Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. 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 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 requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, but I move to strike the last word.

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 reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we had a markup this morning in Appropriations, and I supported an amendment about American content. And I believe that this is probably a very, very good amendment. To be consistent--and I have raised points of order against some things that I support today, one offered by my good friend from Ohio, and other amendments that I would otherwise be supportive of if they were not breaking precedent to the rules of the House. With that, Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. Point of Order

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I understand the gentleman's concern, and I'm prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. I rise in strong support of this amendment. Let me just say that this has been a subject of great discussion with the ranking member and me over time. I hope the people of the House understand and the American people understand what an outright waste of money these projects have oftentimes become. Everybody here is talking about our needing more money for infrastructure, transportation; let's get the trust fund built up; we're trying to find new ways of funding. I hope everyone understands that, 2 years ago, before we got control of this committee, they took $150 million out of the highway trust fund to pay for sustainability projects and grants. That's rather interesting. When it's an unauthorized program, no one even has a definition of what a ``sustainable community'' is. There is no definition of where this money could go. This is $150 million, and people talk about all their projects at home--of their highways in disrepair, of the bridges falling down--and we're spending $150 million out of that trust fund for things that aren't even defined and that are not authorized. Mr. Chairman, it is outrageous. I just spoke with the Secretary of HUD a few weeks ago on this issue because I have zeroed it out in this bill. There is no money for sustainable communities, whatever that is. Do you know the example the Secretary gave me of a good project? It would be to take millions of dollars from the Federal Government and give it to the area in North Dakota where they're having the expansion of the oil boom. The State of North Dakota has billions of dollars in surplus. It has more money than it knows what to do with. Yet the Secretary says we should take sustainable community dollars from the Federal Government, of which we're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar from China, and give it to North Dakota to find out where it should put up its buildings in the oil boom area. I'm sorry, but I think they can afford to do that themselves. So I would very strongly support the gentleman's amendment. Again, this is money that is coming out of the trust fund. Everybody here talks about roads in disrepair, bridges falling down, all that we need to do in the way of help for infrastructure, for jobs--and we're giving it to places like North Dakota. I'm sorry, but this is a waste of money, ill-defined, unauthorized. I very strongly support the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill that have not been read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment does not propose to transfer funds among objects in the bill, as required by clause 2(f). I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The Essential Air Service program ensures that small and rural communities have access to the national air transportation system. This 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. That's why last year we capped the program to existing communities and have removed the requirement that larger and more expensive planes must be used in the program. In addition, the authorizers instituted a $1,000 per passenger subsidy cap and limited participation in the program to communities that have more than 10 enplanements per day. This amendment would be devastating to at least 150 rural communities. In places like Iowa, it plays an essential role as far as the economic development of those communities. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. LATHAM. Before yielding to the gentleman, just let me make a quick statement here. Just so everybody knows, the increase that's in the bill is a simple increase for inflation to pay for costs such as the GSA rent and one extra compensable workday. Transportation is important to all parts and all people in America. I just don't think this is the right cut to make in this kind of a bill. And I think we should always keep in mind that on our allocations, we have written the total appropriation bills to the 1028 number, rather than 1047. This bill already cuts about $4 billion under last year's funding level. So with that, I stress my opposition to the amendment, and I would gladly yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

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

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 it 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 gives affirmative direction in effect and imposes additional duties. 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. I object.