Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 49, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I hadn't planned on talking, but as I conclude my service here in the United States Congress, every time somebody comes down to the well and says that they want to set the record straight, the record winds up looking like the hind legs of my dog: very crooked. Knowing a little bit about this and caring about this issue, as everybody that serves in this Congress does, I really feel compelled to talk about where we are. And I'm heartened by the fact that both the Speaker and the minority leader spoke today about the need to come up with a solution. Last spring, a guy named Jim Cooper, a Member from Tennessee, and I offered in response to the budget resolutions that were going on, something called ``Simpson-Bowles.'' Simpson-Bowles is also known as the fiscal commission appointed by President Obama to look at the Nation's fiscal problems and come up with a set of recommendations. The fact is that, even though it was President Obama's commission, he has not sought to implement one of the recommendations. Why? Because the recommendations are tough. There's a lot of tough love. You don't get into a situation as a country where you owe $16 trillion and not have a solution that involves some difficulty and some sacrifice. Included in there--and sadly, as you listen to the news accounts and you listen to some of the comments on the floor--the rhetoric is that those mean, nasty, nasty, mean Republicans are so interested in protecting the rich people in this country that they're not willing to increase and ask them to give just a little bit more. As one Republican who, in fact, says give the President the 2 percent of the rate increases that he's looking for--that still doesn't solve the problem, as Mr. Woodall so eloquently indicated--I would come at it a different way. If you let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2 percent of wage earners in this country, by the President's numbers--not my numbers, not some number that was pulled out of the campaign--it raises about $900 billion over 10 years. Not being the sharpest knife in the drawer when it came to math when I was growing up, even I can do that. If you divide $900 billion by 10 years, you wind up with $90 billion a year. That $90 billion a year is enough to run the Federal Government for 11 days. The fiscal year around here ends on September 30. The President's proposal, in terms of sticking it to the rich people, making them pay a little bit more, gets you from the end of the fiscal year on September 30 to Columbus Day. Then what? It completely ignores the fact that two- thirds of the Federal budget--the Federal budget is $3.6 trillion. Two-thirds of the Federal budget is what is called the ``middle class entitlements.'' It's Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest on the debt. Those checks go out automatically. There is nothing that any Member of Congress has to vote on, unless you have a proposal, which Simpson-Bowles was and is. You may hear the ads playing on the radio from the Nation's CEOs and others saying, We can't play small ball. We've got to come up with a package that actually heals the country. If there is a sadness that I have and one of the reasons I'm leaving is, if you listen to the people talking, the President's advisers are saying, Well, you know, going over the fiscal cliff, we're putting the Republicans in this box and the 2 percent, that's good for the President. And you hear the Democrats saying, Listen, if we can have this discharge petition, make people not like Republicans, that's good for the Democratic Party as we go forward. Some people, quite frankly, in my party--the Republican Party--are saying, Hey, listen. If we can paint the President and the Democrats as tax and spenders, then that's good for our party. Mr. Speaker, when are people going to stop thinking about what's good for themselves or good for their parties and start thinking about what's good for America? What's good for America is that we've got to come together and solve this problem, not just with taking that $90 billion, which really is not much, but with reforming our Tax Code. We have to look at the programs of Social Security and Medicare, not to eviscerate them, not to throw Granny out on the street, not to not have health care for people in this country, but to make those programs not only viable today--but what about the people in their forties and thirties and twenties? They did a survey a little while ago of high school seniors, and asked: What are you more likely to see, a Social Security check or a UFO, an unidentified flying object? More seniors picked the UFO, and with some of the leadership around here, I'm not surprised that they picked the UFO. The fact of the matter is that we can't play small ball. When Cooper and I put this thing on the floor last spring, it got 38 votes; 26 Democrats and 12 Republicans were willing to stand up and do this. It's time for the big deal, and it's time for leadership.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to Dr. Hillard M. Lazarus, in his continued pursuit of excellence in care delivery and commitment to medical innovation. During my eighteen year tenure in Congress, I have had the great honor of working with the University Hospitals Systems (UH) in Cleveland, OH, and experiencing firsthand the exceptional commitment to increasing the quality of care they provide to patients not just from Northeast Ohio, but from around the country. I have also had the opportunity to develop a personal relationship with many members of their dedicated team of care providers. Dr. Hillard Lazarus is one of those extraordinary members of the UH team. Dr. Lazarus has over 30 years of distinguished experience in his field, and has served as the Director of the Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Program within the Division of Hematology/Oncology at Seidman Cancer Center for the past 25 years. In this time, Dr. Lazarus has gained a reputation as a leading expert in his field and is widely recognized for his contributions in the areas of mesenchymal stem cell transplants and autologus stem cell transplantation. As a pioneer in non-embryonic stem cells and regenerative medicine, Dr. Lazarus performed the first stem cell transplant in the state of Ohio in 1976 at UH Case Medical Center. Dr. Lazarus has been identified as an Outstanding Physician in many national and local surveys, was inducted into the Cancer Care Hall of Fame and the American Cancer Society, and has received the American Cancer Society Lifetime Achievement Research Award. He has also authored and co-authored over 270 publications in peer-reviewed journals, 46 book chapters and 66 review articles. His record of ground-breaking treatments and breakthroughs has helped make Seidman Cancer Center a leader in the treatment of leukemia and other blood disorders. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to share some of the highlights of the ongoing work of Dr. Lazarus with the House of Representatives. It is so important to recognize innovators like him, who pave the way for medical breakthroughs that increase the duration and quality of life for millions of Americans. I am proud to offer my congratulations and thanks to Dr. Lazarus for his outstanding achievements and contributions, as well as his service to Northeast Ohio and the United States of America.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for reserving the point of order. I think when I'm done consuming my 5 minutes, he will perhaps relent and think that that's a bad idea. The Neighborhood Stabilization Fund has been a valuable tool all across America in helping to revitalize neighborhoods. I would suggest it has one fatal flaw. There are some homes in every community in America, whether it's Detroit, Los Angeles, Cleveland, where I'm from, where some homes just aren't coming back, and you can't revitalize the neighborhoods until you tear those houses down and start afresh. One of the difficulties with the Neighborhood Stabilization Fund is it restricts the ability for a local community to use those funds to demolish homes. I will tell you from touring a number of these properties in my good friend Marcia Fudge's district on the east side of Cleveland, these are firetraps, these are rattraps. The last two Cleveland police officers who have been injured in the line of duty have been injured as they entered a dilapidated home. We toured one home in fact where the expression ``everything but the kitchen sink'' didn't apply because people had actually taken the kitchen sink, the toilet, the wiring, the gutters, and all of the copper. Cities are stepping up all across the country to take care of this problem. In the State of Ohio, our Attorney General has devoted $75 million from the settlement with the top five big banks to this purpose. Mayor Jackson in Cleveland has expended a considerable amount of money. And Ms. Fudge and I have introduced legislation that would authorize bonds through the Department of Treasury to supplement the great work that land banks all across this country are doing. But because that bill languishes in the Ways and Means Committee, this simple amendment would give increased flexibility to communities that want to take grants that they've received from the Federal Government to stabilize their neighborhoods to give them the opportunity to use them for demolition if they reach the conclusion that in order to protect the neighbors in that neighborhood who are paying their taxes or keeping up their house, who are paying their mortgage but whose property values continue to plummet because they have this eyesore next door, that if the mayor of Cleveland or the mayor of Toledo or the mayor of Los Angeles reaches the conclusion that it's better in that instance to rip that house down and start over and work with the land banks that are popping up all across the country, they do that. So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask for passage of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I was on the floor about a half an hour ago and went back to my office stunned by the defeat at the hands of Mr. Latham and his point of order and the ruling of the Parliamentarian and the Chair at the time and the interesting comments from my friend from western Ohio, who I trust, after she has the opportunity to meet with Mr. Rokakis and Mr. Kildee in Michigan and Cleveland, will have a different view on whether or not the Neighborhood Stabilization fund, without additional resources to demolish homes, is working well. When I got back to the office, I turned on the television and I saw-- I like a good Republican bashing as much as other folks, but a string of speakers came to the microphone and just bashed the lack of a Republican plan on transportation. I'm not going to go back to 1844, but I am going to go back to September of 2009, the last bill, SAFETEA-LU, expired in September of 2009. In September of 2009--people who know the answer, you can shout it out--the President of the United States was a Democrat, Barack Obama, who is currently the President today. The majority leader in the United States Senate--shout it out if you know it--was Harry Reid, a Democrat of Nevada. The Speaker of the House was the first woman- elected Speaker in the history of the United States, Nancy Pelosi of California. The Democratic Party controlled all three levers of the Federal Government. They had in position as the chairman of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee a gentleman who has forgotten more about transportation than most of us will ever learn, Jim Oberstar of Minnesota. Mr. Oberstar prepared a 6-year fully funded, robust Federal transportation 6-year reauthorization. He was not allowed by the leadership within the Democratic Party to bring that bill forward. So for people to come to the floor and say that Mr. Latham is not doing his job, this negotiation that is going on on the transportation authorization currently is somehow a failure of Republican leadership, I say get up and look in the mirror. You have to take a look at the fact that everybody is responsible for this mess, and everybody knows that you don't fix the Nation's infrastructure unless you provide the necessary resources to fund the trust fund. Both parties are guilty of being absent without leave, but to blame it and to hang it on the Republican Party is worse than nonsense. It completely ignores historical fact. One other factoid about the President of the United States, President Obama. He has become the first President since Dwight Eisenhower to not send up his vision of a comprehensive transportation reauthorization bill. A lot of people in this House weren't even born when Dwight Eisenhower was the President of the United States, but he became the first President. And our good friend and former colleague, Mr. LaHood, who is the Secretary of Transportation, he would come before the subcommittee year after year after year and had no ideas, no gas tax, no vehicle miles traveled, no idea how we're going to replenish the highway trust fund until this year. Until this year, he came and said: I've got this brainy idea. We're going to fund it with OCO, the overseas contingency account, that the United States has used to support our troops in conflicts around the world. It was worse than fiction; it was a fantasy. And he knew it, but he delivered it with a straight face. I give him a lot of credit for that. But to come to the floor and attempt to hang this around the Republicans for failing to lead on transportation is laughable. Ours is the party of Teddy Roosevelt and the Panama Canal, Abraham Lincoln and the transcontinental railroad, Dwight Eisenhower and the interstate highway system. Ronald Reagan and George Bush all supported working wages to build our infrastructure. We will not take a back seat, nor will we be criticized by a party that completely failed in its mandate given to them in the election of 2008 to do a single thing, to employ people in the transportation sector and to move this country forward. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my great friend from Iowa for those kind words. I know his heart is in the right place, even if his legislative initiatives at this moment are not. A lot of people don't realize the history of rule XXI. I've had great conversations in the past with the prior Parliamentarians, the last two, Mr. Sullivan and Charlie--I can't remember Charlie's last name. We talked about the notion of equity. We're not only bound by the rules of the House, but just like in courts all across the country, the Chair has the power of equity in his possession. Rule XXI has its origins in 1844 when John Quincy Adams, the only President of the United States to come back and serve in the House of Representatives, decided that the appropriations process was bogging down and, therefore, we should have rule XXI to prohibit authorizing on appropriations bills. It was designed to keep the appropriators from poaching on the territory of the authorizing committees. We don't have that here. The chairman of the authorizing committee was just here, Mr. Bachus. He doesn't have any problem with this. The only person who is raising the point of order and has a problem with this is the distinguished subcommittee chair of the Appropriations Committee. So that's my first argument on equity. Secondly, because I had some spare time today, I also looked at the precedents of the House, and I would suggest to the Chair that this is a matter of first impression. The last time that this came to the attention of the Parliamentarian was in 2006. And, sadly, there is a big problem with getting the Congressional Record online, but we did get the previous one, which was in 1995 when the gentlelady from Missouri at the time, Ms. Danner, whom many of us remember, was attempting to make a provision in order on the Transportation, it wasn't Transportation-HUD at that time, it was the Transportation appropriations bill. And in construing the context of clause 2, rule XXI, the Chair at that time indicated that what she was attempting to do is--we have out of the highway trust fund, 2.8 cents goes to transit. That yields a certain amount of money, and she was attempting to wall off $26 million to go specifically to additional transit projects. The Chair in that instance specifically, and I think correctly, found that you cannot mandate or limit the discretion of the Secretary or another Federal official, nor can you mandate that money be used in a certain way that's not contemplated by the law. As a matter of fact, in section 1057 of the House manual that we all revere here very much, it cites the indications where this has been considered before. The common theme with all of them is that the person offering the amendment or the Appropriations Committee attempting to implement the policy was attempting to mandate action on the part of a Federal official or mandate that money be spent in a certain way. I brought up the June 9, 2006, ruling by the Chair, which occurs on page 10673, for those who may be following this at home, and in that instance the offending language was that the statement could not say that not less than a certain sum would be expended on that particular purpose. This amendment was very carefully crafted. As the Chair, I know being a student of the law and parliamentary procedure, will note that we don't have the words ``not less than,'' it's ``not more than.'' Already the existing legislation, the Dodd-Frank Act, contemplates that States who receive--so there's no change in the Federal appropriation. If the city of Cleveland gets a $100,000 neighborhood stabilization fund, they get to spend it. It doesn't change. There's no Federal involvement after that. It's then up to Mayor Jackson to figure out how to expend it. This expands the contemplated purpose of that that says a portion is already permitted to be used for demolition. This just says ``not more than.'' It's not a limitation. It just is increased flexibility for the communities that have received these grants. And honest to gosh, you know, with all of the problems that we have around this place, to go back and violate the spirit of John Quincy Adams' understanding of why we needed rule XXI, to prevent State and local communities from having the flexibility to demolish homes where fires are occurring, where people are selling drugs, where people are being murdered, is really beyond me. So I appeal to the Chair not only based upon the precedents of the House, but upon the inherent authority of the Chair to exercise equity and understand that there might be a ``t'' not crossed or an ``i'' not dotted in this particular instance, but the equitable arguments are on the side of this amendment, and I respectfully ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Let me take back my time and say that I think it's unfortunate that Texas doesn't feel they have to pay living wages for construction jobs. But beyond that, let me say that, if the language said that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the language doesn't say that. So let's say the VA down in Texas makes a determination that they want to do a project in Texas under a project labor agreement. They can't do it. They can't do it under this language. They are deprived of doing it because, to have a project labor agreement, they would be forced to require the contractors and subcontractors to abide by the terms and conditions of that agreement. I'm telling you that that's what it says, John, honest to gosh. There is a better way to write this. This wasn't written by friends of PLAs, and it needs to be passed.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I am happy to yield to my friend from Texas.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. He does. I know he does, and we've talked about this. And you know what? He can have that position. But what you can't do is bring an amendment to the floor that pretends to do one thing and, in fact, does another. If you don't want project labor agreements to even be considered, vote against Mr. Grimm's amendment. If you think that they should be in the mix, you need to vote for it.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. We don't want Ohio to run New York. I think the gentleman misspoke.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Reclaiming my time, well, let me say this. You know, I do agree with the gentleman from Arizona, which I very rarely do, that, in fact, under this administration, there's sort of a feeling that we should have PLAs, which I happen to think is a good thing into my part of the world. However, this language is almost identical to the Bartlett amendment that was in the defense authorization. To my belief, this was written by the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the Associated Builders and Contractors are not in favor of project labor agreements. Neither are most of the people, including Mr. Culberson. He's very proud of the fact that they don't have any unions in Texas. Well, we've got them in Ohio. And I'll tell you, here's the difficulty with this and why this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. What the problem is is, if an agency determines that they want to proceed with a project labor agreement, this language prohibits them from doing it because it prohibits any contractor or subcontractor who may bid a piece of that job to be required to enter into a union contract. And that's the difficulty, because if the agency, independent, without any thumbs on the scale, says, You know what--well, I've got to tell you, CRS is wrong. CRS is flat-out wrong. They're a great organization. They're flat-out wrong. But what this does is say that if the agency, and let's just take one that's in the news here in Washington, D.C. So the Metropolitan Airport Authority that controls the three airports in this area decides they want to do a project labor agreement, the board votes that way to do a project labor agreement on the silver line which is going out to Dulles Airport and it's covered by this bill, they cannot do a project labor agreement because this language isn't neutrality. This language says you can't have a project labor agreement because nobody, subcontractors can't be required to the terms and conditions that would be in a project labor agreement. So make no mistake about it, CRS notwithstanding, this is to kill project labor agreements. And if you have that position, that's a great position. You can have that position. Mr. Culberson, I believe, has that position.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I hear you. And if that was true, the wording of your amendment would be----

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I hadn't planned on speaking on this amendment--there are plenty of other voices to do it--but I argued against this amendment in committee. I repeatedly argue against this amendment. I really don't know why we have to repeat this exercise, other than it won by one vote the other time, and we're going to correct that mistake tonight, I will tell you. But the author of the amendment--the amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing in that the gentleman offering the amendment isn't in favor of project labor agreements. As a matter of fact, all the people who have spoken---- Are you in favor of project labor agreements? I don't want to slight you if you are. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. There is going to be a rolled vote, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman; but we're going to stand on the Grimm amendment in case we can't come to some accomodation, which I hope we can, not written by the ABC. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. There is going to be a rolled vote, I assume. You're not going to take extra real time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. And you're a gifted orator. A couple of things. One, I appreciate the gentleman's invitation, but I don't want to postpone the consideration of the amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. We've got enough stuff going on in Ohio.

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I commend the Energy and Commerce Committee for producing a good piece of legislation. I also want to applaud the efforts to enhance the safety of America's pharmaceutical supply chain. While we are fortunate in America to not yet have a widespread problem, counterfeit drugs pose a serious health risk to all consumers. The current patchwork of State requirements and licensing, however, makes supply chain compliance and safety inconsistent and challenging, which potentially jeopardizes the safety and welfare of millions of Americans. Unless a uniform Federal policy covering all pharmaceutical supply chain stakeholders is enacted, the U.S. will fail to provide the visibility and leverage technology that will provide a superior cost- effective consumer protection. Third party logistic providers, or 3PLs, are playing a growing and important role in making sure that safe medicines reach their destinations. The term ``third party logistics provider'' refers to an entity that provides or coordinates warehousing, distribution, or other services on behalf of a manufacturer. Currently, Federal law does not recognize the role of a 3PL. Only one State today offers a license for 3PLs. Other States require a 3PL to apply for a wholesale distributor license, even though 3PLs don't buy or sell drugs. The varying patchwork of inconsistent State requirements does not provide for optimum law enforcement, and there is an added cost without a safety benefit. 3PLs need to be defined in Federal legislation and properly licensed. Including a 3PL definition in Federal language is a strong first step towards the development of uniform Federal standards and 3PL licenses. I want to thank my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee in advance for a successful and constructive conference process, and I am confident that we can enhance the supply chain safety in a reasonable and cost-effective manner.