Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

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

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

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue on my reservation, and I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her persistence and for all of her work as far as trying to get a handle on the spending. I would just like to make a couple of points. She mentioned that we're $2 billion below the President's request. We're actually almost $4 billion below last year's spending in this bill. We have the largest decrease, percentage-wise, of any of the appropriation bills. We have worked very hard to craft a bill that actually enacted those types of spending cuts but also funded the high- priority items that are in this bill. It's with reluctance I oppose her amendment. I will just say that we're within the 302(b) allocations that were in the Ryan budget. That was really the debate then as to what funding levels to be at. There are some very important infrastructure issues that would be harmed by this when we look at the highway trust fund funding that would be cut. Of course, that would also include transit programs, veterans homeless vouchers. We have done everything we could to try to have a balanced bill that actually created priorities after having many hearings and working through this bill on a line-by-line basis. I'm not sure that an across-the-board cut that cuts everything arbitrarily is the way to go. Certainly, we're all very concerned about the budget, but with reluctance, I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield some time to the gentlelady.

Mr. LATHAM. You will remember also, during the hearings with the Secretary, I asked that very question of the Secretary. You're taking gas tax, vehicle miles traveled off the table, let's find a way to do this. He said: Well, we need to sit down at the table and discuss this. I said: Mr. Secretary, you're at a table. I'll be glad to come around and sit with you, and we'll discuss it. You come up with some ideas. And he came up with zero ideas, if you'll remember that.

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. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much. I just want to talk about the subject that the gentleman from Massachusetts brought up. The Secretary of Transportation came before the subcommittee. We were talking about the difficulty we were having as far as trying to write an appropriation bill with no new authorization. The Secretary on several different occasions said he would not entertain and they would strongly oppose both an increase in the gas tax and vehicle miles driven, and I'm sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts remembers that testimony very clearly. I would just suggest that maybe someone should talk to the administration about finding sources for funding because the Secretary has taken every possibility off of the table to fund a new highway bill. And now we're apparently looking at a reauthorization that's finding other unique ways of funding rather than user fees or gas tax or miles driven or registration fees, whatever, they have taken off the table. So I would suggest the gentleman from Massachusetts would maybe visit with Mr. LaHood at the Transportation Department.

Mr. LATHAM

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. 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. 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. Madam Chairman, I insist on the point of order. The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI. The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We have been fiscally responsible in this bill by reducing the public housing capital fund by $85 million below the budget request, and we're hearing that this funding level will be a challenge because there's a backlog, Madam Chairman, of over $25 billion in capital projects. However, this does represent one of the toughest choices we've had to make to meet our allocation in this bill. A deeper cut to this account will merely defer projects to future years and I believe will cost more money in the future by running up the cost of those projects in the years ahead. With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. I would just tell the gentleman that we accept your amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.