Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank both gentlemen for joining me this evening. Mr. Speaker, where are we?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Two sentences. Tune in Sunday. Thanks.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, yesterday the President of the United States was in beautiful Strongsville, Ohio, and the biggest applause line he got was when he said, We need courage. We need courage to have an up-or-down vote on the health care bill. Now, I'm not a big fan of the health care bill, but I thought, My, that's pretty brave. And I looked up ``courage'': mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, withstand danger, fear, or difficulty. So good for the President; he's standing up for his principles. Well, imagine my surprise when I padded out in my jammies this morning and got The Washington Post, and the headline on the top of the fold is ``Pelosi may try to pass health bill without vote.'' And I said, No, she didn't. But, I thought, perhaps sometimes newspapers are misleading and the headline might not describe the story. But no, sadly, this is the story. So it's not courage that we're going to have here. So I went a little further in the dictionary. ``Cowardly,'' that fits. ``Craven,'' that fits. You go a little into the Ds; ``deceptive,'' that's appropriate. Go a little bit further, ``gutless,'' into the Gs. Right. ``Spineless,'' under the Ss. And you can go all the way to the Ys, ``yellow-bellied.''

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, before I begin my 5 minutes, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I didn't want to interrupt the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, but is it proper in debate to utter words that Senator Bunning does not care about the unemployed? Is that an appropriate observation?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, excuse me. It is not a hypothetical. The gentlewoman said it, so it is not a hypothetical. She said it 2 minutes ago. Are you saying that I am asking you a hypothetical?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I think regular order has prevailed in the House. The regular order is that we don't follow the rules and that we issue gag rules. This is another gag rule. It is a closed rule, and we are going to talk about, not only the bad underlying bill, but the bad rule. This isn't a jobs bill. I have great admiration for the gentlewoman from California, the manager on the majority side of this rule, but my admiration has grown today because she has been able during this debate to call this a ``jobs bill'' with a straight face. She has not giggled once. But she should have. This isn't a jobs bill. This is a no jobs bill. This is a faux jobs bill. This is a snow jobs bill. Mr. Doggett, with whom I rarely agree, I think was right on the money. The centerpiece of this bill is $13 billion for a tax credit-- $13 billion out of $15 billion. The way this things works is, if you're a small business person in this country, struggling, and if you hire somebody at $30,000 a year, do you know what? You don't have to pay the payroll taxes, 6.2 percent payroll taxes, which is about $1,500. I had three chambers back in Ohio--chambers of commerce, small business people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents. I said, You know what? Here's the deal. How many of you are going to hire anybody? Nobody. Nobody raised their hands. This is not going to create one job, and it's the centerpiece of the bill. So, Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to defeat the previous question so I may amend the rule. If the previous question is defeated, I would propose to amend the rule to make in order an amendment to modify the proposed further House amendment, which would eliminate the $13 billion in this stupid tax provision and would transfer it to infrastructure spending and, further, that that infrastructure spending be distributed pursuant to the House-passed formula and not the Senate- passed formula. I want to get now to the underlying policy on the infrastructure side. I spent 14 years on the infrastructure committee--love the infrastructure committee, love Chairman Oberstar--but I can't figure out why people would vote for this thing based on the infrastructure spending. I understand, if you're from California, you might like this bill because, under this bill, California gets $277 million and, under the House bill, only $85 million. Illinois, the President's home State, I understand why he might like it--$151 million under this bill and $15 million under the House bill. Oregon, I don't know why a person from Oregon would vote for this bill: $40 million under this bill and $11 million under the--well, actually, you should vote for this bill, people from Oregon. You'll do better. Texas. Really, I saw Ms. Jackson Lee, who apparently can say that Senator Bunning doesn't care about unemployed people in this country. I don't know why anybody from Texas would vote for this bill, Mr. Sessions. Under this bill, you will get $1 million and change. Under Mr. Oberstar's proposal, Texas would have gotten $78 million. Now, why is that fair? Why is that fair that 22 States get zero? Why is it fair that you have winners and losers? Why is it fair that California gets 30 percent of the money under this bill? Well, it's not, and you know it's not. Finally, to the process. You know, I was tipping my hat to the Democratic majority a little earlier today because the original plan was just to bring the Senate amendment to the House bill over here, which of course, would have cut off the minority's ability to offer an amendment and a motion to recommit--but no, they didn't do that. I thought that was pretty crafty. What they did do is amend it with these 15 pages that were available 3 hours ago for our consideration. I'll give the gentlewoman from California the nod that, yes, these ideas have been talked about for a long time. Nobody had seen the 15 pages before 9:30 this morning. So they amended it. They had a Rules Committee hearing. What did they not permit under this rule? A motion to recommit. I can't believe it. You should be ashamed. Excuse me, Madam Speaker. They should be ashamed. This is a fraud. This is an anti-democratic rule. What are you afraid of? You have 256 votes. Let us offer my motion to recommit that transfers this stupid $13 billion to infrastructure spending that will put people to work in a sector of the economy that has 30 percent unemployment. It will distribute it according to the House proposal, not the Senate proposal so that California, Oregon, and Illinois don't walk out of this place with 58 percent of the money. It's not fair.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I have spoken many times on this floor about my great admiration for the chairman of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Oberstar, and he knows that this bill isn't fair. He knows that this bill isn't fair, because he produced a chart last week that has 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, so it is 51, and 22 States get nothing under this bill and four States walk away with 58 percent. Not surprisingly, I heard the Speaker likes the bill. California gets 30 percent of the highway funding under this bill. Any Member who is interested is more than free to come peruse this at their leisure. Now, I give Chairman Oberstar great credit, because he wasn't happy with this, I believe last week, and he fought with his leadership, and he has produced today a letter from Senator Reid saying he is going to fix it sometime in the future. Now, two things: That is the second big lie, the check is in the mail. The other thing is I hope the majority understands that a letter from Senator Reid just didn't fill us on this side of the aisle with warmth and fuzzy feelings. If you want to fix the problem, fix the problem. And the problem is not fixed. This is not a jobs bill. I also admire the Speaker of the House, but I admire her more today because she did not break into laughter when calling this a jobs bill. This is no jobs bill. This is a faux jobs bill. This is a snow jobs bill. And I look forward to the unemployment statistics tomorrow, because I believe that we are going to look at about 100,000 Americans will have lost their jobs in the last month, despite all these great successes. Continuing with my admiration for Chairman Oberstar, my favorite part of the speech that he gives on the stimulus package is all of those jobs which he created through the infrastructure spending in the stimulus are 8 percent of the funding. So that means, I have to figure out the math, Mr. Oberstar, but that means in an $800 billion bill, half the jobs were created by 8 percent of the funding, and that is thanks to you and the work that you and your colleagues do on the committee. So I guess the other half were created by about $750 billion. That is a strange, strange, strange investment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Oh, my pleasure, and my appreciation of you grows every day. But I will tell you what; if you can crack the code of the Senate, Republican or Democrat, then you deserve much more money than you are making as the chairman of the full committee, because they are a strange bunch. It doesn't matter who is in charge; they don't seem to do anything. Now, I want to get to the process now, because the President down at this health care summit down at Blair House said nobody cares about process. But I have got to tell you, I have never seen this. This is my 16th year in the United States Congress. When Mr. Etheridge made his motion, it says, ``Mr. Etheridge moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an amendment.''

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I appreciate it. I said, boy, that is really a procedural mouthful. And you know what it means? It is a procedural way to screw the minority, the Republican Party in this House. Not only can't we amend your bill, not only did we get it at 9:30 this morning, we can't offer a motion to recommit. You know what the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, would be saying if we pulled that on him when we take the majority back next year? He would be screaming bloody murder, and he would be right. Madam Speaker, as a result of that, I would like to offer an amendment to this bill.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Then I will ask the gentleman from North Carolina to yield to me to offer an amendment to the bill. And so that the gentleman doesn't think that I am sandbagging him, let me tell you what it is going to be. I would move to amend this bill to transfer the $13 billion in this sham tax credit, that is not going to create one job and is really the dumbest idea I ever heard, to infrastructure spending. I would further have it in that amendment that the infrastructure spending, now at $14 billion, be distributed pursuant to the House proposal that Mr. Oberstar has proposed, which means every State in the Union benefits, not just California, not just States that are walking away with a bunch of money. Will the gentleman from North Carolina yield to me for the purpose of offering an amendment?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Etheridge, we are going to give it another shot, because we are not going to be able to hide behind ``the rule doesn't offer it.'' I said that. The rule doesn't provide for an amendment. The rule doesn't even provide for a motion to recommit, the only tool in the minority's toolbox. Mr. Etheridge, I ask unanimous consent--well, first of all, I guess you need to yield to me for a unanimous consent request. Would you yield to me for a unanimous consent request? Do I have to ask him to yield to me, or do I yield to him to yield to me?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Etheridge, I am asking you to yield to me so I can make a unanimous consent request that you can deny.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. No, I am asking you, sir, to yield to me.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, that is nonsense, first of all, because the Speaker has just indicated that if you would yield to me, I could make my unanimous consent request.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, I am going to tell you what, Mr. Etheridge. If you would yield to me, which apparently you can under the rules but don't want to because you think the rule says so, which it clearly doesn't, here is the deal. I want to make a unanimous consent request that the $13 billion in this worthless tax credit be transferred to infrastructure spending; further, that that additional $13 billion be distributed pursuant to the House plan, as opposed to the Senate plan, the Senate plan rewarding only four States with 58 percent of money, 22 States getting zero. Now, Mr. Etheridge, I am asking you to yield to me for that purpose.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I am asking you to yield to me for the aforementioned unanimous consent request.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. So that is a no. Is that a no? I still have the time, Mr. Etheridge. Is that a no?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Do you know what that is? That is a soup sandwich answer, because the Speaker has just said you could do it.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I promise not to try to amend the bill or anything else. It's just sad that the distinguished chairman of the Surface Transportation Committee wouldn't yield to me, but it doesn't surprise me. He likes this bill. Oregon gets $40 million under the bill, of the $1 billion, and only $11 million under Mr. Oberstar's proposal. Are you going to give me a 7 percent thing or are you going to say that's not true? I'll yield to you if you don't think it's true.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. That's what I'm talking about.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, here's the skinny: That depends upon Harry Reid's putting a letter in the mail, sending it over to the chairman and the Speaker, and having another bill. Now, no disrespect to your majority, but you haven't done such a great job in passing bills since you guys took over 4 years ago. So waiting for another bill to come-- and, quite frankly, trying not to be partisan about this, but this mess was created by George Bush and it is perpetuated by President Obama because his Transportation Secretary says they don't want to deal with the 6-year bill until March of 2011. Thirty percent of the construction trade in this country is out of work. Why wouldn't you do this? To my distinguished friend from Oregon, all I was asking was for his State to do better. Transfer the $13 billion from this worthless tax credit and put it into infrastructure. Put these guys to work. Actually build something. Again, going back to Mr. Oberstar's wonderful speech that he always gives: a million jobs with only 8 percent of that $800 billion. Wouldn't it be great if we could give Jim Oberstar $14 billion to create jobs for America rather than coming up with this goofy tax credit that says if you hire somebody for $30,000, we're going to waive the payroll tax for November and December. Guess what? You can save $1,500 if you just give somebody a $30,000 job. It's nuts. This bill is wrong. That's what I was talking about.