ensure that they're act is sessable to all, regardless of english proficiency. historically it's been funded at $500,000. in the first year of its existence in 2008, it received $280,000. after that, from 2009 through 2011, it received $500,000. then with the change in leadership in this house, the -- funding has slipped to $300,000 in recent years. last year, however this house, both democrats and republicans, did the right thing. it voted to raise the cap for this initiative that translates documents outlining how to become a first-time homeowner and how to avoid loan fraud and foreclosure as well as fair housing information for disaster housing providers and survivors. i ask that we do so again here today. i want to point out that we are not taking away from any other programs. we're simply slightly lifting

the cap on this particular initiative. we do have to realize that there are over 40 million americans who do not speak english as their first language this tiny program demonstrates to the american people that we have equal protection under the law regardless of whether people are english-speaking or spanish speaking or speak some other language. given the tiny amount of money that's involved here, this program has been extraordinarily effective. . almost 30,000 people benefited from a program that cost this federal government only $300,000. i ask that you consider the value of this program to every community across america and i urge them to accept this amendment as they did last year. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the amendment depreed to. -- is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 113, line 1, office of led, hazard control and healthy homes, $70 million to remain available until eptember 30, 2016.

the chair: the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: information technology fund, $97 million. office of inspector general, $124,861,000. general provisions, department of housing and urban development, including transfer of funds, section 201, 50% of the amounts that are recaptured from projects described in section 1012-a of the stewart b. mckinney homeless assistance amendments pack of 1988 shall be resinleded. section 202, none of the funds -- none of the amounts made available may be used to investigate under the fair housing act any lawful activity for the purpose of achieving action by a government official.

section 203, sections 203 and 209 of division c of public law 112-55 shall apply if sections were included in this title. section 204, any grant made pursuant to title 2 shall be made on a competitive basis. section 205, funds shall be available for legal services and for making payments for services of the federal and national mortgage association. section 118 -- excuse me, section 206, no part of any expiration should be available for any program. section 207, corporations and agencies of the department are subject to the government corporation control act are hereby authorized to make such expenditures. section 208, the secretary shall provide quarterly reports to the committees regarding all excess funds in each program within the jurisdiction of the department. section 209, the president's budget request for fiscal year

2016 shall use the identical account structure provided under this act. section 210, a public housing agency that administers federal housing assistance for the housing authority of the county of los angeles, california, the states of alaska, iowa and mississippi, shall not be required to include a resident of public housing. section 211, no funds may be used for the audit of the government national mortgage associations. section 212, the secretary may offer a transfer of sum for all project-based assistance associated with one or more multifamily housing projects. section 213, no assistance shall be provided under section 8 of the united states housing act of 1937 to any individual who is enrolled as a student at an institution of higher education. section 214, funds made

available for native alaskans shall be allocated to the same native alaskan housing block grant recipients that received funds in fiscal year 2005. section 215, the secretary may enter into commitments to ensure mortgages under section 255. section 216, in managing in a -- any multifamily property owned by the secretary and during the process of foreclosure on property with a contract for rental assistance payments, the secretary shall maintain any rental assistance payments. section 217, the commitment authority funded by seas may be used to guarantee notes or other obligations issued by any state on behalf of nonentity entitlement communities. section 218, public housing agencies that own and operate 400 or fewer units may elect to be exempt from any asset management requirement imposed by the secretary. section 219, the secretary

shall not impose any requirement relating to asset management that restricts the use of capital funds for central office costs purr subte to the united states -- pursuant to the united states housing act of 1937. section 220, no official of the department shall be dessnailted as an a-- designated as an allotment holder unless the office of the chief financial holder -- section 221, the secretary shall report annually to committees on the status of all section 8 project-based housing, including an analysis of all federally subsidized housing being refinanced under the market-to-market program. section 222, the secretary shall notify the public through the federal register of the issuance of a notice of the availability of assistance for any program administered that is to be competively awarded. section 223, payment for

attorney fees and program-related litigation must be paid from individual program office personnel benefits and compensation funding. section 224, the secretary is authorized to transfer up to $5 million under the heading administrative support offices to any other office funded under section heading. section 225, disaster housing assistance programs shall be considered a program of the department of housing and urban development. section 226, the citizen shall take the required actions when a multifamily housing project with a section 8 contract receives a real estate assessment center score 30 or less. section 227, none of the funds for the purposes authorized under section 8 and section 9 of the united states housing act of 1937 may be used by any public housing agency that exceeds the annual rate of basic pay payable for a

position at level 4 of the executive schedule. section 228, none of the funds may be available for the dissertation research grant program at the department. section 229, none of the funds provided to the department of housing may be used to make a grant award unless the secretary notifies the committee. section 230, section 579 is a multifamily assisted housing reform and affordability act of 1997 is amended. section 231, none of the funds may be used to require the physical needs assessment. section 232, none of the funds nor any receipts collected may be used to implement the homeowners' armed knowledge hawk program. section 233, none of the funds shall be used to ensure or establish a federal guarantee of any mortgage or mortgage-backed security that replaces a mortgage that has been subject to imminent domain

-- this title may be cited as the department of housing and urban development appropriations act, 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> i have an amendment, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heinz of connecticut. page 140, after line 9, insert the following new section. section 234-a. establishment of budget-neutral demonstration program for multifamily housing, energy and water conservation. the secretary of housing and urban development referred to in this section as the secretary shall establish a demonstration program under which, during the period beginning at the date -- mr. himes: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? the gentleman iowa. >> mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. without objection, the amendment is considered as read. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes.

mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to begin by thanking my colleagues, mr. ross of florida and mr. delainy of maryland, for co-sponsoring this -- delaney of maryland, for co-sponsoring this amendment. this is an amendment that is a bipartisan proposal that has been included in the senate t-hud appropriations bill and the bipartisan energy bill. it was also included in the president's budget and more than 24 separate groups support this amendment. it presents no risk to the federal government, is budget-neutral and actually has the potential to reduce utility costs for h.u.d. up to $7 billion annually. in brief, h.u.d.-assisted properties are generally older stock with inefficient energy and water usage. there are lots of barriers to improving that situation and therefore realizing those savings. under the pilot program proposed by this amendment, an intermediary will contract with h.u.d. or property owners to produce energy and water savings in exchange for a share of those ongoing savings. relying on this contract, the

intermediary will raise the capital to pay for energy and water conservation for the affected property. this private capital will be used to pay energy-efficient experts to perform energy and water efficiency upgrades to h.u.d. assisted housing, such as housing for seniors and people with disabilities. multifamily building owners would not take any on any risk and not need to spend any capital. the bill leverages the private sector to more effectively direct government resources and to ensure the best outcomes for the taxpayer. mr. chairman, we may not agree on some things in the underlying bill, but smart, innovative approaches to financing energy savings improvements are simply common sense. i hope the chairman and ranking member will work with me and my fellow bipartisan co-sponsors to ensure this measure is ultimately enacted into law. and with that, mr. chairman, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and

therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in the pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heards on the point of order? -- heard on the point of order? hearing none, the chair finds that this amendment finds language imparting direction. 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. mr. himes: i seek unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: the amendment has already been ruled out. mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 40, line 12, title 3. related agencies, access, board salaries and expenses. federal housing finance agency, office of inspector general, $45 million to remain available until september 30, 2016.

federal maritime commission salaries and expenses, $25,499,000. national railroad passenger corporation office of inspector general, salaries and expenses. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? 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. page 141, line 23, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $1 million. pages 156, line 16, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment would reduce amtrak's office of the inspector general by $1 million and increase the spending reduction account by that same amount. this reduction would eliminate the proposed increase to that account, keeping funding just

like it is today. keep the funding level for this year's spending for the coming year. i spoke about amtrak's failings at length during consideration of the first title of this bill. amtrak consistently runs a massive operating deficit. the long distance routes are continually in the red and the food and besk raj service only nets -- beverage service only nets 65% return on what it spends. despite paying its staff six-figure salaries. way above what the average american can expect to make in salaries. my colleagues who support amtrak would likely say this embattled agency deserves more funding. and yes, the office of inspector general has rooted out some fraud and has discovered some significant overpayments.

mr. chairman, i would submit that fraud, overpayments, these things are just the tip of a very large, very obvious iceberg. it is not some great mystery why amtrak is hemorrhaging money. the long-distance routes lose incredible amounts of money and taxpayers are being bill beinged for this tremendous amount of loss. it is breathtaking that we continue to turn a blind eye to more than a half billion dollars loss year after year just to sustain these routes which carry fewer than five million passengers annually. that number may sound large but n 2012, there were more than 115 million ticketted airline passengers in the united states. how about the food and beverage

service on amtrak trains? over the last five years, the service has resulted in nearly $400 million in losses. yes, the office of inspector general does decent work and i commend the office for exposing and admitting amtrak's history of cooking its books in the food and beverage service to look slightly less awful than they actually are. in this time of fiscal emergency, i think it would be prudent to tell the amtrak o.i.g. to work on the obvious issues first. take care of the big problems before hiring new staff to look for new issues that are dwarfed by what we already know. i urge support of my amendment, mr. chairman. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise?

mr. latham: move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. mr. chairman, as you know, one of the very important functions of this committee is oversight. ensuring agencies under our purview that are effectively and efficiently managed. the bill provides the amtrak o.i.g. with $25 million with oversight studies and investigations into fraud, waste and abuse at amtrak. through these investigations, the amtrak o.i.g. has helped improve the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of amtrak programs and operations. for example, amtrak o.i.g. has identified improper or overpayments to the tune of $the 91.3 million. amtrak has collected some of this back which has saved the taxpayer money. the impact of sequestration and

unanticipated rail employee benefit cost increases wreak havoc on the amtrak o.i.g. that forced him to suspend work on important investigations. amtrak needs more oversight and not less. and i appreciate the gentleman pointing out all the problems at amtrak and the only person there to fix is it the o.i.g. office. reducing funding would not be in the best interest. the bill's funding levels are not arbitrary. we scrubde these accounts. we have held hearings and made recommendations on what should be funded and where increases and reductions need to be. i urge a no vote on the amendment. and i yield back. 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 and the amendment is not agreed to.

the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 140 line 12, page 143 line 1, national transportation safety board salaries and expenses, $103 million. neighborhood reinvestment corporation, payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation, $132 million. united states interagency council on homelessness, $3,500,000. enses, title 4, general provisions. section 401, none of the funds shall be used for the planning of any programs to pay the expenses of nonfederal parties intervening in regulatory proceedings. none of the funds shall remain available for obligation beyond

the current fiscal year. section 403, 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 404. none of the funds shall be obligated for employee training needs. s not meet 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, 2016 for each such account for the purposes authorized. section 407, no funds may be used to support any federal, state or local projects that seek to use the power of eminent

domain unless eminent domain is employed for a public use. section 408, all federal agencies funded under this act shall issue a report to the committee on all source contracts by no later than july 30, 2015. section 409, none of the funds shall be transferred except pursuant to a transfer made by this act. section 410, no part of any appropriations shall be available to pay the salary of any person filling a position formally held by an employee who is entering the armed forces and completed his or her period of service. section 411, no funds may be extended by any agency unless the entity will comply with sections 2-4 of the act of march 3, 194 . no funds shall be made available to any person who has been convicted of violating the

buy-american act. section 413, none of the funds may be used for first class accommodations. none of the funds may be used to enter into a contract with a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under the federal law within the preceding 24 months. section 415, none of the funds may be used to enter into a contract with any corporation with any unpaid federal tax libet that has been assessed. spending reduction accounts, section 416, the amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the committee on appropriations is zero dollars.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. waters of california. at the end of the bill, insert the following new section, section 4, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to require the relocation or to carry out any releagues of any asset management of the department of department of housing and urban development as of the date of enactment of this act. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: i rise to offer an amendment that will continue to ensure that the department of housing and urban development, multi-family staff remains

locally based, connected to communities and on the ground to serve as the eyes and ears of lawmakers. specifically, this amendment would prohibit h.u.d. to use funds appropriated by this bill which is designed to relocate asset management staff and restructure h.u.d.'s multi-family field offices nationwide. mr. speaker, this amendment would effectively stop h.u.d. from closing any of the offices whereas et management staff are currently located. when h.u.d. announced its plans for a major restructuring of multi-family field offices nationwide, i was deeply concerned. under the plan, h.u.d. will go from 50 multi-family offices down to 12 with only five of them being designated as recommendingal centers. the shortcomings of this plan are not more obvious than in my own district where a decision was relocate the los angeles

field office. if undeterred, this plan would close the los angeles less office, uproot its entire staff and relocate it to another regional center which would be responsible for more than double its current work load and facing the daunting task of serving 73 million people in 14 states across 1.8 million square miles. h.u.d. promises that this plan will achieve significant savings without impacting program delivery. however, after careful review, i remain skeptical that h.u.d. will be able to deliver on this promise. i enjoy advocates and affected employees in pressing my continuous serious concern over the reorganization and my concerns are numerous. first, h.u.d.'s plan does not seem to acknowledge the critical importance and value of having staff who are living and working

in the communities they are serving. there are significant differences among local housing markets and awareness of each region's unique characteristics is essential to the family office. second, reorganization would adversely affect delivery of services by reducing staff's ability to effectively respond to unique local concerns and remain connected to community leaders. staff would have less interaction with owners and managers and responsive walk-in assistance would be eliminated for people that rely on multi-family offices. california is one of the states affected by the collapse and too many families suffer. with our housing market still struggling to recover we cannot afford to undercut what little progress we have made with the radical overhaul with h.u.d.'s infrastructure. i for one still struggling to

understand how this plan will save money. and i have yet to receive satisfactory answers from h.u.d. regarding my concerns. at is why i remain a vocal opponent. and today i'm urging h.u.d. to study the implications of its plan. although this amendment only addresses some of my concerns and would not stop the transformation all together, it would codify the agreement between h.u.d. and appropriators to keep asset management staff on site and leave all multi-family offices open. it reflects language that passed the senate last week. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote aye on this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. burgess of texas. at the end of the bill insert the short title will, none of the funds made available may be used by the secretary of transportation to authorize a person, one, to operate an unmanned aircraft system in the national aircraft system in the purpose in whole or part to using the system to weapon or deliver a weapon or two to manufacture, sell or distribute an unmanned aircraft system or a component thereof in the use of

the national airspace system as a weapon or to deliver a weapon against a person or a property. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is similar to one i brought to the house floor two years ago. during that two years, there has been discussion about the use of unmanned aircraft, commonly referred to as drones, in the u.s. national airspace. the constitutional protections that are important to so many of us can be infringed upon to prevent abuse. until recently, it was believed that the use of drones in the united states airspace was limited to surveillance. that is no longer the case. to date, at least 17 police departments and sheriff's offices across the country have filed certificatetive indicates

of authorization with the f.a.a. to use a drone. police chiefs and districts across the country have applied for an authorization to use a drone in the national airspace. . however others have announced the intention to attach a weapons platform. further, over the past few years, the obama administration's policy regarding drones has been cryptic. for instance, it is still not clear whether the president believes that he has the authority to kill an american citizen on american soil. this amendment would put an end to that ambiguity. this amendment does not affect the use of armed drones in a war zone. armed drones have been used with precision and success to seek out the enemy hiding in places where ground troops would have difficulty going.

but placing an unmanned drone over the skies of the united states is not only ill-advised, it flies in the face of the sincerely held constitutional protections that we all hold dear. this amendment would prevent the secretary of transportation and the head of the f.a.a. from approving any application to use an unmanned aircraft in the national air space for the purpose of arming or weaponizing that aircraft. it does not affect surveillance, it does not affect weaponized drones being used outside the united states air space in a war zone. in my opinion, this is a road that we should not travel. it's a classic example of the off used quote by benjamin franklin. those who would give up liberty to purchase safety may deserve neither liberty nor safety. it's an important provision and i encourage the chairman of the subcommittee to consider it -- to allow it to come to a vote. i'll reserve my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields the balance of his time. he may not reserve his time. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: thank you, mr. chairman. i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 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 any other member wish to speak on the point of order? mr. burgess: will the gentleman yield? the chair: does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: with all affection and reverence for the chairman of the subcommittee, this issue has remained unresolved for the last two years. it was unresolved in the f.a.a. re-authorization that passed the house two years ago, it has

been unresolved in rulemaking by the agency. this is an opportunity through the limitation amendment in the appropriations bill to prevent the type of activity that i described in the offering memorandum. i think it is appropriate, i think the time is now for us to take this action for the protection of our citizens. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? as the chair ruled on june 27, 2012, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained, the amendment is not n order. for what purpose does the entleman from nevada rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. horsford: thank you, mr. speaker. this bill appropriates $40 million less to the community development block grant program in fiscal year 2015 than it did

last year. i would have offered an amendment to maintain cdbg funding at last year's levels but we know there is insufficient funding throughout this bill due to the budget caps. the cdbg program prope provides direct grants -- provides direct grants to 1,209 state and local governments. since the start of the program n 1974, cdbg has invested over $135 billion in local economies. creating jobs, supporting local businesses, improving infrastructure, providing housing, including housing repairs and homeownership assistance, and services to low-income veterans, seniors, children, special needs populations and working families. the cdbg program grows local economies and improves the quality of lives for low and moderate income citizens. over the past 10 years,

cdbg-related funning is estimated to have -- funding is estimated to have sustained 400,000 jobs in local economies across the country. 2012 alone, nearly 21,800 permanent jobs were created or retained using kd funds and and than -- cdbg funds more than 2,500 people benefited from public facilities. the total amount appropriated to cdbg has declined almost every year since 2000, when measured in inflation-adjusted constant dollars, total program funding declined by $46 -- 46.4% since fiscal year 2000. the cdbg program is essential for the functioning of more than 1,200 cities and counties of all shapes and sizes across the country. and there continues to be an increased need for investment in job creation, essential

services for vulnerable populations and economic and infrastructure development. it is unfortunate that due to an insufficient allocation of funds for projects throughout this bill, we must make cuts to vital programs like cdbg. we need to stop these cuts to our communities. mr. chairman, mr. speaker, excuse me, i'd also like to speak in favor of the amendment that was proposed by the ranking member, hst waters, in support -- ms. waters, in support of the multifamily housing office, which contributes to the development and preservation of healthy neighborhoods and communities. a core part of its mission is to maintain and expand homeownership, rental housing and health care opportunities. in an effort to achieve cost savings, h.u.d. planned to consolidate 50 multifamily-filled offices, organized into 17 hubs, into

just 12 locations, organized into five regions. this would have resulted in a severe loss of h.u.d.'s local presence in communities throughout the united states. this means that for constituents living in las vegas, the closest hub location would have been over 500 miles away. and that hub will simultaneously have been responsible for 73 million people and 14 states. hundreds of h.u.d. employees would be forced to relocate except to buy out or take early retirement. this drastic consolidation of h.u.d. locations would have compromised the quality of services that h.u.d.'s multifamily office provides. it's therefore this reason that would have created a problem at a project site in my district, there would have been no local h.u.d. employees to monitor and address the situation directly

or in a timely manner. only if the situation would have risen to the level of an emergency would a h.u.d. employee be able to send someone to investigate the issue which would have entailed costly travel expenses on the taxpayers' dime. it is also difficult to believe that under these circumstances h.u.d. would somehow still be able to deliver the same quality of services that it currently delivers today. h.u.d.'s plan to completely overhaul the multifamily office is both ill-conceived and poorly timed and that's why i support the ranking member's amendment and i'm pleased that this body has adopted it, to ensure h.u.d.'s multifamily staff remains locally based and connected to communities who are on the ground. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri rise? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk will report. the chair: amendment offered by mrs. hartzler of missouri. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to enforce section 319 of title 23, united states code. the chair: the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. ms. hartzler: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a simple, straightforward amendment to ensure highway dollars are spent wisely and they're used for highways. specifically, it prohibits our limited highway money from

being used for highway beautification. we have over 65,000 bridges that are considered structurally deficient. we must ensure that our federal highway dollars are spent improving our infrastructure. from 1992 to 2001, over $1.2 billion was spent on landscaping and scenic beautification. and these funds could have been put towards ensuring our roadways and bridges are safe. it does not make sense for the hardworking families in missouri and all across this country to send in their money on april 15 every year and to perhaps forego buying their child a new coat or shoes or make a house payment so that they can pay their taxes, just so that their tax dollars can go to plantsing flowers alongside the road -- planting flowers alongside the road. i'm for beautiful highways like everybody else, but i think a private solution is better. y don't we, like we have

adopt-a-highway sections for picking up trash and making roads pretty, why don't we have adopt-a-conner -- adopt-a-corner for landscaping projects? why don't we have localening clubs adopt an intersection -- local clubs adopt an intersection? why don't we leave that up to local community leaders and vits to plant those flowers -- individuals to plant those flowers? i don't believe we should be using our hard-earned tax dollars to be doing it, especially when our roads are falling apart and our bridges are deficient. there are potholes in roads that are endangering our families, endangering our children. and yet we're spending these hard-earned tax dollars to plant flowers and bushes along the road. we can't afford luxuries like this anymore. it's time to spend our highway dollars on our highways. make sure our roads are safe. make sure our bridges are safe. make sure that those hard-earned tax dollars are

used wisely. so that's why i'm offering this simple amendment and i would urge my colleagues to support my effort to make sure our highway dollars are spent where they need to be spent and make sure our money is spent wisely. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank the chairman and i reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. i very much understand where the gentlewoman's coming from, with the tremendous needs that we have today on infrastructure , to have some of this money being diverted to other uses, i understand entirely. this really is an authorizing issue, if there ever was one. we appropriate money in this bill, we don't authorize or set up the programs themselves, that should be addressed in a re-authorization of the bill.

the funds here oftentimes go to erosion control, they preserve wetlands and meets environmental regulations that the states have to comply with or the entities, government entities have to comply with. but the real big problem here is the fact that states may have contracts already out there that they're obligated to pay and basically what we're saying is, we're not going to give you -- we're not going to reimburse you, so the federal government, even though the states have the contracts in place, we're not going to do our part and help pay the bill. and that really is where the problem is. we have an obligation but we don't have the money. again, that's why this goes back to an authorizing issue that needs to be looked at. i totally agree with the gentlewoman and i reluctantly oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from arizona. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: we're in agreement with the chairman that this is an authorizing issue and it would cause great damage, especially to those contracts that are already in place. and for that reason we are in opposition to the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mrs. hartzler: i ask for a recorded vote. clause 6, pursuant to rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from missouri will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from d.c. rise? ms. norton: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

he clerk: amendment offered by ms. norton of the district of columbia, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the fifth or 14th amendment of the constitution or title 6 of the civil rights act of 1964. the chair: the the gentlewoman om district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: we will commemorate the civil rights act. y amendment enforces section 2 thousand-d would require no funds would be used to stop and investigate, detain or arrest people on highways based on

their physical appearance in violation of the civil rights act of 1964. the supreme court has found that profiling based on physical appearance on highways vilingts equal protection of the laws. title 6 of the 1964 act enforces the 14th amendment and applies to funding for all federal agencies and departments. my amendment carries out this mandate in transportation funding as well. federal guidance regarding the use of race by federal law enforcement agencies finds that racial profiling is not merelyly wrong but ineffective. not only blacks and hispanics are affected but many others as well. the u.s. department of labor's bureau of justice statistics reports that whites are stopped at a rate of 3.6% but application at 9.5% and hispanics at 8.8% more than

twice the rates of whites. the figures are roughly the same regardless of region or state. in minnesota for example, a statewide study of racial profiling found that african americans, hispanics, native american drivers were stopped and searched far more often than whites but contraband was found more frequently in cars where white drivers had been stopped. in texas, where disproportionate stops and searches of african americans and hispanics were found, it was also found that whites more often were carrying contraband. mr. speaker, in 2005, i sponsored a transportation amendment that allowed a federal grant to states who wanted to stop racial profiling. nearly half of the states participated in this program.

unfortunately, it was not renewed in 2009. my amendment seeks to prevent citizens from being stopped, investigated, arrested ordained based on their physical appearance. considering our country's history and increasing diversity, we are late in barring profiling at the national level. at the very least, federal taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize the unconstitutional practice of profiling by law enforcement officials in the states. i'm prepared to yield. mr. latham: we would accept the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from from the district of columbia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment

is agreed to. the hat purpose does gentleman from montana rise. >> amendment at the desk. the chair: amendment will be reported. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act i may be used to develop, issue or implement regulations that increase minimal financial responsibility for transporting passengers or property as in effect of january 1, 2014, punt to sections 31138 united of title 49 states code. the chair: the gentleman from montana is recognized for five minutes. mr. daines: this april, the federal motor carrier trappings agency would move forward and increase the amount of liability coverage required for truck and

bus coverage, this comes despite findings from the department of transportation that less than 0.2% of truck-involved accident have property damage that exceed, which is $750,000. current proposals regarding insurance and increase call for minimum levels to go up by more than 500% and this would lead to significant deduction for liability for motor carriers, especially small businesses. the trial lawyers win. the small businesses lose. it estimated that premiums could increase more than four times the current levels up to $20,000 per truck, even more per bus. 40% of currently operating motor carriers could go out of business. there is no evidence supporting higher insurance requirements that would result in improved

safety. increasing minimum insurance levels is not the best way to meet the needs of catastropheic accident victims. my amendment would prohibit the federal motor carrier administration that would increase the liability insurance requirements for truck and bus companies during the 2015 fiscal year. please join me in support of this effort to keep safe small business truck and bus companies on the road. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from montana yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. i appreciate all of the courtesies from my good friend from montana. and i understand that the motivations behind this amendment, but i must speak against it because this amendment itself is a threat to

the safety of americans on the roadway. mr. cartwright: it is counter to the goal we all share to protecting and preserving social security and medicare, two vital safety net programs in this country and above all, it destroys accountability in the safety rules in the trucking industry. mr. speaker, in 1980, congressman dated that motor carriers, commercial motor carriers carry a minimum of $750,000 in liability coverage. this number has not been adjusted in more than 33 years. in present dollars simply adjusting for inflation using a health care cost c.p.i., consumer price index, that would require changing the $7 50,000 to $4.4 million. mr. speaker, i have introduced myself h.r. 2730, the safe haul

act to do just that, simply adjust for inflation over the 34 years that that $750,000 limit was in place. this past weekend, mr. speaker, mr. james mcnare, a talented comedian died in new jersey because of a tractor trailer collision. apparently the tractor trailer driver was awake for 24 hours in violation of a myriad of hours of service requirements in the federal motor carrier safety regulations and tracy morgan himself, his associate remains in critical condition. to suggest that $750,000 with today's health care costs, is adequate to cover this kind of tragedy is ridiculous. in fact, the truth is that more than 100,000 people since 1980

have died in tractor-trailer-related collisions. we aren't talking about cases where who was at fault for the accident, we are talking about where the tractor trailer was at fault and people died. more than 100,000 over the past 34 years. mr. speaker, a recent study conducted by the trucking alliance found in contradistinction to my comments from my good friend from montana. 42% of the money between 2005 and 2011, exceeded the minimum insurance requirement of $750,000. when you don't adjust for inflation, you are not doing the simple math that is required and to suggest that adjustment for inflation is wrong somehow seems quite silly. so, mr. speaker, what we need to

realize when a truck is underinsured, when a truck doesn't have enough insurance to cover the harm that it causes, who pays the difference? what happens when a truck doesn't have enough insurance to cover the harm that it causes in medical bills or lost wages. what happens, the u.s. taxpayer picks up the difference, the u.s. taxpayer paying into the social security system, the u.s. taxpayer picks up the difference and what ends up happening, we get a form of corporate welfare that trucking companies that kill, maim and disable people, all of a sudden don't have to pick up the difference. it's the american taxpayer that picks up the difference thfment a day and age we should be doing everything we can to shore up social security and medicare, this is not on policy decision that we want to be engaging in

protecting trucking companies at fault for accidents from accountability for their actions. mr. speaker, i do oppose this amendment and 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 iowa rise? mr. latham: strike the last word. the chair: jarred for five minutes. mr. latham: i yield to the gentleman from montana. mr. daines: the d.o.t.'s own study says that less than 0.2% of truck-involved accidents have property and property damages that exceed the current requirements. let the business owner decide what they want to insure above the $750,000. this is one more regulation, that will benefit the trial lawyers at the expense of small businesses. remember what the.said raising

the minimum insurance levels is not the best way to meet the needs of catastropheic accident victims. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: i oppose this amendment. the federal motor carrier safety administration reviews whether the minimum insurance requirements for trucks and buses were sufficient. this amendment would freeze insurance claims at the current level. .is conducting a rule-making to further evaluate the financial responsibility. we ought to let the process go forward. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify which amendment? mr. defazio: westmoreland-defazio amendment. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. defazio of oregon. insert the following, section, none of the funds made available -- mr. defazio: i ask unanimous consent that we dispense with reading of the amendment. the chair: the objection is heard. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: section, none of the funds made available made by this act may perform air contrary permit of title 49, united states code or exemption,

application under section 40109 of that title of an air carrier already holding an air operator certificate issued by a country iceland, norway transport agreement where such approval would contraconvenient article 17 of the u.s. e.u. transport agreement. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. >> will the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? mr. defazio: yes. >> the reason i object, we weren't sure as to what the amendment was. and we would accept the amendment. mr. defazio: we won't take much time, if the gentleman would hoa just allow me for --

mr. latham: if the gentleman doesn't take much time. mr. defazio: yes. this is extraordinarily important and i thank the chair for his indulgence and his support. we in the open skies agreement with the e.u. anticipated that some countries might try and go forum shopping. that is like the cruise line industry, look for a nation that has lesser laws regulating labor, safety and then also allow outsourcing. this uld be a model for airline to incorporate in ireland, which does not fly to the united states, they would hen hire crews from in a lashea to fly planes based in sing -- malaysia to fly planes based in singapore. this is the cruise line model. it's a recipe for disaster of the you shop around the world to find the least regulated, least trained, cheapest labor you can, as has happened with

the cruise line industry, and in this case, in aviation, which both threaten consumers and national security given the civilian reserve air fleet requirements of aviation. with that i'd yield to mr. westmoreland. mr. westmoreland: i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the norway-based air shuttle, norwegian air international, is speak sikhing to operate as an irish airline and plans to conduct overseas flights from europe to the u.s. n.a.i. has been granted an irish air operator certificate, but still has an application for a foreign air carrier permit pending with the u.s. d.o.d. it. appears that the n.i.a. plans for its policy to work under individual employment contracts that are governed by singapore law and that contains wages and working conditions substantially inferior to those of the norway-based pilots. these contracts will be with a

singapore employment company that will rent the pilots to n.a.i. although it seeks to become an irish airline, it appears that n.a.i. will not be operating air transportation services from ireland. this raises the question about how regulatory oversight of n.a.i.'s operations will be conducted. the united states has the highest, most competitive airline industry in the world. the safest regulations. so i hope that we will adopt this defazio-westmoreland amendment and i yield back. mr. defazio: with that i would yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? mr. defazio: the amendment is ccepted? the chair: does any member wish to be heard on this amendment? the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: i'm going to accept the amendment but i just want to make it clear that this

really states the obvious. that basically you're saying approve an't something that contravenes u.s. law or article 17 of the air transport agreement. so it's obviously stating what is already law and really is nothing -- mr. defazio: would the chair yield for a second on that? mr. latham: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. defazio: would you give me a second? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i yield to mr. defazio. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's not so obvious with this administration. they're desperate for the t.p.p., they're desperate for the transamerica free trade agreement and we're very worried that they would think that disapproving this application from ireland represent, representing norway, who intends to operate a rent-a-airline, rent-a-crew

from singapore would somehow derail their talks. so i don't think it's obvious. this is sending a message to the white house, we're not going to let this happen. with that i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. pastor: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act under the heading federal transit -- ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? hearing none, -- so ordered. the gentlewoman from texas is

recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you. let me thank mr. latham and pastor for their leadership on this important legislation overall. indicate that my amendment is important, but it restates current law and in particular what i think is important is that it emphasizes the nature of projects that create economic development, particularly in the transportation area. it cites 5309, title 49, the secretary may make grants under this section to state and local governments' authorities to assist in financing. new fixed highway, capital projects, small-start project, including acquisition of real property, it goes on to talk about core capacity improvements including double tracking and it specifically goes into the line of work that deals with projects on approved transportation plans. that is key. the language, it says grants to state and local governments. which means that when local

governments propose their projects, the secretary has the authority to go forward on them. let me for a moment give some quotes from organizations that have supported light rail and the economic development of transportation. one statement says, we simply cannot afford to have limitations on federal funding or turn away money that can be utilized to make our region a better place to live, work and build businesses. it is well documented that economic development of transportation projects guides the nation. whether or not it is on the seaways, whether or not it's dams, whether it's highways, whether or not it's tollways, whether or not it involves other modes of transportation, they are economic engines. and it is important for the local community to be the drivers of that. one statement says, the region will not be able to maintain its economic vitality without the ability to create and preserve infrastructure that supports the movement of people and goods throughout our

country. so this amendment clearly speaks to the global aspect of the secretary of transportation having the ability to work with our local and state governments, i'd ask my colleagues to emphasize in support of this amendment, to recognize that we are emphasizing the crucialness of the transportation dollars to economic development. i would hope that this appropriations bill, which is focused on housing and urban development in many ways, and focuses on transportation, housing and urban development as it serves sometimes the poorest people, transportation as it provides those same people the opportunity to seek employment or to reach places of employment, they should not be constrained. federal funding that is designated and provided should not be constrained. i would lastly make this point that when you go through the environmental process, through nepa, and that process is completed, and it has all the t's crossed and the i's dotted and the hearings are in, it is important that this authority

that i just mentioned is allowed to proceed. again, i emphasize, the secretary may make grants under this section to state and local government authorities to assist in the financing of any number of transportation projects. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and with that i reserve my time. if i'm able to do that. the chair: the gentlewoman may not reserve. the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. ms. jackson lee: i will yield back with the point again that this beats the test of recognizing that important cities across america have the ability to receive this funding, including the poorest city in the nation. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lowenthal of california, page 156, after line 10, insert the following, section, unobligated funds made available to a state and fiscal year 2010 for the interstate maintenance discretionary program under section 118-c of title 23, united states code, has an effect on date of enactment of the moving ahead of progress for the 21st century act, may be made available at the state's request to the state for any project eligible under section 133-b of such title. the chair: 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 california is recognized for five minutes. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chair. after speaking with the majority committee staff and in deference to the wishes of the chair, i want to be clear that i will withdrawing this amendment at the conclusion of

my controlled time. in the fiscal year 2010, a number of transportation projects, including critical seismic safety projects, received appropriations from congress. but were unable to receive the funding due to an incorrect account designation in the appropriations act. according to the department of transportation, the funds remain unobligated but inaccessible due to the congressional error in the account designation. mr. chair, crucial transportation projects needed to ensure public safety, that were intended to be funded by congress, have been left without funding due to technical errors. my amendment would ensure that those unobligated funds currently stuck in limbo would be made available for the surface transportation projects. this shouldn't be controversial, there's already language in the underlying bill before us that does something very similar, it transfers unobligated funds promoted in

previous years from one transportation program to another. i theep moving forward the gentleman from iowa will work with us to correct these accounting errors that have left crucial transportation probablies without funding. mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection. hearing none, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman specify which amendment? >> 46. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. desantis of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available under title 2 of this act may be used

to repay any loan made, guaranteed or ensured by the department of housing and urban development. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. desantis: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment prohibits the department of housing and urban development grants from being used to repay loans from the same agency. under current practice, taxpayers can find themselves on the hook not only for loans to private developers but also for repayments on those loans. even if one agrees with the questionable practice of government money being used to finance the building of hotels, parks, marinas and restaurants, it is absurd that the government grants are also being used to repay such loans when the projects fail. this practice encourages cronyism and economic distortion while throwing away taxpayer money on projects that couldn't survive on their own with private funding. my amendment simply bars the use of grant money from the department of housing and urban development from being used to pay back loans from the same

agency. this commonsense amendment will ensure that taxpayer money isn't used to bail out developers or local governments when they make poor investment decisions, especially when these bad investments were made using taxpayer funded loans to begin with. and i would note that an identical amendment to the one i'm offering now was offered in the u.s. senate by senator tomko burn in october of -- tom coburn in october of 2011 and it passed that body 73-26. 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 florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? does the gentlewoman seek to strike the last word?

ms. jackson lee: i strike the last word. want to offer to be put into the record the missed roll call bads 272 and 274 because of weather, i was unavoidbly detained and on ral call vote 272 i would have voted yes. and 273 i would have voted no. no. 74, i would have voted i ask this to be placed in the record. the chair: woment. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, grayson number five. amendment offered by

mr. grayson of florida, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to enter into a contract with any -- mr. grayson: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be waived. the chair: is there an objection? hearing none, so ordered. the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. grayson: this amendment is identical to other amendments that have been inserted by voice vote in this congress. my amendment would extend the list of parties prohibiting from contracting because of serious misconduct on the part of this contractors. i hope this amendment will remain noncontroversial and pass unanimously by the house. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida -- arizona rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. mr. gosar: first one will be 136. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of housing and urban development to retain any legal counsel who is not an employee of such department or the department of justice. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i rise today to offer a simple amendment that will save taxpayers money and prevent h.u.d. from hiringous counsel. this wasteful practice has been used by the agency and stifle investigations and limit overall

transparency. mr. chairman, a recent report commissioned by a inspector general revealed that the philadelphia housing authority paid more than $30 million for legal services. that's nearly $10 million a year in outside legal fees for one public housing authority in this country. the inspector germ report stated, alarmingly the public housing authority could not support $4.5 million that it paid to outside attorneys during that period. the entire limited amount we reviewed raising questions about the propriety of the $26 million in payments that we did not review. in addition, the public housing authority made unnecessary payments of $1.1 million to obstruct the progress of the h.u.d. office. the public housing authority allowed an apparent conflict of interest to exist when it

entered intoal contract. mr. chairman, all of this fraud and abuse was revealed by investigating 1/ of the spending of one public housing authority during a three-year period. there are 3,000 others throughout the country. while not every public housing authority commits this type of abuse and some of are responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollar, bottom line, is is shameful and it is inexcuseable. the bill we are discussing provides nearly $100 million for the sole purpose of funding h.u.d. office of general counsel. as stated in the committee's report, it is the responsibility to provide legal opinions, advice and services with respect to all programs and activities and to provide counsel and assistance to the development of the department's programs and policies. in addition to having their own counsel, h.u.d. has access to

the torns within the department of justice. there is no logical reason that h.u.d. should be spending millions of dollars a year on outside counsel. the inspector general agrees and previously stated, we are concerned to the extent to which public housing authorities use outside legal counsel. i appreciate them bringing this to the attention of congress. i ask my colleagues to recognize the inspector general's recommendations and support this commonsense amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona 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 rise in opposition to the amendment. i understand the gentleman's concern and this could have some unintended consequences, but the main reason is that

unfortunately this would not affect the public housing authorities at all. this would affect h.u.d. employees. public housing authorities are not h.u.d. employees. so this amendment, and i wish the gentleman and i could have worked together on this, but it does nothing on the public housing authorities because it does not prohibit them from hiring outside legal and that is unfortunate. we have been saying for years and years and years to the authorizers that these are issues they need to address and they haven't been able to do it and unfortunately in the an appropriation bill, end up with a lot of these issues, but again, the main reason to oppose it is just the fact it does nothing to the public housing authorities. they would still be able to practice as is and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> would mr. gosar: all grants under h.u.d. go to the public housing, therefore, they are subject -- mr. latham: this would limit employees of h.u.d. and would would do nothing to the h.u.d. s p.h.a. are not employees and all you are doing is limiting funding to h.u.d. employees. and i ould have no feekt yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pastor: public authorities have their own employees which they hire and are not h.u.d. employees. they receive money from h.u.d. in grants, but does not make the

public authority employees h.u.d. employees and as i understand the amendment as read and explained that this amendment would only affect h.u.d. and its employees and it's too broad and would not meet what the inspector general was trying to do in trying to limit public authorities from hiring outside counsel. so i rise in opposition to the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. 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. gosar: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment he at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. would the gentleman specify.

mr. garamendi: amendment dealing with the ready reserve fleet, national defense reserve fleet. believe it's number 81. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garmeppedy of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to develop or implement any rule to modify the criteria relating to citizenship that are applied in determining whether a person is eligible to be an operator including a ship manager or agent of a vessel in the national defense reserve fleet. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, the united states government maintains a series of ships that are standby available to the navy to be used in our national defense. historically, these ships have been crewed, owned and operated

by american citizens. there may be an attempt under way to change that to allow these ships to be crewed, owned and operated by foreign entities. this amendment would preclude that. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does -- 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 ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i have an amendment 133 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be

used to implement, administer or enforce the proposed rule entitled affirmatively favoring fair housing published by the department of housing and urban development published on july 9, 2013. 01.et number frp -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gosar: i offer an amendment intend todd prevent another overreach by the federal government in the jurisdiction of local towns and communities. h.u.d. has proposed a new regulation titled affirmatively furthering fair housing which would grant the authority to grant zoning requirements who applies for a community development block grant. accordingly to report in 2012, this rule would have negatively impacted municipalities throughout the country. a trial run of the rule already

took place in new york. it failed miss rably and a local county was forced to real ject $12 million in funds due to impractical and unrelate particular requirements. the county had intended to use the funds to establish public housing for individuals in need. clearly this flawed proposal by h.u.d. will increase local taxes depress property values and cause further harm. these burdensome zoning rules would be derived from tract residential data based on citizens' race, sex, religion and other protected demographics. multiple watchdog groups have raise concerns. americans for limited government wrote me in support of this amendment and stated. we call on every member of the house to support representative

gosar's amendment to redraw zoning maps that are in community block grants from the federal government. utopian goal of creating evenly distributed neighborhoods based on income is just bad policy and it is unconstitutional. h.u.d. is no place in local zoning decisions. that is left up to states, counties. at a time when the supreme court is rejecting racial quotas, there is no place for wasting taxpayer dollars that will never withstand judicial scrutiny. housing discrimination has been illegal since the 1960's and people should be able to choose where they live without zoning decisions. representative gosar deserves the thanks for all americans. americans for limited government

strongly supports gosar's amendment. i sincerely appreciate the strong support of this watchdog group. i agree this proposal by h.u.d. is a clear infringe meant by the federal government. h.u.d. is creating a set of rules and regulations by which these communities must conform or face losing out on billions of dollars in grant money. what has been so wrong with the process thus far? are there examples of discriminatory applications? couldn't they deny applications? american citizens should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to engineering. further, the federal government must not hold hostage what are traditionally grant monies to improve communities based on the ideas of what it believes every

community should resemble. zoning should be made by local communities not bureaucrats in washington, d.c.,. i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment because its aim is to treat municipalities and individual citizens as capable and intelligent and need protection from a problem that does not exist. i thank the chairman. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: its move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the amendment prohibits h.u.d. from implementing a new rule

that was published in the federal register on july 19, 2013. the rule provides more data to local communities to comply with the fair housing act and carry out their dye duties under the fair -- duties under the fair housing act. the rule does not change the statutory obligation gation -- obligation of communities, does not create social engineering, but rather asks for more comprehensive reports. the fair housing act has been law for the past 45 years that rule does not change that law. this rule simply provides communities with more data to comply with their existing duties under the law. i support fair housing and i oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i'd like to yield my time to mr. gosar.

the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: i appreciate the gentleman's point and his advocacy for the fair housing act. and as i mentioned, i abhor racial discrimination but to my knowledge there's no widespread examples of these block grants being used for discriminatory practices. has the grant system been a failure thus far to warrant this rule? first and foremost, this is a major violation of federalism. the federal government has a long history of infringing upon states' rights and the 10th amendment. but this rule seeksing to even further and puts the federal -- seeks to go even further and puts the federal government down into the municipal process. this is all too common in the obama administration. second, it really opens up pandora's box of problems related to unconstitutional practices. the government is essentially using this rule as a thinly veiled attempt to implement some sort of social justice. but this rule leaves a lot to interpretation, not only at the federal level but at the local level.

it is not difficult to imagine lawsuits flying in both directions if this rule is finalized. for instance, h.u.d. is trying to lay out a framework by which it wishes to see these grant moneys used to better integrate societies, a solution which seems to be in search of a problem. but in doing so, h.u.d. places a large burden on communities to write plans and grant applications which necessitate unconstitutional and prejudicial practices. jim crow is dead. and the free market and local policies have driven decisions such as community planning for years now. so how does a community make plans to enact these type of social justice without taking into consideration factors which we frown upon? factors such as racial demographics? let's move to the next step in the process which is when a community is submitting their plan and application to h.u.d. for consideration. that's also incredibly difficult. for instance, one portion of the application would simply be meant to appease h.u.d.'s standards of ewe tonian society -- utopian society.

then h.u.d. is charged with evaluating these applications to determine whether or not to award the grant. what compact criteria will h.u.d. make to use these determinations? might it be possible that h.u.d. will deny grant moneys to applicants based on h.u.d.'s opinion? that the zoning plan did not do enough to integrate racial or religious clusters? the mere idea that h.u.d. will be making such approvals or denials based even partially on these factors is counterintuitive and runs contrary to american values. imagine a denial letter from h.u.d. on one of these applications. it will read one of two basic ways. the first is, dear community a, your block grant application has been denied because your plan did not integrate people of different races, ethnicities or religions into one area. that would likely lead to an immediate lawsuit in which the court would uphold the municipality's case. the second scenario would be a lengthy and wordy denial which is vegas enough so that h.u.d. does -- vague enough so that h.u.d. does not open itself up to a lawsuit but so vague that the applicant will likely not

know how to correct his plan. so there are two separate and distinct avenues by which major lawsuits could fly and constitutional challenges arice. both the federal government and local government would be setting themselves up for failure. and if these issues arise and court challenges ensue, we have seen a recent pattern from the u.s. supreme court on issues of racial quotas and attempts at racial diversity. again, the solution is looking for a problem. the mere notion that the federal government must step in and tamper with the most local of politics to integrate people of various races, economic statuses, ethnicities and religious backgrounds is offensive to me and many of my constituents and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. purr purr, further -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further

proceedings offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: -- >> mr. chairman, i have one last amendment at the desk. 129. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to administer the national highway traffic safety administration's national roadside survey. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i rise to offer an amendment to save taxpayers money. to protect the civil liberties and privacy of my constituents and accordance with the fourth amendment and to champion efforts of local law enforcement and those advocacy groups which work hand in hand to curb citizens from driving under the influence. my seamed simple. it seeks to prohibit funds from being used to administer the national highway traffic safety administration's national roadside survey. this survey looks like and acts

like a police checkpoint and uses uninformed officers to pull cars over. under the fourth amendment, the u.s. -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. gosar: i will yield. >> we would be more than happy to accept the amendment in interest the of time, if we can move on. mr. gosar: i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, our nation is in the midst of a transportation and infrastructure crisis. in california alone, we have over 2,500 structurally deficient bridges in dire need of repair. current investments into transportation infrastructure are barely able to cover our nation's most pressing needs in critical projects in my

district -- and the critical projects in my district are the foundation of our growing economy. that's why in 2009 congress created the transportation investment generating economic recovering grant program known as tiger. tiger grants have successfully funded projects to revitalize and expand infrastructure across the country. ruse ruse a grant -- mr. ruiz: a grand under -- a grant under this act was to provide roughly 50% of the funding needed to upgrade the transit agency's operations maintenance system in my district. these upgrades allowed sun line to integrate vehicle location technology, scheduling systems and automatic passenger counters into their website to provide riders with a gateway for simple information like when the next sbuss going to arrive -- bus is going to arrive and if it will have room for passengers which is important for my constituents to reduce wait times outside in our desert heat. this technology has improved ridership, taken vehicles off the road, reducing our carbon footprint. and there are other projects in my district that could receive

tiger funding should wed a quay will the fund it -- should we adequately fund it. the government has developed a c.v. link project to link cities with a new alternate transportation route to the busiest corridor in our valley. a tiger award paired with local investment would be enough to make it a reality. the project would create 690 jobs and potentially generate $147 billion in economic benefits through 2035 from sources such as increased tourism, reduced vehicle emissions, improved health conditions and new jobs. mr. chairman, this is why it is essential that we do not cut successful grant programs like tiger. especially as our economy continues to recover and unemployment rates remain high. but ultimately this is just part of the lack of funding for transportation infrastructure story. within a few short months the highway trust fund, which is responsible for the vast majority of federal

transportation funding, will run out of money. this will bring hundreds of transportation projects across the nation to a grinding halt, eliminate the thousands of jobs they support and jeopardize our economic recovery. as representatives, it is our responsibility to put aside our differences and work together to find a pragmatic, fiscally sound solution to fix the highway trust fund. our communities in our district are depend on us to demonstrate leadership to help them rebuild roads and bridges and operate public transit lines that take people to work, to their doctors' appointments, to grocery stores and ultimately keep our economy moving forward. we must serve the people we represent by doing our jobs to find a bipartisan solution that addresses the highway trust fund crisis so critical infrastructure projects in my district and across the country are not ignored. i look forward to working with chairman shuster and ranking member rahall of the transportation and infrastructure committee to get

this done. and i encourage all my colleagues to put aside partisanship and problemsolve this critical issue. i want to thank chairman latham and ranking member pastor for your great service. thank you so much. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to acquire a camera for the purpose of collecting or storing vehicle license plate numbers. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to offer an amendment to the transportation h.u.d. appropriations tpwhail would prohibit the purchase of automated license plate readers that can record and indefinitely store innocent

americans' whereabouts as they drive by. in the wake of the revelations about n.s.a. data collection, americans are now learning that police cars and traffic cameras are similarly accumulating a picture of their lives. in many states there's no policy for how long the government may store the data and so it is being retained indefinitely. just like phone metadata, this geolocation data with time stamps can be used to reconstruct intimate details of our lives. who we visit, where we worship, from whom we seek counseling and how we might legally and legitimately protest the actions of our own government. this language expands upon the prohibitions already adopted under previous map 21 re-authorizations, preventing federal funds from being used to purchase cameras for purposes of traffic law enforcement. despite this prohibition, transportation grants can still

currently be used to purchase cameras that collect and store plate data, even when no crime has been committed. certain highway safety grants within this bill can be used to purchase traffic monitoring stmings that we seay long highways -- systems that we seay long highways. this would not stop the purchases of such traffic monitoring cameras, it would only prohibit cameras that have he ability and -- ability of storing the license plates of innocent americans. citizens of each state should have the opportunity to decide the question. but citizens of one state who oppose this policy should not subsidize such monitoring in other states. this amendment does not stop states from purchasing these cameras on their own. each state should have an open and fair debate on their -- in their legislatures about what their citizens are comfortable with. this amendment gives states and local governments a one-year pause on purchasing these cameras until congress can deal

with the issue more fully. therefore i ask the support of all on this 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: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank the chairman very much and i certainly understand the issue the gentleman is trying to get at. i must oppose the amendment because i think there's some unintended consequences as far as the way the amendment itself is written. in effect you're banning d.o.t. or h.u.d. from ever purchasing another camera for any use. in essence. because of the possibility that it might capture license plates somewhere. it will also have a lot of wide unanticipated prarblee impacts across all of the programs -- operational impacts across all of the programs in this bill. there could be a prohibition on

purchases of aircraft control surveillance technologies at the f.a.a. and unintended ban on cameras used forever safety purposes at airports and air traffic control facilities. the prohibition could prevent federal and state motor carrier inspecters from using camera-based technology to screen vehicles for compliance with safety regulations and the broad nature of this prohibition willing theytively -- negatively effect heat research programs, studies and crash vexes from the national highway safety administration. and this prohibition could undermine revenue collections systems in several large toll-funded droughts who take pictures of license plates and that's how they charge and put federal loans at risk of default, not having that means of collecting those revenues. the prohibition could prevent housing authorities to

operating security systems that are critical to the health and safety of the citizens. so while i totally understand the gentleman's point that there are some ramifications here, and maybe we could work better on it together in the future. but at this point, woy have to oppose the amendment and i urge a no vote. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> i ask for a rodded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 82. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for recapitalization of the ready reserve force except in a manner consistent with chapter 83 united states code pop larly referred to as the buy american act. mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, i don't intend to take five minutes, but this issue is rather important. in the long history of the

united states navy, we have always built our ships in america. the ready reserve fleet is part of our national defense system. it provides ships that are necessary for the hauling of cargo that are always ready and available for the military to move its equipment, men, supplies, women, wherever they may need to go across the oceans. that reserve fleet is going to be need to be recapitalized, replaced over the next several years. the question before us is whether that fleet and those new ships will be built in america or china or japan or korea. this amendment would simply require that they be built in america as they have in the past. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it prepares 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 appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. garamendi: on the point of order. the point of order issue has been rather flexible, as we have seen in previous appropriation bills that have been on this floor. when the majority wants to change the law, seems as though a point of order isn't appropriate. but when someone else wants to address a crucial national issue, such as making sure our shipyards have the work and our navy and the ready reserve fleet is american built and i suppose a point of order seems to have some further power.

i don't think a point of order is appropriate. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any other member wish to be heard? the chair is ready to rule. the chair finds this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of whether certain actions are consistent with the provision of law not otherwise applicable to these actions. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. a point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. grayson amendment number 4. the chair: clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to make bonus awards for contracts that are behind schedule or overbudget. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise?

mr. latham: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. mr. grayson: i ask to be recognized. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. grayson: this is a simple good-government position and says when a contractor is over budget or behind schedule the contractor should not be rewarded. none of the funds made available should be used to pay for bonus awards. the provision that we are talking about here appears in the senate transportation housing appropriations bill that was report the out of the committee last week. it should appear in our bill and should be signed into law. nothing in this amendment places an a blanket but to demonstrate that congress expects federal products to be delivered on time and on budget. we have had so many words about waste, fraud and abuse.

this amendment accurately cracks down on those that arise and prevents taxpayer money from being squandered. if products are not delivered on time and on budget and bad contractors not rewarded extra for that poor performance. the term bonus reward refers to the federal acquisition of the federal code of regulations subpart 16.4 having to do with extensive contracts. that term is defined in that provision. with regard to the term work on projects, that refers to the contractorso contract. with regard to the term behind schedule, that refers to the time of delivery. that's a provision that's in 52.11-8.tract in the regulations specifically

provide for time of delivery with a delivery schedule and that's the term that's used in the regulation and also in the contract itself. those provisions are prescribed in the federal acquisition regulation in specifically 404 . the term overbudget is very simply a reference to the contract award itself. the federal acquisition regulation prescribes a specific form for that purpose and that is standard form 33. in box 22 of standard form 33 is the contract award amount. the contract award amount. if the contractor goes over budget, exceeds the amount that and the award amount box in box number 20. the provision refers to

reimbursement awards and refers to time and material awards. if the contractor goes over budget, the contractor bears that expense. if the contractor goes overbudget on a time and materials award or a cost reimbursement award a then seeks a bonus on top of that from the government, that's what we are prohibiting here. these are terms that are recognized. this provision accurately targets overpayment to contractors, extra payment to contractors, bonus payment to contractors when they have gone behind schedule or overbudget. i submit that the senate was wise to include it in the senate's bill and i ask my colleagues for their support. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i make a point of order against the amendment because of proposals to change

existing law and constitutes changes in legislation and violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposing additional duties and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any amendment wish to be heard on the point of heard. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: it's simply not the case this imposes any additional duties. as i indicated a few moments ago. the terms in this provision is a term that is ascertain able. every contract that is awarded is done through standard form 33. that lists the amount of the contract award. every single contract that is awarded that has a delivery schedulehas a delivery

-9. orm 52.211 they have to observe the terpgs of their own contract. when the government is looking at the terms of its own contract that's something the government does every day. and i respectfully submit this is not legislating or asking the government to do anything in addition to what the government is required to do but prohibiting a waste of expenditure and waste of funds and that is a primary purpose of these appropriation bills. >> the chair: gentleman yields back? does any other member wish to be heard? mr. latham: wish to be heard on he point of order. the rationally for the point of order is projects can be broad in scope both in terms of

purpose of the project and number and types of contractors involved. for an agency to determine whether a specific bonus can be awarded, this amendment would require the agency to determine whether the project as a whole is over budget or behind schedule not simply part of the project pertaining to the agency awarding the bonus. i would insist on my point of order. the chair: any other member wish to be heard. mr. grayson: i ask unanimous consent to be heard on the last comment. .r. latham: objection the chair: the alwill hear from he gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: responding to that point, these are contract terms that are defined in the contract itself. the gentleman has a point that the term project is one that

could be taken to refer to something other than a contract if you are not talking about the federal contracting. talking about federal contracts only. so the term projects refers to what the contractor is working on. there is no ambiguity here. either the contract is on schedule or off schedule. either it is over budget, on budget or underbudget. there is no a.m. bigot here. if we were legislating, i would see the gentleman's point and in this case we are not. i would request that the point of order be overruled and be allowed to proceed to a vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any other member wish to be heard. the gentleman from iowa makes a point of order that the amendment violates clause 2 of rule 21 by requiring a new determination by a relevant federal official, specifically the amendment would require each contracting official to determine whether any aspect of

a project is behind schedule or overbudget especially fr multiple agencies entered into multiple contracts. this requirement is required by law, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section 417, none of the funds made available by this act and administered by the department of transportation may be used on a transportation project unless all contracts carried out in the scope of the applicable policy act of 1969 finding determination or decision by the buy american

compliance if the secretary finds that such a requirement is not in the public interest. this requirement can be waived but only if the designation is made available for public comment 30 days before the waiver takes effect. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman's point of order is reserved. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: i understand the point of order. i would like to speak to this issue and also onto the others at the same time and drop the other amendments. yesterday yesterday, i had the pleasure of driving across san francisco bay on the brand new east san francisco bay bridge, a multibillion dollar project. the steel of the main project bass built in china, fabricated in china, a chineom