Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I continue to reserve.

Mr. LATHAM. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield the gentleman from Florida 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. LATHAM. I would yield to the gentleman from Ohio 2 more minutes.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), who has brought a lot of knowledge and insight to the committee.

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today is an important day in the House because we are considering a bill that has far-reaching impacts on the transportation infrastructure across all of our districts and on all of our constituents in one way or another. For that reason alone, we should be considering this bill under an open rule so that our constituents have some say in how their tax dollars are being spent. Sadly, this is not the case. Before I go any further, I want to tell the membership that I have really enjoyed working with Chairman Olver, and look forward to continuing to do so. While, like he said, we don't always agree on everything, and especially the 25 percent increase in the allocation over last year, but that fact does not take away my belief that he is truly a devoted chairman who focuses on the resource needs of the entities under the jurisdiction of this bill, and I very much want to personally thank him for his consideration and kindness and working together. It's been a real pleasure. I also want to tell both the majority and minority staffs that I sincerely appreciate their work throughout the process and commend them for a job, I think, very well done. And I salute all of your many hours that you put into the process, your forbearance in this often dysfunctional environment. We couldn't do it without you. And again, thank you on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the funding allocation for this bill for FY 2010 is 25 percent over the FY09 level. That is a huge increase, and one for which we ought to have a number of perfecting amendment votes as part of a serious debate, if for no other reason than to allow our constituents to have some say in how those funds are spent. At some point, it should start dawning on all of us that the reason we're hearing a lot of noise about some of the spending that's going on is that our constituents are waking up to the fact that they don't have a say in these exercises. Mr. Chairman, as the administration has said about this bill, ``these infrastructure investments will help build a new foundation for long- term economic growth to benefit the American people for years to come.'' And I agree. If we are, indeed, making long-term infrastructure investments, then the investors, or our constituents, should have a say-so on how those investments are made. One of my biggest concerns in this bill is that we do nothing to address the coming situation with the highway trust fund that runs out of money. At a point, we will have to bail out the fund with general fund resources. I know that's not in our jurisdiction as such, but the hour is getting late, and we should all be looking for the most expeditious ways to make any contribution we can to provide the resources that allow highway infrastructure and other transportation programs to continue with some predictability. I had an amendment to help the trust fund situation, as I mentioned earlier today, in consideration of the rule. It would have transferred $3 billion from the Rapid Rail appropriation to the trust fund, these funds that will not be spent any time soon, while our highway trust fund screams for additional resources. The $3 billion are also funds that were not requested by the administration for Rapid Rail, probably because the President knows they could not be spent any time soon. Right now they are ``parked funds,'' at a time when we do not need to be teeing up more resources to be spent on something such as an infrastructure bank which, at this point, is only a vague concept. In the end, the amendment was not made in order, and I assume for political reasons, unfortunately. Had it been made in order, it would have given me some faith that the majority was serious about having a genuine debate on this bill which, in turn, might have drawn a few more supporters than might otherwise be the case. I will offer a different amendment to strike the $3 billion, which will take the Rapid Rail funding to the President's request. Let me reiterate, that's the President's request. The $3 billion is over and above that, and I believe the President's request was a reasonable number. It will also cancel the transfer authority to this unknown infrastructure bank that has not been authorized. Without the absence of any knowledge of where a Rapid Rail program will go or what the bank will look like, or even if any submitted rail projects are feasible, we simply do not need $3 billion of taxpayer money being set aside for simply a concept. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not say that there are some good points in this bill, absent a few billion unneeded dollars, to make it a very attractive legislative product. With respect to HUD, I only want to say that this bill fully meets the government's obligation to renew all rental assistance, support the homeless, increase support for low-income elderly and the disabled, and provide additional rental assistance for veterans. But we cannot continue to put forth resources that cannot be deployed in the near term. We simply don't have the money. And at this point, I thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much. I want to wish the Members a good evening. I'm sorry about the delay here. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is really quite simple. It simply reduces the accounts that exceed the levels recommended in the budget request back down to the President's proposed level. I'm quite confident the funding levels proposed by the President are sufficient, and frankly, if the higher levels of funding were required, the budget request would have identified higher funding levels. Let me say again that I would be a strong supporter of this bill if the funding levels weren't so astronomically out of proportion with the current reality. I hold a very positive view of Chairman Olver and admire his thoughtful and fair approach to this bill, but a 25 percent increase over the funding level of fiscal year '09 is absurd, especially in the context of the huge sums of funding provided to the Department of Transportation and HUD through the stimulus bill. This bill would fund these agencies at $68 billion on top of the more than $61.8 billion they received through the stimulus. How can these agencies possibly spend through this funding in an efficient and effective manner? So in response to this reckless pattern, my motion would reduce the bill's bottom line by cutting only those accounts that were funded over and above the President's request. This motion to recommit saves the U.S. taxpayers $5.4 billion. I would ask for your support for this motion to recommit. I think in today's fiscal climate, it is totally appropriate and is something that we should do. This is about our kids and our grandchildren in the future. And just to bring it back to the President's request, I don't think this is something that is too much to ask from anyone. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. In its present form, I am, yes.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. LATHAM. In its current form, I am.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. LATHAM. I just want to make the comment that, unlike Doyle Drive, you have not come to the end of your useful life.

Mr. LATHAM. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. I will yield the balance of my time to a colleague from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. LATHAM. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. LATHAM. I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. LATHAM. I would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. LATHAM. May I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. And I think it is an outrage and an insult to Chairman Olver for the Rules Committee to say that you're questioning his competence and his ability to handle issues involved in this bill. This could have been a bipartisan process. This could have been something that everyone in this House could support if, in fact, we had a process that respected the chairman, his abilities, his competence, and respected the interests of all of our constituents. To close out people, our constituents, the people who own these investments, is simply wrong, and I ask everyone to please vote against this outrageous rule and respect the chairman, respect what the rights should be in this House of Representatives and have been since the beginning. And I would encourage everyone to vote against this outrageous rule.

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time. I rise in opposition to this rule because I do not want to lend my support to a politically cooked process that freezes the American people out of having their say through a constructive amendment process. I know the large number of the majority Members do not want this process either for the same reasons that I don't. The majority may think that they are freezing out the minority in these rules, and they are; but more importantly, they are freezing out their own constituents and all of our constituents. The truth of the matter is that these closed and structured rules are designed to avoid the tough votes, and those familiar with the situation know that. On the surface, the rules may be promoted as a means of moving the process along in a timely fashion, and there may be some tone of truth to that; however, the real issue is the difficult votes, and that's sad, because that's what we get paid to do here. We don't get paid to duck tough votes around here. I have to wonder sometimes if our predecessors from both parties are not looking down from the big chamber in the sky and wondering what in God's name are we doing to the process that they left us. One thing we know we're doing is cheating the American people. The administration says that this bill is about making long-term infrastructure investments. If that is true, then our investors, or our constituents, should have a say-so in how those investments are made. Right now they have no such say, and that's a shame. As an example, I had an amendment to move $3 billion in ``parked'' money in a high-speed rail appropriation to be put--to use in the Highway Trust Fund where we desperately need those funds. The administration wants us to bail out the Highway Trust Fund, for those of you who don't know that. And I want to note, too, that in the stimulus package there is $8 billion sitting there for high-speed rail, none of which will be spent this year. Also, there was an agreement between the administration and Congress saying that with that $8 billion we would appropriate $1 billion a year for the next 5 years. My amendment would have honored the administration's request in that agreement, leaving $1 billion in the high-speed rail account. My amendment was not made in order. That $3 billion could have been used as an investment in my State and all of your States in a much-needed investment in the highway infrastructure that would actually create jobs now. For some, however, that would have been a tough vote, because even though that money won't be spent on high-speed rail for a couple of years, at least, a vote to transfer to the trust fund, where it's needed today, would be a vote to remove it from the rapid trail category now, a vote that would not have been politically fashionable for some in this Chamber, and that's the reason it's not in order. The net result is that an important investment amendment will now not be put to the investors, the taxpayers. Instead, we will institutionally duck the vote and, thereby, rob the investors of their say-so in this worthwhile investment. I want to say, Madam Speaker, that this bill could have been a bipartisan bill. Chairman Olver and I worked together all through this process. We had hearings. We worked in a constructive way.