Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATHAM. 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.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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 imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

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

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 requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

Tom Latham

Speeches

Manage analytics