Paul Gosar

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense, cost- saving amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015. It has been brought to my attention from numerous sources within my district that in 2009 the Department of Army fully phased out the CWU- 27/P Army aviation flight uniform and moved to the Army Aircrew Combat Uniform, also known as the A2CU. Constituents of mine, many of whom are Active Duty, retired, or friends and family of military personnel, have expressed a strong desire for the Army to go back to the CWU-27/P model uniform. There are multiple reasons to switch back to the CWU model uniform. The most important reasons to switch back to the CWU model are safety and efficiency. But to sweeten the deal, when making the pitch to me, my constituents explained that moving back to the CWU model would also save the Department millions of dollars a year in procurement costs. Talk about hitting two birds with one stone. First and foremost, let's touch on CWU model's proven track record of safety and practicality. The CWU model is still authorized for Army Special Operations aviators, all of the aviators in other service branches of the U.S. military, and most air forces and navies around the world. Yes, these points are a testament to the safety and efficiency of the CWU model. And these safety aspects are of paramount importance to our Army aviators, because the chances of a fire in an aviation crash are very high. The CWU model flight suits have antistatic fiber woven in them to prevent sparks, which, for obvious reasons, are not desirable when operating an aircraft with thousands of pounds of highly volatile jet fuel on board. The one-piece design of the CWU model is also extremely important as it does not, in the event of a fire, leave any opportunities for exposed skin. Being that the A2CU is a two-piece model exactly like ground troop uniforms, it cannot offer the same amount or types of protection. Moreover, the A2CU is also cut to a looser standard than the CWU-27/P, creating the potential for more items of clothing to snag on controls in the cockpit. Speaking to the cost savings, the A2CU model costs an average of 56 percent more than the CWU model, and the A2CU has proven to wear out faster than the CWU. Further, every time the Army decides to change the camouflage pattern of the duty uniform, they have to spend millions more purchasing the new flight uniform. The CWU model, to my knowledge, is usually only one color per uniform. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that this amendment does not score as it is written; but being that the intent is to move back to the CWU model, the effects of the policy should actually net some cost savings. Conservative estimates show that the Army could save around $5 million a year in procurement costs if it were to move back to the CWU model. Further, it should not cost anything to reintroduce the CWU model back into the supply system, as the rest of service branches still use them. In other words, there is no need to reboot the supply chain. Further, the Army could replace the A2CU's with CWU's as they are exchanged by soldiers without the upfront cost of re-outfitting each soldier. The cost savings are tantalizing for someone like me who was sent to this town to rein in spending. More importantly, I listen to these Army aviators and flight operators. They tell me it is safer, and being that they are the ones doing the training and fighting, I will take them at their word. Given the safety and practicality applications, and given that the United States is not exactly running a budget surplus right now, saving a few million here and there in the name of safety and practicality is something we should all strive to achieve. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment which cuts costs and improves safety. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, 148, at the desk.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, so it is only well and fitting, as a tribute to this remarkable man's life, Congress names the facility after the very leader who was its inspiration and who was a lifesaver for so many. I am also saddened that we could not take up this bill and pass it into law sooner so that Dr. McKinley could live to see how this hallowed body shows its appreciation for his work. I hope his family may share a few smiles as the bill moves forward in the legislative process. I would also like to think that Dr. McKinley is smiling down upon us right now. I pose a challenge to my colleagues, Members of the executive branch, and anyone else listening. Dr. McKinley strove for exemplary service to his veteran colleagues. In naming this building after Dr. McKinley, we hold his life's work in the highest esteem. We hold it in this way to show all Americans what it means to lead a life of service to others, and so we shall all strive to follow in his footsteps. The challenge before us is to provide timely, quality, patient- centered, and patient-friendly care to each and every veteran. Most importantly, it is long past time that the Federal Government follow his example and do the very thing that he did with all his veteran patients. The Federal Government must listen. Today, I thank the Veterans' Affairs Committee for supporting this bill. I thank my Arizona colleagues for their support in being original cosponsors of this bill. I thank all of the veterans' service organizations for their support of this bill and all they do for our vets. Finally, I want to thank a very special organization known as Friends of Camp McKinley for their continued advocacy on behalf of such a great man. I ask my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quickly thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Lamborn for their continued leadership at the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you to honor a great man who served this Nation and its veterans with a lifetime of work. That man was Dr. Cameron Keith McKinley. The bill being considered here today, H.R. 1216, would designate the Veterans Affairs Vet Center in Prescott, Arizona, as the Dr. Cameron McKinley Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Center. By way of background, Dr. McKinley served in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves in Shreveport, Louisiana, from 1947 to 1949. He served with honor at the Wiesbaden Air Force Hospital during and after the Vietnam war, providing therapy to military personnel and their families. Later, he served with great distinction as the chief of psychology at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Prescott, Arizona, from 1981 to 1995. Dr. McKinley spent decades confronting the pressing issues of posttraumatic stress disorder, also known as PTSD, by providing cutting-edge psychological and neuropsychological assessments to the returning veterans of three separate wars. At the Prescott VA, Dr. McKinley organized a rap group for Vietnam veterans dealing with varying degrees of PTSD. Dr. McKinley and his team also made available off-station crisis intervention groups and other specialized groups to combat veterans experiencing PTSD. He produced targeted action plans for veterans suffering from PTSD, giving them tools to deal with their afflictions and transitioning them successfully back into civilian life. Dr. McKinley and a group of veterans who have been working with him in that area then formed the Chapter 95 of the Vietnam Veterans of America. That VVA chapter, in concert with Dr. McKinley, local leaders, businesses, and nonprofit groups, successfully petitioned the Federal Government for a freestanding Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Prescott, Arizona. That vet center opened in June of 1985. Dr. McKinley's cutting-edge work has earned him recognition from Veterans Affairs Medical Center, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Veterans' Readjustment Counseling Center, and the Department of the Army for his outstanding work to improve the lives of veterans of multiple generations. Among his numerous awards, I will name a few here: Special Recognition Award from the Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 95, in 1983; Special Recognition Award from The Military Order of the Purple Heart; appreciation awards from the Prescott Vet Center on November 8, 1995; Certificate of Appreciation from the Veteran's Readjustment Counseling Center on November 11, 1989; United States Department of the Army Certificate of Appreciation for Outstanding Work in Support of Combat Veterans of Desert Shield and Desert Storm and Their Families on May 20, 1991; Special Appreciation, Prescott Vet Center, in December of 1995; and a Special Appreciation and Recognition Award for volunteer work at the Prescott Veterans Center in 2004. Today it is with a heavy heart that I report to this Chamber that Dr. McKinley left this world on October 11, 2013. Thankfully, he passed peacefully at his home, surrounded by his loving family. I insert his obituary from the Prescott Daily Courier in the Congressional Record. [From the Prescott Daily Courier] Obituary: Cameron Keith McKinley Many longtime Prescott residents will be saddened by news of the death of Dr. Cameron Keith McKinley, former Chief of Psychology at the Prescott VA Medical Center (1981-1996). Dr. McKinley died at his home in Evergreen, Colo., on the morning of Oct. 11, 2013, surrounded by his family and the beautiful pine-forested mountains filled with the many birds and animals he enjoyed watching. He was born on Dec. 9, 1930, in Shreveport, La., to William Samuel McKinley Sr. and Goldia Simmons McKinley. He attended Louisiana Tech University and Centenary College and received a B.A. degree. He earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Houston. Dr. McKinley completed an internship and residency at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, where he stayed on for another six years in clinical practice. For the next nine years, he and his family lived in Wiesbaden, Germany, during which time he established a Child & Family Treatment program at the U.S. Air Force Hospital. From there, the next assignment and home was Prescott, Ariz. He was honored by many veterans organizations, among them the U.S. Army Reserve for his support of active military, veterans and their families, and for establishing a 24-hour information center, teams of support groups, a successful fundraising event, and a veterans mental health and rehabilitation center. He received the Military Order of the Purple Heart for exceptionally meritorious and conspicuous service to his community, fellow citizens and veterans. He was recognized by Vietnam Veterans of America as a charter member of Chapter 95 in Prescott, acknowledging his dedicated efforts on their behalf. Cam volunteered at the National Vietnam Wall in Washington from 1997-1998, and also at the VA Hospital in Prescott for the Veterans History project and at the Vet Center that he established. In 2012, after letters and urging from the community, U.S. Congressman Paul Gosar introduced House Resolution 1743, a bill that would name the Veteran Affairs Vet Center in Prescott the Dr. Cameron K. McKinley Vet Center. Rep. Gosar introduced this bill to honor a groundbreaking health provider and true hero. It passed in the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate because federal buildings are only named after someone who has died. Efforts to name the Vet Center in honor of Dr. McKinley will be renewed in the near future by those who knew him and respected his deep commitment to our military veterans. Dr. McKinley married Anne Hinton McKinley April 9, 1955. He is survived by his wife; his daughter Carol; his son, John, and their spouses, Mark Harris and Mary McKinley; his grandchildren, Adam and Paige Roberts, Jeremy and Tim Lisby, and Cameron and Elizabeth McKinley; great-granddaughter Jillian Lisby; sister Nadine McKinley Runsick; nephews Alan and Joel Jessup; and niece Kristina McKinley Estes McKinley. His father, mother and brother, Bill, preceded him in death. His love of family was most important and brought him great peace toward the end of his life. Cam, as he was known to those close to him, loved canoeing, hiking, fishing--the great outdoors. He took pride and interest in his Scottish heritage. He read voraciously, wrote his memoirs and expressed his artistic talents through painting, calligraphy, and his passion, photography. He captured the beauty of nature through the lens of his camera. For those who knew Cam McKinley, his qualities of leadership, courage, humor and resilience stood out. He was generous of spirit, giving himself in service to others. We will remember his laugh and the twinkle in his eye. He will be missed by many and we are all better for having known him. The family suggests memorial donations be sent to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes fund (fallenheroesfund.org), or the Mount Evans Hospice Inc. for their outstanding and loving care, 3081 Bergen Park Drive, Evergreen, CO 80439.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. We will accept the gentleman's proposal. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the simplest of amendments. This amendment transfers $220,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's wasteful and ineffective Office of the chief financial officer to the Department's Office of Inspector General, bringing their appropriations in line with the President's request. It seems only fitting that the inspector general's office receive additional resources, particularly at the expense of the office it will most likely first investigate. In April of this year, the inspector general reported that the Department's chief financial officer failed to comply with the Improper Payments Information Act for the third year in a row. The CFO would have saved more than $415 million by simply following Federal law and ensuring certain programs met their spending reduction goals. Instead, the CFO continued to turn a blind eye, and the inspector general reported that, last year alone, the USDA made $6.2 billion in improper payments. Let me repeat that: $6.2 billion in improper payments were made by the USDA last year alone. I would like to provide a few examples of this wasteful spending. In fiscal year 2013, the USDA paid more than $50 million to special interest groups to promote Christmas. The USDA's chief financial officer authorized a loan to a well-established brewing company for over $450,000. The USDA spent $20 million on IT software that did not work. On the chief financial officer's watch, $403,627 was wasted last year on a study to see if we could turn cow manure into electricity. Over 100 people received loan guarantees of $500,000 or more to buy a home in Hawaii. This ``Hawaiian beachfront property'' loan program lost nearly $500 million last year according to the Office of Inspector General.

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

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate the government's overreach, particularly in Western States. With due respect, this budget does not look at the appropriate utilization of funds for attorneys. And when you look at the overreach of this administration with climate change, with water, and with resources, it is about time that we made conscious use of attorneys' fees. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer another amendment to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015. This amendment pertains to the Department of Agriculture's Office of General Counsel. By way of background, this office was appropriated $41,202,000 in fiscal year 2014. The President's budget for FY15 requested a steep increase of $6,365,000. The President attempts to justify this 15.4 percent increase by saying that these moneys will go towards: ``31 full-time equivalents to handle an increased workload, to support current staff, rent, and enhance OGC's information technology reporting capabilities and litigation management tools.'' In other words, most of that money will be used to hire both government attorneys and to give raises to government attorneys already on staff. You see, because I am from the Western States, I take issue with that. I represent a rural district in western Arizona, and I serve on the House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees much of the executive branch's activities with regard to resources and lands. I am quite familiar with the effects government attorneys often have on States, their resources, and their lands, and my colleagues and I are generally disgusted with the overreaching policies the Obama administration has imposed on Western States. Therefore, I oppose any plans by the Department to hire more government attorneys, many of whom will be used to implement and defend the administration's overreaching landgrabs, watergrabs, and climate change policies. I appreciate that this committee decided not to fulfill the President's request in full, but it did propose appropriating roughly half of his request. I simply cannot, in good conscience, allow more attorneys to be hired at the USDA--attorneys who will infringe upon many States' 10th Amendment rights. My amendment proposes to cut most of the increase the Appropriations Committee has offered in this bill, but it leaves a portion of the increase for the sole purpose of improving the informational technology of the Office of the General Counsel. I understand the Federal Government generally has major issues with information technology. Our departments and agencies are often using archaic IT systems and many should be updated for efficiency and security purposes. IT issues are often highlighted at my other committee assignment on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This a bipartisan issue and has been addressed regularly by Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and the rest of my colleagues. To close, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It would help to reserve States' rights, curb executive branch overreach, cut spending, and improve information technology systems all at once. As always, I appreciate the work of the committee, particularly the work of the chair and the ranking member. I urge passage of my commonsense amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to save taxpayers money and to hold a disorganized and wasteful department accountable for its actions and inactions. My amendment is very simple. It reduces the funding to the executive offices at the Department of Housing and Urban Development by $2 million, which brings their funding levels back to fiscal year 2014 levels. As always, I appreciate the work the committee does to put these bills and committee reports together. It is not an easy job, but I 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.

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

Mr. GOSAR. 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.

Mr. GOSAR

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

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

Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GOSAR. 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.

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

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