than anything he's ever london in the solyndra fiasco, but we are about to put our constituents' hard-earned money at risk to prop up these projects. now, when bass pro shops takes money to redevelop the memphis pyramid, will this mean more jobs in memphis? yes. and will it mean precisely that fewer jobs in other regions as once again we take from one community to give to another?

unfortunately the answer is yes to that question as well. my amendment simply takes taxpayer exposure to these risky loans down to the level of fiscal restraint proposed by the least fiscally restrained president in the history of our nation. i'd invite my republican colleagues on the appropriations committee to follow and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. olver: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: thank you very much, mr. chairman. well, here we have kind of the yang combined with the yin.

the gentleman's amendment here, the last one he offered was $3.5 billion, and taking that out of this allocation. in this case it's a $6 million amount. that's about -- that's about 5,000 tiles as much as the six -- the first was 5,000 times as much as this one. maybe i'm off by an order of magnitude, i'm not quite sure. this amendment -- i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the gentleman from california has pointed out that the president did not want to do this at all. well, actually, the president had asked the committee to

create a user fee to pay for this rather than the mechanism whereby this rather small, really very small program, $6 million program of loan guarantees has been functioning which was to pay for if there was any risk involved which the gentleman is claiming, if there was any serious risk to pay for it out of the subsequent years allocations under cdbg. so it turns out that for every -- for those places where used this program, the loan guarantee program, that there has never been a penny lost for

the federal taxpayers in this program on any of the section 108 projects that we have issued. there have been a number of them. it actually is one of the most flexible, one of the most creative ways you can use community development loan guarantee program is exceedingly flexible and very creative. it has been used to create larger projects, projects that create jobs, that may revitalize -- part of the revitalization of a whole target area, and it also ends up bringing in substantial additional private investment into the neighborhoods. so it's creating jobs.

it's used often for the reuse of old factory buildings that are no longer viable in the form that they were. particularly in my part of the country. it's been used in that kind of a way and successfully to make a project that may turn out to be housing. it may turn out to be a business incubator or whatever. so this is a very flexible program and one that the federal taxpayer has never lost money on. you know, the creation of jobs and the development of new businesses that come into a place that may be part of a development of this sort, the creation of those jobs is what gives us a robust economy. and a robust economy is the

best way we have. a robust economy is the best way we have of reducing the deficit because you can end up cutting and cutting and cutting programs and if you do not end up creating jobs in the long run, you are simply not going to return to a robust economy. i think we know that. so i rise in opposition to this amendment. i think it is a counterproductive thing to do. it's very small. it has never lost any money. it operates quite well. the chairman, with my ascent certainly left it in there and has -- and i support his position very strongly.

i urge defeat of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i also oppose the amendment. the community development block grant program is very important to cities and states throughout our country. as a former mayor, i can attest to the affect that they have on our communities. mr. womb ack: we had democrats and republicans request funding for cdbg programs. for many members, there is strong constituent support for the program. the loan guarantee is a good community development tool because it does something that we should be interested in doing and that is leveraging funding. with only $6 million provided in the bill, h.u.d. is able to make a quarter of a billion dollar for loan guarantees for

development. if a fee is warranted, we would encourage the authorizing committee to enact legislation to create a fee and lower the cost of the program. so i urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 91, line 3, home investment partnerships programs. $1,200,000,000 to remain available until september 30,

2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as flake 1. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. page 91, line 7, after the dollar amendment -- mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that it considered as read. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. this amendment would cut $200 million from the home investment partnership and transfer the savings to the deficit reduction account. this simply takes the level of funding to where it was last year. we're often told we need to cut spending. i think we need to, but yet with this program we're actually increasing the fund from $1 billion to $1.2 billion. so about a 20% increase. this is the largest federal block grant to state and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for

low-income households. in 2011, a nationwide investigation by the "washington post" described the program is as, quote, a dysfunctional system that delivers billions of dollars to local housing agencies with few rules, safeguards or even a reliable way to track projects. this was "the washington post" saying this. it wasn't some conservative republican. this is "the washington post." these lapses have led to widespread misspending and delays in a two decade-old program made to help the working poor. nearly 700 projects awarded $700 million have been idling for years while the housing and urban development has largely looked the other way. it does not track the pace of construction and often fails to spot defunct deals. they are entrusting local agencies to police projects. again, this is a quote from the investigation. in 2009, 2010, h.u.d.'s office

of inspector general came out with reports that questioned not only h.u.d.'s ability to monitor these home project funds but one of the program was not in compliant with its own rules. several members of congress have acknowledged concerns about h.u.d.'s ability to ensure that home funds are used in a way that produces the program's intended results. the financial services committee has held congressional hearings in response to these concerns, and in a spending bill last year, just last year, congress included language that placed restrictions on the use of home funds for f.y. 2012. the problem is those are the funds that are being implemented now. we don't even know if they are following the guidelines and doing what we asked them to do and yet here we're appropriating $200 million more to them rather than say, hey, we wanted you to do these things. let's check and see if you've done them before we award you

with more money. it's difficult to evaluate these projects when they haven't been done yet. so the -- that's the reason we ought to cut back and simply go level funding with last year. again, it's not a cut from last year. it's level funding from last year. it's the least we can do when we're running these kind of debts -- these kinds of deficits and we have this debt and we find massive, massive problems with this program. the remedy isn't to award a 20% increase. if anything we ought to be cutting the program. i'm simply saying with this amendment, let's take it back to where it was last year. . what is the point of oversight that we exercise here in congress if we exercise that oversight, we find problems, we ask for a remedy, and then we award money before we even see if the remedy was actually entered into. we have oversight here. we have the power of the purse. let's use it.

this program is troubled. it has problems. it's not just people on one side of the aisle that recognize that. the congress as a whole does. why in the world are we awarding 20% more funding this year than we have last? this amendment would take it back to last year's funding level. i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. brown: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. brown: thank you. i rise today to speak on the transportation and housing and urban development appropriation bill on the floor. first off, i want to say that whether it's the mayor of jacksonville, florida, orlando, california, texas every single mayor that i talked to, democrats or republicans, support community development block grants, and if they are concerned about what we are doing here and making sure that

we send funds that they can decide how the community is to use the funds to meet their needs. in addition, i want to talk about sprorgs. i have been -- transportation. i have been on the transportation committee for the entire 20 years i have been here in the congress, and transportation has always been bipartisan. it did not matter who the president was. it did not matter who the speaker was. in fact, when newt gingrich was the speaker and president clinton was the president, the house transportation passed a bill over both of them and funded the transportation committee for six years. this house has not been able to pass a transportation bill. and for the first time you see people who really don't want to put america to work, because transportation is the committee that put the american people to work. when you look at the engineers

and architects, they rate america as a d minus as far as infrastructure is concerned. but yet you have people that do not want to put the american people back to work. my home state of florida, we receive close to $3 billion for our high speed trade promotion from orlando to tampa. well, what did we do? we sent it back. where 18 states have our money and they are putting people to work, we are talking about transportation money. so when you have people with other agendas besides putting people to work, that is a real problem in the area of transportation. we know that for every billion dollars we invest, it generates 44,000 permanent jobs. but yet you have people in this house with a different agenda,

and the agenda has nothing to do with jobs, jobs, jobs, and putting people to work. it is a sad, sad, state of affairs but i have often said you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. olver: opposition to the amendment. ostensibly before us. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: sorry about that, mr.

chairman. we are talking about the amendment that the gentleman from arizona has offered, and he has offered an amendment that would take $200 million out of the home investment partnership program as allocated, as recommended by chairman latham and the subcommittee, and through the procedures of the subcommittee and the full committee actions before coming to the floor. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

there have been some controversieses with -- controversies with the home program, the home investment partnership program, but there were changes last year and h.u.d. is now in the process of finishing the rule to go along with those statutory changes. so those reforms are now basically in place. there has been, to my understanding, at least, there has been no instance of our actual loss of money from the home partnership program at any time, but there have been projects that have been stalled. this is one of the few programs that we have in this bill that actually produces housing, that actually results in the construction of housing.

and most affordable housing projects use multiple sources to complete a development, and occasionally it is possible that the private money, the development moneys, don't materialize to a project that has been approved for the home partnership program, and if that happens, then h.u.d. takes the money back and uses it someplace else. it doesn't end up getting in any way resulting in a loss to the taxpayers of the country. so the home program is, as i say, one of the few programs that actually funds new construction, newly constructed housing. under this legislation.

and these funds are used, they provide needed jobs in our communities, they ease the unemployment in the construction sector. they produce housing, and they don't end up costing the taxpayers any money. so to a degree that that is followed and we can produce housing, then i am certainly and strongly in favor of it and strongly support chairman latham'sssignment of the additional money. i would opponent out that the level of the funding at the levels that has been recommended by the committee, by the appropriations committee and by the subcommittee that mr. latham chairs, that the amount of money

that has been assigned is below the amount that was asiped back five years -- assigned back five years ago for the 2008 budget. we have been through an ups and downs on this one over time, and i certainly would urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: thank you very much. the chair: for what purpose does do you rise? ms. kaptur: i would like to associate myself with the remarks -- the chair: does the gentlelady move to strike the last word? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise to associate myself with the remarks of our esteemed ranking member, john olver of massachusetts, and say i oppose mr. flake's proposal. if mr. flake came to the floor, although i don't support cuts with the devastation that's

occurred across our housing market, if he would take the money from the central arizona water project or take the funds from -- mr. flake: would the gentlelady yield? ms. kaptur: or the major monuments, or take the funds from all the defense facilities that help to employ and hold up the economy of their state, very interesting where he cuts money from. among the poorest people in this country. some of the most devastated parts of america that are trying to rebuild themselves. mr. flake: would the gentlelady yield? ms. kaptur: it's interesting to me when he proposes amendments whether it be this one or other ones, you always leave your home turf a crow santh. yes, i yield for the gentleman's response. mr. flake: for all i know this cuts money from my district as well. i have not discriminated in where i have taken money from. i think everybody who's followed the process over the past several years knows that. with regard to central arizona project, arizona repaid the federal government to the tune of about $55 million a year.

still after all these years. the fact we are 83% publicly opened in arizona means that our local communities have to run their facilities and run their services on just a narrow sliver of private land. ms. kaptur: if one looks at the defense bases across northern ohio, we don't have anything like arizona has. if we look at the kind of subsidy we are providing for water in the west, for bureau of land management projects, for all of the i vestments that have been made to allow arizona to even get water, to even get water, then to say to the part of the country that said, well, we want the west to develop, we are going to help you out, now you say no, no, no. now we are going to take money away from cleveland and toledo and detroit and pittsburgh and philadelphia and chicago and milwaukee. all of the places that tax

themselves for the development of the modern west. i say to the gentleman i think the answer to the problem we have is economic growth. and we have to invest in that. the housing sector has been dead in the water for -- since 2008. largely because of the nonregulation of the bush administration during those years when the derivatives were created. we look at what happened back then, but please don't take it out of the heart and hides of the most stressed communities in america that, despite all the odds, are rebuilding themselves. i want to associate myself with the remarks of mr. olver. oppose the flake amendment. support programs that will help the revitalization of the housing sector in this country. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. baucus: i have an amendment

at the desk. move to strike -- the chair: the chair will first dispose of the flake amendment. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. baucus: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. baucus of alabama. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved.

mr. bachus: i'm here to ask for the cooperation of the appropriating committee as we move forward on addressing a problem that we found as a result of the many tornadoes that devastated our country last year. i would use an example the city of tuscaloosa and the aftermath of the tornado that struck tuscaloosa on april 27, h.u.d. came in and calculated the loss of residences and rental units. part of their charge was to replace the critical needs. however, i would just use one track as an example, they came in to a track that includes the university boulevard which is a track made up almost entirely of rental units.

however, according to h.u.d.'s calculation, they came in and they simply surveyed the owner occupied units. now, there were 23 owner occupied units that were destroyed in the track, but there were 440 rental units that were destroyed in the same tract. so almost all the loss of property was rental units. . it left the town woefully inadequate in its number of rental units. in their calculation, they only take the owner occupied units and they extrapolate from that what they consider the number of rental units to be in that same track. well, you can't really base a calculation of how many rental

units there are based on how many owner occupied dwellings they are, and to tell you how much they missed it, they calculated that there were no rental units destroyed which is obviously a tremendous miscalculation. so we've offered an amendment today which essentially will say that you have to consider and your survey must include both owner occupied units and rental units and that you must calculate both of them, not simply the owner occupied units. h.u.d.'s model in short needs to be changed. we believe our authorizing committee will correct this in future cases, but there's an urgent need to replace rental housing that was last in last

year's tornadoes throughout the nation, and our amendment simply creates a mechanism to do so and directs h.u.d. to develop a formula for distributing assistance to communities that have already suffered damage. and this will store what we think is fair and a more correct calculation. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i make a point of order because it proposes to change existing law and students legislating in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21 so therefore, again, i do make a point of order. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order?

point of order is pending. the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting direction to the secretary of housing and urban development. the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> this adds critical funding to assist communities devastated as a result of last year's severe weather. this bipartisan amendment would add $00 million to the underlying bill and direct it

towards communities, receive kkt disaster assistance in f.y. 2012. prior to the order of these new funds, this amendment would direct h.u.d. to establish a formula of funding that would give preference to applicants to counties unmet that would include renters unopened -- and renters occupied units. ms. sule: there is a need for -- ms. sewell: there is a need for renters units. this amendment would help communities like tussga loosea, alabama, to help re-- tuscaloosa, alabama, to help restore those units destroyed by last year's tornadoes. it would provide shelter for women, children and families. the estimated unmet housing needs for tuscaloosa alone would exceed $56 million. most of this figure was unmet

rental housing needs. the devastation and destruction that was caused by the april tornadoes across the state of alabama is still being felt. especially in prayses that have already had economically disadvantaged areas. this amendment would provide the additional funds needed for these affected areas to continue their efforts towards full recovery. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. while i understand the point of order, i really would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this amendment. thanks. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 92, line 17. self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program, $60 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. homeless assistance grants, including transfer of funds, $2 billion of which $1,995,000,000 shall remain available until

september 30, 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan. page 94, line 19, after each of the first and second dollar amendments insert increased by $5 million. page 95, line 4, after the dollar amount insert increased by $5 million. page 110, line 9, after the dollar amendment insert reduced by $5 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chair. i offer this amendment on behalf of citizens who feel they have no voice in this congress, people who have given up hope altogether. these are citizens who earn money by scavaging through alies to find empty bottles --

alleys to find empty bottles and cans and get their deposits. they survive by rummaging through garbage dumpsters by finding food to eat. these are citizens that have no place to live. they are on the street. according to the detroit rescue mission ministries, every night in the city of detroit there are nearly 20,000 people who are in need of shelter and who are homeless. nearly a quarter of these people are children. and what is perhaps most tragic is that many of these citizens -- and i've spoken to them as i've even them in the alleys -- are men who have sacrificed themselves, who have proudly

served this country in the military. many of the homeless in the city of detroit are veterans. some of the folks on the street i know personally. i grew up with them. they need help. they need substance abuse treatment. they need a place to stay. and in detroit, because of the housing crisis, because foreclosures forced many people out of their homes, we also have many apartment buildings that are now vacant. vacant but could be rehabilitated and renovated to provide a home to our veterans who are currently on the streets. this amendment that i offer will add $5 million to homeless assistance grants, to provide our homeless veterans with a home but also with the hope and dignity that all americans

deserve. mr. chair, i ask for your support. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i tell the gentleman we accept your amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. mr. clarke: thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 134 and line 11 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. any amendments of that -- to that portion of the bill?

>> mr. chairman, line 14, so whenever you're there i'm ready to go. the clerk: page 134, line 11. page 134, line 12, section 234 of title 2 of division k of pun law 110-161 is amended. -- public law 110-161 is amended. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. latourette of ohio. page 134 after line 14, insert the following new section. section 235. notwithstanding the 13th bravado of the second undersigned paragraph under the heading, community planning and development, community development fund, and title 12 of division a of the american recovery and reen investment act of 2009, public law 111-5. mr. latourette: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. the chair: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. latourette: i thank the chair very much and i thank vat for reserving the point of order and i think when i'm done consuming my five minutes, perhaps relent and think that's a bad idea. the stabilization fund has been a valuable tool across america in helping to revitalize neighborhoods. i would suggest it has one fatal flaw. there are some homes in every community in america, whether it's detroit, los angeles, cleveland where i'm from where some homes just aren't coming back and you can't revitalize the neighborhoods until you tear those houses down and start afresh. one of the difficulty with the neighborhood stabilization fund is it restricts the ability of a local community to use those funds to demolish homes.

i tell you while touring a number of these properties in my good friend marcia fudge's district, these are fire traps, these are rat traps. the last two cleveland police officers who have been injured in the line of duty have been injured as they entered a delapidated home. we toured one home, in fact, where the expression, everything but the kitchen sink didn't apply because people had actually taken the kitchen sink, the toilet, the wiring, the gutters and all of the copper. cities are stepping up all across the country to take care of this problem. in the state of ohio our attorney general has devoted $75 million from the settlement with the top five big banks to this purpose. mayor jackson in cleveland has expended a considerable amount of money. and ms. fudge and i have introduced legislation that would authorize bonds through the department of treasury to sublament the great work that land banks all across this country are doing.

but because that bill languishes in the ways and means committee, this simple amendment would give increased flexibility to communities that want to take grants that they have received from the federal government to stabilize their neighborhoods, to give them the opportunity to use them for demolition if they reach the conclusion that in order to protect the neighbors in that neighborhood who are paying their taxes or keeping up their house, who are paying their mortgage but whose property values continue to plummet because they have this eyesore next door, if the mayor of cleveland or the mayor of toledo or los angeles reaches the conclusion that it's better in that instance to rip that house down and start over and work with the land banks that are popping up all across the country, they do that. so, mr. chairman, i would respectfully ask passage of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: mr. chairman, i continue to reserve my point of

order but i'd like to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank the chairman. i just want to tell the gentleman from ohio that i really know -- i really have no problem with the intent of his amendment, that i think he's talking about something that is very real to a lot of folks. my understanding is that waivers that have been asked for have all been accepted in the past and the secretary has said that if there's a waiver needed that they would be glad to oblige. but having said that, i just want the gentleman to know that the reason i must insist on the point of order is simply for consistency on the bill so we're not legislating when we have struck on point of order every other authorizing language that has come before the subcommittee today or to the floor. so with that, while i have

great -- share his concerns and that he has stated, i must insist on my point of order. the chair: will the gentleman state his point of order? mr. latham: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment waives existing law. and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to make comment on the point of order? mr. latourette: i do, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latourette: i know the gentleman's heart is in the right place even if his lemming

slative initiative is not. i lo -- a lot of people don't understand, i had problems with the last parliamentarians, mr. sullivan and charlie, i can't remember charlie's last name, we talked about equity. we're not only bound by the rules of the house but the chair has the power of equity in his possession. rule 21 has its or-ins in 1824, when john quincy adams, the only president of the united states to come back and serve in the house of representatives, decide the appropriations process was bogging down and we should have rule 21 to prohibit authorizing on appropriations bill. it was designed to keep the appropriators from poaching on the territory of the authorizing committees. we don't have that here. the chairman of the authorizing committee was just here, mr. ba cause, he -- mr. baucus, he didn't have a problem with this.

the only person who has a problem with this is the distinguished subcommittee chair of the appropriations committee. that's my first argument on equity. second, because i had some spare time today, i looked at the precedents of the house. i would suggest to the chair that this is a matter of first impression. the last time this came to the floor, the -- to the attention of the parliamentarian was in 2006. sadly, there's a big problem with tpwhegget congressional record online but we did get the previous one, which was in 1995, when the gentlelady from missouri at the time, ms. danner, who many of us remember, was attempting to make provision in order on the transportation, wasn't transportation h.u.d. at the time, it was transportation appropriations bill. and in construing the context of clause 2, rule 21, the chair at that time indicated that what she was attempting to do is, we have a -- out of the highway trust fund, 2.8 cents

goes to transit that yields a certain amount of money. she was attempting to roll off $26 million -- to wall off $26 million to go to specific transit projects. the chair in that instance specifically and i think correctly found you cannot mandate or limit the discretion of the secretary or other federal official, nor condition a you mandate that money be used in a certain way that's not con tell played by the law. as a matter of fact, on -- in section 1057 of the housemanule that we all revere here very much, it cites the indications where this has been considered before and the common them -- theme with all of them is that the person offering the amendment or the appropriations committee attempting to implement the policy was attempting to mandate action on the part of a federal official or mandate that money be spent in certain way. i brought up the june, 2006, june 9, 2006, ruling by the

chair, which occurs on page 10,673 for those who may be following this at home and in that instance, the offending language was that the statement could not say that not less than a certain sum would be expended on that particular purpose. this amendment was very carefully crafted and as the chair, i know, being a student of the law and parliamentary procedure, will note, we don't have the words not less than, it's not more than. already the existing legislation, the dodd-frank act, contemplates that states who receive, so there's no change in the federal appropriation, if the city of cleveland gets a $100,000 neighborhood stabilization fund, they get to spend it. doesn't change. there's no federal involvement after that. it's then up to mayor jackson to figure out how to expend it. this already, this expands the

contemplated purpose of that, it says that a portion is already permitted to be used for demolition. this just says not more than. it's not a limitation, it's just increased flexibility for the communities that have received these grants and honest to gosh, you know, with all the problems we have around this place, to go back and violate the spirit of john quincy adams' understanding of why we needed rule 21, to prevent state and local communities to have the flexibility to demolish homes where fires are occurring, where people are selling drugs, where people are being murdered, is beyond me. i appeal to the chair not only based on the precedence of the house but upon the inherent authority of the chair to exercise equity and understand that there might be a t not crossed or an i not dotted in this instance but the equitable arguments are on the side of theament and i respectfully ask

the chair to overrule the point of order. the chair: does the gentlelady from ohio wish to speak to the point of order? ms. kaptur: yes, i wish to speak to the point of order. the chair: the gentlelady is recognize for five minutes. ms. kaptur: normally i enjoy working on a bipartisan basis, especially with our good colleague from eastern ohio, mr. latourette. i reluctantly rise in opposition to his proposal. in a way we're into quite a 200-career extensive history of the rules of the house but in essence, the legislation as enacted works. and every single community that i represent that has ever asked h.u.d. for any type of waiver, the percentage was operating to their detriment, has been granted. and so i think the legislation as is works. it keeps the focus on reinvestment but if a mayor if a council wants to use more of

their funds for demolition, then, quite frankly, h.u.d. acts in quite an expeditious matter -- manner. i think this is a solution in search of a problem. i think the gentleman -- we welcome his concern about the neighborhoods in this country that have been devastated by the wall street-induced housing crisis and lack of regulation here in washington. but i really don't think it's necessary and i would support the subcommittee chair and ranking member in their concern by raising a point of order here and you know, i expect my interest in working with the gentleman in any community he represents facing this situation because every single one we have had that has come to us, we have resolved with h.u.d.'s full cooperation. i would support the subcommittee chairs -- chair's invoke of a point of order on this propose pro posal.

the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds this amendment explicitly supersedes existing law, namely the recovery and reinvestment act of twipe. the amendment therefore constitutions legislation in violation of constitution, the point of order is sustained, the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the chair: amendment offered by mr. price of north carolina. insert the following section, section 235, notwithstanding any other provoifings the housing act of 1947, 42 u.s.c., any amount made available under this title under the headle

public housing operating -- mr. price: i ask unanimous consent that the read being dispensed with. the chair: without objection, the amendment is considered as read. mr. latham: i reserve a point of order against the amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. mr. price: currently, housing in our districts received two distinct streams. one provides day-to-day operations and the other provides capital funds to improve our nation's stocks. both streams are currently underfunded not only in this bill but in the administration request for fiscal year 2013. i believe it's prudent to maintain these two distinct funding streams but some of our housing authorities need additional flexibility in tough

funding years. currently some well-performing housing authorities, like the raleigh housing authority in my district, created efficiencies in their operating budget and pinched pennies in every way imaginable. unfortunately, in order to re-allocate these appropriation savings to urgent capital meeds, they have to go through a cumbersome an cost ineffective process, that's h.u.d.'s operating fund financing program. this program requires authorities to go through a financial middleman, rather than just letting authorities use their operating funds and savings directly. this process costs unneeded interest payments and adds unneeded -- unnecessary red tape. while i hope they'll be able to streamline this pro-- process, i propose that they allow the authority to use unused funds for capital projects directly without having to go through the operating fund enhancement program. my amendment is narrow in scope

as it targets 2013 fiscal funds and reserves only this stopgap solution would provide flexibility for housing authorities, incentivize the wise spending of dollars and help clear up the public housing capital improvement back log at a time when the construction industry is still reeling from the recession this amendment would be a win for americans who need public housing and a win for american whors looking for jobs. although i believe this is not a new endeavor for the transportation and housing appropriations bill, indeed it's a continuation of the public housing operating fund offset discussion that we held last year. i understand that there is a point of order. so i register the hope that the authorizers can conclude their work to address this issue before the end of the year. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman from iowa continue to reserve his point of order? mr. latham: i do continue to reserve, yes.

i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. latham: i make a point of order against the amendment because it pr poses to change economisting law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment waiving existing law. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? seeing none, the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment -- this amendment supersedes existing law, the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. the gentlelady from california.

>> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. chairman and members, i rise in opposition to this underlying bill. the republican transportation housing and urban development appropriations bill for the coming fiscal year, commonly referred to as thud. it drastically underfunds housing and infrastructure programs. first on transportation, the american society of civil engineers' 2009 report for america's infrastructure is estimated that there is a $54 .5 billion shortfall in investments in roads and bridges and an additional $190 ppt 1 billion shortfall in investments in transit. yet this bill provides no funds for the transportation investment generating economic recovery program better known

as tiger. now, tiger would find finance a wide variety of innovative hiway, bridge, and transit projects in urban and rural communities across the country provided there's sufficient funding. one such project is the crenshaw-l.a.x. corridor in los angeles county a light rail prompt that will run through my district. tiger grants could be used to finance stations along this corridor in the communities of westchester and la merde park, ensuring these communities have access to light rail. last year, i introduced the tiger grants for job creation act, which would provide a supplemental emergency appropriation of $1 billion over the next two years for the tiger program and 48 of my colleagues have already co-sponsored the bill. last night, i offered an amendment to fully fund tiger

at the requested level without cutting funding for other programs. representatives betty mccollum, betty lee, emanuel cleaver, laura richardson, bobby richardson and doris matsui joined me in offering this amendment. the republicans objected to this amendment to their appropriations bill because it was not in order under their rule. so this bill has no funding for this critical program to create jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. why did we have so much support on this legislation? why do we have so many people who are signing on to basically beg for tiger funding? it is because tiger funding will create millions of jobs. it's because jobs are needed so desperately in this economy. it is because not only will we create millions of jobs, our infrastructure is in great

disrepair. we have bridge -- bridges that have been designated as unsafe, we have roads, we have water projects, we have all kinds of infrastructure needs that are unmet. this is the least the american public could expect. this transportation bill has been waited on in many communities across this country. people thought when we passed this bill that we truly were going to expand job opportunities that we truly were going to repair the infrastructure, but we find that this bill does not do this. in addition to the disappointment that we're all experiencing because of the objections to repair the infrastructure and job creations, we find that the same thing is happening in housing. we bemobe the fact that our -- bemoan the fact that our veterans are homeless and they're on the streets and that our shelters are all full and

that when we go into many of these communities, not only in our inner cities, but in our rural areas also, we find that people are not only sleeping on the streets but under these bridges that are in great disrepair. this legislation cuts money from the homeless program. this will cut $231 million in homeless assistance grants, compared to the president's budget request. at this level h.u.d. would be unable to fund existing grants, jeopardizing assistance to approximately 25,000 of our most vulnerable cities. -- citizens, that is. this bill provides less than $2 billion for public housing, capital fund, despite a $30 million backlog of needed repairs. this is a huge cut. even when compared to funding during the bush administration. in fact, in fiscal year 2008 the

capital account received $2.4 billion in funding. this underfunding means that we'll continue to lose public housing units as they fall into disrepair and long-term capital needs are neglected. for people who are serviced by this account are vulnerable and so i would simply ask that this be given some real consideration. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia, for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? does the gentleman ask to strike the last word? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to strike the last word. americans need to know that tea party republican obstructionism has brought us to the brink of yet another manufactured crisis. we have less than two days to pass critical highway and student loan bills that will keep americans on the job and

prevent student loans from doubling. yet tea party republicans are wasting time on frivolous amendments and on a purely meritless political and partisan vote to hold the attorney general in contempt. reports indicate that bipartisan senate leadership has reached a deal on student loans and the highway bill as well. a deal which is now being blocked in the house by the tea party republicans. this is not governing, ladies and gentlemen. it's tea party gridlock. americans long for a congress that is capable of honest debate and compromise in solving the important issues of the day. that's what the founders and the framers intended of us.

it's been over 100 days since the senate passed a bipartisan highway bill with 74 votes. while the house tea party republicans quibble, they put 1.9 million jobs at risk. mr. speaker, if the tea party republicans prevent a deal on student loans, over 7.4 million students will see their interest rates double, costing students $6 billion. they have brought us to the brink of a government shutdown in february of 2011. last summer they brought the country to the brink of default and caused the first downgrade in the history of the united states of our credit rating. this year they oppose the middle class tax cut and they have successfully ignored and blocked

the president's job act. the speaker should listen, mr. speaker, we should listen to the american people, not the big-dollar corporate backers of the tea party. i never knew that any of the real tea partyiers of 1776 were millionaires or even wealthy. they were people like the working people of today. we call them the middle class. today we are debating cut after draconian cut to our nation's transportation and housing programs which impact and hurt the middle class. these cuts put good, middle class jobs at risk. they make it harder for small businesses to operate and they cause harm to low income americans who are struggling to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

the tea party millionaire republicans spent all week circling the toilet bowl drain and debating these amendments that have no chance of becoming law. when we should be lowering student loan rates and passing a long-term highway bill. mr. speaker, this is a great country but how long can we with stand the best efforts -- withstand the best efforts of this millionaire tea party republican congress to bring america to its knees? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, there's no secret to anyone in this chamber that the american people are unhappy with congress. in fact, our approval ratings

could only be described as terrible. as much as television personalities might like to analyze why, i don't think it's difficult to understand. mr. carson: time and time again, mr. speaker, our work ignores their priorities. now, under republican leadership we have spent months arguing over eliminating regulations, shrinking government and crippling the obama administration. yet since the lowest point of economic downturn in 2008, the american people have cared mostly about two things. good jobs and stable housing. these are issues that have hit the african-american community especially hard, which is why i come to the floor today with

several of my colleagues from the congressional black caucus. today, mr. speaker, unemployment among african-americans is above 13%, much higher than the national average. concerns about stable housing are really nothing new. but they have been especially difficult since the start of our recession. in fact, 42% of homeless families with children are african-american. so, we're all glad to see the house take up the transportation and h.u.d. bill this week. we hope, we hope to see some relief for our struggling communities. but sadly this bill falls short. it fails to adequately fund project-based section 8, rental assistance for low income

families. that means over 1.2 million families, mr. speaker, would be at risk of losing their homes. these are primarily seniors, families with children and people with disabilities. including many who are in the great hoosier state, in my district. the bill cuts homeless assistance grants, leaving an estimated 25,000 people without the assistance they need to get back on their feet. it entirely eliminates the choice neighborhood program. in indianapolis we need these funds to rebuild brighted -- blighted public housing projects, improve economic development and job opportunities in surrounding neighborhoods for low income families. and also eliminates sustainability communities which coordinates federal, state and local public housing investments. helping communities make the best with limited funding.

i also want to add that i plan to strongly oppose any amendment that makes it harder to enforce the fair housing act. congress should not restrict h.u.d.'s work to end housing discrimination. intentional or unintentional. these cuts, mr. speaker, strike at the very heart of what my constituents care about. having a stable place for their families to live and stay. over the last several months, mr. speaker, there has been one topic we have all agreed on. transportation projects equal jobs. now, sadly this bill defunds some of our most important job-creating programs. it eliminates funding for tiger grants, which have put thousands of people to work across this country. my district received one of these grants to construct our great cultural trail.

and many of my constituents worked to construct this trail. and today it is absolutely revitalizing neighborhoods and growing businesses. and creating long-term job opportunities. this bill also eliminates funding for high speed rail which early estimates predict could have created thousands of jobs in the great hoosier state. now of course there are other issues, but there are too many to name at this time. but in talking today, mr. speaker, i simply want to express my disappointment. this week we are finally considering the one bill each year that must address top priorities for all americans. jobs and housing. instead we're cutting programs. my question to these people, mr. speaker, and those obstructing us, what are you expecting our communities to do? these are programs that work. they employ our constituents,

mr. speaker, and they also improve our society. thank you, i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from new york. ms. clarke: mr. speaker, i rise to strike the last word. mr. speaker, here we are once again. we find ourselves debating a bill that is under veto threat due to the republicans' my way or the highway prosture. mr. speaker, last month saw the largest drop in construction jobs in two years. workers who joined the more than 2.2 million construction workers who are out of work. however instead of providing certainty to our nation's construction workers by investing in the tiger program and light speed rail, the republican majority has actually zeroed these programs out completely. apparently the majority seems to only believe in certainty when it means historically low tax rates for multimillionaires and

billionaires. mr. speaker, the majority's lack of investment in our nation's infrastructure is bad enough. unfortunately it gets even worse. at a time when the need for h.u.d. programs are growing, this bill drastically undercuts homeless assistance grants, putting 25,000 americans at risk of losing assistance. it jeopardizes assistance to homeowners attempting to stay in their homes and actually zeros out the choice neighborhoods program. why? mr. speaker, why would we essentially eliminate a program that improves economic development and viability and job opportunities for our nation's most vulnerable is beyond my ability to comprehend. mr. speaker, the american people have made it abundantly clear, that the number one priority of the 112th congress ought to be

job creation. by bringing this bill to the floor the majority is saying to the american people that not only does their unemployed status or opinions matter, but don't expect any relief from this republican-led congress as our nation struggles to cope with the worst economic downturn since the great depression. mr. speaker, this is just totally unbelievable and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 34, line is a, this title may be cited as the department of housing and urban development appropriations act of 2013. title 3, related agencies, access for, salaries and expenses, $7,400,000.

federal maritime commission salaries and expenses -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, after the dollar amount insert decreased by $900,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in sport of his amendment. mr. broun: my amendment would recuse the propoed funding for the salaries and commissions, to cap it at 2012 levels. this is one of 13 offices that would receive increases for salaries or administrative expenses under the underlying bill. i urge support of my amendment which would just freeze the

salaries and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mips. mr. latham: i thank the chairman and rise to oppose the amendment, the federal maritime commission is responsible for resolving disputes between shippers both foreign and domestic and the public. protecting consumers from unfair business practices and monitoring ocean transportation and trade. the increase in this account has to do with annualization of already personnel on board and increases in the claims and work load of the federal maritime commission. to reduce this account, you would affect the backlog of cases and claims, those costing businesses, exporters and ports time and money while they wait for the f.m.c. to adjudicate their claim. usually we're in the business

of trying to reduce backlogs and delays in doing business and so with that, i would urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back the mans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. olver: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: i will be very brief. i merely want to concur in the position of the chairman of the subcommittee and urge a no vote on the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be -- from georgia, will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 135, line 12,

national railroad passenger corporation office of the inspector general salaries and expenses, $25 million. national transportation safety board, salaries and expenses, $102,400,000. neighborhood reinvestment corporation, payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation, $105,300,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, page 97, line 13, insert after the dollar amount, decreased by $ 12,300,000. page 19 line 25, after the dollar amount insert increased by $12,300,000. mr. broun: this amount is over $12 million higher than what

the president requested. i'm proud -- the president and i don't usually see eye to eye but i'm proud to support his request for the neighborhood redevelopment fund. let's show that both parties are capable of working together by supporting my amendment that would go back to the president's requested funding level for the neighborhood reinvestment corporation and save the american taxpayers over $2 million. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. olver: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olver: this is one of those cases we have gone back and forth here today with the gentleman from california, this must be the eighth or ninth of these and it's hard to find ways of being very creative or

original about what you're saying. but the interesting thing here is that some of the time, he has been going back to whatever we had done several years ago, at some point in the past, arbitraryly. here, of course, we he is supporting the president's position. i was not aware that the gentleman from california supported the president's position in much of anything. mr. broun: the gentleman from georgia. mr. olver: excuse me. thank you very much. please forgive me. you don't even look alike, you know. i think i'm mistaking you for a different member of the california delegation. in any case, i thank the gentleman from iowa for

collecting me. in any case, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the gentleman's amendment would take the position of this subcommittee down from by $12.3 million, basically the position of the subcommittee has been that we were providing a little bit more for the neighborhood program than the president requested and a little bit less for the h.u.d. counseling program than the president requested. but together, they would be about the same. you know, neighbor works, which is what the neighborhood reinvestment corporation's common name is, is a major nonprofit organization that operates all over the country. it has affiliates in 50 states,

i am sure it has an affiliate somewhere in the gentleman's district and the neighbor works program is a group that we relied on very heavily in the very height of the foreclosure crisis three or four years ago to do counseling, to go out there and actually contract with and manage the process of providing counseling for hundreds of thousands of people who were engaged in or subject to foreclosure and so we on our side, on our side -- on this side, in this branch, at least, have felt neighbor works was a good organization. that's why we have given them a little bit more and a little bitless to the h.u.d. program,

we argued that the h.u.d. program -- we argued the h.u.d. program last night. they leverage something close to $4 billion in direct investment to serve low and moderate income families through all of their affiliates, through all the work that they do. it's a very, very good, reliable organization that we've come to value very highly. they have administered this foreclosure mitigation counseling program that gets -- gives assistance to families at risk of losing their homes. the gentleman seeks to cut this account because it is above the president's request. but i think i have explained that we're slightly above on this one and slightly below on the other one and again, i would say, i was not away -- aware that the gentleman from georgia -- i went back to california again, the gentleman from georgia was such a fan of

the president's request numbers, valued it so highly. so i believe, and i think my chairman believes, that neighbor works is deserving of this small increase and i believe that chairman latham has thoughtfully targeted resources in this area. and i hope the amendment will be defeated. i urge the members to vote no. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank the chairman. i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. neighbor works -- works really is a is a program that has some metrics in place to make sure the dollars are used correctly, in a proper way. in iowa and across the country, about every dollar that goes to

neighbor works, actually there's about $48 in nonfederal direct investment because of it and i just want to reiterate, we've gone through every line in this appropriation bill, tried to make decisions that would increase growth, job creation, try to do the very best job we could. we've looked at every area. there are some priorities, things that actually work, that we've tried to sustain funding for and i just don't want folks to forget, overall in this bill, we are nearly $4 billion below last year's funding level, a cut of $4 billion, $2 billion below the president's request. so -- i think one gentleman here today stated, the largest percentage increase, reduction, excuse me, of my appropriation bill yet to come to the floor. so we're trying to be fiscally responsible, to actually prioritize spending in this

bill, to things that actually work and with that, mr. chairman, i would urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the question is -- the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i would like to rise in opposition to thement and -- to this amendment and say to the gentleman from georgia, i don't know where you live in georgia, but imagine neighborhoods in our country where there is no private lender with competitive rates. imagine neighborhoods that are crammed thealt edges with paybay -- payday lenders who are more than willing to biling people who have checks to cash, maybe social security checks, and they charge them for that. imagine a neighborhood where there's no credit union, where you can get -- no church-run credit union, a multilingual neighborhood with no lending

arm of any reputable institution. and if there is somebody in the neighborhood willing to make a loan, a loan sharking their charge high fees. imagine the trouble that a family can get into. imagine how difficult it is in those neighborhoods to accumulate capital to make a loan. because everything is taken out, nothing is put back in. neighbor works is one of the few institutions in this country that's proven itself, that works in exactly those kinds of neighbor -- neighborhoods. that tries to save families and give them a chance to get on the ladder up to opportunity. in this time when we know we have the largest transfer of wealth in american history from main street to wall street, where people have had their equity taken away, including in neighborhoods like i'm talking about where people were beginning to own their own homes for the first time, where

we needed counseling, financial counsel, we needed mortgage counsel, we needed advice on if you're going to buy a home what a down payment is, how much do you earn, you shouldn't pay more than this out of your check so you don't get in trouble. trying to find reputable people to repair your home so you can get a decent price on your roof and gutters. it all seems so simple if you live in the suburbs and you've got enough money and you're not living at the edge. neighbor works is one of those programs particularly at this time in our country with the housing market in the condition it is, and with the enormous challenging facing the communities in city after city after community after community, both urban and rural, it's amazing what's happened to rural small towns in this country. and the emptying out that is historic in nature. a program like neighbor works has proven itself. it pays back to the american

people in not losing equity, in helping capital accumulate in some of the most forgotten corners of this country and the staff that work for it are highly trained and highly reputable. i would not want to be without it in ohio. not in the situation that we are facing today. i'm not sure about georgia, i would bet in atlanta they value neighbor works, if they have one and i assume they do. but you have to imagine yourself living in a place like you might not know, and for the american dream to happen, organizations like neighbor works are absolutely essential. so i oppose the gentleman's amendment. i think it may be well intentioned but i think it's going to aheave exactly the wrong result and i thank the chairman of the full committee and ranking member mr. olver, they have reached an accommodation to help our housing market recover in some of the most forgotten places and not have any more hemorrhaging of equity. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion they have -- opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment from the gentleman of georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the interesting comments from my friend from western ohio, who i trust after she has the opportunity, they'll have a different view on whether or not the neighborhood stabilization fund, without additional resources to demolish homes, is working well. mr. latourette: but i turned on the television and i saw -- i like a good republican bashing as much as other folks.

but speakers came to the microphone and just bashed the lack of a republican plan phenomena transportation. -- plan on transportation. i'm going to go back to september of 2009. the last bill, safetealu, expired in september of 2009. in september of 2009, people know the answer, you can shout it out, the president of the united states was a democrat, barack obama. currently the president today. the majority leader in the united states senate, shout it out if you know it, harry reid, democrat of nevada. the speaker of the house was the first woman elected speaker in history of the united states, nancy pelosi of california. the democratic party controlled all three levers of the federal government. they had in position, as the chairman of the transportation and infrastructure committee, a gentleman who has forgotten more about transportation than most of us will ever learn, jim oberstar of minnesota. mr. oberstar prepared a six-year fully-funded, robust federal transportation six-year

re-authorization. he was not allowed by the leadership within the democratic party to bring that bill forward. so, for people to come to the floor and say mr. latham's not doing his job, this negotiation that's going on on the transportation authorization currently is somehow a failure of republican leadership, i say, get up and look in the mirror. you have to take a look at the fact that everybody is responsible for this mess. and everybody knows that you don't fix the nation's infrastructure unless you provide the necessary resources to fund the trust fund and both parties are guilty of being absent without leave. but to hang it on the republican party is worse than nonsense. it is completelying -- it completely ignores historical fact. one other fact about the president of the united states, president obama, he has become the first president since dwight eisenhower to not send up his vision of a comprehensive transportation re-authorization bill. now, a lot of people in this house weren't even born when

dwight eisenhower was the president of the united states. but he became the first president, and our good friend and former colleague, mr. lahood, who is the secretary of transportation, he would come before the subcommittee year after -- year after year after year and no ideas no gas tax, no idea how we're going to replenish the highway trust fund. until this year. until this year, he came and said, i got this brainy idea. we're going to fund it with the oversea contingency account that the united states has used to support our troops in conflicts around the world. it was worse than fiction. it was a fantasy. and he knew it, but he delivered it with a straight face and give him a lot of credit for that. but to come to the floor and attempt to hang this around the republicans for failing to lead on transportation is laughable. ours is the party of teddy roosevelt and the panama canal. abraham lincoln and the transcontinental railroad. dwight eisenhower and the interstate highway system. ronald reagan and george bush all supported working wages to

support our infrastructure. we will not take a back seat, nor will we be criticized by a party that completely failed in its mandate given to them in the election of 2008 to do a single thing to employ people in the transportation sector and to move this country forward. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 141, line 13, united states interagency council on homelessness, operating expenses, $3,300,000. title 4, general provisions, this act, section 401, sum for the pay raises for programs funded in this act shall be absorbed within the levels appropriated. section 402. none of the funds shall be used for the planning of any program to pay the expenses of nonfederal parties intervening in regulatory proceedings. section 403, none of the funds

shall remain available for obligation, nor may be transferred. section 404, the expenditure for any consulting service shall be limited to those contracts where expenditures are a matter of public record and available for public inspection. section 405, none of the funds shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that creates a new program. section 406, not to exceed 50% of unobligated balances made available for salaries shall remain available through september 30, 2014, for each such account for the purposes of authorized. section 407, all federal agencies funded under this act shall issue a report to the committees on all sole source contracts by no later than july 30, 2013. section 408, none of the funds may be obligated for any employee training that does not need -- meet identified needs for knowledge bearing drectsly upon the performance of official duties. section 409, no funds may be

used to support projects that seek to use the power of imminent domain unless imminent domain is employed only for a public use. section 410, none of the funds may be transferred except pursuant to a transfer made by this act. section 411, no part of any appropriation shall be available to pay the salary for any person filling a position form early held by an employee who left who entered the armed forces and has completed his period of activity, active military or naval service. section 412, no funds may be expended by any entity -- the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. page 148, line 11, after entity will insert, ensure that domestic content makes up 85% of all steel, iron and manufactured

goods including rolling stops in. >> i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves a point of order. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i heard a rather strong plea from underof -- one of my republican colleagues about the transportation program and whether democrats and republicans should continue to fight about who did what when or didn't do it. this amendment is something that we all ought to agree to. this amendment is something that both democrats and republicans should be supporting. this amendment is about american jobs. not foreign jobs, not about shifting our jobs overseas, but rather about bringing those jobs back home. this amendment is about making it in america. this amendment is about no longer allowing our tax money to be spent on foreign-made

equipment. but rather to allow our tax money and republican that our tax money be spent on american-made equipment so that there will be american jobs. this is not a republican or a democratic issue. this is an all-american issue. this is about making it in america. it simply says that the current 60% requirement is insufficient. and that we ought to have a higher requirement of 85%. and i will argue strongly and i think correctly that 85% is achievable. i'll give two examples. a recent contract for the bart new trains, rapid transit trains, one bidder, a french company, said that they could built those trains 95%. a second bidder, foreign, said they would do it at 66%. unfortunately bart decided to go with the 66% because it was a couple of percentage points

cheaper. $1 billion of american jobs was lost. within a month after that, los angeles wanted to build some new transit cars. siemens said they could build those transit cars at 85%. -- 85% american content. they lost that bid to a korean company because there was a couple of percentage points difference. again, millions of american jobs or millions of dollars spent overseas and american jobs lost. it's time for us to bring the jobs home. it's time for us to onshore. it's time for us to make it in america and it's time for us as democrats and republicans to do just that and that's what this amendment does. i suspect it will be ruled out of order. what a shame. what a shame. that we cannot stand here on the floor and amend a bill that's going to overtime -- over time spend $60 billion and not

require that that money, our tax money, be spent in america. what's wrong with making it in america? oh, i suppose it has to do with some point of order. do you think the american public really wants to hear point of order? or do they want to hear about american-made equipment and american jobs? no, we'll do a point of order. which i will appeal. and probably lose. and thousands upon thousands of american jobs will be lost because of a point of order. rather than for this house to stand up and say, we're going to make it in america, we're going to spend our tax money on american jobs, on american-made equipment. so give me a point of order and let's see what the american public has to say about your point of order. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: i would continue to reserve and strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank the chairman. you know, we had a markup this morning in appropriations and i supported an amendment about american content and i believe that this is probably a very, very good amendment. to be consistent and i have raised points of orders against some things that i support today, my good friend from ohio, other amendments that i would otherwise be supportive of, if they were not breaking precedent to the rules of the house, and with that, mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order and 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 21. the rule states in pertinent

part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requires a new determination. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does anyone else wish to speak on the point of order? the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: on the point of order, i thank the chairman for his thoughts. and for his consistency, i cannot thank him. but i think i understand that we seem to operate on rules, unless we don't want to operate on those rules. and i understand that the chairman is interested in this issue and has worked as chairman of the committee -- of the subcommittee to try to raise the level of american-made -- i thank him for that. we have an opportunity here to really take this issue up and to

put aside the rules and do what's good for america. this is about billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs and we ought to put it aside. put aside the consistency and deal with american jobs. i don't know what my opportunity will be to overrule the point of order, but i'm going to do everything i possibly can to see that we have american-made jobs and we spend our tax money on american-made equipment. i do understand the chairman's position and the bind that he's in. but sometimes consistency doesn't lead to the right result. i yield back. the chair: does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order? if not the chair is prepared to rule. as record in the precedence of volume 8, chapter 26, language in an appropriation bill that is subject to a point of order under clause 2 of rule 21 but is permitted to remain such as waiver in house resolution 697 may be modified by germane

amendment that does not contain additional legislation. section 412 of the bill has been permitted to remain. the amendment by the gentleman from california would expand section 412 to impose an additional restriction on expenditure funds in the bill to wit that 85% of a certain class of goods be produced domestically. that expansion constitutes legislation, the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, -- mr. chairman, i ask to strike the laft word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to thank you for that opportunity. i have an amendment that prohibit funds from being used to enforce congressionally mandated temporary flight restrictions or t.f.r.'s for sport stadiums. these t.f.r.'s are impractical, ineffective and they create serious problems for husband00s of thousands of pilots, countless air shows, aerial surveyers and other small businesses and individuals that

utilize aviation. in 2004 congress mandated the f.a.a. to impose permanent t.f.r.'s in the air space above and around sports stadiums with a seating capacity greater than 0,000. this basically extendses 3,000 feet high and they have a 3 1/2-mile-wide raid yulls. it is in effect one hour prior to the event and one hour just after the event. and in any given year there are roughly 3,000 of these stadium t.f.r.'s. proponents of this these claim that they bolster national security and mitigate an aerial threat and i can't help but laugh at that assertion. first there's absolutely no realtime mechanism or capability preto prevent an aerial attack originating within or outside the 3 1/2 miles at 3,000 feet above ground level and the logic

that applies, even if the restrictions were expanded, exponentially. if you take a jet traveling 500 miles per hour, it's just going to take a few seconds to penetrate that t.f.r. to reach that stidum. it's also very convenient that the proponents of these t.f.r.'s are exempt from the restriction that they successfully sought after. bottom line is the f.a.a. doesn't need these connelly mandated t.f.r.'s. they publicly stated they would not issue these t.f.r.'s absent the congressional mandate but rather they would use their existing authority to coordinate within law enforcement -- coordinate with law enforcement authorities, local law enforcement to issue them on a case-by-case basis and that's what we are trying to get at. mr. chairman, i'd like to reiterate that these stadium t.f.r.'s do nothing to improve security. and i would yield time to anybody out there, any member that would try and keep an argument while keeping a straight face that they hetch security. they are about banner toers which is to prevent gore iladvertisers from operating

within the airspace around these stadiums. what was congress' solution? we exempted them from their own restrictions and i think that's wrong. in light of the fact i'd like to solve this issue eventually instead of ram an issue through or try to push something through that could be failed or not be passed, i'd rather come up with a good piece of legislation that would solve the problem and address some of the concerns and that's basically what i was trying to do. mr. latham: if the gentleman will yield? mr. graves: i yield. mr. latham: i yield. i thank the gentleman for his comments today and he has been a tremendous advocate for this position. we have talked on many occasions about this particular subject. he is working very hard to resolve the issue. i would hope that we could have some public hearings, actually get real input to make sure

that we make the right decisions and i certainly would want to work with the gentleman to make sure that we do get a full hearing on this issue, that everything can be brought to light and we could certainly -- we're all concerned about homeland security safety issues, all those things. i think the gentleman makes a very good point and we'll just offer to do everything we can to work with him and i'd yield back to the gentleman. mr. graves: i want to thank the gentleman for the comments and look forward to working on this. i think this is an issue that we can solve and an issue that we can fix ultimately. for all those pilots out there and folks that are concerned. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 148, line 15, section 413. no fund shall be made available to any person that has been convicted of violating the buy american act. section 414. none of the funds may be used

for first-class airline accommodations. section 415, none of the funds may be provided to the association of community organizations for reform now. section 416. none of the funds may be used to enter into a contract with any corporation that was convicted of a felony, criminal violation under federal law within the preceding 24 months. section 417. none of the funds may be used to enter into a contract with any corporation that any unpaid federal tax liability has been assessed. section 418. the amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the committee on appropriations is zero dollars. the chair: the clerk will suspend. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 20, proceedings will now resume on those amendments upon which proceedings were postponed in the following order. 6th amendment by mr. broun of

georgia. 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th amendment by mr. broun of georgia. 11th amendment amendment by mr. broun of georgia. 12th amendment by mr. amendment of -- mr. broun of georgia. amendment number 11 by mr. mick colin to be of california -- mr. mcclintock of california. amendment by mr. flake of arizona. the unfinished business is the request on the 6th amendment of the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, upon which proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: 6th amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 168. the nays are 256. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. brown, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. cleag. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: those in support of

the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 178. the nays are 240. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the eament amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: eighth amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 174, the nays are 248. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the ninth amendment by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, upon which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: ninth amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 193, the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the 10th amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, upon which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: 10th amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 178, the nays are 247. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the 11th amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, upon which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: 11th amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 169, the nays are 250 the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the 12th amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, upon which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: 12th amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 160, the nays are 264 the amendment is not adopted. -- 264. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on on the 13th amendment offered by