Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. I very much understand where the gentlewoman is coming from with the tremendous needs that we have today in infrastructure, to have some of this money being diverted to other uses. I understand entirely. This really is an authorizing issue if there ever was one. We appropriate money in this bill. We don't authorize or set up the programs themselves. That should be addressed in a reauthorization of the MAP-21 bill. The funds here, oftentimes, go to erosion control. They preserve wetlands and meet some environmental regulations that the States have to comply with or the entities, government entities have to comply with. But the real big problem here is the fact that States may have contracts already out there that they are obligated to pay and, basically, what we are saying is we are not going to reimburse you, so the Federal Government, even though the States have the contracts in place, we are not going to do our part and help pay the bill, and that really is where the problem is. We have an obligation, but we don't have the money. Again, that is why this goes back to an authorizing issue that needs to be looked at. I totally agree with the gentlewoman, and I reluctantly oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. We agree to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. I object.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. The reason I objected is we weren't sure as to what the amendment was, and we would accept the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. If the gentleman doesn't take much time, we will accept the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand the gentleman's concern, but this can have some unintended consequences. But the main reason is that unfortunately this would not affect the public housing authorities at all. This would affect HUD employees. Public housing authorities are not HUD employees. So this amendment, and I wish the gentleman and I could have worked together on this, but it does nothing to the public housing authorities because it does not prohibit them from hiring outside legal, and that is unfortunate. We have been saying for years and years and years to the authorizers that these are issues they need to address, and they haven't been able to do it. Unfortunately, we get in an appropriation bill and end up with a lot of these issues. But again, the main reason to oppose it is because it does nothing to the public housing authorities. They would still be able to continue their practices as they are. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. LATHAM. All this would do is limit the employees of HUD, and it would do nothing to the PHA employees. PHA employees are not HUD employees; and all you are doing is limiting funding to HUD employees, so it would have no effect as far as the PHAs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. We would be more than happy to accept the amendment in the interest of time if we could move on.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the issue the gentleman is trying to get at. I must oppose the amendment because I think there are some unintended consequences. As far as the way the amendment itself is written, in effect you are banning DOT or HUD from ever purchasing another camera for any use, in essence, because of the possibility it might capture a license plate somewhere. It simply will also have a lot of wide unanticipated operational impacts across all of the programs in this bill. There could be a prohibition on purchases of aircraft control surveillance technologies at the FAA, an unintended ban on cameras used for safety purposes at airports and air traffic control facilities. The prohibition could prevent Federal and State motor carrier inspectors from using camera-based technology to screen vehicles for compliance with safety regulations. The broad nature of this prohibition will negatively affect key research program studies and crash investigations for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The prohibition could undermine revenue collection systems on several large toll-funded routes who take pictures of a license plate--and that is how they charge--and put Federal loans at risk of default not having that means of collecting those revenues. At HUD, the prohibition, being as broad as it is, could prevent housing authorities from purchasing or operating security systems that are critical to the health and safety of the residents in the public housing and the surrounding communities. I totally understand the gentleman's point, but there are some ramifications here. I think that maybe we could tailor it better, working on it together in the future, but at this point I would have to oppose the amendment, and I would urge a ``no'' vote. 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 imposes additional duties. 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. 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 from the Chair.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, the rationale for the point of order is projects can be broad in scope, both in terms of the purpose of the project and the number and types of contractors involved. For an agency to determine whether a specific bonus can be awarded, this amendment would require the agency to also determine whether the project as a whole is over budget or behind schedule, not simply the part of the project pertaining to the agency awarding the bonus. So I, again, would insist on my point of order.