Bob Latta|
Posted by
Staff
on
November 20, 2009
Congressman Robert E. Latta
Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure H.R. 4016 – Amendment Statement November 19, 2009 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Mica. Due to ongoing concerns that I have with Section 201 of H.R. 4016, the Hazardous Material Transportation Safety Act of 2009, I am offering an amendment today which will strike this language from the bill. I initially raised concerns with this language during a hearing on the Highways bill during a Highways Subcommittee hearing back in June. This specific section adds new requirements to the transportation of lithium cells and batteries. Since that time I have worked with committee staff on this language, as well as receiving input from stakeholders for this matter in the legislation. Finally, I attended the field hearing that was held on this bill on Monday in Baltimore, to further work with Subcommittee Chairwoman Brown on this legislation and hear testimony from agency and industry leaders. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration – that is, “PHMSA” – and the FAA are already working on rulemaking regarding lithium battery transportation regulation. Furthermore, that rulemaking will address concerns that Committee Members have raised, in addition to allowing for public input into the matter. It is my understanding that OMB currently has the rule and it will be announced in the next several weeks to begin the rule making process. We are all concerned about the safety issues surrounding this matter, however I believe that the additional regulations can be accomplished through appropriate rulemaking without unnecessary legislation. This process will allow the public to comment on the matter, as well as allow PHMSA and the FAA to offer their expertise that they have in the area of transporting lithium batteries. At this time I am unclear about the benefits of including a provision like Section 201 in legislation, especially when these requirements are going to be another thing that is going to be detrimental to manufacturing. Imposing these requirements could have enormous consequences, both for consumers and for American companies. This language contains very restrictive requirements that will lead to unnecessary loss of business and revenue, in addition to negative impacts on U.S. battery manufacturers. At a time when the unemployment rate is over 12% in many parts of my District, Congress cannot pass yet another change that will negatively impact businesses. The specific language of the bill restricts placement of batteries in aircraft to “crew accessible” locations, unless the batteries are in fire resistant containers or the aircraft has a fire suppression system in place. I believe this is a major problem and fear that the practical impact of this language will be to ban lithium batteries and devices that use lithium batteries (i.e., computers, cell phones) from aviation. Currently, there are no fire resistant containers in existence, and it is not possible to place all batteries in crew accessible location on all planes. During the hearing in Baltimore on Monday, the witnesses did verify that at this time these containers do not exist. Finally, this legislation does not allow for harmonization with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. The bill mandates a rule inconsistent with ICAO rules for air transport of hazmat. In short, it is very important that cargo regulations and requirements be harmonized internationally. Harmonization best guarantees safety and the provision of commerce, especially in aviation. ICAO has spent extensive time and energy creating agreed-to international standards that have been widely adopted. Inconsistent rules in the U.S. will drive jobs to Canadian or Mexican facilities, and greatly disrupt the transport of goods in and out of this country. The flights carrying these items will go to Mexico or Canada which will drive up costs because these goods are being diverted from the U.S. When I raised this issue at the field hearing in Baltimore this past Monday, Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary Porcari agreed. In summary, I believe this language will be extremely disruptive to battery manufacturers, and could have negative effects on battery production. I am offering this amendment to strike the Section 201 language so that the rulemaking process can be completed and commerce is not unduly impeded. I ask for your support of this amendment. Thank you and I yield back. NOTE: After a roll call vote, Congressman Latta's amendment failed 26-44. Click here to read Congressman Latta's statement after the vote.
Posted by
Staff
on
November 17, 2009
Good Morning. Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Lucas.
Today, we are holding a hearing to review the Financial Stability Improvement Act discussion draft. I would like to welcome the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Farm Credit Administration. I look forward to all three of your testimony and insight today into this legislation. I have heard the concerns of my constituents and from the vast amount of agriculture groups on this issue. Unfortunately, this proposed plan furthers government regulation into our private citizen’s lives by giving the Federal Reserve the authority on systemic risk and financial stability, and gives the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) the authority to help “systematically significant” institutions rather than allow them to go into bankruptcy which is more efficient and does not expose our taxpayers to such financial loss. This legislation will be detrimental to our national debt and to the taxpayers as it creates further government bureaucracy by creating a permanent “bailout fund” to be controlled by the FDIC and gives tremendous authority to unelected government bureaucrats with the creation of a Financial Services Oversight Council. Companies and corporations who are deemed “too big to fail” will not be allowed to do so and will be able to access the “bailout fund,” which will be funded at the taxpayers’ expense. In a July 20, 2009 Bloomberg article, Neil Barofsky the Special Inspector General for TARP stated, “U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies…” American International Group (AIG) is a prime example of this. The taxpayers through the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have spent over $135 billion to keep AIG intact. In addition, the language under this legislation reaches into the Agriculture Committee’s jurisdiction and assesses Farm Credit Institutions to cover the cost of troubled financial institutions under their jurisdiction. I believe Farm Credit Institutions were not the cause of the current financial crisis and should not be penalized for the bad practices of the ones who were. Furthermore, the language under this legislation puts the Farm Credit System in the hands of the rules written by the Securities and Exchange Commission as opposed to the Farm Credit Administration. This provision will remove this committee’s jurisdiction on oversight of the underwriting and risk retention requirements for agricultural loans that are securitized by the Farm Credit System and Farmer Mac. House Republicans, meanwhile, have come up with strong solutions to help our troubled financial sector. We have found a way to bring fiscal responsibility to our federal government and to the men and women on Wall Street. The solutions we have brought forth will bring an end to the reckless bailouts; it will look to restore fiscal responsibility and all the while protecting the taxpayers. One of our Founding Father’s Thomas Jefferson once said “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.” Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Committee on Agriculture to make certain that this committee takes jurisdiction on these issues under this legislation to ensure it protects our American farmers and the lending systems they use. Our financial crisis and economic woes should not be resolved by further government intervention and bureaucracy, especially on our American farmers who produce the safest, most economically viable food in the world.
Posted by
Staff
on
October 29, 2009
House Agriculture Committee, Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research Opening Statement on next generation biofuels
Good Morning. Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Goodlatte. I would like to welcome our two distinguished panels of witnesses from the private sector and the USDA to discuss America’s future on next generation biofuels. A simple premise in this day and age is that we cannot predict with any certainty what energy prices will be, what the supply and demand will be, or what our economy will look like in the future. Energy is plays a central role in our economy and alternative energy such as biofuels will directly impact the availability of jobs, our incomes and the quality of our lives for many years to come. These sources of alternative energy are an important step towards energy independence. If we do not use these resources and address these issues now, the rest of the world will pass us by. The Fifth Congressional District in Ohio is ahead of the curve in alternative energy sources as it is home to solar panel manufacturing, wind turbines, ethanol, geothermal, and biodiesel. There is also a process for coal gasification and development of a hydrogen engine is also occurring in the Fifth Congressional District. We are all aware that one source of energy is not one answer to our energy challenges. Our country needs not only biofuels, but also wind, solar, hydro in addition to nuclear, clean coal technology and more domestic oil and natural gas production. If we are going to achieve energy independence, we must use all available sources in a manner that is economically viable and environmentally sound. I hope that today’s hearing will help start moving our future use of biofuels and other sources of alternative energy in the right direction towards bringing jobs back, and bringing more alternative sources of energy to America and further developing the ones already in existence. The panelists who have been invited to testify have varied backgrounds will speak about various aspects. Northern Ohio has a future in this country to be a leader in alternative energies such as biofuels. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank you for your insight and testimony. Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Committee on Agriculture on this very important issue.
Posted by
Staff
on
October 29, 2009
Click here to read the 1,990 page health care bill House Democrats introduced today after months of closed-door negotiations.
Posted by
Staff
on
October 29, 2009
This blog post originally appears on House Republican Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) blog
Members of Congress and the American people are just beginning to look at Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) 1,990-page government takeover of health care, but it’s already becoming clear just how costly and unsustainable this proposal is. From higher taxes on middle-class families to job-killing mandates on small businesses to cuts in Medicare benefits for seniors, here are 10 facts every American should know about Speaker Pelosi’s 1,990-page government takeover of health care: 1. RAISES TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill imposes a range of tax increases on families with income below $250,000, breaking a promise made by President Obama. Tax increases on middle class families include: an individual mandate tax of up to 2.5 percent of income for taxpayers earning as little as $9,350; repeal of a tax break on medicine purchased with funds from an HSA (health savings account); limits to tax relief through FSAs (flexible spending accounts); taxes on medical devices that will inevitably be passed on to consumers; and a new tax on all insurance policies. 2. MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despite grave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Group that cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosi’s bill would have a negative impact on seniors’ benefits and choices, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars. 3. NO PROTECTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill claims to exempt small businesses from the steep eight percent ‘pay or play’ employer mandate. The facts tell a different story. Using Census data compiled by the Small Business Administration, this so-called ‘exemption’ hammers small employers with only, on average, 17 or more employees to new taxes and mandates. The outfits affected employ 70 percent of all small business employees, or 42.3 million workers. Adding to the assault on small businesses, the bill does not index the small business “exemption” amounts, meaning more and more small businesses will be ensnared by this job-killing employer mandate each year. 4. INCREASES THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Imposing a new $2 billion tax on insurance policies will be passed on to patients in the form of higher premiums. Changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit will, according to estimates by CBO, will raise Medicare Part B premiums by $25 billion and Part D premiums by 20 percent. And imposing an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for the bill’s Medicaid expansion will shift the burden of this expansion on state taxpayers who may experience tax increases to cover the cost. 5. USES GIMMICKS TO HIDE BUDGET-BUSTING COST, PILES UP DEBT ON FUTURE GENERATIONS. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill claims to be deficit neutral, but uses budget gimmickry to hide its massive total cost. Working families across America know they cannot simply decide that a bill they get in the mail doesn’t exist, but that’s exactly what congressional Democrats are doing. In order to meet the President’s ‘target’ spending total of $900 billion, Democrats have simply swept costly provisions under the rug, including the $245 billion ‘doc fix.’ 6. IMPOSES JOB-KILLING EMPLOYER MANDATES. Additional taxes on employers and new government mandates that dictate acceptable insurance will place new and crushing burdens on employers. These are burdens that will ultimately fall squarely on the backs of workers in the form of reduced wages, fewer hours or lost employment. CBO agrees that “[e]mployees largely bear the cost of... play-or-pay fees in the form of lower wages.” According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation’s largest small business association, an employer mandate of this magnitude will disproportionately impact small businesses, triggering up to 1.6 million lost jobs. Two-thirds of those jobs would be shed by small businesses. 7. TILTS THE PLAYING FIELD IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT-RUN INSURANCE COMPANY. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill promises not to give the government-run plan advantages over private insurers in the market, but the opposite is true. The bill provides billions in start-up funding for the government-run plan, and while it requires the plan to repay the money over time it does not require the plan to pay interest on this “loan.” This interest-free, taxpayer-subsidized loan is potentially worth millions of dollars and tilts the playing field in favor of the government-run plan. 8. THREATENS CASH-STRAPPED STATES WITH UNFUNDED MANDATES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill swells the number of Americans on the government rolls by expanding Medicaid eligibility. Medicaid is financed through a federal-state partnership, but the bill dumps nearly ten percent of the mandated expansion included in the bill onto the states. States, already struggling with fiscal constraints, would be left on the hook for billions of dollars due to this unfunded mandate. 9. CREATES A NEW MONSTROSITY IN THE TAX CODE. Starting in 2011, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill imposes a 5.4 percent tax on adjusted gross income above $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for married couples. Yet, the dollar amounts for which the tax kicks in are not indexed for inflation. We’ve seen this horror film before: the Alternative Minimum Tax, another Frankenstein’s monster of the tax code, also wasn’t indexed for inflation and now affects millions of middle class families with incomes below the Democrat’s surtax. 10. MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURTAIL JUNK LAWSUITS. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill misses a critical opportunity to rein in junk lawsuits and costly defensive medicine. The bill includes only a voluntary grant program to deal with the medical liability crisis instead of including real reform, which would produce tens of billions of dollars in savings, improve efficiency in our health care system and reduce costs for patients and providers. BONUS: Republicans have offered better solutions to lower health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage at a price our nation can afford. Learn more by visiting healthcare.gop.gov
Posted by
Staff
on
October 27, 2009
Today, Congressman Latta sent a letter to the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) to enter comments against the proposed rule to require banks prepay their assessments from the FDIC.
“During this time of economic uncertainty, I have grave reservations that this prepaid assessment is going to further curb the liquidity for the banks in the 5th District of Ohio which will further impede the lending for the small businesses that need it most,” Latta stated in his letter. A copy of Congressman Latta’s letter can be found here. On October 22, Congressman Latta sent a letter to House Committee on Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and House Committee on Small Business Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) requesting a joint committee hearing on the state of lending to small businesses in the United States. A copy of that letter can be found here.
Posted by
Staff
on
October 21, 2009
Recently, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has announced plans to codify an open Internet standard through the regulatory process. This so-called “network neutrality” principle would bar Internet Service Providers (ISP) from blocking or degrading access to the Internet based on which site or service a user visits.
Consistent with many of this Administration’s early initiatives, it seems as if the FCC is too quick on the draw in embracing intrusive regulatory solutions, when market mechanisms are already working to ensure an open Internet. The last time that I checked, my ISP did not block or slow my access to any site, nor have there been widespread cases of network operator abuse. Mr. Genachowski has put the cart before the horse and, at this point, the apparent heavy handed reach is, and best, unfounded and unsubstantiated. There have been few violations of the FCC’s current “network neutrality” statement of policy, thus begging the question of what specific incident warrants such broad government intrusion? The answer is simple, nothing. The Googles, Yahoos! and Twitters of the world continue to grow, innovate, and meet consumer demand while the AT&Ts, Comcasts, Verizons, and Sprints continue to outlay a larger and better fiber-optic and wireless infrastructure to continue to deliver the innovative content that is demanded by the users and producers. This is particularly important to rural areas where high-speed broadband expansion continues to lag behind their more urban counterparts. Thus, as our economy continues to struggle and unemployment continues to rise to levels we haven’t seen in decades, why would we want to regulate what is seemingly the last outpost for innovation and growth? As a strong believer in the transformative power of the Internet, we can all agree that popular services like YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter should not be blocked or slowed down arbitrarily by ISPs. As the Internet moves from the desktop into our pocket, it is critical that the same spirit of open innovation and consumer choice that has fueled the Internet's growth also be brought into the wireless space. We are quickly moving to a day where anything you can do on the Internet via your desktop you can also do on your mobile device—enhanced by the portability and versatility of today's handsets. In a space where unbridled innovation is already the norm, it is not clear to me what benefits new FCC regulations would add to the current telecommunications mix. Consumers now expect open and fast access to any website or application—whether wired or wirelessly—and will revolt in a competitive marketplace if it is not provided to them. Consumers would not tolerate any carrier blocking or slowing down services for any reasons other than to protect its network from harm or fairly manage any bandwidth constraints—and nor would I. But what we have today at the FCC constitutes an effort to regulate in response to theoretical concerns and occasional isolated instances. As President Reagan once said, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “We’re from the government and we’re here to help.” The proposed FCC rules do not change the current open nature of the Internet and the inexorable move to fast and open access to Internet applications on mobile devices. At this point, "net neutrality" regulations are a solution in search of a problem. As such, we do not need federal regulation to keep the Internet free and open for all interested parties, we need the government to “get out of the way and stay out of the way.”
Posted by
Staff
on
October 16, 2009
Congressman Robert E. Latta I believe there is an impending crisis in this country in relation to water infrastructure issues. During my time in Congress one of main priorities has been to assist the local communities in my District with their water infrastructure issues. It is the main issue I hear over and over from local communities, as they simply do not have the financial means to address regulations that have been placed upon them in relation to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Last spring, I sent Administrator Jackson, along with some of my Ohio colleagues, a letter requesting information about the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) and its enforcement of water infrastructure issues in the state. I was disappointed that the response came from the EPA Chicago Region 5 office rather than from Ms. Jackson herself. During these difficult economic times for our country and its citizens, Ohio communities are being put in a very tough situation: feeling great pressure to comply with regulations while at the same time facing the reality that, in many cases, there simply are not funds available for these communities to fund the projects being mandated upon them. To make the best of this situation, I respectfully requested then, and respectfully request now, that Ms. Jackson direct the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to, as appropriate, grant variances so these communities can make the improvements needed to their drinking water and wastewater systems. While we all agree that our nation’s health, quality of life, and economic well-being rely on adequate drinking water and wastewater treatment, the current requirements present an undue burden on these Ohio communities during these tough economic times. I look forward to continuing to work the Committee and the EPA on this very important issue. Thank you and I yield back my time. |
