10:44 PM EDT

Tom Latham, R-IA 3rd

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the issue the gentleman is trying to get at.

[Time: 22:45]

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.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

10:44 PM EDT

Tom Latham, R-IA 3rd

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the issue the gentleman is trying to get at.

[Time: 22:45]

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.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

10:46 PM EDT

John Garamendi, D-CA 3rd

Mr. GARAMENDI. The point of order issue has been rather flexible, as we have seen in previous appropriation bills that have been on this floor. When the majority wants to change the law, it seems as though a point of order isn't appropriate. But when someone else wants to address a crucial national issue, such as making sure our shipyards have the work and our Navy and the Ready Reserve Fleet is American built, then I suppose a point of order seems to have some further power. Therefore, I don't

think a point of order is appropriate.

The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the gentleman from California.

The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of whether certain actions are consistent with a provision of law not otherwise applicable to these actions.

The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GRAYSON

10:46 PM EDT

John Garamendi, D-CA 3rd

Mr. GARAMENDI. The point of order issue has been rather flexible, as we have seen in previous appropriation bills that have been on this floor. When the majority wants to change the law, it seems as though a point of order isn't appropriate. But when someone else wants to address a crucial national issue, such as making sure our shipyards have the work and our Navy and the Ready Reserve Fleet is American built, then I suppose a point of order seems to have some further power. Therefore, I don't

think a point of order is appropriate.

The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the gentleman from California.

The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of whether certain actions are consistent with a provision of law not otherwise applicable to these actions.

The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GRAYSON

10:47 PM EDT

John Garamendi, D-CA 3rd

Mr. GARAMENDI. The point of order issue has been rather flexible, as we have seen in previous appropriation bills that have been on this floor. When the majority wants to change the law, it seems as though a point of order isn't appropriate. But when someone else wants to address a crucial national issue, such as making sure our shipyards have the work and our Navy and the Ready Reserve Fleet is American built, then I suppose a point of order seems to have some further power. Therefore, I don't

think a point of order is appropriate.

The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the gentleman from California.

The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of whether certain actions are consistent with a provision of law not otherwise applicable to these actions.

The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GRAYSON

10:47 PM EDT

John Garamendi, D-CA 3rd

Mr. GARAMENDI. The point of order issue has been rather flexible, as we have seen in previous appropriation bills that have been on this floor. When the majority wants to change the law, it seems as though a point of order isn't appropriate. But when someone else wants to address a crucial national issue, such as making sure our shipyards have the work and our Navy and the Ready Reserve Fleet is American built, then I suppose a point of order seems to have some further power. Therefore, I don't

think a point of order is appropriate.

The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the gentleman from California.

The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of whether certain actions are consistent with a provision of law not otherwise applicable to these actions.

The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GRAYSON

10:47 PM EDT

John Garamendi, D-CA 3rd

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to take 5 minutes, but this issue is rather important.

In the long history of the United States Navy, we have always built our ships in America. The Ready Reserve Fleet is part of our national defense system. It provides ships that are necessary for the hauling of cargo that are always ready and available for the military to move its equipment--men, supplies, women--wherever they may need to go across the oceans.

That reserve fleet is going to need to be recapitalized and replaced over the next several years. The question before us is whether that fleet and those new ships will be built in America or in China or Japan or Korea.

This amendment would simply require that they be built in America, as they have in the past.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER