Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for adding his thoughts to the mystery of the hidden hand. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time of the hour remains?

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Clearly, those are contracts. We can mess with those contracts. We can mess with people that are working hard every day. We can mess with people that lend money so people can have the American Dream of homeownership. But we can't mess with 73 people who directed a company into near bankruptcy and needed $175 billion of my constituents' money and your constituents' money. But that is okay. We can't mess with those contracts. Please defeat the previous question and support Mr. Diaz-Balart's amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I intend to vote ``no'' on the previous question on this particular rule. I don't have any big problem with the rule, but it is my understanding that Mr. Diaz-Balart will, if it is defeated, offer an amendment to the rule that will address a topic that isn't the subject of the GIVE Act, but the AIG bonuses. Yesterday, the country was roiled by the fact that a company that has received $175 billion has handed out to 73 individuals bonuses of $1 million or more. Multiple pieces of legislation were introduced yesterday to put a stop to it. We see a lot of gnashing of teeth on the other side of the Capitol like, ``How could this happen? We didn't know it happened.'' We have some Senators introducing bills to tax these bonuses at 100 percent. But, Mr. Speaker, we know how this happened, and yesterday we filed legislation and Mr. Diaz-Balart's amendment would move the process along. In deference to the gentlelady who just spoke, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can consider the GIVE Act and we can also talk about the Nation's economy, which is critical. But we know that when the stimulus bill was passed, there was an amendment offered, a bipartisan amendment, by Senators Wyden and Snow that would have said that if there are in fact these egregious bonuses--and think about it for just a minute. You run a company into the ground and participate in causing the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, and you get millions of dollars in bonuses. I would like that job, and a lot of people that I represent would like that job. There was a provision in the stimulus bill that would have said that if you give out these egregious bonuses, there is going to be an excise tax of 35 percent. It goes to conference. All of a sudden, that provision is then gone, and what is inserted in section 111, paragraph 3(iii) is that: No bonus that was agreed to or negotiated prior to February 11 will be subject to this restriction. Does anybody think that the bonuses that were just given out that were the subject of a CNN report on January 28 was negotiated after February 11? It is ridiculous. They knew it was going to happen. They let it happen. And now that the public has somehow said we don't think this should happen, we have a lot of finger-pointing going on on Capitol Hill. Yesterday, I filed a Resolution of Inquiry directing the Secretary of the Treasury to hand over all of the documents leading up to why this transpired, why it was permitted to transpire. And we hear the Constitution being bandied about. ``We can't interfere with contract law.'' I am going to tell you, since the beginning of this Congress, the 111th Congress, if you are an auto worker, even though you had a contract to make X number of dollars to build automobiles in this country, we violated those contracts and said let's cram those down if you want to get Federal assistance. If you lied on your mortgage application when you went to the ABC bank, and they gave you a $100,000 mortgage, and they said, ``you lied to get that mortgage,'' we just passed a piece of legislation that says, ``we don't care if you lied. If you get in financial trouble, we are going to cram down the mortgage, and you don't owe the bank $100,000 anymore.''

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you and Members of the House the introduction of a resolution of inquiry regarding the payment of executive bonuses to employees of American International Group, AIG. It is H. Res. 251. Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I, as well as many Americans across the country, are outraged at the unfurling of events surrounding this freewheeling company which helped to lead us into the financial disaster we now face. To make matters worse, we find out this week that the administration was fully aware of the March 15 payment of $165 million in executive or retention bonuses for many months. Even more troubling is the fact that the one person who was in the dark about the pending bonuses, until last week no less, was our very own Secretary of the Treasury who was supposed to be masterminding our economic recovery and banking recovery. It is clear from the media reports that AIG did not award these bonuses as a snub to the administration, but instead waited until they had the blessing of the Secretary of Treasury, who apparently believes he did his due diligence by berating AIG and then saying that there was nothing that he could do to stop the bonuses. The fact that we are rewarding the very people who caused the largest corporate loss in history is astounding. Just recently, the Attorney General of New York has indicated that at least 73 AIG employees received bonuses in excess of more than $1 million, including nearly one dozen AIG employees who no longer work for the beleaguered firm. Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Americans who have lost their jobs during this economic crisis, and most did their jobs well with great purpose and performance. There are no bonuses for them. Instead, they risk losing their homes, health care, and more. Meanwhile, AIG employees who engaged in risky, perilous behavior that brought our economy to the brink of collapse are rewarded. There is a great deal of finger-pointing about how we got into this mess and what Congress and the administration is doing. Let me state just a few facts. Since the beginning of this Congress, which is about 2\1/2\ months old now, only eight bills have been signed into law; and this week is like many others in the House, virtually no substantive legislative activity. This House, within 8 days of one person being attacked in Connecticut by a chimpanzee, rushed through legislation to make it harder to own chimpanzees. Mr. Speaker, where are our priorities? Here we sit, wringing our hands over how to curb bailout abuses, and what have we done to date to show for it? Today, again, the House was deeply contemplating a series of noncontroversial bills under suspension, including two measures naming post offices, and approving a bill supporting Professional Social Worker Month. I like social workers, Mr. Speaker, but who in their right mind thinks that that should be a priority today or this week while the Nation is roiled in anger over these bonuses? We might as well tackle more chimp or monkey legislation. Mr. Speaker, based upon the Nation's unemployment rate, which hit a new high of 8.1 percent in February, that translates into 16 Americans losing their job every minute. Americans are struggling to keep their homes. Two hundred seventy-five thousand foreclosure filings were reported in January, with one home in every 440 receiving a foreclosure filing in February. This year, the stock market has plunged 1,750 points and is at its lowest rate since 1997. Millions of Americans continue to lose their retirement security. To date, AIG has received $200 billion in taxpayers' funds to keep the company afloat and recently suffered the largest quarterly loss of any corporation in American history. Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. We cannot sit by and watch as AIG executives not only keep their jobs but are also rewarded for their actions. Further, the administration needs to come clean on its discussions with AIG and approving these bonuses. Therefore, today I have introduced a resolution requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to transmit to Congress all communications relating to AIG and its approval of these executive bonuses as well as the use of Federal infusion of taxpayer money. Americans deserve to know the full story, and this Congress must act to get it now. The excuses on television are, ``Well, these are contracts. We can't mess with contract law.'' Mr. Speaker, recently we have told the Big Three auto makers that if they want Federal Government assistance, they have to cram down the people that work in their auto factories. Those are contracts. Recently, the House has passed legislation on mortgage relief that says that even though a bank gave you $100,000 to buy a house, if you got that house under false circumstances, we have to cram down how much you owe the bank. That is certainly contract law as well. The notion that it is an excuse that somehow these contracts were entered into and we must honor them, and we have to pay $165 million to 73 people, is an abomination. We need to stop it. And I am asking for every Member of this House to cosponsor the resolution.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Requesting Member: Congressman Steven C. LaTourette Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Elementary & Secondary Education Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Partnership for Education Address of Requesting Entity: 3441 North Ridge West, Ashtabula, Ohio 44005 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $285,000 for academic enrichment activities across all seven Ashtabula County school districts. Partnership for Education is a 503(c) organization that was created in 1999 from the collaboration and commitment among local community and stakeholder support groups, primarily the Civic Development Corporation of Ashtabula County, the Ashtabula Foundation, the Ashtabula County Education Partnership, and the Growth Partnership Education Committee, to improve student learning and support professional development to help schools improve their planning and deployment capabilities. Approximately, $211,000 is for program implementation, $66,500 is for materials and supplies, and $7,500 is for auditing and program evaluation. The Civic Development Corporation of Ashtabula County has pledged $500,000; the Ashtabula Foundation has committed $75,000.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the majority leader for yielding. I just wanted to add on our side, in happier times--and I know you won't agree with me, but I define happier times as when the Republicans were in the majority--a number of us had the opportunity to spend very long evenings in the chair as the Speaker's representative, during the appropriations process in particular. I know it won't come as a surprise to Members, but when you've heard that 50th speech on the National Endowment for the Arts or the 40th observation about whether or not an IUD is an abortifacient, you have some time on your hands when you're in the chair and you get to know people. And one of the people that you get to know is Gay Topper. Professionalism is right. And I tell Mr. Kildee, I found out she was a Democrat after about 10 years of being up there. But you get to know people. You get to know people, and you also get to know the professionalism. A lot of us think on each side somehow the Chair is rigged up there. Well, it is not rigged. I can remember a debate one evening when a Member, I won't name the Member, said, ``Hey, I want you to give me a minute like you just gave that Republican.'' And I turned to Gay and I said, ``Give the gentlelady the same minute you gave the Republican,'' and she did. Gay, we are going to be a poorer institution without you, and I want to thank you on behalf of us during those happier times for your service.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act. Great Lakes Water Education STEM Project Account: NOAA--Operations, Research and Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Great Lakes Science Center Address of Requesting Entity: 601 Erieside Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for the development, hosting, and educational programming for Water: H2O Equals Life to provide STEM education to K-12 school children. The program will provide overnight educational camp-ins, teacher professional development, outreach, and quarterly day-camps that teach global water policy. Approximately, $250,000 is for the development of the Water Exhibition partnership at the Great Lakes Science Center; $250,000 is for design and content development. The Great Lakes Science Center is committed to contributing $250,000 to this project. Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Austinburg Township Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ashtabula County Department of Environmental Services Address of Requesting Entity: 25 West Jefferson St., Jefferson, Ohio 44047 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $700,000 for construction of a wastewater collection system in central Austinburg Township, Ashtabula County, Ohio, extending north, south, east and west from the intersection of SR 307 and SR 45. The Ohio EPA ordered the township to construct a public sanitary sewer collection system to eliminate unsanitary conditions followed by a County Health Department study that revealed numerous failed sewage disposal systems and high concentrations of fecal coli form bacteria in storm drains that flow into the Grand River, a major watershed of Lake Erie. Approximately, $10,500 is for wetland delineation; $616,000 is for installation of the collection system; $70,000 is for construction management, and $3,500 is for environmental review. Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Madison Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Madison Township Address of Requesting Entity: 2065 Hubbard Road, Madison, Ohio 44057 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $200,000 to extend a primary water line to replace wells that have water quality issues. The service area currently runs seasonably dry. Approximately, $200,000 is for construction of the water line at McMackin Road. Local resident assessments are committed to a 25 percent match. Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Thompson Sewerage Project Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Geauga County Department of Water Resource Address of Requesting Entity: 470 Center Street, Building 3, Chardon, Ohio 44024 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $300,000 for collecting and transporting generated waste water to a waste water treatment plant. The project was prompted by failing septic systems that are posing health risk to residents and violating environmental laws stemming from the Clean Water Act. The project is supported by the Ohio EPA. Approximately, $145,000 is for engineering and $155,000 is for construction. Hattie Larlham Research Institute Account: Elementary and Secondary Education Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Hattie Larlham Autism Preschool Address of Requesting Entity: 9772 Diagonal Road, Mantua, Ohio 44255 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $238,000 for evidence- based services for preschool-aged children with a primary diagnosis of autism. The intensive, early intervention services aim to provide personal independence and social responsibility for autistic children to enable a successful transition to kindergarten with minimal support needs. Support services are strained in the State as 1 out of every 150 American children is diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, according to 2007 data by the CDC. Approximately, $198,000 is for occupational and speech therapy services; $40,000 is for equipment, classroom space and teaching supplies. Lakeland Community College Regional Health Workforce Development Account: Higher Education Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Lakeland Community College Address of Requesting Entity: 7700 Clocktower Drive, Kirtland, Ohio 44094 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $333,000 for supporting construction of new classrooms and labs, equipment, and development of a Health Information Technology Associates Degree program. This project will have a positive impact on workforce development and healthcare cost-containment in Lake and surrounding counties by creating a pipeline of new skilled workers in nursing and allied health students with a focus on emerging technologies that train new and existing healthcare workers to use health state-of-the-art medical technologies. Approximately, $276,000 is for nursing and paramedic lab and classroom space and $57,000 is for equipment. Lakeland Community College will contribute a 1:1 nonfederal dollar match. Glenbeigh Hospital of Rock Creek Account: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration-- Substance Abuse Treatment Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Glenbeigh Hospital of Rock Creek Address of Requesting Entity: 2863 Route 45, Rock Creek, Ohio 44084 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $190,000 for expanding the capacity for extended care at the Rock Creek campus. Current program spaces for this counseling-based model that provides patients with the opportunity to regain independent living skills while continuing to benefit from counseling and recovery programs, is very limited. Approximately, $190,000 is for doubling the capacity in both the men's and women's residential recovery programs. Lake Metroparks Greenway Corridor Overhead Crossing of Norfolk and Southern Railroad Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Lake Metroparks Address of Requesting Entity: 11211 Spear Road, Concord Township, Ohio 44077 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $570,000 for constructing an overhead crossing over the Norfolk & Southern Railroad tracks located west of Liberty Street in Painesville, OH. The crossing will create a safer and more appropriately linked trail facility which in turn will increase usage of this section of the facility given its proximity to new schools in the City of Painesville. Approximately, $500,000 is for construction; $60,000 is for engineering and design, and $10,000 is for right of way permits. Pedestrian and Roadway Improvements to the North, Mill, and Cleveland Streets Corridor Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Village of Chagrin Falls Address of Requesting Entity: 21 West Washington Street, Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $380,000 for pedestrian and roadway improvements to the North Street, Mill Street, and Cleveland Street corridor. This roadway network will connect the north and south sides of the Village, providing safe access and links to existing public sidewalks to the public schools, businesses, churches and nature preserve. Approximately, $380,000 is for construction, including repair and resurfacing of existing asphalt pavement; repair and/or replacement of existing brick roadway; alignment of a storm drainage system, and construction of new sidewalks as needed. Traffic Signal Preemption System (TSPS) Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Willoughby Address of Requesting Entity: 37000 Euclid Avenue, Willoughby, Ohio 44094 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $85,500 for providing intersection right-of-way to authorized emergency vehicles. The current TSPS are so outdated that equipment is not available to make repairs. The requested TSPS locations are all located on major routes to a large acute care hospital, LakeWest Hospital. Approximately, $45,500 is for equipment and $40,000 is for installation. Metroparks Serving Summit County, Akron, OH Account: Economic Development Initiatives Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Metro Parks Serving Summit County Address of Requesting Entity: 975 Treaty Line Road, Akron, Ohio 44313 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $142,500 for purchasing the 54-acre Summit Bike and Hike Trail Preserve. The property is approximately 30% wetlands. It is bordered by Silver Springs Park and a 20-acre wetland complex, both owned by the City of Stow. Acquisition of the Summit Bike and Hike Trail Preserve will create a 354-acre block of publicly owned land to conserve and manage natural resources and provide the public with safe, outdoor recreational and educational opportunities, while improving water quality within the Cuyahoga River watershed. The project meets the goals of Ohio's Draft Coastal & Estuarine Land Conservation Program. Approximately, $142,500 is for acquiring fee title to the property. Geauga Park District, Chardon, OH Account: Economic Development Initiatives Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Geauga Park District Address of Requesting Entity: 9160 Robinson Road, Chardon, Ohio 44024 USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $285,000 for acquiring the 237-acre Orchard Hills property located in Chester Township, Geauga County, and the City of Kirtland. The western portion of the property contains 4,500 linear feet of Caves Creek, which the Ohio EPA has designated as high quality coldwater habitat. Preserving this property will help maintain the water quality of this Chagrin River tributary, part of the Lake Erie Basin. The Chagrin River is a State-designated Scenic River. Approximately, $285,000 is to acquire fee title to the property.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I just for a minute ask the membership to pause for an announcement, and I will be very brief. I do see the dean of our Ohio delegation over there, Ms. Kaptur, and I know she will want to share in this news as well. By luck of retirements and defeats and everything else, I now have the pleasant responsibility of being the Republican dean of the Ohio delegation. And some of you may have noticed that our colleague, Mr. Tiberi of Columbus, has not been with us for votes. Some were concerned that he was ill, something was going on. I have the happy duty to inform the House that he and his wife Denice a week ago Sunday, are now the proud parents of triplets. Daniela, Gabriela, and Cristina are all doing well. Cristina is scheduled to be released from the hospital soon. So if Congressman Tiberi looks a little tired and a little more worn- out than he has in the past, that is the reason. I know that the House will want to congratulate him and Denice and their three daughters. The Speaker pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for one hour.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, when you were a Cleveland Browns fan, there is no halfway. To be a Browns fan requires a lifelong devotion, an unflinching loyalty, a reverence for all those who came before. As a Browns fan, you come to accept that your loyalty will be tested often, and in ways you cannot fathom--the Drive, the Fumble, the stealth, dark-of-night move to Baltimore. Yet, the loyalty never wavers--mostly because the rewards and the memories forged on Sunday afternoons between fathers, sons, friends and neighbors are so powerful--even when they are few and far between. One of pillars of the Browns recently passed: Dante ``Glue Fingers'' Lavelli. He played with Otto Graham, Marion Motley and Lou ``The Toe'' Groza and was coached by the legendary Paul Brown. He led the team to seven championships in the 1940s and 1950s. He was a gridiron star in his hometown of Hudson, OH, which is part of my district. He led his high school team to three straight undefeated seasons. Dante Lavelli was a World War II Army veteran who missed most of college to defend our Nation, trading the Horseshoe at Ohio State for the beaches of Normandy. The famed receiver--nicknamed ``Gluefingers'' because he never dropped the ball--was enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton more than 30 years ago, where his 386 catches for 6,488 yards and 62 touchdowns are part of football lore. He loved one woman for more than 60 years, his beloved wife, Joy. He is survived by his wife, two daughters, a son, and four grandchildren, including Aaron Bill, who worked for me in Washington and now attends law school. I want to submit into the Record a column written by renowned Cleveland Plain Dealer sportswriter Terry Pluto, who so eloquently captured the magic of a man who meant so much to his family, his community, the Browns and the NFL. The article was published on January 25, 2009, the day after Lavelli's funeral in Hudson, OH. He was a man who put salt on almost everything, especially a salad. He drank a huge can of ice tea each night and would drive his grandchildren around, forcing them to listen to polka music in the car. Dante Lavelli was so much more than a Hall of Fame receiver for the Cleveland Browns, as family and friends made clear during his funeral at St. Mary's Church in Hudson on Saturday. Aaron Bill walked up to the pulpit with a comb as he prepared to talk about his grandfather, who died Tuesday at the age of 85. ``He was always trying to comb my hair,'' said Bill. ``He'd tell me that my sideburns were too long, that I needed a haircut. He wanted me to pull up my pants even when they were as high as they could go.'' Yes, he's Dante Lavelli, ``Gluefingers.'' He was Dante Lavelli, Mr. ``Clutch.'' He was Dante Lavelli, the receiver's receiver, a player whose football personality was opposite to so many of the self-absorbed types who play the position today. He's the man ``who never dropped a pass that he touched, not in practices or games.'' So said great Browns coach Paul Brown at Lavelli's Hall of Fame induction in 1975. He also never did a celebration dance in the end zone, because he had been there before--a total of 62 times in his 11-year Browns career. Lavelli caught all but 20 of his 386 receptions from Hall of Famer Otto Graham. He also played games in 1956, his final season, with a notebook and pencil tucked inside his pads so he could sign up opponents after the game to join the new Players Association that he helped assemble. ``When my father walked, the floor shook,'' said his son, Edward Lavelli. Or so it seemed. He led Hudson High to three undefeated seasons in the late 1930s. He played only three games at Ohio State before joining the Army, where he was in the 28th Infantry. The flag on his casket was a reminder that Lavelli was part of the group of men who landed at Omaha Beach. He was in Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944-45, where the Allies lost an estimated 81,000 men. In an interview with Scout.com, Lavelli said at one point in the fighting, ``I spent three days in a foxhole.'' He also said he prayed the ``Our Father'' constantly for three days. After his football career, Lavelli had ownership interest in a furniture store, in two bowling alleys and other business ventures. He had been the oldest living member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He pushed for recognition of the 1948 Browns for their undefeated season, which had been dismissed by the NFL because it happened in the old All- American Football Conference. As Father John Betters said in his homily, ``Dante Lavelli truly was one of America's Greatest Generation.'' Lavelli was married for nearly 60 years to Joy, and spent much of his later life in Westlake. His family members mentioned how he loved to win at anything, from gin rummy to golf to negotiating to buy a car. Oldest daughter Lucinda said her father often offered this advice: ``Save your money and get some rest.'' Or as grandson Aaron Bill said, looking up and speaking to his deceased grandfather, ``I love you very much, and I'll miss talking to you every day. And don't worry, my shoes aren't untied. I wore loafers.''

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I don't have any further speakers, and I would just yield myself the balance of the time and indicate that I think it's a good amendment. Listen, we were told, even though I didn't support the TARP Program, we were told, it was advertised as this money was going to free up credit, free up interbank lending, help people buy cars, help people who are subject to foreclosure stay in their homes. Just today, on the front page or in the business section of the Wall Street Journal, one of the companies that has received billions of dollars is now engaged in about $10 billion of speculative losses rather than doing the intended purpose. All this amendment says is until the Obama administration gets in place, in fact, they have to file, on their report, on December 30, that if they took money, if they wanted to participate--nobody put a gun at their head and said you have to participate--but if you participate in the program, and you take billions of dollars from the taxpayer, you have to demonstrate that you are engaged in new lending. That's all there is to it. In the brief amount of time that I have left, I would just ask the chairman a procedural question. I think it's a good oversight vote that every Member would want to be recorded on. I am mindful of people wanting to catch airplanes. Do you think we should have a recorded vote on this or not?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Perfect. I yield back the balance of my time, urge support of the amendment and thank Mr. Green for his help.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk that I am offering with my good friend Al Green of Texas made in order under the rule.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair for his wholehearted opposition to the amendment. Basically a couple things. I want to thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for making this rule in order and give a shout out to Betty Sutton, my fellow Ohioan who is on the committee that advocated that this be made in order. And I don't know if the Speaker is still on the floor, but, Madam Speaker, you can now take credit that this was the only amendment offered. It's made in order. You have a complete open rule on this piece of legislation; so it's a day of celebration. The way this came about is to date we have given away about $335 billion of TARP money, a bill that I opposed along with a number of my colleagues, and the intended purpose doesn't appear to have happened. People aren't being kept in their homes. People have to have perfect credit scores to buy a car, and they're using the funds, some banks, to buy other banks. In Cleveland, PNC will use $7 billion to buy National City Bank. This amendment is simple. Chairman Frank has had excellent oversight hearings, but the fact of the matter is the answer we are getting from Treasury is there's no way to track this, and they say the bankers come in and say, sure, we're going to spend the money the way we are supposed to, but nobody knows. It's inconceivable to me that we can't figure out where the money is going and they can't be made to certify that they're spending it for what we thought they would spend it for. So I called Chairman Frank, and I said can we get this done? And he said, well, find Al Green. And I called Al Green, and we worked together on a stand-alone bill. This may be the last day we're going to be here until the next administration comes in. I think we need to know where the 335 went before January 20. So knowing this legislation was coming up, we drafted an amendment, Al Green and I, and we are going to introduce a stand-alone bill tomorrow, I guess. But it basically says that if you've taken $400 billion of TARP money, you have to certify on your quarterly report that you've engaged in new lending and show us how you've done it and if not, why not. And it's a reasonable amendment. I urge support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time before I yield to my next speaker, I just want to say that Mr. Green is hiding his light under a bushel basket. His assistance in the drafting of not only this amendment but also the stand-alone legislation was invaluable, and I appreciate Chairman Frank putting the two of us together. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is something in life called the Hobson's choice. And I never thought I would be here, and I think Dave Hobson who is retiring probably thinks it is named after him, but it is not. And what we are being told today is that we either give $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury because he says that is what is needed, in a plan that is untested, unworked; or, and if we don't just write this check, we are being told that all of our constituents are going to lose their life savings, their 401(k)s, their retirements. That is one hell of a choice, Madam Speaker. And I come today with a big problem. The big problem is, where did the number come from? The number, Forbes Magazine last week, Treasury spokeswoman: It is not based on any data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number. Well, you know what: $700 billion is a really large number. Last night we took an amendment to the Rules Committee, asked them to make it in order to stop this process, slow it down by a day. The vote was 8-4, along party lines. Eight Democratic members of the Rules Committee, who represent about 4.8 million people, told 305 million Americans we couldn't have a vote on that or anything else, including measures that are important to Democrats, such as bankruptcy and things of that nature. This bill left the House and it went over to the Senate, and they larded it up: $192 million for rum. I guess we got the pirate vote in November. $100 million for NASCAR. $81 million for Hollywood. And my favorite, $2 million for wooden arrows for children. Now, I want children to have wooden arrows, but it doesn't belong in this bill. And I have got to tell you, as a Republican I have never seen--I am finishing my 14th year--what just happened on the last vote. And we all know that folks back home don't pay attention to the rules. Twenty Republicans voted for the Democratic rule. If those 20 Republicans had not voted for that rule, we could have had an amendment on the floor, saving America $450 billion, which, as our friends like to tell us, is 4 years in Iraq, and we could have cut the pork. As John McCain says, and sadly, for those 20 Republicans and those who aided and abetted them: we will make you famous, and you shall know their names. Shame on you.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I actually moved to Bainbridge Township now, so nobody can find me. Madam Speaker, this was a bad bill that we voted on Monday. It got a little better with some tax extenders, with the FDIC insurance, but it's gotten a lot worse, and it's gotten a lot worse because our friends on the other side of the Capitol just couldn't help themselves. They couldn't help themselves by larding this bill up with another $180 billion of tax giveaways. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I urge you to read yesterday's New York Times. There's a provision in here for $2 million for wooden arrows for children that apparently benefits a company in Oregon; and God bless any Oregonian that got it into the bill. And the CEO of the company says, we're waiting, and if we get it into the House bill and they pass it, we will be unpopping the champagne corks here, because this is a great deal for my company. How am I going to tell the people back in Ohio that the champagne corks are popping in Oregon over a tax subsidy of $2 million for wooden arrows? $192 million for rum? Madam Speaker, last night I took an amendment to the Rules Committee, and I asked one simple thing, to save half a trillion dollars, take the number down to $250 billion. I asked that the vote that when we come back, when the Secretary says he wants more money, make it a positive vote, not a negative vote that the President can veto, and I stripped the pork. 8 to 4 was the vote last night, Madam Speaker. Each of us represents about 600,000 people. 4.8 million people voted to deny 300 million people the vote. There is not a rush. The Senate's in town. Let's do it right. We can save half a trillion dollars, and we can cut the pork. The pork doesn't belong in this bill. This is a financial rescue package. We're being told that the economy is melting down. And the number, Madam Speaker, where did $700 billion come from? The administration says we didn't have any data point. We just wanted to pick a really large number. Come on. $700 billion--for NASCAR, rum, television and wooden arrows for children. Vote ``no'' on this egregious rule and the bill.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I can't address other Members, so I am going to make these comments to you. I have heard a number of speakers on the other side say they wish they could have had other things, like the cram-down on the bankruptcy, money for ACORN and a lot of other things. The only way you are ever going to have that opportunity is to make our amendment in order and turn the negative vote in November into a positive vote. And any Member that thinks that if you vote for 700 and you go home and say, well, we really only gave them 350; no, you didn't. You gave them the full 700, because we have to say no to the additional 350. And if we say no, the President vetoes it, then it takes 290 Members to deny that $350 billion. To the Democrats, Madam Speaker, I would say to you that make our amendment in order, come back on November 17, see how this program is working. And there is your opportunity, there is your leverage to go to your friends that want cram-down in bankruptcy and all the other things that their speakers are talking about. Give us the amendment; stop this overspending. The Secretary says he can only spend $50 billion a month. If we give him $250 billion, he still should have about $200 billion rolling around in his pocket when we come back.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, this has been one heck of a day here on Capitol Hill. As a matter of fact, it's been one heck of a week. About 13 days ago, the Secretary of the Treasury came down to Capitol Hill, said that our markets are a mess, Wall Street's a mess, and if we don't give him $700 billion immediately, it's going to be a big problem. And we take that seriously. But then there was a little investigation, and they asked the Treasury, Where did you come up with the number $700 billion? Well, they answered it last week in Forbes Magazine, and here's the Treasury spokeswoman's quote: ``It's not based on any particular data point. We just really wanted to come up with a really big number.'' Well, they succeeded. Seven hundred billion dollars is a really, really big number. It means really, really big things to Americans. A lot of us, because the Treasury Secretary also indicated that he could only spend $50 billion of your money a month, we had an amendment last night and we said let's make it a lot less. Let's save half a trillion dollars, and let's give him some money. If he's right, he can rescue the economy and everything will be all right. We're going to put in place some reforms, and we will come back on November 17 and we will figure out whether it's working or not. That sounded like a pretty reasonable plan to a lot of reasonable people. But that didn't happen. People who watch the House know that everything that comes to the floor comes to the floor pursuant to a rule. And the Rules Committee voted on that proposal last night, to save half a trillion dollars. And they voted ``no,'' 8-4. And, sadly, all 8 were members of the Democratic Party. Each of us represents about 600,000 people. So 4.8 million people basically, through their representatives, denied 305 million Americans the opportunity to have a vote, to take 10 minutes and take a vote about whether or not we could save half a trillion dollars and perhaps not give the whole $700 billion of tax money to the Treasury. Then the bill left the House, and it went over to our good friends in the Senate, who, of course, are very fiscally conservative. They're wiser than we are because they have 6-year terms; we only have 2-year terms. And do you think that they just were happy sending it back to us at $700 billion? No. They sent it back to us at $850 billion, and they added such wonderful things like $192 million for rum. Now, listen, I like rum. And it may be some of the Senators were nervous that they were losing the pirate vote. I don't know. But there's $192 million for rum, $100 million for NASCAR. I like NASCAR, but what's it doing in this bill saving the treasury? There's $81 billion to Hollywood and $2 million for wooden arrows for children. Now, listen, all of these projects might be okay. They don't belong in a bill when the administration is saying that we need to act now or else the economy's going to melt down. But, you know, some of my friends back home say, well, 3 weeks, okay, if it's an emergency. What have you guys been doing? Well, we had in August a little discussion around here, and I don't know how Mr. McCotter from Michigan feels, but my constituents were not really happy when gasoline went to $4 a gallon. And I'll bet we were probably talking about that and that's why we couldn't get to the economy. Well, this Congress started in January of 2007. Gas was $2.22 a gallon. People said that's high, but, okay, I can get by. So the Congress got together and we decided--actually, it was the Democratic majority that decided that the most important thing that we could discuss on that day was congratulating the University of California at Santa Barbara soccer team for their championship. I like soccer. That's important. I'm sure their parents are real proud. But gas is $2.22. Well, then it goes up to $2.84. And people say, well, sure, I'll bet now you're going to try to figure out an energy policy for the country. Well, on that day we declared it National Passport Month. And I know that everybody in America, when they filled up their gas tank at $2.84 a gallon, said, well, I know it's expensive but at least it's National Passport Month. Then gas went up to $3.03. And we have all been told that we have to get the vote of the soccer moms to be reelected. So we tried that again. When gas was at $3.03, we commended the Houston Dynamo soccer team because we really like soccer. Well, gas goes up to $3.77. Surely now your elected representatives in Washington get the picture, that we're going to vote on gas. We declared it National Train Month, folks. National Train Month. Well, then it goes up a little higher, $3.84 a gallon. Your Congress, thanks to the new majority, figures the most important issue is the Great Cats and Rare Canids. And for those of us who don't follow this, canids are dogs. So basically we were voting on foreign aid for cats and dogs rather than dealing with energy. Then it goes to $4.09. The first time in my history I paid over $4 for gasoline. Well, we're going to act on your behalf: We declared it International Sanitation Month because we really felt your pain. It crested $4.14 on June 17 of this year. You know that the United States Congress was grappling with energy prices. You know that the United States Congress had to be grappling with this meltdown of the economy. The majority party that day decided that the most important issue facing America was the Monkey Safety Act. Now, folks, you deserve better than the Monkey Safety Act. You deserve lower gas prices. And, folks, you deserve a better bill than you got today.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Chairman Frank, for noble work in being handed really a pile of garbage and trying to make it better. Sadly, I cannot endorse the legislation he has worked so hard to bring today; and say this mess is not of his making. Our leader, Mr. Boehner, appointed about 14 of us to do a working group to find an alternative to $700 billion, thinking that $700 billion is a lot of money. And our recommendations had a number of principles. One is that the people that made the mess should clean up the mess. Thankfully, that was the insurance program which Chairman Frank and the Democrats have acceded to. And it also dealt with CEO compensation in the bill, which I am happy to see. But there were three market reforms that could have taken this bill from $700 billion to maybe $100 billion, and it is what the folks that have been calling me asked for. Some have already been talked about on the floor, and that is the mark to market. And basically, to give an example, if you are a bank and you have a million dollar building in your portfolio but because the real estate market isn't doing so well, the bank examiners have come in and they have said your building is only worth $400,000 today. You haven't sold it. Nothing has happened to it. You are still collecting rent on it, but you have taken a $600,000 hit on your balance sheet. That has a doubled-edged effect in that now that you have a reduced balance sheet, you have to squirrel more cash so you can't make loans to people wanting to engage in business, people wanting to buy homes. It is fake. The latest figures that I have seen indicate that this mark down by the bank examiners has taken $500 billion of assets down, with the multiplier effect of about $5 trillion that is not available. We could double the FDIC reform and do the FDIC reform which I believe the chairman supports. And not one American has lost one penny in an FDIC-insured account of $100,000 or less. We could make it $200,000. Lastly, the principle was that the taxpayer shouldn't pay for this. Private money should pay for this. Repatriate offshore funds from American corporations, and we could fix this problem.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas as well as the gentleman from California. At this time we are without additional speakers, and I would yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of the bill.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what a pleasure it is to see you on a Saturday morning, rather than Monday through Friday. This is a good bill. It is an important bill. We have some reservations that I'm going to talk about in a moment, but I think the fact that you and I are here together with the full committee chairman and subcommittee chairman on a Saturday morning--and I've been advised we'll be here after 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon on a Sunday, certainly a rare occurrence in the proceedings of the United States Congress. And I was just talking to my colleague, Mr. Lungren from California, and we wouldn't be here doing this important bill if we had permitted Secretary Paulson and some Members of the other body to perform the bum rush and get us to approve $700 billion of taxpayers' money to bail out people that made bad decisions on Wall Street. So this is really what we call in Ohio a two-fer, in that we have the opportunity to continue to negotiate in a bipartisan way to attempt to resolve these differences. And, at least from my perspective, those differences need to be resolved, that those who created the mess should clean the mess up and private capital should recapitalize the markets rather than the taxpayer. So hopefully those discussions--you know, we're doing important work here today, but those are on a much higher level, I'm sure. But, you know, the interesting thing, from just a political standpoint for me today, is there's a commercial running back in northern Ohio--where I happen to be from--condemning me for wanting to write a $700 billion check to Secretary Paulson in this matter. And here, when I woke up this morning and I watched the news, the national media and the national Democratic Party is condemning me and my colleagues for standing in the way of giving $700 billion to the Treasury. So I'm really at a loss for how these things work. But I am glad to be here on this bill. And I'm glad that we're here on a Saturday to get this bill done. I have run out of superlatives to talk about the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and I would add to that the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings. It is beyond a pleasure to work with these gentlemen. And I think this piece of legislation is an example of why the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is far and above better than any other committee in the United States Congress, because I don't love everything in this bill, I'm sure that the chairmen don't love every piece of this bill, but they have always and consistently approached negotiations on legislation in a way that I think that we would be better served if we practiced in all legislation, and that is, they have their ideas, and as the majority party they are certainly in the position to have more of their ideas than we're permitted to have our ideas, but they welcome our ideas. And the negotiations on this bill not only began as the hearings that Mr. Oberstar detailed and Mr. Cummings detailed, but we were negotiating this bill, this final product, just a couple days ago because they are still willing to listen to suggestions, and I think that that's a credit to the leadership of Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Cummings. And if, in fact, more committees operated like that, we would be a better place. As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, I support many of the provisions in this bill, H.R. 6999, the Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act of 2008. This bill will make significant changes to the Coast Guard's Deepwater program and the way the Coast Guard oversees, manages and carries out the program as the service takes on the lead systems integrator responsibilities. I do have some concerns, as I mentioned, relative to the requirement over the lead system integrator responsibilities being assumed by the Coast Guard within 180 days of enactment. But I'm going to tell you that that really was the last piece of our negotiations. And again, as for the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, we could have gone to that meeting and they could have said, that's nice that you have concerns, but too bad. And they acquiesced in doubling that time from 90 days to 180 days, and I am more than grateful for that. With the help of Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings, H.R. 6999 will provide more time for the Coast Guard to build up its own staff, resources, and capabilities than was proposed under the Senate bill. I fully support the inclusion of the language that would give the Coast Guard enhanced authorities to interdict stateless submersibles and semi-submersibles at sea. And a little bit later we're going to hear from our colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) who has been a champion of this issue for a number of years. In recent years, the Coast Guard has been highly successful in stopping the importation of drugs by sea. I think last year they had a record year. These successes have forced the drug cartels to look at better ways for them to avoid Coast Guard assets on their way to the United States. Recently, the Coast Guard has witnessed a sudden and dramatic increase in the use of submersibles and semi-submersibles by would-be drug importers. This language will allow the Coast Guard to apprehend and prosecute these individuals without forcing Coast Guardsmen to risk their lives to pull out the bales of illegal drugs from a sinking submarine, as is the case now. And that's a lot of fancy language, but basically, Mr. Speaker, what's going on is these drug dealers are towing submersibles behind boats that have no flag, that have no certification. And when the Coast Guard is about to close in, they pull the plugs, basically, sink the submarine to the bottom of the Earth, and the way that our laws are currently written is the only way you can prosecute these drug dealers that want to poison our society with cocaine and other drugs is for the Coast Guardsmen to jump on board the sinking submarine and try and pull out a little cocaine so that we can prosecute them. This language--and you will hear from some of the champions of this bill in a minute--is important, and I'm glad it's in the bill today. Lastly, I do want to note that the Coast Guard has concerns that the independent review requirements may lead to increased costs and delays in the delivery of some deepwater assets. I know that we will continue to work with the majority to closely oversee the impacts of the bill on the Coast Guard and acquisitions as we move forward next year and beyond. I support this bill and, with the comments that I've made, ask all Members to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I yield to the gentleman from California just to say that the chairman has hit the nail on the head when it comes to Great Lakes shipping. And he, again, deserves great credit for, after 7 years, moving the Water Resources Development Act. And I would just add to that, the gentleman from Michigan sitting behind me and to my right, Vern Ehlers, and the chairman's work on the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which has the opportunity to clean up the contaminated hotspots within the Great Lakes. And as a result of that-- and I'm not trying to be a pig about it or anything--but as a result of that, one of the first major cleanups was in the Ashtabula Harbor; $53 million, and the Ashtabula Harbor was dredged for the first time in over 35 years. So when the chairman talks about shallow drafts and the cost that it increases to shipping and having to make three trips instead of one trip, the chairman is exactly right. And I look forward to continuing to work with him in a bipartisan way to move this along. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to one of our experts on submersibles, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2482, a bill to repeal a provision in current law which requires licenses for employment in the business of maritime salvaging in the State of Florida. S. 2482 is a companion bill to H.R. 4542, which was introduced by the ranking member of our full committee, Congressman John Mica of Florida, and which passed the House as part of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2008. Sadly, even though Chairman Cummings has done a great job and even though Mr. Oberstar has done a great job and we've tried to work together on the Coast Guard reauthorization bill, our friends on the other side of the Capitol haven't quite reached agreement with us. The bill repeals section 80102 of title 46, United States Code, an antiquated provision which dates back in various forms to the 1820s. It requires Federal judges to issue licenses to wreckers working in the State of Florida. Wreckers, now generally known as salvors, provided assistance to ships in trouble in exchange for a portion of the vessel's cargo. In the early 19th century, some argued that these wreckers may have provided assistance that was not needed and then demanded a portion of the vessel's cargo. It sounds a little bit like piracy to me, but I'm not sure. At that time, the primary Federal presence in Florida was the Federal judiciary. Therefore, Federal judges were given licensing authority over these wreckers. The licensing requirement fell out of use early in the last century. Today, salvage vessels and their crews operating in Florida are regulated under Coast Guard safety, inspection, crew licensing, and environmental standards just like any other vessels operating in United States waters. The Justice Department has determined the provision is unconstitutional, and S. 2482 repeals this anachronism. I support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time subject to the chairman.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. The gentleman is correct. If you have none, I am prepared to yield back and would yield back.