Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2013

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, what we have got here with this particular amendment is more than a doubling down on what was already a bad idea.

We heard, actually, from Mr. Rogers, who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a Republican Member of Congress, that the Republican version of the budget offered by Mr. Ryan was ``draconian''--draconian because of the impact it has on important investments that have historically helped make our economy grow, make us a world leader, make sure that we can keep our competitive edge in a global economy. The Republican budget coming out of the Budget Committee devastated those important investments.

Of course, they didn't close one single special interest tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit, but they decided to cut deeply into investments in our kids' education, everything from early education, to K-12, to college ed. They make no secret about it.

They want to charge college students higher interest rates and, at the same time, protect special interest tax breaks. What we have here in the Republican Study Committee's amendment is simply a doubling down on what the chairman of the Republican Appropriations Committee already called draconian.

The interesting thing to me, Madam Chairman, is that I would have thought that the Republican Study Committee would have taken a different approach. I would have thought they would have taken an approach that didn't require, as part of their budget, the revenues from the Affordable Care Act, but if you look at their revenue line, it is identical to the revenue line in the House Republican budget, which is identical to the Congressional Budget Office's revenue line, which The Heritage Foundation--no left-leaning group--has said means that these budgets incorporate the tax revenues from the Affordable Care Act.

Again, here is what The Heritage Foundation said:

Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it

keeps the tax increases associated with ObamaCare.

It is what they have said about the House Republican budget's revenue line. This one has the same thing.

If they are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as they say they will, that revenue line should go down; yet no matter how you cut it, Madam Chairman, the choices remain choices that we do not believe reflect the values and priorities of this country,

which are of protecting those special interest tax breaks for very powerful interests while gutting important investments in our future, investments that have been proven historically to make the United States the leading economic power in the world.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman speaks about the importance of fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility, and we agree.

The question we have is: Why do they exempt from the whole practice of fiscal discipline all of these what are called tax expenditures and tax preferences that have been put into the Tax Code many times by very powerful special interests?

What does a tax preference mean? It means in many cases that, because somebody has well-heeled lobbyists, he is able to escape having to pay taxes on something that everybody else has to pay for.

What our Republican colleagues are saying is they don't want to take away any of those special interest preferences for the purpose of reducing the deficit. They would rather cut deeply into our kids' education. They would rather charge college students more interest on their loans. They would rather increase class sizes in K-12, which is what happens when you cut Title I and special education.

They talk about opportunity, but the opportunities that they are protecting are those for the special interests who had their lobbyists do very well for them in Washington. Hey, hands off all of that. We don't want to touch that. But we are coming after everybody else, including, by the way, seniors on Medicare who will immediately see the reopening of the doughnut hole.

So if you are a senior with high prescription drug costs, that is going to cost you $1,200 more per year, on average, immediately. And then they begin to phase in in their budget their Medicare voucher program, which will end the Medicare guarantee.

This is all about priorities. The interesting thing here is that, despite all the talk about fiscal discipline from our Republican colleagues, it is hands off imposing any fiscal discipline on powerful special interests who have succeeded in getting themselves special deals in the Tax Code.

I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has spent a lot of time focusing on these issues.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Brown), a distinguished member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and someone who is focused on investing in America.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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 mobility across the State.

Now, the project is already creating jobs for Californians. In fact, more than 70 firms that have committed to performing work on this project have offices in the Central Valley, and many of these firms, happily, are veteran-owned.

In San Jose, the California high-speed rail project is already providing immediate benefits by investing $1.5 billion in the Caltrain Modernization Program. This program will create over 9,500 jobs, over 90 percent in the San Francisco Bay area.

Now, the government's independent watchdog, the GAO, 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.

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 is 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 are 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 are 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 is important that the State of California has identified an ongoing source of funds to support high-speed rail, and that is 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 is important to be visionary here. You know, 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. The 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 will all be proud of that project as it nears completion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

I just wanted to make a couple of quick points. First, it is easy to be a critic and it is hard to be a builder. The high-speed rail project is a big project, it is difficult to do, but we are 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 has 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 that is not going to be expensive?

The alternative to high-speed rail is not nothing. That is impossible for a State as vibrant as California, with an economy as booming as it is, and a future as bright as we have.

I would note also that the idea that it is inappropriate to use cap- and-trade funds, I just simply disagree with. California is among the first in the Nation, I would say, and it has 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

are not--in stopping this visionary project that is 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.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, in the last 5 years, moving crude oil by train has grown exponentially from a virtually nonexistent industry to a booming one with no signs of slowing down; but after a number of high-profile derailments, the need for increased safety regulations on shipping hazardous materials via rail could not be clearer.

Last week, I had the privilege of attending a first responder training course that was focused on crude oil trains at the Port of Albany, which has become a major hub for crude oil shipments, processing more than 40,000 carloads last year. I know rail carriers and emergency planners are taking it upon themselves to prepare for handling hazardous materials in increased volumes, but regulatory steps are also needed.

We need a comprehensive approach to address this issue, including expanding route planning and selection requirements, requiring response plans for rail carriers and ensuring shippers and rail carriers are testing and classifying their shipments appropriately. Many of these suggestions have been recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Many of the reforms I support are common sense. For example, comprehensive oil spill response plans are currently required for oil shipments greater than 1,000 barrels per tank car, but most tank cars only hold 700 barrels; therefore, trains, some with as many as 120 cars that are carrying crude oil, are not required to have comprehensive response plans because of this outdated threshold. Among other safety issues, tank car safety, particularly in regard to the DOT-111s, is a major concern for many of my constituents.

Every day, trains transporting Bakken crude oil move and idle next to public housing and the highway near Albany's South End before entering the Port of Albany. Everyone agrees--railroads, suppliers and the NTSB, to name a few--that we need a higher safety standard on new tank car orders and an aggressive phaseout or retrofit of the old DOT-111s, which have no business transporting hazardous materials. Only 14,000 of 92,000 DOT-111 tank cars are currently built to the latest industry standards. The remaining 78,000 have demonstrated that they are prone to splitting open during derailments.

The rail industry has taken meaningful and voluntary steps to account for the DOT-111s' inadequacies, including raising the industry standard for cars built after October of 2011, but we need higher Federal standards. This is long overdue, and DOT must act.

I know this is an issue my good friend from New York, Ranking Member Lowey, is passionate about as well. Earlier this year, we sent a letter to Secretary Foxx, urging him to move forward with a rulemaking process that includes phasing out the DOT-111s. We should harmonize our regulations with Canada's already announced plan, which includes a 3- year phaseout or retrofit of DOT-111s. Just this morning, I had the opportunity to speak with Secretary Foxx about DOT's rulemaking process. I know this is a top priority for him, and I have been assured that it is moving forward aggressively. I encourage a speedy but appropriate resolution.

I also appreciate that the chair included language urging a comprehensive approach to rail safety. The language directs the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to update emergency spill response planning thresholds and to finalize a rule on tank cars by the end of this fiscal year. The bill also fully funds the President's request for FRA's safety and operations account and PHMSA's hazardous materials account.

Finally, the manager's amendment, during the full committee markup, designated some funds to hire additional safety staff to monitor routing and to make safety improvements on grade crossings that carry energy products. This, indeed, is a positive step. However, I would have preferred the inclusion of $40 million, as in the President's budget request, to establish a safe transportation of energy products fund within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in order to support prevention and response activities.

Aside from the crude-by-rail issues, I understand the challenges of the current funding allocations, but I must strongly oppose this bill's shortfalls in numerous infrastructure and transit accounts. The FTA's Capital Investment Grant program is $809 million below the request. Amtrak's capital grants are cut by $200 million, and TIGER only receives $100 million, shamefully shortfalling what we need.

It is my hope that we can improve this bill during conference, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to include appropriate levels for underfunded programs while building upon this bill's rail safety provisions.

Again, I want to thank Chairmen Rogers and Latham and Ranking Members Lowey and Pastor for their attention to this critical rail safety issue.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding and for his leadership in bringing forth this budget. As the chairman of the Republican Study Committee's Budget and Spending Task Force, Mr. Woodall has brought this budget called Back to Basics, and that is really what we are here to talk about right now.

Madam Chair, what are those basics we should get back to?

I think they are the basic fundamentals that our Founding Fathers laid out when they created this great Nation. It is still the greatest nation in the history of the world, but it is a nation with serious challenges.

If you look at our economy, our economy is struggling in many ways because of policies coming out of Washington, because of Washington's failure to confront those challenges.

People across this country are ready to confront those challenges. They are looking to us to finally start laying out a vision that says we are going to start living within our means, that we are going to do the things that families across this Nation do every single year, and that is finally getting back to fiscal discipline.

When my friend on the other side--I guess the person who is tasked with coming and opposing budgets that balance--uses terms like ``draconian''--Madam Chair, I will tell you what is draconian. What is draconian is to deny the opportunity to our children and grandchildren that we enjoy today, something that every single generation in the history of our country has.

One of the pure definitions of the American Dream is that every generation in our Nation's history, since George Washington led us through that Revolution, has had better opportunities than those that we enjoy today; yet most people in this country recognize, if we don't get our fiscal house in order, our children--my 7- and 4-year-olds, whom my wife drove to school this morning--won't have those same opportunities, and they all deserve the opportunities that we enjoy.

So how do we do it? How do we get back to basics?

We do it by having really good, strong, bold policy--bold policy that says we ought to live within our means.

Our budget balances by year 4. In 2018, we have a balanced Federal budget. If you compare that with President Obama's budget, he has got a budget that has over $1 trillion in new taxes.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: oh, you need to stick more taxes on all of these businesses.

If anybody is making a profit in America, it seems like they want to put a bull's-eye on him. If one happens to be successful and make a profit and create jobs in this country, that is somehow a bad thing.

If you take their approach in their budgets--in all of their budgets--they have over $1 trillion in new taxes. President Obama has nearly $2 trillion in new taxes, so you would think: okay, all of those new taxes must be what get you to balance.

In fact, Madam Chair, all of those new taxes just get you more despair. This President's budget never, ever gets to balance, but he has all of those tax increases that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about.

In our budget, we don't have any new tax increases. What we have is good, smart fiscal discipline policy that says let's get our economy moving again and let's believe in the American people.

By not raising taxes and by getting our economy moving, you actually get to balance in 4 short years and start creating surpluses, so we can pay back that debt, as my friend from Georgia talked about, so that we don't have to send all of those interest payments to other countries and to other priorities. Let's set those priorities in America.

How do we do this? How do we actually get back to balance in such a short period of time?

Number one, we save Medicare from bankruptcy, just as Paul Ryan does in the House Republican budget that came out of the Budget Committee. We share many of those same principles that get us to fiscal responsibility by saving Medicare, by not letting it go bankrupt, as our colleagues on the other side do and as the President's own budget does.

The President's own budget allows Medicare to go bankrupt. We don't think that is responsible, so we take care of those who paid into a system over their lifetimes.

We also invoke smart policy. If you start with health care, in our bill, we actually repeal the President's health care law and replace it with the American Health Care Reform Act, a bill that actually puts patients back in charge of their health care and that allows us to, again, have families be in charge of those decisions and to lower costs.

It is good, smart policy. We will talk more about it, but this is the right path to getting our economy back on track.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from Tennessee spoke about the American taxpayer and the money that is being spent by Congress, and I would like to pick up on that subject because I am deeply concerned about where and how we spend our taxpayer money. It is not our money. It is 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 will tell you why it is 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 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. Three thousand jobs in Shanghai, zero jobs in America--and a very shoddy job done on the bridge, thousands upon thousands of faulty welds, over budget, and it went over on 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 percent is good. 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent 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 are 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.

It is not going to be more expensive, and this is the proof, way over budget, way beyond the timeframes, and way beyond what is reasonable.

Build it in America, American jobs, spend American taxpayer money on American-made equipment, goods, and services. That is what this amendment does.

It also eliminates one of the problems that led to the segmentation, but we will not go there. We will simply say it is going to be made in America. That is what this amendment is all about.

I know we are 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 the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, we could use the rules of this House to promote policies that are beneficial to the American Government, beneficial to the American taxpayer, and, most importantly, beneficial to the American workers, whether they are employed in the steel industry or the construction industry, or we could 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 the opportunity 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.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern about the need for 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. I am pleased to stand here today along with such strong advocates for Indian housing programs, and I am grateful for the leadership that each of the speakers today has shown.

I do share my colleagues' concerns over the adequate funding for our Native Hawaiian housing needs, and I am hopeful that, as this legislation moves forward, Congress can work to address this need as well as to resolve some serious issues with other parts of the bill.

Now, as the members of this committee well know, the challenges facing adequate housing for Indian Country are profound. The district that I represent is home to nine tribes. I have 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 percent of Indian housing units lack basic facilities, are overcrowded, or cost more than 50 percent of residents' incomes. There is a need today for 200,000 more housing units in Indian Country. That is why I am hoping that this body will soon hold a hearing on the reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act, or NAHASDA.

I know that there has been bipartisan work both in the House and in the Senate on identifying ways to increase the effectiveness of these programs and to reduce duplicative bureaucratic requirements; but there is another element of NAHASDA that I think is absolutely important not only to Indian Country but also to those who have worn the uniform in service to our country. That element is homelessness among our tribal veterans.

In December 2012, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness found that, while Native Americans make up 0.7 percent of the total population of veterans, they represent 2\1/2\ percent 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 HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program, which has made real and significant progress in tackling veterans' homelessness, does not have the authorities and flexibilities to provide support to the native veterans who are facing homelessness.

That is why I was pleased to join with Representative Cole--a true champion for Indian Country--in introducing H.R. 3418, the Housing Native Heroes Act. Our legislation doesn't cost any new money, but it 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 reauthorization bills advance 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, which is 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 in advancing the NAHASDA reauthorization, I am confident that we can end this anomaly that leaves our tribal veterans without the support they need.

I would like to conclude by noting that the underlying bill before us today provides $75 million for the HUD-VASH program, which is in line with the President's budget request.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their continued support for this program.

I ask, as this committee continues its work of combating homelessness among our veterans, that the challenges facing our tribal veterans not be forgotten.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Denham

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I am in favor of the amendment. Hopefully, from the silence that we have heard, there is bipartisan support for this amendment because I know there is a bipartisan commitment here that competition is very much the American way.

If you have two companies, as happens all over America, competing on different government contracts, we usually come out with the best result from that competition. But the question with this amendment, which I am pleased to join the gentlelady from Connecticut in offering today, is whether we ought to advantage companies that renounce their American citizenship in favor of finding an office on the beach in Bermuda or in Ugland House in the Cayman Islands.

The other company is an American company, not only when it comes time to put its hand out for a government contract but also when it comes time to put its hand out to pay the taxes that it earned on its American business.

Which one of these companies should have a competitive advantage?

I think it is the one that stayed home and was an American, patriotic company and did not dodge its part of the responsibility for paying for our national security, which is so important to international commerce, and for other vital services.

American companies that stay and contribute to building America and that keep her secure at home and abroad deserve a level playing field, and that is all that this amendment does. If a Cayman company doesn't have to pay taxes on some of its income, of course it can underbid the company that stayed in America, that made it in America, that paid its taxes, and then asked to have a level playing field to compete for American business.

The history in this Congress, unfortunately, is that many very large companies pay their lobbyists more to lobby this Congress than they pay to the Treasury in taxes, and it has been a very wise investment because they have been able to have one loophole, one special preference, one advantage, one exception--one more bit of complexity to our Tax Code--in order to avoid paying their fair share.

The companies that are operating in the Cayman Islands and in Bermuda are reporting huge amounts of income earned in those countries, largely from stripping off earnings that they have here in America and shifting them there through interest gimmicks, through dividend gimmicks, through intellectual property gimmicks. They avoid paying taxes not only on the tiny amount that they might have earned from an occasional sale in the Cayman Islands but from all of the sales from which they are able to strip off earnings and shift them to this island paradise.

They are looking for, basically, a shell game. I am not talking about seashells on the beach in the Cayman Islands. I am talking about the shell game that exists when these companies come in, renounce their American citizenship, keep the form and operation of their business here in America, but claim that they are suddenly no longer citizens under the American flag that we honor but are under the flag of some foreign nation. They basically are sending Uncle Sam a postcard that reads: ``Sorry. You can find me on the beach. Glad you are not here.'' That is the answer that they give when it comes time to pay their taxes, but then they have the audacity to come and ask other taxpayers--other taxpaying businesses and individuals who have done their fair share, and then some, for American security--they ask for government business at taxpayer expense.

This amendment is set to send the executives a message: they can play all they want to on the beach to avoid taxes, but Congress is not going to put its head in the sand. They can have fun in the sun, but Congress refuses to let the rest of the Americans, who are working hard to pay their taxes, get burned by having to pay not only for the taxes that these tax dodgers haven't paid but for government contracts that are paid for with taxpayer money.

Let's support competition, and let's support American companies that are paying their fair share. Let's adopt this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, 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 the renters will still pay more than one-third of their income for housing. If this budget passes, fewer than four in 10 low-income elderly will receive the housing assistance they are entitled to. If this budget passes, we will still only provide housing assistance 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 Chairman, paying more than half of their income for rent and utilities. There will still be a significant gap between incomes and housing costs.

The HUD budget is tens of billions short in order to meet American families' housing needs. That is why my amendment replaces the mortgage interest deduction with a flat-rate 15 percent tax credit.

My amendment lowers the maximum amount of mortgage interest that can receive a tax offset from $1 million to $500,000. About 4 percent of homes in this country sell for more than $500,000.

My amendment dedicates the revenue generated from these changes to increasing our investments in affordable rental housing for extremely low-income families.

My amendment provides for housing for veterans who find themselves homeless. It provides housing for people who are elderly and people with disabilities who cannot find affordable appropriate housing. It provides money to repair public housing facilities to provide homes to low-income families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities. It funds the national housing trust fund, 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 dollar 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 HUD budget we consider today. Yet, the vast majority of the mortgage interest deduction benefit the top income quintile--about 80 percent of the benefit goes to 20 percent of the households.

I want to keep a tax benefit for homeownership. I want one that is more accessible and more generous to working families. Nearly half the homeowners with a mortgage do not benefit from the deduction. That is because almost half of the people who pay mortgage interest do not itemize. Only 5 percent of the homeowners with incomes of $50,000 take a deduction. Contrast the 5 percent of homeowners with incomes beneath $50,000 and the two-thirds of households with incomes above $125,000 who get a tax benefit. The flat rate credit will benefit about 16 million current homeowners who do not currently benefit from a deduction but who will benefit from a flat tax credit.

I know that my amendment will be ruled out of order today.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.