Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I would just accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairwoman, again, I oppose the gentlelady's amendment. This bill provides $45 million for housing counseling--the same as last year and $45 million more than in fiscal year 2011. HUD just reorganized into the new Office of Housing Counseling. I would say that before we give additional resources to HUD's Housing Counseling, we need to make sure HUD has the capability to effectively implement this program. I think they ought to be able to walk before they run here. Housing Counseling agencies are still complaining of the painstaking bureaucracy involved in applying and receiving these funds. On the other hand, people could get housing counseling from many government sources, including NeighborWorks. NeighborWorks gets funding out the door quickly, has extensive metrics ensuring the proper use of the funds. We increased NeighborWorks by $10 million over last year. We need HUD to do this thing right. So until they can prove to us they could, taking funding from HUD's salaries and expenses would not be an effective use of government resources. Again, Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. This would not allow the Federal Railroad Administration to hire additional safety inspectors and fully implement the risk reduction program. These investments have a proven record in reducing the number of crashes on our Nation's railways. While we appreciate the gentleman's concern over the debt, this is an arbitrary way to budget, and it negates months of work on this committee to try and determine the proper funding levels for these different functions. The bill already cuts $4 billion from 2012, which is a very fiscally responsible level, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate the intent of the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa. The gentleman introduced legislation that would require States to enact harsher penalties for reckless drivers who pass stopped school buses, and this amendment complements that legislation and, I think, sends a very, very important message. The legislation named in memory of the little girl the gentleman spoke about from Iowa who was killed so tragically, this is extremely important, I think, to raise the profile. I would hope that the authorizing committee in conference on the highway bill would take this into consideration and act on this very provision. As a cosponsor of the act, I commend the gentleman's effort and would accept the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman for his hard work in this area and for his efforts on the Transportation Committee. Commuter railroads are an extremely important mode of transportation and are critical to many of our regional economies. I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman on ways to address the PTC funding issues as we go to conference and in the future.

Mr. LATHAM. I'm very pleased that you've read our comments about HUD and the management problems that they've had down there. Obviously, they've got a long way to go. They are making some real strides and improvement. We worked closely with the Secretary to try and have some management involved finally. But this amendment arbitrarily cuts S&E budgets to the 2008 levels. Just so everybody knows, we have already reduced funding by over $14 million from last year in this account. We've met the budget resolution levels and cut overall in the bill almost $4 billion from last year's appropriated levels. While, again, we really appreciate the concern over the debt, this is really an arbitrary way to budget, unfortunately, and negates the months of work the committee has done in determining proper levels as far as funding. But, again, I would love to have you read, again, the committee's comments because it has been an extraordinary problem at the Department. Again, they are making progress, not fast enough for any of us, and we have already, in the bill, cut $14 million from last year. So with that, Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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 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 reserve a point of order.

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

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 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. I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we will be more than happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to congratulate my good friend, Mr. Olver, and second what he said. The staff on both sides does an outstanding job for this subcommittee and for the country. It's a marvel to watch them work together and to come to this bill. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, it takes $5 million from the DOT's Financial Management Capital account and puts it in Operations for Vehicle Safety. Let me say that there is no guarantee that DOT will use this money as the gentleman has talked about. There's no dedication of funds here, obviously. First, this would eliminate half of the funds the DOT has to make sure its financial systems are current. I don't need to tell anyone here how critical it is that DOT's financial systems, which govern the accurate disbursement of many billions of dollars each year, need to be kept in a good working state. Second, this would increase the vehicle safety portion of NHTSA's operations. We're already giving this account $12 million more than last year, after it was frozen for the last 3 years straight. We simply don't need that additional increase. Again, with these funds, there's no way to dedicate them to distracted driving. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. I object.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5972, and that I may include tabular material on the same.