Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Maritime Commission is responsible for resolving disputes between shippers--both foreign and domestic--and the public, protecting consumers from unfair business practices, and monitoring ocean transportation and trade. The increase in this account has to do with the annualization of already onboard personnel and of the increases in the claims and the workload of the Federal Maritime Commission. To reduce this account, you will affect the backlog of cases and claims, thus costing businesses, exporters, and ports time and money while they wait for the FMC to adjudicate their claims. Usually, we are in the business of trying to reduce backlogs and delays in doing business. With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. 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. If the gentleman would yield, the gentleman is from Georgia.

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I will insist on my point of order. The fact of the matter is this program is not currently authorized. There are no ongoing public works in progress. So, once again, I would insist on my point of order.

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

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

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Community Development Block Grant program is very important to cities and States across the country. There is a great deal of local control in this program. Communities use the block grants to meet local needs such as building water and sewer infrastructure, community centers, housing for low-income families, and other development important to their local communities. Although the bill increases the funding, this funding level is still well below what it was in fiscal year 2010. The bill actually is $1.046 billion below the level of 2010, to be exact. Madam Chair, as we were going through this bill, we had many Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, request additional funding for these grants. For many Members, there is strong constituent support for these programs. We have seen individual cases of abuse, not unlike a lot of other government programs, but really the way to fix those reforms, and we're not going to do it through the appropriations process, is through the authorizers, to have them do their work and make sure that these programs are well run, that they're focused and they actually do what the intention is. Again, I want everybody to understand that we are actually below fiscal year 2010 levels on a very, very important program, and I would recommend and urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Madam Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that has not been authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We went through the hearing process. We have worked on these numbers to, number one, stay within our allocation, which we have done--we are actually cutting $4 billion in this bill--but also to prioritize. There's no one more sensitive about hardworking taxpayer dollars than I am. But the fact of the matter is, this is an absolutely critical function. The increase that is here is extremely important so that these programs are carried out properly without waste, fraud, and abuse. For that reason, I would again urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and 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. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This is an amendment that on face value is somewhat confusing, shall we say. While it appears that there is a large increase in this account when it says $562 million over last year, this account is approximately level funded from last year because last year we went in and took $500 million out of reserve funds of the public housing authorities that were sitting there that were unexpended balances. Those reserves are no longer there. So what we're having to do in this bill basically to stay virtually even is to have the $562 million over last year. This fund provides many of the necessary operating and maintenance activities for our housing authorities, including health, safety, and sanitation. Our funding levels for public housing build in savings from reform proposals that we urge the authorizers to complete before we go to a final conference on this bill. Again, in this entire bill, while you talk about the highway bill, financial services doing their work, but that would be extremely helpful if, in fact, we had authorizations that would actually limit spending and that we could follow. But again, I just wanted to reiterate: We used $500 million a year ago out of the funds that were available, sitting there idle. So what, in fact, this does is basically even from last year. While it appears to be a large increase, it, in fact, is not because the use of those funds from last year, the reserve funds. I believe we are providing a responsible level of funding for this program. And again, I want to reiterate, Madam Chairman, we are cutting about $4 billion in this appropriation bill--I think the gentleman earlier mentioned that's the largest percentage cut of any bill so far on the floor. But this particular issue, this particular amendment would be extremely devastating because of funding issues in the reserve account that we used last year. With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Madam Chair, I submit the following for the Record. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.016 Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the distinguished gentleman, the Chairman, for the time, and let me just rise in strong support of this amendment. This, I think, is one of the most outrageous, offensive taxes that I've ever heard of. The idea of taxing U.S. travelers from any point in the United States just because they're traveling to a destination in Europe is simply outrageous. It's going to be devastating to U.S. carriers, and it's something that we have got to put a stop to. Like the gentleman talked about the international community's strong opposition, I think on a bipartisan basis everyone is opposed to this. It is, again, a far overreach. It is something that is unnecessary. It is simply wrong. I really appreciate the gentleman's work on this to have this amendment brought forward as at least a first step in stopping this very, very, I think, egregious new tax. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. And I appreciate what the gentleman, my good friend from Massachusetts, is talking about. I think you clearly remember the testimony from Secretary LaHood before the subcommittee.

Mr. LATHAM. I rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate very much the gentleman from Florida bringing this issue to the attention of the House and, again, very strongly support his proposal to do away with this wasteful spending. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. I would just like to lend my support for this amendment. It's something where clarification needs to be done, and the rules need to work for veterans for these processes. This has been one of the hang-ups for veterans being able to get into assisted living or houses. And any backlog that there has been has been basically a bureaucratic backlog, rather than a funding issue in the past. So it's a good amendment, and I would urge its passage.

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

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

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?