Mr. Chairman, I move to strike last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from West Virginia. Obviously, we've got a very difficult allocation, and we understand the importance of the program. So with…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from West Virginia. Obviously, we've got a very difficult allocation, and we understand the importance of the program. So with that, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Our bill had already taken steps to reduce HUD's salary and expenses budget in the interest of fiscal responsibility. In addition to these reductions, we just passed an amendment that reduced that account. We also have several more amendments at the desk that further eat at the administrative expenses to offset increases in higher priority programs--again, like the Community Development Block Grants. At some point, however, we cannot continue to take cut after cut into these accounts without jeopardizing HUD's ability to responsibly carry out its mission.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ``no'' vote and oppose 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 this amendment. Unfortunately, this, once again, is a political amendment. If you remember last year, the motion to recommit the gentleman had, that was purely political after Mr. Dicks from Washington and I had made sure that we had every dime in the bill to make sure that every veteran was taken care of. And now to play politics with veterans I think is extraordinarily offensive because, in this bill, we fully fund the President's request. Everything that HUD says that we must do, every dollar is here for the veterans. Now to raise an issue like this I think is something that is not becoming to the House of Representatives.
We have, like I said, Madam Chairman, fully funded $75 million for 10,000 new vouchers for our veterans. These vouchers are labor intensive, involving both the Veterans Administration and HUD officials in an intensive process moving veterans out of homelessness. The program also provides veterans with supportive services so that they receive job training and other services so that they can move toward a path of independence.
We have heard repeatedly from HUD that 10,000 new veterans' vouchers is the maximum number that can be processed. Let me say it again. From the administration, from President Obama, from Secretary Donovan and HUD, they are saying that they cannot handle any more capacity than the money that we have.
Again, Madam Chairman, I would ask a ``no'' vote for this only political vote. This is the second year in a row that we have had this. I find it very, very offensive that anyone in this House believes that we are not funding this to the full extent of what is asked for and what is required for our veterans that have served this country so well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
Madam Chairwoman, I insist on my point of order.
Madam Chairwoman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, the 113th Congress, which states:
It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a
general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in
budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with
another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater
decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of
rule XXI.
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of this section. This amendment would increase net budget authority by $1 billion.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
Madam Chairwoman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
Will the gentleman yield?
I will be more than happy to work with the gentleman on this issue as we move through the process.
I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairwoman, I must rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
I think everyone needs to understand that we already cut $7.7 billion from what was provided in 2013 and that this is actually $4.4 billion less than the current rate of spending under sequestration. So everybody talks about sequestration when, in this bill, we are actually $4.4 billion less than that already. To deliver this fiscally responsible reduction, we carefully prioritized programs to preserve housing options for families that are already counting on HUD for support in 2014.
The funding level provided reflects what is required to renew commitments by HUD to State and local programs that serve the homeless. With less funding, homeless shelters and other service providers will operate at a lower capacity or, Madam Chairman, many of them will close, putting people who currently need help at risk.
For those reasons, Madam Chairwoman, I urge a ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Madam Chairwoman, this is purely a technical amendment clarifying the funds available for the project-based rental assistance account.
It was our intention to provide the same amount for the rental contracts in FY 14 as was provided in FY 13. However, because of a clerical error that was carried forward in the CBO scoring, we need this amendment to keep the bill within our 302(b) allocation. This amendment does not change the committee's intention of level-funding the project-based rental contracts.
I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Will the gentlewoman yield?
Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank the gentlelady for her concern about housing for our Nation's most vulnerable veterans. I agree with her that we should do everything in our power to ensure that the HUD-VASH program works and serves homeless veterans in the most efficient manner possible.
I look forward to working with the gentlelady on her concerns and would encourage the authorizers to look at this issue as they consider reforms across the housing programs.
Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The gentleman said there's a big difference as far as an increase in funding in this account from last year. The fact of the matter is that what was actually spent was not increased and will not be increased this year. We recaptured a great deal of money from accounts previously to fund our bill last year. So the funding level is actually the same as what it was last year.
The bill funds the rental housing assistance at $21 million, which is the amount with the recapture from last year that was spent, and this amount is necessary to fund 18,000 existing long-term project-based rental assistance contracts. This will ensure that these units remain available for low-income families.
The bill funding levels are not arbitrary, Madam Chairwoman. We have scrubbed these accounts. We've held hearings on them and made recommendations on what must be funded. Again, although it appears a sizeable increase, in fact, it is not because of the recapture we had from last year.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time
Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
Will the gentleman yield?
I thank the gentleman for his most sincere concern for these folks who need help, and I would pledge, if possible, if we can find ways. But under our allocation, you understand we have a very difficult situation, so I would have to insist on the point of order; but I appreciate the gentleman's efforts, and I look forward to working with him.
Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This account that he is taking the money from is already stretched extremely thin. His amendment seeks to take funds away from the investigations and adjudication for fair housing claims. So the exact people that he's talking about being concerned about, he is going to take away enforcement for fair housing. I don't understand the trade- off.
I think that fair housing is extraordinarily important, and we have $300,000 in this account already; and to rob an account that enforces the law to make housing available so there is no discrimination, whether it be Hispanic or any nationality in their housing, you don't want to have cases where people, because of race, are not allowed in their housing.
So I think it is ill thought out, something that certainly when you're taking away enforcement, fair housing is simply the wrong account. Again, we have $300,000 in this account for this purpose.
Madam Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chair, I'm not going to oppose this amendment. It is an account that the maritime industry, with the concerns that we've had and some of the incidents on cruise ships, it's an account that is much needed. But with a very small reduction here, bringing it back to last year's funding level, that would be acceptable to me and we would accept the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chair, I must rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Madam Chair, as you know, one of the very important functions of this committee is oversight, ensuring agencies under our purview are efficiently and effectively managed.
This bill provides Amtrak, the OIG, with $25.3 million for oversight studies and investigations into fraud, waste and abuse at Amtrak. Through these investigations, the Amtrak OIG has helped improve the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of Amtrak programs and operations.
Amtrak OIG runs a program that has identified improper and overpayments
to the tune of $85 million. Amtrak has collected some of this back, which has saved the taxpayer money.
The bill's funding levels are not arbitrary, Madam Chair. We have scrubbed these accounts. We have held hearings and made recommendations on what must be funded.
I think this is an extremely important function that we have so that we can look at Amtrak. We're spending an awful lot of money with Amtrak. We need to have a strong Office of Inspector General to keep tabs on it. I think this is money well spent.
I would certainly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 150, line 2 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.