Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I just want to make the point that I want to continue to work with these two great Members from Florida. It is a real problem for the community, and I will do everything possible to try to be of assistance with addressing this real problem for them. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Miami.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. NeighborWorks really is a program that has some metrics in place to make sure that the dollars are used correctly in a proper way. In Iowa and across the country, about every dollar that goes through NeighborWorks leverages $48 in non-Federal direct investment because of it. I just want to reiterate that we've gone through every line in this appropriations bill, tried to make decisions that would increase growth, job creation, tried to do the very best job we could. We've looked at every area. There are some priorities of things that actually work that we've tried to sustain funding for. I just don't want folks to forget overall in this bill, we are nearly $4 billion below last year's funding level. That's a cut of $4 billion. It's $2 billion below the President's request. I think, as one gentleman here today stated, this is the largest percentage reduction of any appropriation bill yet to come to the floor. We're trying to be fiscally responsible, to actually prioritize spending in this bill to things that actually work. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 waives existing law. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 134, line 11, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the gentleman from Ohio that I have really no problem with the intent of his amendment, that I think he is talking about something that is very real to a lot of folks. My understanding is that waivers that have been asked for have all been accepted in the past, and the Secretary has said that if there's a waiver needed, that they would be glad to oblige. But having said that, I just want the gentleman to know that the reason why I must insist on the point of order is simply for consistency on the bill. We have struck on point of order every other authorizing language that has come before the subcommittee or to the floor today. So with that, while I share his concerns that he has stated, I must insist on my point of order. Point of Order

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

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlemen from Maryland and Virginia. I appreciate their taking the time to raise this very important issue. I will be mindful of their concerns as the process moves forward.

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. I rise to oppose the amendment--the same, basically, that I said before: we are below fiscal year 2010 levels. Certainly, I believe the authorizing committee must set very strict parameters as to how these dollars should be used, but we are below fiscal year 2010, 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. LATHAM. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LATHAM. I understand the concerns you have, and I would look forward to working with you as we get towards conference to try and address your concerns on this very important issue, obviously, for your constituents and would be pleased to be of any kind of assistance we possibly could.

Mr. LATHAM. I withdraw my reservation of the point of order, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate very much the gentleman's concern on this amendment. I think his timing is, maybe, unfortunate. This is a major issue in the reauthorization bill that, hopefully, is going to be filed tonight. This issue will be dealt with. It truly is an authorizing issue that should not be on this bill. So, while I may share some concerns with the gentleman, I certainly don't think it's appropriate on this bill, especially at this moment when the highway bill is being filed and when, hopefully, this issue will be resolved in that bill. With that and with some reservation, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, unfortunately. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Is it your impression that what the gentleman is saying is that they can't take highway trust fund money and put it into high- speed rail and that they can't take transit dollars and put it into high-speed rail? It would be my understanding, since there is no money in the bill for high-speed rail, that he is talking about other pots of money that would go to California and about just trying to wall that off from being used. That's my understanding. Maybe the gentleman has a different interpretation.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. We are pleased to accept the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Reclaiming my time, let me just say, in the authorization of the FAA, their specific role was air traffic concerns that they may have safety concerns, collisions with other aircraft. I agree with the gentleman, it should probably be a Homeland Security issue. I also serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations. It has not been brought up in that. I do share your concerns. But unfortunately, I must insist on my point of order. Point of Order

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