SAFE HAUL Act of 2013

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

I appreciate very much the gentleman raising the issue.

I think we should remember, this is an appropriation bill. It is a funding bill. It is not an authorizing bill. This is an issue that should be dealt with by the committee of jurisdiction, which needs to make a lot of changes at HUD. There is no question about it.

This is a funding bill, and, Mr. Chairman, we have already made tough, responsible choices in the bill, and we have already cut the Public Housing Capital Fund by $100 million below last year. So while the gentleman wants to cut a little bit more, I understand that, but the fact of the matter is we are down $100 million from last year.

The Public Housing Operating Fund is held at last year's level of $4.4 billion. I really think to cut any more out of this could possibly pose a risk to the health and safety of our housing capital.

For those reasons, again, I appreciate the gentleman's bringing the issue forward, it is an authorizing issue, and on this, as a funding bill, I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate very much the gentleman's effort to help more vulnerable households by increasing funding for HOPWA, but I simply cannot support this amendment.

The increase is offset by a more than 30 percent reduction in funding for HUD's information technology systems. These systems are critical to HUD's ability to oversee billions of dollars in grants, subsidies, and loans. Many HUD systems are antiquated and require significant maintenance and investment to keep operating. A cut of this magnitude would undermine the

agency's ability to function, so I would urge a ``no'' vote and also remind folks that there is $305 million for HOPWA in the bill already, a slight reduction from last year, but with our allocation, very significant funding for this program.

So I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think we should keep in mind that we have $3 billion in the Community Development Block Grant account. That is slightly less than last year by $30 million, but there are $3 billion in that.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's effort to increase funding, but the offset for that increase is a $100 million reduction to the HOME program, which is already reduced by $300 million, so we are already cutting HOME by $300 million from the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

It is important to remember that, just a few years ago, the HOME program was funded at $1.6 billion. In this bill, it will be at $700 million, so it is less than half of what it was at that time.

The program is targeted to the development of affordable housing that benefits low-income families, and we don't believe, at this point, a further reduction is warranted. So while I appreciate the benefits of the block grants, I must urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is obviously just the opposite of the previous amendment in the reduction of our proposed amount of $3 billion for the Community Development Block Grant.

This amendment would accept the President's proposal to cut $230 million from the Community Development Block Grant program. Our bill already has a small reduction, $30 million, from what was enacted last year.

The CDBG program provides critical funding to State and local jurisdictions for affordable housing, economic development, and public service projects such as homeless shelters.

What is great about the program is that the grants are very flexible, which empowers jurisdictions to identify and fund investments that meet local priorities. Also, these funds often attract significant coinvestment from private and other non-Federal sources.

CDBG is an important source of Federal partnership and support in many of our jurisdictions, and so I must urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I will not go through the merits of the program again, but the fact of the matter

is we are $30 million less than the enacted level from last year, so there is a reduction in the account.

A lot of people would say ``unfortunately,'' but there is, in fact, a reduction, and for that reason, I would oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman makes a very compelling argument, and we would accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

The bill funds rental housing assistance at $28 million. This is the amount necessary to fund the 18,000 existing long-term project-based rental assistance contracts. This will ensure that these units remain available to low-income families. In fact, if the gentleman's amendment were adopted we would actually break contracts. We would not be able to fund contracts that we are legally obligated to do.

The bill's funding levels are not arbitrary. We have scrubbed these accounts. We have held hearings and

made recommendations on what must be funded.

Again, I must oppose it. There are no new contracts. We are not expanding the program; we are basically paying for what we already have in this account. Again, to have this reduction, we would, in fact, break our contract.

With that, I oppose the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states, in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

As you know, one of the very important functions of this committee is

oversight--ensuring agencies under our purview are effectively and efficiently managed.

The bill provides the Amtrak OIG with $25 million for oversight studies and investigations into fraud, waste, and abuse at Amtrak. It is through these investigations that the Amtrak OIG has helped improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Amtrak's programs and operations.

For example, Amtrak OIG developed a program that has identified improper or overpayments to the tune of $91.3 million. Amtrak has collected some of this back, which has saved taxpayer money. The impact of sequestration and unanticipated rail employee benefit cost increases wreaked havoc on Amtrak OIG and forced them to curtail or to suspend work on important initiatives and investigations. Amtrak needs more oversight, not less.

I appreciate the gentleman for pointing out all of the problems at Amtrak, but the only people there to fix it are in the OIG office, so I think to reduce funding for that would not be in the best interest. The bill's funding levels are not arbitrary. We have scrubbed these accounts. We have held hearings and have made recommendations on what should be funded and where increases or reductions need to be.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. I very much understand where the gentlewoman is coming from with the tremendous needs that we have today in infrastructure, to have some of this money being diverted to other uses. I understand entirely.

This really is an authorizing issue if there ever was one. We appropriate money in this bill. We don't authorize or set up the programs themselves. That should be addressed in a reauthorization of the MAP-21 bill.

The funds here, oftentimes, go to erosion control. They preserve wetlands and meet some environmental regulations that the States have to comply with or the entities, government entities have to comply with.

But the real big problem here is the fact that States may have contracts already out there that they are obligated to pay and, basically, what we are saying is we are not going to reimburse you, so the Federal Government, even though the States have the contracts in place, we are not going to do our part and help pay the bill, and that really is where the problem is.

We have an obligation, but we don't have the money. Again, that is why this goes back to an authorizing issue that needs to be looked at. I totally agree with the gentlewoman, and I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We agree to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

I object.

The reason I objected is we weren't sure as to what the amendment was, and we would accept the amendment.

If the gentleman doesn't take much time, we will accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand the gentleman's concern, but this can have some unintended consequences. But the main reason is that unfortunately this would not affect the public housing authorities at all. This would affect HUD employees. Public housing authorities are not HUD employees. So this amendment, and I wish the gentleman and I could have worked together on this, but it does nothing to the public housing authorities because it does not prohibit them from hiring outside legal, and that is unfortunate.

We have been saying for years and years and years to the authorizers that these are issues they need to address, and they haven't been able to do it. Unfortunately, we get in an appropriation bill and end up with a lot of these issues. But again, the main reason to oppose it is because it does nothing to the public housing authorities. They would still be able to continue their practices as they are.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

All this would do is limit the employees of HUD, and it would do nothing to the PHA employees. PHA employees are not HUD employees; and all you are doing is limiting funding to HUD employees, so it would have no effect as far as the PHAs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We would be more than happy to accept the amendment in the interest of time if we could move on.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the issue the gentleman is trying to get at.

I must oppose the amendment because I think there are some unintended consequences. As far as the way the amendment itself is written, in effect you are banning DOT or HUD from ever purchasing another camera for any use, in essence, because of the possibility it might capture a license plate somewhere.

It simply will also have a lot of wide unanticipated operational impacts across all of the programs in this bill. There could be a prohibition on purchases of aircraft control surveillance technologies at the FAA, an unintended ban on cameras used for safety purposes at airports and air traffic control facilities.

The prohibition could prevent Federal and State motor carrier inspectors from using camera-based technology to screen vehicles for compliance with safety regulations.

The broad nature of this prohibition will negatively affect key research program studies and crash investigations for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The prohibition could undermine revenue collection systems on several large toll-funded routes who take pictures of a license plate--and that is how they charge--and put Federal loans at risk of default not having that means of collecting those revenues.

At HUD, the prohibition, being as broad as it is, could prevent housing authorities from purchasing or operating security systems that are critical to the health and safety of the residents in the public housing and the surrounding communities.

I totally understand the gentleman's point, but there are some ramifications here. I think that maybe we could tailor it better, working on it together in the future, but at this point I would have to oppose the amendment, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a simple amendment that will save taxpayers money and prevent HUD from hiring outside counsel. This wasteful practice has been utilized by the agency in the past to conceal questionable operations, stifle inspector general investigations, and limit overall transparency.

Mr. Chairman, a recent report commissioned by Inspector General David Montoya revealed that the Philadelphia Housing Authority paid more than $30 million for outside legal services from April 2007 through August 2010. That is nearly $10 million a year in outside legal fees for one public housing authority in this country.

The inspector general report stated:

Alarmingly, the Public Housing Authority could not

adequately support $4.5 million that it paid to outside

attorneys during that period, virtually the entire limited

amount we reviewed, raising questions about the propriety of

the remaining $26 million in payments that we did not review.

In addition, the Public Housing Authority made unreasonable

and unnecessary payments of $1.1 million to outside attorneys

to obstruct the progress of HUD Office of Inspector General

audits. The Public Housing Authority also allowed an apparent

conflict of interest situation to exist when it entered into

a contract with a law firm that employed the son of its board

chairman.

Mr. Chairman, all of this fraud and abuse was revealed by investigating one-fifth of the spending of one public housing authority during a 3-year period. There are more than 3,000 other public housing authorities throughout the country.

While not every public housing authority commits this type of abuse-- and to be fair, some are responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollar-- the bottom line is this is shameful and an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money. It is inexcusable and must not continue.

The bill we are discussing here today provides nearly $100 million for the sole purpose of funding HUD's Office of General Counsel.

As stated in the committee's report on the bill:

It is the responsibility of the Office of General Counsel

to provide legal opinions, advice, and services with respect

to all programs and activities, and to provide counsel and

assistance to the development of the Department's programs

and policies.

In addition to having their own counsel, HUD also has access to attorneys within the Department of Justice. There is no logical reason HUD should be spending millions of dollars a year on outside counsel. The inspector general agrees and has previously stated:

We have been concerned for some time about the extent to

which some to public housing authorities use outside legal

counsel.

I appreciate the inspector general for bringing forward this wasteful and fraudulent practice to the attention of Congress. I ask my colleagues to recognize the inspector general's recommendations and support this commonsense amendment.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on the committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman understand that all grants under HUD go to public housing and, therefore, they are subject all under?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment intended to prevent yet another costly overreach by the Federal Government into the jurisdiction of local towns and communities.

HUD has proposed a new regulation, titled Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which would grant the Department authority to dictate local zoning requirements in any community across the country that applies for a Community Development Block Grant.

According to reports, in 2012, this rule would have negatively impacted more than 1,200 municipalities throughout the country. A trial run of the rule already took place in New York. It failed miserably, and a local county was forced to reject $12 million in funds that would have benefited the community due to the impractical and unrealistic requirements associated with compliance.

The county had intended to use a large portion of the block grant funds to establish public housing for individuals in need. Clearly, this flawed proposal by HUD will increase local taxes, depress property values, and cause further harm to impoverished communities that are actually in need of these funds.

These new burdensome zoning rules being imposed by HUD bureaucrats on localities would be derived from tracked residential data based on citizens' race, sex, religion, and other federally protected demographics.

Multiple watchdog groups have raised serious and valid concerns about HUD's proposal. Americans for Limited Government President Nathan Mehrens wrote me in support of this amendment and stated:

We call on every Member of the House to support

Representative Gosar's amendment to defund HUD's scheme to

redraw zoning maps in any locality that accepts any part of

the $3.5 billion a year in Community Development Block Grants

from the Federal Government.

The utopian goal of creating evenly distributed

neighborhoods based on racial composition and income is bad

policy, and it is unconstitutional. HUD has no place in local

zoning decisions. Under federalism, that is left up to

States, counties, and municipalities to determine for

themselves.

At a time when the Supreme Court is roundly rejecting

racial quotas as unconstitutional, there is no place for

wasting taxpayer dollars on social engineering that will

never withstand judicial scrutiny.

Housing discrimination based on race has been illegal since

the 1960s, and people should be allowed to choose for

themselves where they live without D.C. bureaucrats

nationalizing zoning decisions for political reasons.

Representative Gosar deserves the thanks of all Americans

for his courage in taking on this backdoor attempt to

federalize our most basic living decisions.

Americans for Limited Government strongly supports Gosar's

amendment to defund racial quotas in local zoning decisions.

I sincerely appreciate the strong support of this respected watchdog group. I completely agree that this misguided proposal by HUD is a clear infringement by the Federal Government on municipalities. HUD is essentially creating a thinly veiled set of rules and regulations by which these communities must conform or face losing out on billions of dollars in grant money.

What has been so wrong with the process thus far? Are there a plethora of examples of discriminatory applications of these grants? Couldn't the Federal Government simply deny further moneys to those grantees proved to have engaged in discrimination?

American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to Federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching central government.

Further, the Federal Government must not hold hostage what are traditionally grant moneys to improve communities based on its quixotic ideas of what it believes every community should resemble. Local zoning decisions have traditionally been and should always be made by local communities, not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment because it keeps the Federal Government from reorganizing communities to a fantastical standard.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because its aim is to treat municipalities and individual citizens as capable and intelligent rather than disenfranchised, divided, and coddled groups in need of protection from a problem that does not exist.

As always, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on the committee, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's point and his advocacy for the Fair Housing Act.

As I mentioned, I abhor racial discrimination, but to my knowledge, there is no widespread examples of these block grants being used for discriminatory practices.

Has the Community Development Block Grant system thus far been such a failure to warrant this rule? My concerns are numerous, but I will outline the main two.

First and foremost, this is a major violation of federalism. The Federal Government has a long history of infringing upon states' rights and the Tenth Amendment. This rule seeks to go even further and puts the Federal Government down into the municipal planning process. This overreach is disturbing and unfortunately all too common in the Obama administration.

Second, it really opens up a Pandora's box of problems related to unconstitutional practices. The government is essentially using this rule as a thinly veiled attempt to implement some sort of social justice.

But this rule leaves a lot to interpretation, not only at the Federal level, but at the local level. It is not difficult to imagine lawsuits flying in both directions if this rule is finalized.

For instance, HUD is trying to lay out a framework by which it wishes to see these grant monies used to better integrate societies, a solution which seems to be in search of a problem. In doing so, HUD places a large burden on communities to write plans and grant applications which necessitate unconstitutional and prejudicial practices. Jim Crow is dead, and the free market and local policies have driven decisions such as community planning for years now.

How does a community make plans to enact these types of social justice without taking into consideration factors which we frown upon, factors such as racial demographics?

Let's move to the next step in the process, which is when the community is submitting their plan and an application to HUD for consideration. That is also incredibly difficult. For instance, one portion of the application which would simply be meant to appease HUD's quixotic standards of utopian society may open up the applicant municipality for lawsuits from the left and right.

Then HUD is charged with evaluating these applications to determine whether or not to award the grant. What exact criteria will HUD use to make these determinations? Might it be possible that HUD will deny grant monies to applicants based on HUD's opinion that the zoning plan did not do enough to integrate racial or religious clusters? The mere idea that HUD will be making such approvals or denials based even partially on these factors is counterintuitive and runs contrary to American values.

Imagine a denial letter from HUD on one of these applications. It will read one of two basic ways:

The first scenario is: Dear Community A, your block grant application has been denied because your plan did not integrate people of different races, ethnicities, or religions into one area. That would likely lead to an immediate lawsuit in which the court would uphold the municipality's case.

The second scenario would be a lengthy and wordy denial which is vague enough so that HUD does not open itself up to a lawsuit, but also so vague that the applicant will likely never know how to correctly plan and apply for one of these grants.

We see there are two separate and distinct avenues by which major lawsuits could fly and constitutional challenges arise. Both the Federal Government and the local government would be setting themselves up for failure.

If these issues arise and court challenges ensue, we have seen the recent patterns from the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of racial quotas and attempts at racial diversity. Again, the solution is looking for a problem. The mere notion that the Federal Government must step in and tamper with the most local of politics to integrate people of various races, economic statuses, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds is offensive to me and many of my constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I have one last amendment at the desk, 129.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to save taxpayers money, to protect the civil liberties and privacy of my constituents in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, and to champion efforts of local law enforcement and those advocacy groups which work hand-in-hand to curb citizens from driving under the influence.

My amendment is simple. It seeks to prohibit funds from being used to administer the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's National Roadside Survey. This ``survey'' looks like and acts like a police checkpoint and uses uniformed officers to pull cars over.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, two of my colleagues just came asking to increase the Community Development Block Grant program by $100 million, and actually, the bill itself has an increase above the President's request by $200 million.

Sometimes, I agree with the President, and sometimes, I don't; and this is one time I do agree with the President. The President only requested $2.8 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program, and this bill would appropriate $3 billion.

So my amendment would remove the $200 million increase over the Obama administration's FY 2015 budgetary request--and only increase--from the Community Development Block Grant program and transfer that amount to the spending reduction account. Why the committee has chosen to go above and beyond what even the President has requested fails me.

Mr. Chairman, the Community Development Block Grant program is one of the most wasteful and ineffective programs found within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It was originally proposed by President Gerald Ford in his effort to revitalize decaying and low- income neighborhoods in American cities and towns.

Unfortunately, CDBG has strayed from its original purpose. Today, many of these grants have been diverted to wasteful, parochial projects, such as funding a pet shampoo company, issuing risky business loans, paying for renovation of a wealthy multinational architectural company, and I can go on and on.

I am not asking that we eliminate this program or even drastically cut its funding. Mr. Chairman, I am simply asking that we do not increase this funding above what the President has asked for and that we put the rest of this large increase toward paying down our Nation's debt. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will try again. This amendment is much like my previous amendment.

As I noted before, this bill provides for a $200 million increase above the President's request in the Community Development Block Grant program, by his request, the President's request, the Democratic President's request for the FY 2015 budget.

My previous amendment would have removed that $200 million increase above the President's request in its entirety. This amendment just cuts 10 percent of that increase above the President's request, $20 million--which is a lot of money to most Georgians, it seems to be not a lot of money around here, but it is a lot of money to me--and it transfers that sum to the spending reduction account.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier about wasteful spending being funded by the Community Development Block Grant program, and I would like to take this opportunity to provide some examples.

The State of Nebraska has directed approximately $500,000 in taxpayer funds, hard-earned money, from the CDBG grant program to a pet shampoo company.

The State of Vermont has directed $255,000 of its Federally-funded Community Development Block Grant to support a program for graduates for the Center of Cartoon Studies.

The Community Development Block Grant program has provided $356,000 to pay for infrastructure improvements for a meat snack manufacturer that makes beef jerky.

Mr. Chairman, I love pets--particularly dogs--I love cartoons, and I really like beef jerky, and I like these things as much as anyone, but I fail to see how it is appropriate for the Federal Government to provide taxpayer money to fund these projects.

Again, I am not asking to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant program or even cut its funding below the FY 2014 levels.

Obviously, my amendment to cut out the increase above the President's requested amount to CDBG failed. Now, I am just asking to cut out just 20 percent of that increase above the President's level.

So if my colleagues cannot bring themselves to cut the entire $200 million increase over the President's budget request, then let's cut at least one small percentage of that increase, just 10 percent, and save the American taxpayers $20 million. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will remove the $7 million increase over current spending levels, this year, fiscal year 2014 funding levels, to the rental housing assistance account to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and transfer that amount to the spending reduction account.

I understand that times are tough nationwide. They are tough for families, they are tough for businesses, and everyone has had to cut back. Unfortunately, the fact remains that we as our Nation are in an incredible amount of debt. It is an unsustainable amount of debt.

Let me be clear, I am not asking that we cut funding for this program at all above this year's level. I am just asking that we simply hold the line--fund what we have been funding, not increase it, as proposed by this legislation.

I think it is irresponsible to continue expanding programs without being able to pay for them. We are in an economic emergency as a Nation. We are headed to an economic collapse of America if we don't stop spending money that we don't have. We have to restore fiscal sanity to Washington.

I am just asking that we hold the line on this program. Cut the $7 million increase that is proposed. I think that is reasonable. It is not a cut over current funding; it is holding the line.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce Amtrak's Office of the Inspector General by $1 million and increase the spending reduction account by that same amount.

This reduction would eliminate a proposed increase to that account, keeping the funding level just like it is today for the coming year.

I spoke about Amtrak's failings at length during the consideration of the first title of this bill.

Amtrak consistently runs at a massive operating deficit. The long- distance routes are continually in the red, and the food and beverage service only nets a 65 percent return on what it spends despite paying its staff six-figure salaries, which is way above what the average American can expect to make in salary.

My colleagues who support Amtrak--and maybe even some who don't--will likely say that, if any part of this embattled entity deserves more funding, it is the inspector general. And, yes, the Office of the Inspector General has rooted out some fraud, and it has discovered some significant overpayments, but, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that health benefits fraud and overpayments are things that are just the tip of a very large and very obvious iceberg.

It is not some great mystery why Amtrak is hemorrhaging money. The long-distance routes lose incredible amounts of money, and taxpayers are being bilked for this tremendous amount of loss. It is breathtaking, really, that we continue to turn a blind eye to more than a half a billion dollars lost year after year just to sustain these routes which carry fewer than 5 million passengers annually. That number may sound large, but meanwhile, in 2012, there were more than 815 million ticketed airline passengers in the United States.

How about the food and beverage service on Amtrak trains?

Over the last 5 years, this service has resulted in nearly $400 million in losses. Yes, the Office of the Inspector General does decent work, and I commend the Office for exposing and admitting Amtrak's history of cooking its books to make the losses sustained by these long-distance routes and the food and beverage service look slightly less awful than they actually are; but in this time of fiscal emergency, I think it would be prudent to tell the Amtrak OIG to work on the obvious issues first. Take care of the big problems before hiring new staff to look for new issues that are dwarfed by what we already know.

I urge the support of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, working with housing developments in my own district, there is an interest in making sure that the tenants are informed of their rights and responsibilities. This amendment provides for informing tenants of their rights and responsibilities.

The amendment would increase funding to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Policy Development and Research Office to support efforts to inform tenants of their rights and responsibilities.

In 2012, 23.8 percent of Houstonians were living in poverty. According to the Christian Community Service Center, 17.3 percent of Houston families live below poverty. In the city of Houston, 31.3 percent of children under the age of 18 live in poverty, and 33.6 percent of children under the age of 5 live in poverty.

The amendment will increase the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Policy Development and Research funding. This amendment will support work by HUD to inform tenants of their rights and responsibilities. Those who provide shelter to residents of publicly subsidized housing may own monthly family dwellings or a single home.

A relationship between the tenant and the property owner is very important to the long-term housing stability of those living in public or subsidized housing. Many residents of low-income communities may never have lived in a home of their own and may not have

the knowledge or experience to know the basics regarding their obligation as tenants to abide by rental agreements or the obligation of property owners to maintain safe and pest-free housing.

It is my interest to continue to press forward for more information to the many housing developments that I have in my congressional district. I think it is important to give notice to the Department of Housing and Urban Development that a better job can be done.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, let me, first of all, thank Mr. Latham and Mr. Pastor for their leadership on this important legislation and overall indicate that my amendment is important, but it restates a current law. In particular, what I think is important is that it emphasizes the nature of projects that create economic development, particularly in the transportation area.

It cites 5309, title 49, the Secretary may make grants under this section to State and local government authorities to assist in financing, goes on to say new fixed guideway capital projects, small start projects, including acquisition of real property. It goes on to talk about car capacity improvements, including double tracking, and it specifically goes into the line of work that deals with projects on approved transportation plans.

That is key. The language here says section grants to State and local governments, which means that when local governments propose their projects, the Secretary has the authority to go forward on them.

Let me, for a moment, give some quotes from organizations that have supported light rail and the economic development of transportation.

One statement says that we simply cannot afford to have limitations on Federal funding or turn away money that can be utilized to make our region a better place to live, work, and build businesses. It is well documented that economic development of transportation projects guides the Nation. Whether or not it is on the seaways, whether or not it is dams, whether it is highways, whether or not it is tollways, whether or not it involves other modes of transportation, they are economic engines. And it is important for the local community to be the drivers of that.

One statement says that the region will not be able to maintain its economic vitality without the ability to create and preserve infrastructure that supports the movement of people and goods throughout our country.

So this amendment clearly speaks to the global aspect of the Secretary of Transportation having the ability to work with our local and State governments. I would ask my colleagues to emphasize in the support of this amendment, to recognize that we are emphasizing the crucialness of the high transportation dollars to economic development.

I would hope that this appropriations bill, which is focused on Housing and Urban Development in many ways, and focused on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development as it serves sometimes the poorest people, transportation as it provides those same people the opportunity to seek employment or reach places of employment--they should not be constrained. Federal funding that is designated and provided should not be constrained.

I would lastly make this point: that when you go through the environmental process through NEPA and that process is completed, and it has all the t's crossed and the i's dotted and the hearings are in, it is important that this authority that I just mentioned is allowed to proceed. Again, I emphasize the Secretary may make grants under this section to State and local government authorities to assist in the financing of any number of transportation projects.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and with that, I will yield back with the point that, again, this meets the test of recognizing that important cities across America have the ability to receive this funding, including the fourth-largest city in the Nation.

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

Thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain my amendment.

Let me offer my appreciation and thanks to Ranking Member Pastor and to Chairman Latham for their work on this legislation and long commitment and advocacy for sound domestic policy regarding our nations transportation systems and provide for affordable safe housing to our nation's citizens.

Houston is the fourth most populous city in the country; but unlike other large cities, we have struggled to have an effective mass transit system.

Over many decades Houston's mass transit policy was to build more highways with more lanes to carry more drivers to and from work.

The city of Houston has changed course and is now pursuing Mass transit options that include light rail.

This decision to invest in light rail is strongly supported by the increased use by Houstonians in the light rail service provided by previous transportation appropriations bills.

The April 2014, Houston metropolitan transit Authority report on weekly ridership states that 44,267 used Houston's light rail Service representing a 6,096 or 16% change in ridership in April of last year.

This increase in light rail usage outpaced ridership of other forms of mass transit in the city of Houston: metro bus had a 2.3% increase over April 2013; metro bus-local had a 1.3% increase over April 2013; and Metro bus-Park and ride had a 8.0% increase over April 2013.

On February 5, 2013, the Houston Chronicle reported on the congestion Houston drivers face under daily commute to and from work.

The article stated that Houston commuters continue to enjoy some of the worst traffic delays in the country, according to the 2012 urban mobility report, Houston area drivers wasted more than two days a year, on average, in traffic congestion, costing them each $1,090 in lost time and fuel.

Funds made available under this deal should be available for the construction of the University rail line and support of local government decisions by the Houston Metropolitan transit Authority and the city of Houston to expand rail service.

As elected officials and members of Congress we should allow local governments to decide how they will spend transportation dollars made available under this appropriations bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Republican Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015. This bill drastically underfunds critical transportation and housing programs.

The bill's cuts to the TIGER program are particularly egregious. TIGER, formally known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, is a competitive grant program that creates jobs by funding investments in transportation infrastructure.

The Republican bill cuts TIGER from the 2014 level of $600 million down to a mere $100 million in 2015. Moreover, the bill includes restrictive language that limits TIGER grants by excluding public transit, passenger rail, bicycle, and pedestrian projects.

Public transit is an essential part of a modern transportation system. A previous TIGER grant helped the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to accelerate the construction of the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor, a light rail project that will reduce traffic congestion and improve transportation service in my district.

Under the bill's restrictive language, this innovative project would never have qualified for a grant.

TIGER needs to be expanded, not restricted, not cut. The President requested $1.25 billion for TIGER in fiscal year 2015 in order to create jobs and modernize our Nation's transportation infrastructure.

Earlier this year, I sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee urging support for the President's request, and 144 Members of Congress signed my letter.

I urge my colleagues to strike the restrictive language in this bill, expand the TIGER program, and invest in a transportation system for the 21st century.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that will continue to ensure that the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Multifamily staff remains locally based, connected to communities and on the ground to serve as the eyes and ears of lawmakers.

Specifically, this amendment would prohibit HUD from using any of the funds appropriated by this bill for the Multifamily Housing transformation initiative, which is designed to relocate asset management staff and to restructure HUD's Multifamily field offices nationwide.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would effectively stop HUD from closing any of the offices where asset management staff are currently located.

When HUD announced its plans for a major restructuring of Multifamily field offices nationwide, I was deeply concerned. Under the plan, HUD will go from 50 Multifamily offices down to 12, with only five of them being designated as ``regional centers.'' The shortcomings of this plan are not more obvious than in my home district, where a decision was made to relocate the Los Angeles field office--one of the busiest hubs in the country. If undeterred, this plan would close the Los Angeles office, uproot its entire staff, and relocate its operations to another regional

center, which would now be responsible for more than double its current workload and would be facing the daunting task of serving 73 million people in 14 States across 1.8 million square miles.

HUD promises that this plan will achieve significant savings without impacting program delivery. However, after careful review, I remain skeptical that HUD will be able to deliver on this promise. I join advocates, industry stakeholders and affected employees in expressing my continued, serious concern over the implications of this reorganization, and my concerns are numerous.

First, HUD's plan does not seem to acknowledge the critical importance and value of having staff who are living and working in the communities they are serving. There are significant differences among local housing markets, and an awareness of each region's unique characteristics is essential to the work of the Multifamily Housing office.

Second, reorganization would adversely affect the delivery of services by reducing the staff's ability to effectively respond to unique local concerns and to remain connected to community leaders. Staff would have less interaction with owners and managers, and responsive walk-in assistance would be eliminated for thousands of people who rely on Multifamily offices.

California was one of the hardest hit States by the financial collapse, and too many families suffered from the subsequent wave of foreclosures. With our housing market still struggling to recover, we cannot afford to undercut what little progress we have made with a radical overhaul of HUD's infrastructure.

I, for one, am still struggling to understand how this plan will save money while also preserving the quality of services delivered, and I have yet to receive satisfactory answers from HUD regarding my concerns. That is why I have been--and I remain--a vocal opponent of HUD's Multifamily transformation in its entirety. Today, I am urging HUD to more carefully consider the details and full implications of its plan.

Although this amendment only addresses some of my concerns and would not stop the transformation altogether, it would codify the agreement between HUD and appropriators to keep asset management staff on site and to leave all existing Multifamily offices open. Moreover, it reflects language that just passed the Senate last week. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.