the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 426, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: the messenger: mr. speaker. he secretary: mr. sec --

the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm instructed by the president to deliver a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 4 of rule 18, the chair declare the -- declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4745. will the gentleman from texas, mr. marchant, please take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4745 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriationers in departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today an amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 156, line 16.

for what purpose does the gentleman california rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number five. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in the congressional record offered by mr. royce of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. royce: today i rise yet again to raise the alarm over taxpayer funded housing policy this straight forward amendment you have before you would prohibit fannie mae and freddie mac from using funds to pay housing advocacy groups or others through the housing trust fund at a time when they continue to owe money to the american people. beginning in 2008, the u.s. taxpayers bailed out the g.s.e.'s to the tune of $189 billion. that number is expected to grow to over $200 billion by 2015. but as the housing market has begun to recover, too have fannie and freddie's profits and at the first sign of money

rolling in, some housing advocates are pressuring the federal housing finance agency to get a piece of the taxpayer funded pie. they have gone to extraordinary lengths, even filing a lawsuit last summer to try to force contributions to the trust fund. originally slated to receive funds siphoned off from the g.s.e.'s, the trust fund was never capitalized, due, of course, to the fact that the g.s.e.'s went into conservatorship. without passage of this amendment, the director the f.h.f.a. could turn on the spigot at any moment. contrary to what fannie and freddie apologists may claim, they have not paid back any of he taxpayer bailout. the bailout was made in the form of a draw, not a loan to be

repaid. no repayment can be made as long as taxpayers on the hook for future losses. let us not also overlook the fact that the fail crur of this public-private housing scheme was at the center of the collapse of housing in the financial crisis. a collapse that destroyed trillions of drars in household wealth and left millions unemployed. how much money would it take to repay those losss? it is clear to any observer that the money that is now coming in from the g.s.e.'s is a small pittance for what they have cost the american economy. any profits remain directly attributable to extensive and continued taxpayer support. that's the point. and hence the need for this amendment. would urge an aye vote. the chair: does the gentleman yield back in mr. royce: i yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker.

the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. does any member seek to speak on this amendment? the gentleman from arizona? mr. pastor: i 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 underlying bill contains no funds for the housing trust fund, yet the gentleman's amendment would create a prohibition on using funds that don't exist in the bill. this is simply messaging -- this is simply an amendment that has no purpose. i oppose the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the pb of the chair the aye -- in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the amendment s agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: as a co-chair of the native american caucus, i rise to support investment in native american housing. here's two facts about indian country. almost 9% of the homes in indian country still lack complete plumbing facilities. 30% of the homes in indian country rely on wood for heating. nd another fact is, native grants have been zeroed out of this bill. the native american housing block grant is a primary source to address housing backlogs and provide sufficient maintenance throughout indian country. but this bill flat funds this

account from 2014 at $650 million. while level funding is better than a cut, my colleagues should know that this is the same level of funding provided in fiscal year 2004. we can and we must do better. again, to meet its treaty obligations, the united states must increase its investment for indian housing. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i agree we this lady, housing is important for the native american community. it should be funding. this bill is a decent bill but flat lining this bill to the 2004 level is not acceptable wetch need housing in rural areas, as the gentlelady mentioned. i represent many small businesses, 400 small businesses, most don't have running water, don't have the facilities you are used to every

day as you get up and has the problem of very large disease because of lack of good facilities. we need new housing. we need the money to be spent. my argument is we're putting money in afghanistan like we've done the last few year, we ought to be able to put the money into our own nation and our states. this is an important piece of legislation but we ought to fund it to the full extent. it's time we recognize that we have to help those that do not ve, especially in america -- especially america's first citizens of the united states, and i yield back my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in order to keep a healthy housing market we should be committed to affordable housing and all citizens should have access to it.

for years, this has provided funds for tribes to address housing needs that are unique to their community. they can address their housing needs through a variety of activities, not crust through construction, but remodeling -- modernization and a host of other strategies. the tribe in my own home state an district recently used these funds to construct housing that reflects their culture, with a traditional long house design and stuckture. it's a 10-unit build, it's environmentally friendly and features energy efficient systems that keep costs down. it's beautiful. it's cost effective. mr. heck: most importantly, it meets a basic need. in fiscal year 2012 alone, the 369 tribal recipients of grants used that fund to acquire more homes and

rehabilitate another 4,200. since the fund og they have grant, they have built or awired 110,000 homes. as has been suggested, the funding has failed to keep up with inflation and has not met the demonstrated need for the program. in fact, a lot of the funds end up being used for maintenance and operation because it's been flatlined. meanwhile, the need for the program grows as the money in relative terms, shrinks. in the last 10 years, 2002 to 2012, the number of overcrowded households increased by 14%, 10% of all homes in indian country are overcrowded. it's notably higher than the national average. the federal government has a trust obligation to promote the well being of native americans. it is a trust obligation, it is a legal obligation, and frankly

it is a sacred obligation. ensuring proper funding of this is a critical component toward meeting those obligations. i ask all of you as you consider the 2015 transportation housing and urban development appropriations bill, please support robust funding for this. i yield pack the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kildee: i'd like to thank my colleagues for the important nahasda program within this appropriations bill. as has been stated, our country -- this nation, this government has an important trust responsibility it is obligated to live up to. and full funding of nahasda is

an important way to manifest that obligation. just as in any community, housing is an essential component of a civil society. what nahasda provides is to not only deal with the backlog of housing needs which are many, certainly the dollars that are presently available are not keeping up with the -- with the need that is out there in these tribal communities, for sure, but also allows for the maintenance of the housing that's currently in place. the difficulty, of course, with a funding level which is the same as it was a decade ago and a backlog of housing needs is that as the housing that has been developed ages more and more of the dollars are necessary to maintaining and improving existing housing which further increases the backlog of available housing. i would just suggest to my colleagues -- and i know many

of my colleagues have done this -- visit the communities, visit these communities and talk to them about the housing needs, take a look at the conditions that many are left to live in and you'll find that while this program has been quite successful, as has been said, providing housing, units, 110,000 housing units since the inception, there's so much more that needs to be done. and we have an obligation, as members of congress, to make sure that we live up to the commitments that we have made, to the trust obligation that we have, and it's more than words. in this case, it actually means putting our money where our mouth is and putting the resources behind this program as it should be. this is an important program. it's one that we're obligated to fund. i obviously would prefer that we meet the full obligation that we have committed to. this bill -- this appropriation does not go as far as if should in doing that. we really need to make sure in

the future we do, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentlelady -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? ms. hanabusa: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. hanabusa: the speakers before me said the fundamental obligation is the trust and treaty obligations this great nation has created with the native people, the indigenous people and the first people of this nation. and yet -- and yet for now and for many years the appropriations committee has seen fit to remove any and all funding from a critical program that greatly benefits my home state of hawaii and that is the native hawaiian housing block grant. the program is an essential source of funding because it not only helps the native people on their own land but

fulfills a trust obligation created by congress in 1920 by way of the hawaiian homes commission act. the act recognized the importance of returning native hawaiians to the land to preserve their culture, their traditions and their values. and the native hawaiian housing block grant has helped to facilitate that. similar to what nahasda has and for american any tiffs askan natives, we have enabled the federal policy of self-determination to be extended to all native populations across this great nation. through the native hawaiian housing block grant, the department of hawaiian homelands has been able to assist over 400 low-income families through infrastructure developments, down payment assistance and direct loans for

first-time homebuyers, construction programs and the development of renewable energy projects. there are native hawaiian housing lots in each of the hawaiian islands. these funds have also been able to address the growing issue of homelessness by rehabilitating older units to make them safe and sanitary. as we all know, the foundation for success of millions of american families is the secure home. the native hawaiian housing block grants have give hundreds of native hawaiian families the same foundation to succeed by assisting them with affordable homeownership opportunities in hawaii which serves as the groundwork for self-sufficiency and future prosperity. a disruption to the stream of funding for the native hawaiian housing block grant would have dire impact on the dozens of ongoing development projects, including alternative energy,

resources for homes, investments in infrastructure and low interest rate loans to seek for the benefit of thousands of families living on hawaiian homelands. i ask the committee to reconsider their decision to remove this vital program from the bill every year, and i pledge to work with them with the committee to see that it is restored. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from washington state rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kilmer: i rise to express my concern for the need of fully supporting native american housing programs. i recognize that my colleagues faced a number of difficult choices when crafting this bill, and i specifically want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their work in fully funding the president's request for native american housing block grants

at $650 million. and i'm pleased to stand here today, along with such strong advocates for indian housing programs. i'm grateful for the leadership that each of the speakers have shown. i share my concerns over the native hawaiian housing needs. i'm hopeful as this legislation moves forward, congress can work to address this need as well as resolve serious issues with other parts of the bill. now, as members of the committee well know, the challenges facing adequate housing is profound. my district is home to nine tribes. i've seen firsthand what a difference these housing programs make to individual families and to their communities. and the statistics bear out just how substantial the need is here. in 2012, the department of housing and urban development found that more than 25% of indian housing units lack basic facilities, are overcrowded or cost more than 50% of the resident's income.

there is a need today for 200,000 more housing units in indian country. that's why i'm hoping this body will soon be hearing on the re-authorization of the nahasda. i know there has been bipartisan work, both in the house and the senate on identifying ways to increase the effectiveness of these programs and to reduce duplicative bureaucratic requirements. but there's another element of nahasda that i think is not only important to indian country but to those who have worn the uniform for our country and that's homelessness to veterans. a council found that while native americans make up .7% of the total population of veterans, they represent 2.5% of veterans experiencing homelessness. in other words, homelessness disproportionately affects our tribal veterans. unfortunately, as i stand here today, we don't have the tools we need to help fight homelessness among our tribal

veterans. the h.u.d.-veterans affairs supportive housing program, which has tackled veterans' homelessness don't provide the support to veterans facing homelessness. that's why i was pleased to join with representative cole in sprow deucing h.r. 3418, the housing native heroes act. our legislation doesn't cost any new money but would instead authorize existing funds to support a demonstration project that would allow tribes to manage this voucher program directly. in both the house and the senate, the proposed re-authorization bill advanced this proposal, making critical progress in the fight to reduce homelessness among tribal veterans. we have an obligation. a trust obligation to our tribes but also a sacred obligation to all of our veterans, to take care of them when they return home. we simply cannot turn a blind eye to the needs of our native veterans. if this chamber can make progress advancing the nahasda re-authorization, i'm confident that we can end this anominee

that leaves the native veterans without the help they need. the underlying bill before us provides $170 for the h.u.d. voucher program, in line with the president's request. i thank the chairman and the ranking member for their continued support of this program and ask as this committee continues work its combating homelessness, that our tribal veterans are not forgotten. thank you, mr. chairman, 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 california rise? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. denham 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 high speed rail in the state of california or for the california high speed rail authority. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. denham: very simple amendment. again, read, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for high speed rail in the state of california or for

the california high speed rail authority. now, as chair of the subcommittee on rail and pipelines and hazardous materials, i am a big supporter of high speed rail. i've seen some of the greatest high speed rail in other countries and here even in the united states we're going to see the first high speed rail in texas and then in florida, two projects that are moving forward with private dollars. but in california in 2008 we passed proposition 1-a which is a guarantee to the voters that a $33 billion project would not only be built but built on time with equal parts of funding from the state voters, from the federal government, hopefully, and then the private investors. now today five years later after $3.8 billion in stimulus funds for shovel-ready projects dedicated to this, five years later, still not one shovel is in the ground. a project that has been held up in court, the $9.95 billion cannot be used, and there are

no private investors. so the question is, why should the federal government be putting more money in a project that is nonexistent today? a project even by its own definition is $33 billion short, not in the project, it's $33 billion short in the initial operating segment which is guaranteed to the voters to be completed. this is a project that's grown out of control. when they found out they were in default in april, rather than fixing the problem, they committed to next year's budget utilizing $250 million in cap and trade funding. there's a reason why the judges have struck this down to this point. there's a reason that voters want to have this go back before them. it's a project that has no end in sight. again, no shovels have been put into the ground even though the federal government has obligated $3.8 billion. money that we could be used for

-- using for other priorities. but today we are in a situation with a $32 billion shortfall, there is no proposal from the president to fill that gap. there is no proposal from the governor to fill that gap. and yet there's no hope that the federal government will continue to find new money to throw at something that is none existent. this -- nonexistent. there is no state match. and the cost has more than doubled. and again, the jobs that are continued to be talked about for the last five years are nonexistent. mr. chairman, i would urge an aye vote on this amendment. we've got to stop this train wreck. the chair: does the gentleman yield his time back? the gentleman yields his time. >> i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the lady is recognized for five minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, on behalf of the california democratic congressional delegation, i rise in

opposition to this amendment. this misguided amendment would prohibit additional federal investment in california's high speed rail project. as we know, california is in the midst of constructing the nation's first truly high speed rail system. the project was approved by a strong majority of california voters in 2008 because we californians know that high speed rail is the most effective and environmentally sustainable way to increase obility across the state. the project is already creating jobs for californians. in fact, more than 70 firm that was committed to performing work on this project have offices in the central valley and many of these firms happily are veteran opened. in san jose, the california high speed rail project is already prviding immediate benefits by investing $1.5 billion in the call train modernization program

this program will create over 9,500 jobs, over 90% in the san francisco bay area. now the government's independent watchdog, the g.a.o., conducted an extensive audit of the project, and you know what? they gave high marks to the authority's business plan for high speed rail. now members of congress are right to conduct proper oversight of infrastructure projects across the country. however, regardless of your views on the merits of this project, i think most of us would agree that attempting to kill a single project through the appropriations process in bad public policy and sets a horrible precedent. i would note that electrified trains are really part of the future. china already has 5,000 miles of high speed rail and they intend to double that. spain has 1,600 miles of high

speed rail. and they're building more. more than a dozen other countries have their own successful high speed rail systems. even morocco is building a high speed rail system. but we don't have anything in the united states, except for what california is doing. i would note that california is almost always on the leading edge of progress for our country. we are leading in energy conservation. we're leading in alternative energy. and we have the best public university, the university of california, in the entire united states. we always lead. now it's important that the state of california has identified an ongoing source of funds to support high speed rail. and that's the cap and trade funds. is that appropriate? yes it is. because the cap and trade funds are generated through energy conservation and the high speed rail system is going to help

move californians in an environmentally suitable way. it's important to be visionary here. when we started building the interstate highway system, when the first mile of highway was built, we didn't know that 50 years later we would still be identifying interstates to build. we need to begin with high speed rail in california, california is behind this project. california democratic delegation is behind this project. i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment, put our neighbors back to work, and allow california to continue building the nation's first true high speed rail project. we'll all be proud of that project as it nears completion. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

>> thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? >> yes, sir. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i move in -- i rise in support of mr. denham's amendment. the vote -- mass transit in california has been a mess from tai one. voters were shown a project to connect san francisco to los angeles with a continuous high speed rail project. mr. lamalfa: what we found out in three years after the price went up turned out it would be $98.5 billion. after that, the governor decided to change the product and use the connectivity of the bay area and los angeles local systems to make up for it, which is illegal under prop 1-a. it has to be continual from san francisco to los angeles. now what we see, they were able

68 downsize the cost to only $ voters, er which the t 52 -- not even a -- an overwhelming majority -- voted for. they were sold a pill of goods. they haven't shown the financing yet. we can identify $3 billion worth of federal money, $9357b9 billion worth of state money, $13 billion for the project in the project in the downsized, illegal form is only $68 billion. where does the other money come from? there's no private sector money. there's no more government money. we need to take that money and channel it into something else we need to do desperately such as our transportation infrastructure which we're speaking a lot about here this week or in california we have a desperate need for water supply

during our drought, instead of a boondoggle which is going to pave through a bunch of our ag land in california as well as important other infrastructure. what do we hear about it? it's going to save co-2, it's going to be a panacea for global warming. for 30 years, it won't even help toward this project of global warming. instead, part of those in favor say aye plan is they're going to have to plant trees to offset the construction of high speed rail because this is going to be to have a higher co-2 footprint than we already have. it's boon dling after boondoggle. we talk about jobs. the numbers have been inflated since day one. they tied to tell us it would cause one million new jobs for california we feel pinned them down in state committee, it's a million job years. maybe 5,000, 10,000 jobs on the construction, not a million. we need to plow this money that we have federally back into something that would help our transportation infrastructure in california or the nation. help build water supply,

anything but this project here which is full of deceit and empty promise after empty promise. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the credit from arizona. mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pastor: i rise in opposition to the amendment and i yield to the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: thank you to the gentleman from arizona. i wanted to make a couple of quick points, first, it's easy to be a critic. and it's hard to be a builder. the high speed rail project is a big project. it's difficult to do. but we're going to get it done. sometimes i wonder when people say, don't do high speed rail, how they plan to deal with the millions of additional californians that are anticipated to clog our roads and need transportation infrastructure. it's been suggested by

dispassionate engineers that we would need at least two or three additional airports in california. we would need several -- as many as five additional lanes north-south in the middle of california to match the capacity of high speed rail. how are we going to do that? do we think that is not going to be expensive? the alternative to high speed rail is not nothing. that's impossible. for a state as vibrant as california, with an economy as booming as it is. and a future as bright as we have. the idea te also that that it's inappropriate to use cap and trade -- i simply disagree. with california is among the first in the nation, i would say, and it's got wide approval in the state, to do this cap and trade system to bring down

carbon emissions. funds will be generated through that project. some of those funds will go to this very worthy project. so i disagree very much with this amendment. i don't believe that we will be successful. my god, i hope we're not, in stopping this visionary project that's going to allow the state of california to continue to prosper and for transportation north-south needs to be met into the future. i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back. can mr. pastor: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognize for five minutes. ms. moore: i rise today to highlight the tragic shortage of suitable housing on tribal lands and to call for increasing funding for the highly successful native american housing and self-determination act. now in 1996, congress reorganized native housing programs into nahasda, a block grant system administered by tribes in cooperation with h.u.d. nahasda has proven to be an extremely effective tool for tribes to help tribal members increase the quality and quantity of housing. nahasda not only works but fosters tribal self-determination and affirms the trust relationship that

exists between congress and tribal nations. mr. chairman, a bipartisan coalition of members, representatives cole, hanabusa, kildee and heck and young and i introduced a bipartisan re-authorization of nahasda, which is extremely similar to a draft that representative pearce has introduced. now both bills, mr. chairman, make prudent changes to increase the efficiency of the delivery of the program dollars and i strongly believe that the changes will have a very positive impact. but mr. chairman, increased efficiency will not replace the need for more money. the top three poorest counties in the united states of america are primarily populated by native americans. however, despite overwhelming need, we are not increasing funding for the program.

at the current appropriation -- and the current appropriation bill does not include funding for all native peoples. the program funding has been flat for years and at current funding levels, we are falling way behind. now mr. chairman, opponent of nahasda re-authorization point to the slow spindown rate of a single tribe giving the false sense that there's a surplus. however, the overall spindown rate in the -- in nahasda exceeds that of other h.u.d. programs, indicative of the dire housing needs. the first people of this nation suffer in crushing poverty on remote reservations outside of the view of most americans. the national congress of american indians find that 40% of on reservation housing is substandard compared to 6% outside of indian countries. the homes are overcrowded, too many basic utilities like access

to sewer system or even indoor plumbing is missing. i call on congress to put these first americans in their hearts and to consider helping these communities by supporting both nahasda re-authorization and increased funding for this extremely successful native housing program. by supporting funding for the native american housing and self-determination act, we are working toward increasing the quality of housing for native americans and that's good for all our districts. thank you so much and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman of the committee for the diligent

work that they have done to do their part to get this funding bill this appropriations bill, to begin to bring the costs down. and i think that it truly shows how dedicated many of us on this side of the aisle are to having government get its spending under control. we all know washington does not have a revenue problem, it has an acute spending and priority problem. we see it every single day. my constituents in tennessee see it and they talk about it a lot. about k, i heard a lot the outsized spending that takes place in this town. and the thing that really ffends my constituents is that congress spends, d.c. spends money that they don't have. all of it is taxpayer money. and it is so inappropriate that the spending continues to grow

year by year. and the taxpayer has to pay more. quite frankly, mr. chairman, i think that there's something immoral about citizens and taxpayers struggling to live within their means so they can pay taxes to a government that refuses to live within its means. that's why every year, i come to the floor and offer bills for 1%, 2%, and 5% across the board cuts and during appropriations season, i know i kind of wear a path in the carpet here. offering amendments that would cut a penny on the dollar, 1%. across the board. and that is the nature of this amendment that i offer today. and i do it because my constituents know that washington spends too much money.

that we borrow too much money and therefore what we are doing is capping and trading our children's future to the people that own our debt. because we couldn't be spending it if we weren't borrowing it. go talk to china, japan, opec, the top holders of our debt -- and they own a lot of it right now. they are the ones who will be making decisions probably decisions we won't like and at some point they might call that bill due. now, across-the-board spending cuts are not a partisan issue. 2010, peter orszag, who was the president's pick for director of the office of management and udget, turned to the executive agencys and department -- agencies and departments and said cut across the board. chris stevens, a 9% across-the-board cut.

governor cuomo in new york, a 10% across-the-board cut. governor perry in texas, a 10% across-the-board cut. states do it because it works, because what it does is to rank rang and file -- and file employees who know where to cut. in our history we had six across-the-board cuts. they have ranged from .22% to 1% of covered appropriations. at those times it saved us from $1.1 billion to $8.5 billion. for this bill we need to be doing the same thing, and, yes, we are below the funding levels to the credit of the appropriators who have worked on this. we're below the 2014 funding levels. that's a good thing, but we need to do a little bit more because we are borrowing way too much. it is time to get our spending

under control. i encourage my colleagues to support the 1% across-the-board spending reduction to this bill and let's take one more step to bring this spending problem under control and move to a balanced budget. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i rise in opposition to the amendment. mr. speaker, we already crafted our amendment to our 302-b allocation, which is in compliance with the ryan-murray budget agreement. and while i agree with the gentlewoman to reduce spending, the proper time to consider reductions to overall spending is when the budget is being crafted and not on individual appropriation bills. this bill continues the investment in our nation's transportation infrastructure

as well as serving a critical safety -- as a critical safety net for some of our most vulnerable population by trying to make sure all americans have a roof over their head. this amendment would cut the f.a.a. air traffic controllers' cut to infrastructure, highway spending, transit grants, homeless ouchers, veterans' vouchers, safety inspectors for all modes of transportation and also homeless grants. we've done our cutting based on hearings, meeting with the departments and the stakeholders and analyzing the budget justifications rather than just an arbitrary across-the-board cut. for those reasons, mr. chairman, i would urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

. pastor: this bill is below 2014 bill. so we had a number of our colleagues speak about the lack of funding about their particular program and throughout this evening we are going to have other speakers talk about the lack of funding and programs. and this amendment would cut programs in transportation and housing without any thought to the relative merit of the program contained in the bill. and so for that reason i would oppose this bill -- excuse me -- oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question's on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

mrs. blackburn: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: the gentleman will specify which amendment? r. garamendi: number 89. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. at the end of the bill after the short title insert the following section, section 714-a, in general. none of the funds may be used in controvention of this section or the amendments made by this section. b, buy american preferences. chapter 501, united states

code, is amendmented by striking the chapter heading and inserting buy america. c, enhancements to buy america requirements. sections 50101 of such title as amended is titled as follows, buy america. a, domestic requirements for steel, iron and manufactured goods, one, in general. notwithstanding any other provision of law, and accept -- the chair: the clerk will suspend. 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: the gentleman reserves a point of order. without objection. is there objection to the dispensement of the reading? the reading is dispensed. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. chairman. the gentlelady from tennessee spoke about the american taxpayer and the money that's

being spent by congress and i'd like to pick up on that subject because i am deeply concerned about where and how we spend our taxpayer money. it's not our money. it's the american public's money and it ought to be spent wisely and it ought to be spent on american made goods and services. this amendment would build off of the current law dating back to 1933, the buy american laws. this amendment is necessary, and i'll tell you why it's necessary. this is a picture of the new san francisco bay bridge built by the chinese government. several billion dollars of american taxpayer money, california bridge tolls and federal taxpayer dollars spent to buy steel products to build this bridge from the chinese government. it was a company, a steel company in shanghai owned by the chinese government --

actually by the chinese military -- that built this bridge. this bridge should have been built by americans. american steel companies, american workers. it should not have been built by the chinese government. 3,000 jobs in shanghai. ero jobs in america and a very shoddy job done on the bridge. thousands upon thousands of faulty wells. over the budget and over the time. we need to strengthen the buy american laws. we need to bring it home. we need to make it in america, and this amendment would strengthen the buy american laws in the transportation portion of this bill. it would simply say that 60% is good. 70%, 80%, 90%, 100% is where we ought to be. we ought not any longer

contract out to foreign companies and specifically not to the chinese government to build american bridges. we're going to spend $50 billion in this bill. is that money going to be spent here in america on american-made goods and services or is it going to be spent somewhere overseas, perhaps china? no more, i say. build it in america, use american taxpayer dollars to buy american goods and services. this ought to be the mantra of this congress, buy america, employ americans, give american companies here in the united states the opportunity to bid on these jobs. and it's not going to be more expensive, and this is the proof. way over budget. way beyond the time frames and way beyond what is reasonable. build it in america. american jobs. spend american taxpayer money on american-made equipment, goods and services.

that's what this amendment does. it also eliminates one of the problems that led to this, as this is the segmentation, but we will not go there. we will simply say it is going to be made in america. that's what this amendment's all about. i know we're going to get a point of order, but really we ought to waive that point of order and put on the floor the issue -- is this house willing to make it in america, to bring the american jobs back home? is this house willing to allow american taxpayer money to be spent on american-made goods and services? or are we simply going to do a point of order and avoid the fundamental question that was raised by my colleague in her previous discussion, how are we to spend the american taxpayer money? i say spend it on american-made goods and services. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman yields back 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 on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in perntnent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment directly amends existing law. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to speak on the point of order? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: to promote policies that are beneficial to the american government, beneficial to the american taxpayer and most important beneficial to the american workers, whether they're employed in the steel industry or construction industry or we can use the rules of the house to deny american workers the opportunity for jobs.

we are spending $50 billion in this legislation, and we ought not use the rules of this house to deny american workers, to deny american companies, to use the american taxpayer dollars to build america. the rules of this house are flexible. they can be used to benefit america and american workers or they can be used to the detriment. the question the chair has before it is how will we use those rules. will we in this house strengthen the american economy by requiring that the american taxpayer dollars be used here in america or will we use the rule in the opposite way to the harm of american workers? i suggest, mr. chairman, you rule in favor of american workers and override the request.

the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amends t directly existing law. the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd ask the chairman of the t-hud subcommittee to rise and engage in a colloquy. and first of all, i have to commend the chairman, mr. latham, for -- and also mr. pastor on the -- and the appropriations committee staff for their efforts in bringing this measure to the floor. i'd like to take a moment to share with the committee and my colleagues a concern i have

regarding the recommendation in report language that's contained in this bill that provides funding for capital investment grants that have signed a full funding grant agreement, ffga, by the start of 20 -- by the start of the 2015 fiscal year, september 30, 2014. unfortunately, some delays and miscommunications with the department of transportation on several projects, including important florida project has caused the signing of an ffga, full funding grant agreement, to be delayed several months beyond the date of the report language and, again, without congressional action, florida and -- florida's project and other national projects could be impacted. i received assurances that this issue can be resolved in the final legislation. mr. chairman, would you join us in our effort to ensure that

these critical national infrastructure projects ontinue to move forward? >> i thank the gentleman and as we move forward to conference we'll work with the gentleman to ensure that any project ready for full funting grant agreements will receive funds under our conferencall case. >> i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the cleament. the clerk: amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico, grijalva, l va, --

the dividual meeting definition in the u.s. code include the term fair labor standard act. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: no hardworking american will -- should ever have to worry that her employer will refuse to pay her if she works overtime or take money out her paycheck, especially if she works for a government contractor. my amendment would deny federal contracts to those who violate the fair labor standards act to deny workers the pay they have earned. the amendment ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support. we should not be in the business of -- we should be in thed by of rewarding good actors and not

rewarding cheaters. >> will the gentleman zeeled mr. gri hall have: i'd be glad to yield. > we accept the amendment. mr. grijalva: i yield back. the chair: does anyone else seek to speak on the amendment? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. ayes ayes -- 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 gentleman from illinois rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: the gentleman will end his amendment to the desk.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. schock of illinois. 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 paragraph c-3 of section 982.503 code of federal regulations. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. schock: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to offer an amendment to the t-hud appropriation bill to address a problem we've identified in our state of illinois. many of us are familiar with the housing choice voucher program, often known as section 8 throughout our communities, over two million households in

america receive some form of benefit through section 8 vouchers. but as in many localities around the country, particularly my home state of illinois, there are long wait lists for people who would qualify and december -- qualify for and desperately need access to affordable housing and specifically the assistance they get under section 8 vouchers through the t-hud appropriations bill. unfortunately there have been some abuses and stretching of permission that congress has given specifically to the housing and urban development secretary. i'm speaking about a program commonly referred to as super vouchers. where the agency has basically used congress' latitude it's given given it to go up to 125% of what is deemed to be the cost of affordable housing in a particular community. obviously from community to community, the cost of affordable housing differs. the value of a voucher differs for a family member.

but we have seen in the city of chicago, for example, in my home state, vouchers now going up to over 300% the cost of the average -- the average cost of affordable housing and the voucher value approaching $4,000 a month for a single voucher recipient. now i know that each state's real estate values are different, each state's rental costs are different and certainly illinois may be more expensive than other states, but i would submit to my colleagues that for every one of these super vouchers we give out, for every family that's given over 300% what they should be given, there are tens of thousands of families waiting in line patiently, desperately needing some assistance, and there's only so much money in the pot that congress appropriates. so what my limited amendment really does is instruct the secretary to go up to that 125% that ut really to allow

that dollar amount that congress appropriates for section 8 housing ensures we help as many families as possible and we don't allow some families to in essence, hit the lottery and get over $4,000 a month while others, for example, in the city of chicago, we have over 40,000 people on a waiting list who meet the qualifications for section 8 housing. it's time that they get the assistance they need and their families need. it's time they get into and have access to affordable housing and it's time that we eliminate these super vouchers which really reward a few at the expense of so many. with that, i urge a yes vote and reserve the plns of my time. -- the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve his time. mr. schock: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose buzz the dealt from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latham: i reluctantly but i

must rise in opposition to the amendment. i share the gentleman's concern, and that's why we've included language in our committee report directing h.u.d. to review instances of payments for housing that exceed the 120% of fair market rates. the big problem is, i have concerns about the potential unintended consequences of this funding prohibition, in particular the elderly and disabled populations which could be displaced with an amendment such as this. i really appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue and will continue to work with h.u.d. to address any excessive, unwarranted overpayments for assistance to our most vulnerable citizens. and i reluctantly must urge a no vote on the amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition?

mr. pastor: move to strike the last word. we rise also in opposition to this amendment. i yield back. the chair: is there anyone else who seeks recognition to speak on this amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment -- mr. schock: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. higgins of new york. 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 terminate the status of a unit of local government as a metropolitan city as described in section 2 the housing and urban development act. with respect to grants under 106 of such act. 42 united states code 5306. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. higgins: since the creation of the community development ock grant in 1974 -- the chair: does the gentleman from new york yield back? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. 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 pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to

strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognize for five minutes. >> i rise to engage the gentleman from iowa, chairman latham new york a colloquy. mr. latham: i would be happy to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i thank the chairman. i do -- mr. gerlach: i have a question about the dads program, driver alcohol i have acy that supports alcohol detection technology. congress provided $5.44 million for this program for fiscal year 2014. for fiscal year 2015, the national highway traffic safety administration requested $5.72 million. unfortunately, the report attached to the t-hud bill specifies $2.7 million for this program. the dads program supports a cooperative agreement wean the

automotive coalition for traffic safety and the national highway traffic safety administration to work together to create a passive, in-vehicle technology that can determine the driver's and only the driver's blood alcohol content nesm driver is at or above .0 , the legal limit in all 50 states, the car would be inoperable. the current operating plan for the program runs through 2018 and the goal at this time would be to have ready a commercially viable technology by then. while great progress has been made, more research must take place. full funding for the research should be a priority for this congress because each year over 10,000 americans are killed due to drunk driving. fearly a third of all traffic fatalities. mothers against drunk driving has called this program its highest legislative priority. the insurance institute for highway safety has looked at the potential of this tech tholing and said it could save over ,000

lives per year. every major traffic safety group in the country supports this, including the national transportation safety board. the national highway traffic safety administration has identified this project as one of its highest priorities. the authorized funding level is not a tremendous sum when you consider the fact that drunk driving costs americans over $132 billion each year. i believe that full funding for this project, including the administration's request of $5.72 million which is already included in the senate's fiscal year 2015 transportation h.u.d. appropriations bill. i believe that's a small pice to pay for a project with this much potential. i would respectfully ask the chairman that we work together to restore this critical funding. the chair: does the -- mr. latham: does the gentleman yield? mr. gerlach: i do. mr. latham: i appreciate the gentleman highlighting the need

for this issue. i look forward to working with you as we move through the process to make sure that dads research is funded. mr. gerlach: thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. mr. grayson: it's grayson number 40678 the chair: the 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 incentive payments pursuant to 48 c.f.r. 16.4 to contractors for contracts that are behind schedule under the terms of the contract as prescribed by 48 c.f.r. 52.211 or over the contract amount indicated in

standard form 33 of box 20. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. grayson: thank you, madam speaker. this is a good government amendment that's reflected in the different form of the senate bill that's for transportation and housing. i'm seeking to provide a similar provision in the house bill. this is offered in a different -- this was offered in a different form yesterday. there were oklahomas to it that were sustained. we've worked with the parliamentarian to overcome those objections. this provision refers to none of the funds available may be used pursuant to a particular regulatory provision. for contractors that are behind schedule under terms of another regular regulatory provision or over the amount in a standard form used in contracting. that standard form 33 box 20, subject to modification and standard form 30 box 14.

sorry, box 12. this will rein in contractors who are late and working over budget and prevent them getting extra payments. we're simply speaking about extra payments, payment is that wouldn't normally be receiving except for the fact that they are asking for them and claim some entitlement to them. too often the government engages in waste, fraud, and abuse with contracting. this will help to rein that in. i respectfully ask for the support of my colleagues on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anyone wish to speak on the amendment? 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 agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 141. 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, the amount otherwise made available by this act for department of housing and urban development, management and administration, executive offices, is hereby reduced by $2 million. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. gosar: madam chair, i rise today to offer an amendment to save taxpayers money and to hold a disorganized and wasteful department accountable for its actions and inactions. my amendment is very simple. it reduces the funding to the executive offices at the department of housing and urban development by $2 million. which brings their funding levels back to fiscal year 2014 levels. as always, i appreciate the work the committee does to put these bills and committee reports together. it is not an easy job. but i'm also glad that members are able to read their work and offer further input here on the house floor. since republicans took the house majority back in 2011, we have done our best to bring regular order and an open process to the house

proceedings. i am happy to see a return to regular order and am further grateful that i and my colleagues are able to participate in the appropriations process. for the second year in a row, i have read the committee's report on the administrative offices at h.u.d. and was stunned to see that yet again h.u.d. is running an -- in an inefficient manner and again likely violated the antideficiency act. further, h.u.d. did not notify a request permission from congress for their certain budget reprogramming activities and hired more people than they can afford to pay. i would like to quickly cite excerpts from the committee report on this issue. h.u.d. must have systems in place to track fundamental budgetary resource data, including budget authority and f.t.e. levels. a lack of essential information at h.u.d. has in the past led to antideficiency act violations in which h.u.d. hired more people than it had resources to pay. while the committee recognizes deficiencies caused by antiquated enterprise systems and acknowledges h.u.d.'s efforts to address these

deficiencies, proper management of agency resources is a fundamental responsibility and antiquated systems are no excuse for the violations of federal law. the committee also directs h.u.d. to clearly identify in its budget justifications, the movement or transfer of budgetary resources from one account to another account so that year over year comparisons are possible. the fact that the committee must specifically spell out and direct an executive department or agency to conduct its affairs properly is quite frankly embarrassing and deplorable. but then again, i suppose government inefficiency is the status quo these days. these same inefficiencies have been identified year after year now. h.u.d. cannot get its affairs in order and congress should not be increasing funding for paper pushers or other bureaucrats. h.u.d. should stop hiring more people than it can pay, stop reprogramming money within its accounts to fix self-imposed mistakes and then withhold the information from congress. and finally, stop breaking federal law. congress must not reward bad behavior with increased funding

levels. the nonpartisan congressional budget office stated this amendment reduces both the budgetary authority in the bill and the 2015 outlays by $2 million. the federal debt surpassing $18 trillion, it is irresponsible to throw more money at a department that cannot manage its own affairs. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does anyone seek to speak on the amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move to strike last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank the chairman and i rise in opposition to the amendment and while i appreciate the gentleman's efforts to further reduce spending, this account is already below the enacted funding level and further cuts in this account are unwarranted. this account primarily funds employees' salaries and benefits and an additional 14%

reduction would result in the furlough or layoff of key h.u.d. employees. destruction of leadership offices at h.u.d. would jeopardize the welfare of millions of july nerble -- vulnerable families and billions of dollars in taxpayer investments. therefore i cannot support the gentleman's agreement -- amendment, excuse me, and would 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 arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i oppose the amendment. the levels provided for salaries and expenses at h.u.d. in the base bill are insufficient. many offices will need to furlough or terminate employees to make these levels work and this amendment would aggravate this problem further. as it is, the funding level in this bill will require h.u.d. to furlough its personnel in this office for 12 days. this amendment would increase

the number of furlough days required. at these levels, h.u.d.'s ability to carry out their mission would be jeopardized. i oppose the amendment and yield back the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does anyone seek to speak on this amendment? 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 adopted. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. gosar: yes, i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does -- the 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, each amount otherwise made available by this act for department of

housing and urban development management and administration, administrative support offices, is hereby reduced by 4.2%. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. gosar: madam chairwoman, i rise today to offer one last amendment. to save taxpayers money and hold a disorganized and wasteful department accountable for its actions and inactions. following on the heels of my previous amendment, this amendment reduces funding for an infective -- ineffective bureaucrats at h.u.d., bringing their funding levels to the level recommended by the house appropriations committee in fiscal year 2014. the current bill funds these h.u.d. bureaucrats to the administrative support offices account at a staggering $500 million. my amendment reduces each subaccount by 4.2%, so that the sum of each reduction to each subaccount equals the $21 million reduction to the account in overall accounting. again, this is the amount

recommended by this committee for the overall fiscal year 2014. as i mentioned, i appreciate the work of the committee -- that the committee does to put these bills and committee reports together. but the committee report associated with the appropriations bill, once again, for the second year in a row, highlighted major deficiencies in the housing and urban development management offices. at minimum, this mismanaged agency should at least include those reprogramming efforts in their budget justification. they failed to do so and are far from being considered a model of transparency. h.u.d.'s bureaucracy is not only massive, it is extremely wasteful and inefficient. the associated committee report, which i cited in my comments on my previous amendment a moment ago, is quite harsh to h.u.d. and rightfully so. these same inefficiencies within the agency have been identified year after year after year. again, congress must not reward bad behavior with increased funding levels. the nonpartisan congressional budgetary office stated this amendment reduces budget other authority in the bill by -- budgetary authority in the bill

by $25 million and reduces the 2015 outlay business $16 million. with an $18 trillion debt that continues to grow, it's irresponsible to throw more money at a department that cannot manage its own affairs. i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and i thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued report on the committee and with that i -- work on the committee and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank you, madam chairman. i must rise in opposition to this amendment also. while i appreciate the gentleman's efforts at further reducing spending, this account is already $6 million below the enacted level from last year and over $30 million below the president's request. additional cuts would require h.u.d. to furlough or lay off employees which undermines the department's ability to adequately serve millions of low income, elderly, disabled households and put billions of taxpayer dollars at risk and

unfortunately the way the amendment's written, it would not reduce the deficit at all. it doesn't go to the deficit reduction account, it would basically just stay in the bill and be spent by someone else somewhere else. so it doesn't really save the taxpayers any money in the end. i must urge a no vote on the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: madam chairwoman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i oppose this amendment. again, the levels provided for salaries and expenses at h.u.d. in the base bill are insufficient. as it is, the funding level in this bill will require h.u.d. to furlough its personnel in these offices for up to 90 days. nearly all will be under a hiring freeze. this amendment would increase the number of furlough days required and would lead to

reductions enforce. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona 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 noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. gosar: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? pardon. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> thank you, madam chair. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. schiff 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 shall be -- mr. schiff: i would request unanimous consent to dispense

with the reading. mr. latham: madam chairman? the chair: is there objection? the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. is there objection to dispensing from the reading? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: madam chair, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support the amendment i'm offering along with my southern california colleagues, mr. brad sherman and mr. henry waxman. the amendment would allow the burbank bob hope airport to implement a nighttime curfew between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. thousands of residents of southern california's san fernando valley live under the flight paths or near the terminals at bob hope airport, endure the house-shaking noise of air traffic during the day and suffer the jarring interpretation of their sleep caused by roaring jets sometimes late at night. to address the concerns of

those affected by airport noise across the nation, the f.a.a. established a process to consider an individual community's request for a curfew. however, the process was designed to be difficult, so difficult that in the decades since it was established by the f.a.a., only one airport in the nation has successfully completed an application, bob hope airport, and then it was turned down. when congress enacted the 1990 airport noise and control act, it intended for anca to permit airports to obtain noise restrictions if they met certain requirements. at that time congress exempted several airports from the laws' requirements for f.a.a. approval of new noise rules if they had pre-existing noise rules in effect to address local noise problems. bob hope airport, located in burbank, california, was one of the first airports in the country to impose a curfew and has a long history of curfews, but was unfortunately not given the protection of the

grandfather protection of anca that several other similar airports received. my amendment would correct this inequity and put bob hope on the same footing as several other airports across the country that had curfews before anca's passage by correcting the omission of not allowing bob hope airport to implement on a permanent and mandatory basis a curfew which it had in effect informally since the 19 0s -- 1980's. after spending $7 million and nine years of effort, the f.a.a. rejected bob hope's request for a curfew, contended that the small number of flights impacted by the curfew would impose too great a strain on the country's aviation system and impose too great a cost on users in reality, the f.a.a. -- users. in reality, the f.a.a. approached the process in reverse, beginning by its conclusion, the one it wanted to reach, and working backwards to try to justify its intended nd desired result. it is important that my cheegs understand the impact on

aviation in southern california. there will be no impact on commercial flights. lmost all airlines voluntarily abide by the curfew at pob hope and it will be limited to two nighttime landings by two large aircraft and a handful of turbo prop takeoffs. because of the attitude toward legitimate local concerns, it's leer the only way to provide relief to residents is through this action. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to correct an omission in anca. local problems require local solutions, not solutions imposed by a federal agency with a predetermined agenda. with that, i reserve the plns of my time. -- the plans of my time. the chair: will the gentleman yield back in mr. schiff: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. r. latham: i withdraw my reservation. i wish the gentleman had brought this up in the full committee. i don't believe that this bill is really the venue to address what is a local issue. the affected airport serves the greater los angeles area and i simply don't know the impact of this action that it would have on transpacific flights, trade or commerce throughout the area. for those reasons i urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered -- for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i rise in support of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. schiff: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote? mr. schiff: correct. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 1 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> to offer an amendment. thechair: the clerk will -- clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. cassidy of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. cassidy: the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. cassidy: the point of this amendment is to bring transparency and accountability to the process of awarding tiger grants. now, tiger grants are created in 2009 with money from the stimulus bill that provides to etitive grants that were programs, tructure supposedly on a merit based -- basis. the funds have been going to states and local governments and d.t.o. is currently reviewing grant applications to award $600 million for a sixth round of tiger grant fund, applications due april 28, 2014. last month the g.a. reported numerous -- g.a.o. rereported numerous problems with the tiger

grants. they report that d.o.t. continued to accept specific applications for 30 days after the notice of funding availability deadline and did not notify the public. the d.o.t. policies office did not follow its own guidelines and advanced projects with lower technical ratings instead of more highly rated projects, providing no documentation or evidence of the factors that led to this decision. this leads me to why we are offering this amendment, again, to bring transparency and accountability to the process of awarding tiger grants. g.a.o. recommended that d.o.t. should develop a strategy toing to be yumet decisions and work with congress to disclose how it makes its decisions. the government accounting office further recommended that the d.o.t. limit the influence of geographic conversations and instead have a merit-based

process. in their most recent report, the government accounting office again made similar recommendations to provide transparency to the process. now, my amendment does not do away with tiger grants. private sector partners, state and local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, transit organizations in louisiana and elsewhere provide these. nor to i wish to prevent consideration of the hundred of applications that have been offered for this current cycle. however, this amendment requires the department of transportation follow the government accounting office recommendations to be transparent and objective in the management and decision making process when selecting applications for funding under the tiger grant program. we cannot have d.o.t. have a

process which is suspected to be political and not merit based when there are federal tax dollars at stake and when communities in louisiana and elsewhere, with meritorious projects, are having theirs not considered when those with less merit are receiving prioritization. that is wrong. it is not what we should be pushing. again i push this amendment to bring transparency and accountability to these award -- to the awarding of tiger grants. with that, madam chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: madam chairman, i have great appreciation for the gentleman's point and the report was very shocking as far as the transparency and how some of these grants haven't -- have been given but i'm in a position where i must insist on being consistent and opposing all

legislation on the appropriation bill and so unfortunately, madam chairman -- chairwoman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on -- in an appropriations bill. therefore it violates clause 2 of rule 21, the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to general appropriation bill shall not be ined or fer changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the amendment imposes new duties on the department of transportation to implement a government accountability office report, the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule

21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. titus of nevada. 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 issue rules or regulations to allow an individual on an aircraft to engage in voice communications using a mobile device during a or enter that aircraft flight intra-state except for crew member of board the aircraft or officer on board the aircraft. the chair: the gentlelady is

recognized. ms. titus: after speaking with the committee, i plan to withdraw my amendment. i want to take a moment to speak on the underlying issue pause i think it's very important. my amendment would prohibit the department from engaging in rule making to allow the use of voice communication devices in flight. in other words, cell phones. when the federal communications commission first floated the idea of allowing cell phone usage on airplanes, the response from the american people was so clear you could hear a pin drop. something that would not be possible if you were surrounded by people chatting on their phones on an airplane. polling has consistently shown 2-1 opposition to allowing passengers to make voice calls in flight. now in february of this past year, i, along with any colleagues on the transportation and infrastructure committee voted unanimously to approve h.r. 3676, which was introduced by chairman shuster and it has

the same goal of the amendment i put forward today. at a time when we document every moment of our lives over twitter and facebook and instagram, the last thing the traveling public needs is to sit next to someone having a loud, one-sided conversation on a cross country flight. now this isn't just a matter of comfort and good manners. it's also a matter of safety. for our flight aten dans who are charged with the safety and security of travelers in flight, cell phone use will exacerbate potential conflict among passengers and will create distractions from crew instructions. both prior to takeoff and during flight. so it would be dangerous for all on board. i thank the chairman and the ranking member for this opportunity to speak on this important issue and i hope thatall though this amendment doesn't move forward, h.r. 3676 will receive floor consideration in due time.

mr. latham: would the gentlewoman yield? ms. titus: i yield. mr. latham: i appreciate the gentlelady bringing this issue to our attention. i know the authorizing committee has looked into the issue of voice communications on flights and unanimously voted out a bill , out of the committee addressing the same concerns. i look forward to working with the gentlelady and the authorizers as we move forward on this very, very important issue as far as you and i and all travelers are concerned. thank you very much. ms. titus: thank you. thank you mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. he chair: without objection. ms. titus: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. yoho of florida. 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 promulgate, implement, or enforce any regulations that would mandate global positioning system g.p.s. tracking or event data recorder in light duty noncommercial passenger motor vehicles. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: would the gentleman yield? mr. yoho: yes, sir. mr. latham: i gladly accept your amendment. mr. yoho: i yield back, madam chair. the chair: 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. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota.

page 156 -- mr. ellison: i move -- i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. is there an objection to dispensing with the reading? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, ma'am. the budget for the department of housing and urban development we consider today does not meet our nation's affordable housing problems. if this budget passes more than half of renters will still pay more than a third of their income for housing. if this budget passes, fewer than four in 10 low-income elderly will receive the housing assistance they're entitled to. if this budget passes, we will still only provide housing teans to one in four families who are eligible. tens of thousands will continue

to linger on waiting lists for an affordable rental apartment that will never arrive. if this budget passes, there will still be more than 11 million families, madam speaker, paying more than half their income for rent and utilities. there will still be a significant gap between incomes and housing costs. the h.u.d. budget is tens of billions short in order to meet the american families -- family's housing needs. that is why my amendment replaces the mortgage interest deduction with a flat rate of 15% tax credit. my amendment lowers the maximum amount of a mortgage interest that can receive a tax offset from $1 million to $500,000. about 4% of homes in this country suffer more than $-- sell for more than $500,000. the revenue generated from these changes will increase investment in affordable rental housing for extremely low income families.

my amendment provides for housing for veterans who find themselves homeless. it provides housing for veterans who are elder -- and people who are elderly and people with disabilities who can't find affordable appropriate housing. it provides repairs and provides homes to low income families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities. it repairs public housing, provides thousands of new vouchers and raises the rental assistance demonstration cap. unfortunately my amendment will likely be ruled out of order today. why? because the rules set by the majority in the house refuse to allow any tax changes to pay for a change in the appropriated budget. this technical decision made by the majority in this congress is inconsistent with previous congresses, which realized that money is fungible. by refusing to allow tax changes to offset the cost of needed programs, congress stacks the deck. congress preserves the generous tax benefits for most financially successful

households while ensuring that there is never anywhere close to the level of affordable rental housing we need. for every $1 we spend on housing programs through the appropriations side of the budget, we spend more than $3 on the tax side. the mortgage interest deduction itself is more than twice as large as the entire h.u.d. budget we consider today. et the vast majority of that benefits the top, about 80% of the benefit goes to 20% of the households. i want to keep a tax benefit for homeownership. i want one that is more generous to working families. nearly half the homeowners with a working mortgage do not benefit from the deduction. that's because more than half of those people do not itemize. only 5% of the homeowners with incomes of $50,000 take a deduction. contrast that with 5% of the homeowners with incomes beneath $50,000, with 2/3 of the households with incomes above

$125,000 who get a benefit. the rate credit will benefit by 16 million current home owners who do not currently benefit from a deduction but will benefit from a flat tax credit. therefore i know that my amendment will be ruled out of order today. therefore i withdraw it and thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. ellison: i move back and -- i yield back and move unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection. the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk printed in congressional record number 28. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. gingrey of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five

minutes. mr. gingrey: madam chair, i rise today to offer an amendment that will prohibit funds in the underlying bill from being used to provide mortgage insurance under title 2 of the national housing act for any mortgage on a single family dwelling to be used as a principle residence to a potential borrower who provides only an individual taxpayer identification number called i-10 for identification. this includes usage for mortgage loans available under the f.h.a. to ensure that an individual must use a social security number rather than to secure er government-backed mortgage insurance. the i-10 was first implemented by the i.r.s. and is a nine-digit tax processing number. the i.r.s. issues the i-10 to individuals who are required to have a taxpayer identification number but who do not have and are not eligible to obtain a

social security number. the i.r.s. has indicated that the i-10's only purpose should be federal tax reporting. however, that has not always been the case. unfortunately, madam chair, it is relatively easy for illegal immigrants to attain an i-10 because proof of legal residency in the united states is not a requirement. due to this practice, illegal immigrants have the incentive to obtain an i-10 as a means to become permanent residents by showing the united states citizenship and immigration services that they have been paying taxes while residing illegally in the country. furthermore, a number of mortgage companies are now -- of course i'll yield to the chair. mr. latham: we would gladly accept your amendment. mr. gingrey: i thank the chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. he question is -- excuse me.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognizes -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: madam chairwoman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. this amendment solves a problem that does not exist. currently the f.h.a. requires a social security number and legal citizenship for all ensured loans. f.h.a. does not allow for individual taxpayer identification numbers to be used for mortgages. what this amendment does is create uncertainty in the f.h.a. underwriting process. it would allow f.h.a. to use individual taxpayer , to use tion numbers that only on loans on investment properties. the f.h.a. has already addressed this issue and this amendment would create unintended consequences. i oppose the amendment and yield back the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. number 89. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. conyers of michigan. 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 -- mr. conyers: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? mr. latham: madam speaker. the chair: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: madam speaker, madam chairman, i reserve a point of order on the

gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved against the amendment. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, this endment, number 89, fights foreclosures by limiting payment of f.h.a. insurance claims in cases in which borrowers have not been through the full f.h.a. loss mitigation process. our nation's foreclosure crisis is not only an economic calamity, but it's also a social and public health calamity as well. while we all know that foreclosures cause downward spirals in property values and tax revenue, new research has shined a light on foreclosures as a cause of massive and debilitating anxiety and illness.

according to a recent study in "the american journal of public health," foreclosures have even been a likely cause of an increase in suicides in america. i offer this amendment today to help end the terrible scourge of foreclosures. when the nation's largest banks , bank of america, wells fargo and chase, sell delinquent f.h.a.-insured loans as a distressed asset stabilization program, that pays them the outstanding balance of the loan. the only loans that have fully complied with h.u.d.'s foreclosure prevention and loss mitigation requirements are supposed to be sold to the stressed asset stabilization program, yet many of the loan banks are selling through the program have not met this

standard. and i will, with great the ure, yield time now to gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright. mr. cartwright: i thank my friend from michigan for yielding. i rise to ask for support for our amendment, to stop unnecessary foreclosures and ensure oversight of h.u.d.'s distressed asset stabilization program, the da, sp. when the nation's -- dasp. when the nation's largest banks sell delinquent f.h.a.-insured loans into dasp, the taxpayers have to pay the outstanding balance. on the loan. and h.u.d. turns around and sells the loans at deep discounts to private investors. many times banks don't comply with the law and f.h.a. inappropriately pays out claims. this is not an insignificant issue. h.u.d. has sold more than

70,000 of these mortgages in the past three years. despite ongoing efforts to improve the program, h.u.d. has not exercised sufficient oversight in this matter. our amendment would help ensure more rigorous oversight of the dasp so that only loans that have met all of h.u.d.'s loss mitigation requirements are sold through this dasp program. thank you and i yield back. mr. conyers: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, this amendment would help ensure prudent oversight over the program so that only loans that have truly met all of h.u.d.'s loss mitigation requirements are sold through the distressed asset stabilization program. and i hope my colleagues on the other side will join us in supporting this very commonsense amendment and with that 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 seek recognition? mr. latham: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: 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 imposes additional duties. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. latham: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member wish to speak on the point of order? mr. conyers: i do. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i thank you. my initial response to the point of order made by the distinguished gentleman is that this is already in the law and

to argue now that a modification of it is nappropriate, i do not think should allow this point of order to be sustained. because it's a straightforward attempt to ensure that our federal agencies are in full compliance with our own codes of consult related to foreclosure prevention -- conduct related to foreclosure prevention. these foreclosures and the evictions are not only responsible for massive anxiety, but also for downward spirals in property values. so my response to the point of rder is that this provision is totally in order and that the point of order should not be sustained. and i thank the gentlelady.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties to provide documentation of certain activities to mortgagers. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. gingrey: madam chairwoman, i have an amendment at the desk. printed in the congressional record number 29. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. gingrey of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. gingrey: madam chair, i rise today to offer a commonsense amendment to h.r. 4745, the gingrey-bridenstine amendment would prohibit funds in the underlying bill from being used to pay a federal

employee for any period of time that such an employee is using official time. as the author of h.r. 107, the federal employee accountability act, this amendment is a continuation of the work i've done over the last three congresses to repeal the governmentwide use of official time. under current law federal employees can use official taxpayer-funded time to perform union functions or to participate in union activities when they would otherwise be on official duty status. madam chair, according to a four-year request by the americans for limited government, there are 35 employees at the department of transportation alone making an average by the way of almost $140,000 a year, who spend 100% of their work day working on behalf of a union. these employees were hired to perform duties on behalf of the taxpayer. several are