Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I think it is very well thought out. The gentleman does have it offset, so the committee position on this side would be to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. I would be happy to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue. I look forward to working with him and the FAA to ensure that our limited Federal dollars go to towers that provide the greatest benefit to the taxpayer.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I am not opposed to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 19.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that provides the existing $14.7 million in DOT funding to the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, rather than a new Assistant Secretary. This amendment is noncontroversial and addresses concerns of the Science and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. It does not affect the scoring of the bill. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LATHAM. I just will stand up in favor of the amendment and I will be calling a recorded vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have, in the bill, restrained the growth of this program, keeping the total amount at $216 million--$116 million of which is from fees and $100 million provided in discretionary appropriation for the fiscal year 2012 program level. So it's at the same level as it was before; we don't have any increase. Mr. Chairman, I really urge the administration, the authorizers, if they want to reform this program, to actually get to work, do it--not on an appropriation bill where we have had no discussion, no debate. It is an issue that should be handled by the authorizers rather than on this appropriation bill. We need the comprehensive reform so that isolated communities can be served while restraining growth in this program. But I do urge a ``no'' vote, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. The Essential Air Service program ensures that small and rural communities have access to the national air transportation system. The program plays a key role in the economic development of many rural communities by ensuring that air service continues. Does the program need reform? Absolutely, it does, yes. That is why we cap the per passenger subsidy at $500, which is down from the current $1,000 cap per passenger. We have also cut the discretionary funding in this bill by $46 million, leaving a total program level of $216 million--$100 million in discretionary funding and $116 million from fees. This is an 18 percent reduction. We already have imposed a significant cut to this program. We will continue to push the administration to reform the program and work with the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, but an outright elimination of the funding in this bill is a hit to rural communities that I cannot support. I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LATHAM. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment as it would shut down Amtrak. I can see that Amtrak could be more efficient. There is no doubt about that. However, it has made significant improvements in this area recently, and it is moving in the right direction. The bill does not include arbitrary funding decisions. We held hearings and scrubbed each. This committee worked very hard to achieve a balanced bill within our limited funding. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 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. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states: It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in the 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. It would increase budget authority by $127,383,000. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. LATHAM. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from West Virginia. Obviously, we've got a very difficult allocation, and we understand the importance of the program. So with that, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.