Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. 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

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

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

Mr. LATHAM. 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.

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

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

Mr. LATHAM. 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.

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

Mr. LATHAM. 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.

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

Mr. LATHAM. 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.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. We will accept the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. 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.

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

Mr. LATHAM. We would accept the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. 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.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. 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.

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

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