Housing Native Heroes Act of 2013

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, printed in the Congressional Record, No. 28.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will prohibit funds in the underlying bill from being used to provide mortgage insurance under title II of the National Housing Act for any mortgage on a single-family dwelling--to be used as a principal residence--to a potential borrower who provides only an individual taxpayer identification number--called ITIN--for identification.

This includes usage for mortgage loans available under the FHA to ensure that an individual must use a Social Security number rather than an ITIN--individual taxpayer identification number--in order to secure government-backed mortgage insurance.

The ITIN was first implemented by the IRS and is a 9-digit tax processing number. The IRS issues the ITIN 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 IRS has indicated that the ITIN's only purpose should be Federal tax reporting. However, that has not always been the case.

Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, it is relatively easy for illegal immigrants to attain an ITIN 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 ITIN 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.

Of course I will yield to the chair.

I thank the chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, printed in the Congressional Record, No. 29.

Madam Chairman, 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 have 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 FOIA 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 percent of their workday working on behalf of a union.

These employees were hired to perform duties on behalf of the taxpayer--several are engineers or air traffic controllers--yet they are working exclusively for the union at the taxpayers' expense.

In fiscal year 2011, the most recent year for which we have official time data, the Department of Transportation spent more than $17 million on official time.

In the same year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development spent more than $2 million on official time.

Across the entire Federal Government, more than 3 million official time hours were used in collective bargaining or arbitration of grievances against an employer--who, by the way, is us--in fiscal year 2011. These union activities were performed at taxpayer expense to the tune of $155 million for the same time period.

While we are not voting on veterans funding today, it is timely, given recent events, to mention the impact that the use of official time has on the

Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA is one of the largest abusers of official time, spending more than $42.5 million on this cost in fiscal year 2011.

In 2012, more than 250 VA employees worked 100 percent of their day for the union, rather than working on behalf of our Nation's heroes. Over 100 of those same employees were health care professionals, including nurses, technicians, and mental health therapists.

In the wake of the nationwide scandal of the VA, it is unthinkable that employees there are allowed to work on behalf of the union, rather than focusing on serving our veterans.

It is particularly shocking that the use of official time by medical professionals and others at the VA continues, when the VA claims a shortage of health care professionals is what is contributing to the problems like the long waiting lists for people that are suicidal because of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress syndrome.

Madam Chair, we must demand accountability at the VA and across government to be sure civil servants are focusing on their positions of record, not serving unions at taxpayer expense.

That is why stand-alone legislation I have introduced, H.R. 107, would repeal the governmentwide use of official time, saving over $1.5 billion over 10 years.

While we are not considering my stand-alone legislation on the floor today, I am proud to offer this amendment as a small step toward reining in the use and abuse of official time.

Simply put, a Federal employee hired to work as an air traffic controller should spend his or her time at work performing his or her duties as an air traffic controller, not serving as a taxpayer-funded union official.

Madam Chair, I want to make it very clear that I am not proposing to do away with unions. However, I am working diligently to increase the efficiency of the Federal workforce. This amendment limits Federal activity during normal business hours to simply working, not carrying out union activities.

We should not be forcing taxpayers to support private and often very politically active organizations. At $140,000 a year, Federal employees should spend their days performing the duties for which taxpayers hired them.

While families all over the Nation are tightening their belts and cutting their own spending, it should not be the practice of the Federal Government to allow expensive, special interest handouts; rather the Federal Government should be reining in its spending and looking for ways to save money and function more efficiently. This amendment is an important first step.

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

Madam Chair, as the designee of Mr. Mica of Florida, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 4745. This amendment would prohibit funds from being used to subsidize Amtrak food and beverage service.

As my colleagues know, Amtrak operates at a loss every year, partially due to millions lost in the food service cost. In 2012, Amtrak lost $72 million

on its food and beverage service, and that loss is just one in a consistent series of losses. This loss on its own would be cause for concern, but even more concerning is that the loss directly violates the law.

Madam Chairwoman, in 1981, Federal law mandated that Amtrak break even on its food and beverage service by the following year, 1982. Despite this, Amtrak not only failed to break even, but it contracted with high-end chefs to develop gourmet recipes for Amtrak meals, to the tune of more than $905 million in the last decade.

Heavily subsidized routes feature dishes such as lamb shank and Atlantic salmon, and Amtrak has a Culinary Advisory Team to develop new high-end recipes. In 2012, a hamburger cost Amtrak $16.15, with riders paying $9.50. This means that we, the taxpayers, are forced to pick up the tab for the remaining $6.65 through subsidies provided to Amtrak. On some routes, first-class passengers are offered complimentary cheese, wine, and champagne. While the passenger may enjoy these luxury items, it is not fair that the taxpayer is forced to subsidize these extravagances.

Each spring, Amtrak brings together some of the best chefs in the country for a retreat of sorts. These chefs--several of them, of course, award-winning--come together for what The Washington Post has called ``an intensive 3-day session of cooking and brainstorming.'' At last year's gathering, chefs tasted more than 100 offerings. Of the recipes tested, including recipes for braised pork chop and a spinach and mushroom frittata, several will be deemed unsuitable for offering on Amtrak either due to kitchen limitations or due to a lack of cohesiveness with the rest of the menu.

Madam Chairwoman, I ask you: When the average American is struggling to make ends meet, why are we throwing away money at Amtrak for these luxuries, especially when Amtrak consistently operates at a loss?

If a private company wants to host a brainstorming weekend for top chefs, that is its prerogative, but the taxpayer should not be on the hook for a getaway focused on developing lavish meals for Amtrak passengers.

Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize Amtrak, and they certainly should not be forced to cover tens of millions of dollars in costs to pay for gourmet meals and first-class service on Amtrak. Amtrak's food and beverage losses violate the law. Yet this is flagrantly disregarded. Rather than taking steps to correct the problem, the service goes after more upscale options.

We must end this cycle of wasteful spending and enact real change to get our fiscal house back in order. With a national debt of more than $17 trillion, we cannot afford to keep throwing money away, particularly on luxuries such as gourmet meals on a federally subsidized train service.

For that reason, Mr. Mica and I are offering this amendment to prohibit funds made available by this act from being used to subsidize Amtrak food and beverage service. I urge my colleagues to support the Gingrey-Mica amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have already crafted this bill to our 302(b) allocation, which is in compliance with the Ryan-Murray budget agreement.

While I agree with the gentlewoman's desire to reduce spending, the proper time to consider reductions to overall spending is when the budget is being crafted, not on individual appropriations bills.

This bill continues the investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure, as well as serving as a critical safety net for some of our most vulnerable populations by trying to make sure all Americans have a roof over their head.

This amendment would cut the FAA air traffic controllers, cut infrastructure, highway spending, transit grants, section 8 vouchers, VASH vouchers for our homeless veterans, safety inspectors for all modes of transportation, and also homeless grants.

We have done our cutting based on hearings, meetings 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.

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 directly amends existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. As we move forward to conference, we will work with the gentleman to ensure that any project ready for full funding grant agreements will receive funds under our conference allocation.

We would accept the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, reluctantly I must rise in opposition to the amendment. I share the gentleman's concern, and that is why we have included language in our committee report directing HUD to review instances of payments for housing that exceed 120 percent 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 HUD to address any excessive, unwarranted overpayments for assistance to our most vulnerable citizens.

I reluctantly must urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

We will accept the amendment.

I would be happy to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this important safety issue and for highlighting the promise of this research initiative. I look forward to working with you as our bill moves through the legislative process to make certain DADSS research is adequately funded.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I appreciate the gentleman's effort 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 employee salaries and benefits, and an additional 14 percent reduction would result in the furlough or layoff of key HUD employees. Disruption of the leadership offices at HUD would jeopardize the welfare of millions of vulnerable families and billions of dollars in taxpayer investments. Therefore, I cannot support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I must rise in opposition to this amendment also. While I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to further reduce 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 HUD to furlough or lay off employees which undermines the Department's ability to adequately serve millions of low-income, elderly, and disabled households and puts billions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Unfortunately, the way the amendment is 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, to be spent by someone else, somewhere else; so it doesn't really save the taxpayers any money in the end. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Unfortunately, I wish the gentleman would have brought it up maybe in full committee as a member of the committee to address it then. 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. I simply don't know the impact of this action that it would have on trans- Pacific flights, trade, or commerce throughout the area. So, for those reasons, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I have great appreciation for the gentleman's point. The report was very shocking as far as the transparency and how some of these grants have been given. I am in a position where I must insist on being consistent in opposing all legislation on the appropriation bill.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, 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 from the Chair.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I really appreciate the gentlewoman 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 gentlewoman and the authorizers as we move forward on this very, very important issue as far as you and I and all travelers are concerned.

So, thank you very much.

I would gladly accept your amendment.

We will gladly accept your amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I support the efforts and reforms to move Amtrak to operate in a more efficient and effective manner, I must oppose this amendment.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, and his raising this issue. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate seven Amtrak routes and eliminate rail service to dozens of cities and towns of all sizes across America.

Just to list, those would be California Zephyr, which goes from Chicago to Emeryville, California, which happens to go through Iowa; Cardinal Hoosier line, which is Chicago to New York; Coast Star Light, from Seattle to Los Angeles; the Crescent, from New York City to New Orleans; Silver Star, from New York City to Miami; Southwest Chief, from Chicago to Los Angeles; and the Sunset Limited, from Los Angeles to New Orleans.

Again, I appreciate very much what the gentleman is trying to do. I just think we need to work on efficiency at Amtrak.

We have been trying very, very hard, through all of our hearings and through our contact with Amtrak, to get efficiency and to modernize and to try to get them to a profitable state; but unfortunately, I must oppose this amendment, just because of the vast impact it would have on so many people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would be happy to accept your amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be

agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say thank you to Speaker Boehner and Mr. Hoyer for the kind words earlier and to also express my appreciation to my counterpart here, Mr. Pastor, who has been such a great partner through this whole process. It has been a real pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we considered is a good piece of legislation that adequately funds critical transportation and housing programs, programs that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support, and it does so within the confines of a reduced budget.

The motion specifically adds money to NHTSA's administration account. Unfortunately, simply throwing money at a problem will not solve the problem. We have an opportunity in the next surface reauthorization bill to look at NHTSA's authority and regulatory ability.

It is kind of a surprise to have this motion now. We have gone through 2 days under a totally open rule. This could have been considered in regular order. Mr. Speaker, this is just an effort to grind the appropriations process bills to a halt.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion and pass H.R. 4745 today, and 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.

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 a messaging amendment that has no practical purpose.

I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, just to remind my colleagues, this bill is $1.8 billion below the 2014 bill in spending.

We had a number of our colleagues speak about the lack of funding for their particular programs, and throughout this evening, we are going to have other speakers talk about the lack of funding and programs.

This amendment would cut programs in transportation and housing, without any thought to the relative merit of the programs contained in the bill, so for that reason, I would oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, we rise also in opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment.

The levels provided for salaries and expenses at HUD 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 HUD to furlough its personnel in this office for 12 days. This amendment would increase the number of furlough days required. At these levels, HUD's ability to carry out their mission would be jeopardized. I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment. Again, the levels provided for salaries and expenses at HUD in the base bill are insufficient. As it is, the funding level in this bill will require HUD 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 in force. At these levels, HUD's ability to carry out its mission would be jeopardized. I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment solves a problem that does not exist.

Currently, the FHA requires a Social Security number and legal citizenship for all insured loans. FHA does not allow for individual taxpayer identification numbers to be used for mortgages.

What this amendment does is create uncertainty in the FHA underwriting process. It would allow FHA to use individual taxpayer identification numbers only with loans on investment properties.

The FHA has already addressed this issue, and this amendment would create unintended consequences.

I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairwoman, I also rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

First of all, this amendment violates a collective bargaining agreement that has been negotiated by the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies within the Department of Transportation and HUD.

For example, there are three groups at FAA that utilize official time: air traffic controllers, the inspectors, and the technicians that repair the air traffic control system.

Official time has been helpful in allowing controllers and technicians to participate in workgroups with the FAA management team to advance NextGen technologies, which all of us are supportive of. It is critical to modernize our air traffic control system.

I oppose this amendment because it would violate collective bargaining contracts, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This Amtrak route, the Sunset Limited, runs through 8 States, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, and if we start picking lines, individual lines in terms of terminating, what we begin doing is a downward spiral for the demise of Amtrak.

So, for the reasons that I want to ensure that my colleague from Texas, his constituents are able to travel on this line, as well as the ones from Arizona, I rise in opposition.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It would allow transportation agencies to advance construction projects through the use of local workers.

Every year, cities and local communities must contribute their own resources in the form of a local match for projects that receive Federal funds. At a time when many communities are still struggling from the economic distress, it is understandable that these local agencies would want transportation dollars to benefit local workers and benefits businesses.

It will help ensure construction and operation jobs contribute to the local economic development within the cities and towns where the transportation projects exist, instead of outsourcing jobs to other countries or States.

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

Madam Chair, I also agree with the chairman for the reasons he stated.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. It would dismantle Amtrak, the only resemblance of a rail system that we have in this Nation.

Obviously, we need to work with them, so that Amtrak becomes more efficient, but this amendment would dismantle it, and for that reason, I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, my amendment is really straightforward and one which I have offered year after year after year after year on the floor of the House of Representatives.

It would eliminate funding for the absolute worst performing line, one line, on the Amtrak system, a line that is known as the Sunset Limited, and it runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles.

Madam Chairman, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 required that Amtrak operate without any Federal assistance after 2002. Amtrak was supposed to be free of Federal operating subsidies.

Yet, despite this commonsense requirement that Amtrak cease their financial irresponsibility and mismanagement, instead, it costs the taxpayers $396.31 per rider, per year, on this line. That is $396.31 to subsidize the travels of passengers from New Orleans to Los Angeles, a trip that takes nearly 48 hours, assuming the train is on time.

Madam Chairman, we could buy everybody a free ticket on an airline from New Orleans to Los Angeles and probably end up saving money.

However, according to Amtrak's most recent performance report, the Sunset Limited only arrives on time 46 percent of the time. So it might even make sense for somebody to get there not only quicker, but also cheaper.

This places the Sunset Limited as one of the top 10 worst on-time routes for any of Amtrak's routes in its latest performance report.

Madam Chairman, taxpayers should be happy that the train really doesn't run more often. But when it does run, the route loses an average of $40 million a year.

So my amendment is the first step, once again, in instilling just a small measure, joining the gentleman from Georgia, in fiscal discipline that Amtrak should be told today that it has to establish.

If it cannot manage itself with its worst, most expensive performing line, then God help us all. If they won't do it, we are going to. Failure to do so will only allow Amtrak to continue misusing and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Look, it is just very simple. I am asking that my colleagues join with me and say that the worst-performing, the most cost-prohibitive line would be stopped by Amtrak. So, I think it makes sense to say, no more Sunset Limited.

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

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, once again I stand up in a continuing theme of what I believe fiscally responsible Members who come to the floor should look at--the operation of Amtrak.

Today, once again, I come to the floor to offer my ideas about how we can help, especially during troubling financial times for the American taxpayer with our Federal Government, that we can look at and find ways to where we work with Amtrak.

Years ago I met with the chairman of the board, who openly acknowledged that there were challenges that Amtrak faced, not just safety issues, but many other issues that dealt with their financial integrity.

I told him I would continue doing these kinds of amendments, and he considered this, in a sense, an opportunity for the people who provide money, meaning the taxpayers of the United States, to have a say about the operation of how their money would be used. That is the same spirit that I am here on the floor today.

Madam Chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for Amtrak routes that have total direct costs that are more than twice the revenue that they produce. That means, if the cost is twice as much as the revenue, I think that that should be a solid reason why someone should consider eliminating those routes.

They are all over the place, and I believe that Amtrak continues to provide these, accept government money, and they don't give two flips about what we think about the use of the taxpayer money. And so I think it is worth our time to be here.

Every single long-distance route that Amtrak provides over 400 miles in length operates at a loss every single month. If they have got a route that is more than 400 miles, I mean, we are helping them out here, Madam Chairman.

We are helping out Amtrak, and we are saying to them, if you have got something more than 400 miles, you are operating at a loss.

Now we are saying, however, if it is twice the cost of the revenue, that is what we would like to have you look at. And I think that it would be an argument for us, as a provider of money, to say, look, we think that you should help people. Maybe when they call in to you to take Amtrak, if it is one of those routes, why don't you suggest to them that they fly aircraft, that they take a bus, that they do something where the American taxpayer is not on the line.

The bottom line is, if you combine seven routes that are taken in this parameter, the American taxpayer pays $332.8 million for this subsidy. $332 million is maybe not a lot of money to Amtrak, but that is a darn lot amount of money for the American people to be putting into Amtrak to have them waste.

I believe it is a waste. I believe it could be not only better allocated, but utilized in a better way, like shifting people who are coming to you--let's take an alternative. Let's maybe take an airplane.

It is clear that the government subsidizes rail service on Amtrak, and it does not make economic sense that they take advantage of that.

So, Madam Chairman, it is real simple. This is an opportunity for the people who represent taxpayers to simply come forth and say, let's have a vote on this, that we believe that that is too much money. 332 million bucks should not be used on these seven routes, and that is why I am here today.

So, Madam Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support what I think is a commonsense amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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 am 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 in 2012, 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 I 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 HUD and was stunned to see that, yet again, HUD is running in an inefficient manner and has, again, likely violated the Antideficiency Act.

Further, HUD did not notify or request permission from Congress for certain budget reprogramming activities and hired more people than they could afford to pay.

I would like to quickly cite excerpts from the committee report on this issue:

HUD must have systems in place to track fundamental

budgetary resource data, including budget authority and FTE

levels.

A lack of essential information at HUD has, in the past,

led to Antideficiency Act violations in which HUD hired more

people than it had resources to pay.

While the committee recognizes deficiencies caused by

antiquated enterprise systems and acknowledges HUD's effort

to address these deficiencies, proper management of agency

resources is a fundamental responsibility and antiquated

systems are no excuse for the violation of Federal law.

The committee also directs HUD 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.

Then again, I suppose government inefficiency is the status quo these days. These same inefficiencies have been identified year after year now. HUD cannot get its affairs in order. As such, Congress should not be increasing funding for paper pushers and other bureaucrats.

I would also demand that HUD stop hiring more people than they can pay, stop reprogramming money within their accounts to fix self-imposed mistakes and then withhold that 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 budget authority in the bill and the 2015 outlays by $2 million. With a 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 commonsense amendment. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on the committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, 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 to the heels of my previous amendment, this amendment reduces funding for ineffective bureaucrats at HUD by $21 million, bringing their funding levels to the level recommend by the House Appropriations Committee in fiscal year 2014.

The current bill funds these HUD bureaucrats through the administrative support offices at a staggering $500 million. My amendment reduces each subaccount by 4.2 percent, so that the sum of each reduction to each subaccount equals the $21 million reduction to the overall account. Again, this is the amount recommended by this committee for the overall account in fiscal year 2014.

As I mentioned, I appreciate the work 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 justifications. They failed to do so and are far from being considered a model of transparency.

HUD'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 HUD 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 finding levels.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated this amendment reduced budget authority in the bill by $21 million and reduces the 2015 outlays by $16 million. With an $18 trillion debt that continues to grow, it is irresponsible to throw more money at a department that cannot manage its own affairs.

I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their continued work on the committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.