Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. We've seen this amendment a number of times in the 112th Congress, and, sadly, it doesn't get any better. It's based upon the misconception that somehow PLAs are costing the taxpayer money. Definitive research was done by the Department of Veterans Affairs that concluded that it really depends on what part of the country you are in and whether you have a heavily unionized workforce in your area or you don't. They concluded that PLAs are productive and actually come in on time and under budget in areas where you have a heavy unionized workforce and not so much in areas where you don't. And that makes sense because you have to bring people in to do the work. The amendment, I think, is being billed as ``we just want people given a choice,'' but come on. The people that are advocating this hate PLAs. They don't want PLAs. They want to kill project labor agreements. So this was craftily drafted by the Associated Builders and Contractors to pretend that we're going to give people a choice when they really don't want people to have a choice. Please reject this. We don't have to go out. And the President's executive order is clear. All it says is you have to consider PLAs in the mix. And I urge us to reject the amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I didn't plan to speak on this amendment; but I have to tell you, I find it to be an unfortunate amendment. I find it to be an unfortunate amendment not for what some people might suspect. I was here for the Defense of Marriage Act. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. But this amendment is symptomatic of what I think the problem of this Congress has been since it convened last January, and that is first the CR and then some other bills, and now the appropriations bills. Some folks have decided that they should just be a pinata, filled with all kinds of extraneous issues that have nothing to do with the core mission. This issue that is the subject of this amendment, I would tell the author who was not here when DOMA was passed, is being resolved. The Justice Department, I think wrongly, made a decision not to defend the lawsuit. But as Mr. Nadler said in a previous amendment, and I commend him for saying it, that's the executive's prerogative. But once they make that decision, the Congress is not powerless, and the Congress has taken action. And so the committee that exists here in the House voted to employ outside counsel. Outside counsel is vigorously defending the House's position in the Defense of Marriage Act, and I think there are 30 lawsuits across the country. This matter will be resolved, and the courts will either say that it's constitutional or unconstitutional, and then we will all abide by that decision. Now, where I find fault with my Democratic friends is that we've had a couple of markups in the legislative branch, and they're all exercised about the money that it's costing us for outside counsel. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the administration is going to defend it through the Justice Department, or we're going to avail ourselves of our constitutional responsibilities, hire outside counsel. So you can't criticize the speaker for paying a lawyer to defend their position. Likewise, I would suggest to my side of the aisle that this doesn't belong on Mr. Wolf's bill. There is not a problem. This matter will be resolved; it is being resolved. I think that this entire string of limitation amendments is disturbing because they continue a pattern now that's gone on for 18 months, and I don't think that's what an open rule is all about. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Again, I want to thank my partner, Mr. Cooper. I also want to thank all the brave Republicans and Democrats who are going to vote for this, all the brave Republicans and Democrats who cosponsored it, because this is not an easy vote. Mr. Chairman, the last three elections have been the wildest elections I have seen in my political life. It has swung between party and party and party, and 2012 is going to be the same thing. But I'll tell you what's different. It's not the Democrats are going to take over or the Republicans are going to take over. The mood in the country is: Throw the bums out. Throw them all out and replace them with new people. Americans are screaming for us to take off our red jerseys on this side, to take off the blue jerseys on that side, and put on the red, white, and blue jerseys of the United States of America. Our proposal, inspired by the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, authorized by the President of the United States, has been viciously attacked from the left and the right. And so I think, Cooper, we're on to something. I want to make an observation, from a pretty famous American, made just a month ago in the Rose Garden down at the White House. The quote is: This may be an election year, but the American people have no patience for gridlock and just a reflexive partisanship, and just paying attention to poll numbers and the next election instead of the next generation and what we can do to strengthen opportunity for all Americans. Americans don't have the luxury to put off tough decisions, and neither should we. President Barack Obama, February 21, 2012. I have heard a lot of people say that this is hard work, that not now. Well, if not now, when? And if not this, what? Ever? Mr. Chairman, we're asking that Members tonight stand up, that they stand up to the bloodsuckers in this town that take $5, $10, $15, $25 from our constituents to pretend to defend causes on their behalf. We're asking people to stand up to pledges they had made 20 years ago when we didn't have a $15 trillion deficit owed to China. We're asking people to stand up to honor their pledge that they made on the opening day of the 112th Congress to defend the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic. We ask that our colleagues stand up to America's biggest domestic threat and enemy, the $15 trillion--soon to be $22 trillion--that's staring us in the face. The time is now. We've got to get it done. This is the only bipartisan approach. And this is the only thing that has the chance to be adopted by both parties and the President of the United States, who authorized Simpson-Bowles. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Ryan has the right to close on behalf of the committee, and I am the last speaker on our side. Unless Mr. Ryan wants to give us the rest of his time, we can finish this right now.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. And in the spirit of unanimous consents, I would ask unanimous consent that 15 of those precious seconds go to Mr. Cooper and that he be permitted to yield those 15 seconds as ever how he sees fit.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and classmate from New Hampshire, a cosponsor of this substitute, Charlie Bass.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take 1 minute of our time and give it to Mr. Wolf for a grand total of 2 minutes.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I thank Mr. Cooper for his courtesy and his partnership. I want to begin by saying something nice about Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan has got one of the toughest jobs in the country. It's like herding cats to get new guys, old guys, and everybody else to put together the budget that he has for the last 2 years. However, as Mr. Cooper indicated, his budget is a Republican budget. Mr. Van Hollen's budget is a Democratic budget. There's an organization called PolitiFact which sort of checks out what public figures say about certain things. This particular chart, Pants on Fire, was awarded for the biggest lie of 2011, and that was those who claimed that Mr. Ryan's last budget ended Medicare as we know it. It got the distinction of being Pants on Fire for all of 2011. As Mr. Cooper indicated, we have been viciously attacked from the left and the right; and when you know you have a good deal is when the left and the right are pounding the snot out of you. That's what's happening here today. So I want to give some Pants on Fire to some of the claims that are being made. The claim that this creates a path for Medicare premium support, if you're making that argument, your pants are on fire. This slashes benefits for Social Security recipients. False. Your pants are on fire. This is a $2 trillion tax hike. False. Your pants are on fire. Repealing the sequester means $1 trillion in increased spending. False. Your pants are on fire. This would decimate the defense budget. False. Your pants are on fire. This encourages tax avoidance by corporations and will ship jobs overseas. Your pants are on fire. The recession would worsen under Simpson-Bowles. Your pants are on fire. GDP+1 requires deep cuts in health care, including Medicare. Your pants are on fire. The Simpson-Bowles budget would decimate domestic programs and force massive cuts. Your pants are on fire. Anybody that wants to read about it, come see Mr. Cooper or me and we will put your pants out. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to a new Member of the House from the State of Illinois, who has cosponsored this substitute at great political peril, quite frankly; and he deserves to be rewarded by the citizens of Illinois and not punished by the special interest groups of the right or left, Bob Dold.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your indulgence, and I also want to thank the dean of the House for organizing this Special Order. The House of Representatives is a building. It's a nice place, but it's really the people. And John Dingell is the House of Representatives, as his father was before him. Pete Visclosky is the House of Representatives. When I got here, Charlie Johnson was the Parliamentarian, he was the House of Representatives, and John Sullivan has replaced him; and he is, in fact, an institution with the House. I don't want to break the mood here, but in my opinion, the jury is still out on Wickham. We'll see how he does, but I think things have the opportunity to be okay. I just want to tell two quick stories that for me told the measure of the man. The first was a number of years ago when we had a Member who was going to be expelled from the House of Representatives. It was only the third time in modern history that that occurred. The last one was in the 1970s. Nobody had really had a chance to study the precedents and things of that nature, and I was kind of surprised that that process only took an hour of floor time--an hour to basically end somebody's political life. So I went to John, and he gave me advice, and then he told me to file something to postpone it to a date certain, which I had never heard of, and I bet most Members never heard of, but that gave Members of the House an additional hour to discuss the case. And I think at the end of that, because of John's stewardship and knowledge of the rules, the House, as a body, felt better at the conclusion of that 2-hour debate. It happened to be a Member of Ohio; and we are celebrating in Ohio that Ohio State is in the Final Four; our guy, John Boehner, is the Speaker of the House; and it also marks the first time in 8 years we haven't had a member of our delegation in prison. So we're pretty pleased about that as well. But I will tell you that it was John's counsel that got us through that. The second one was more recently. A couple of years ago, August, on our side, we call it the day of the stolen vote. I think the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, called it a procedural hiccup. But regardless, if you were here that night, it was wild. People were screaming, yelling, and crying. And I had the opportunity to watch the videotape about 300 times because we then had a special committee to look into it. And always in all of the frames, there was one rock like the Rock of Gibraltar standing there above the fray saying, We need to be calm. It reminded me a little bit--I don't know if you saw Kevin Bacon in Animal House, where he says, stay calm, stay calm, and the crowd runs him over, and he's nothing but a uniform in the end. That's what was going on around John. The place could have devolved into a very serious problem. It looked messy, and it was messy, but the measure of John's stewardship of the rules of the House--I would say that there was pressure on him and the rest of the Parliamentarian staff to do what one side or the other wanted him to do or for his opinion to come out one way or the other. The Republicans, we wanted him to say, hey, they stole the vote. It was 215 213, the gavel came down, you hoodwinked us. And from the Democratic side, the pressure was, these things happen, stuff happens; that no rules were broken, no harm, no foul. John, as he has throughout his service, both as Deputy and now as Parliamentarian, didn't pick sides. He called the game right down the line. He told us what he thought based upon the rules, the precedents of the House. And I will tell you you knew it was a good decision, because neither of us liked it. The Republicans didn't like what he had to say and the Democrats didn't like what he had to say. That to me is the mark of a fair ruling, because he called it as he saw it. There's one last thing that I want to say about his service. I got here in 1995, and 1995 was the first time the Republicans were in the majority for 40 years in the House of Representatives. I remember going to my first conference meeting and all these guys-- Charlie Johnson was the Parliamentarian at the time. Speakers would get up and say to Mr. Gingrich: We're not going to keep the Democrats' Parliamentarian, are we? I didn't know what the heck they were talking about. Of course, Mr. Johnson, in fact, stayed. I imagine there were some discussions about that in the Democratic Caucus when things changed in 2007, and I imagine I know there were discussions about that when it changed again in 2011. The fact of the matter is John is the embodiment of the Parliamentarian's Office. He's not the Democratic Parliamentarian. He's not the Republican Parliamentarian. He's the Parliamentarian for the House of Representatives, and that's what makes his service unique and unique to all of our Parliamentarians. In closing, I don't know what John is going to do; but, Mr. Speaker, if John writes a book and I have to pay $147 to get it on Amazon.com, I'm really going to be honked off. I hope, John, if you do write your memoirs or some tome with the Speaker of the House over in Great Britain that you let it come out in paperback so that all of us can enjoy it. And, please, make it a good read and not so dry. To John and your family, I really appreciate your friendship and your service. You have gotten me out of a lot of messes and not into too many. For your friendship and for your guidance in this House over your career, I'm very grateful. And I thank you and I wish you well in whatever you decide to do. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I think we need to hear from you, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. As do I. The gentleman is the dean of the House. You go first.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his observations. And I would simply say that if you and Mr. Dingell and Mr. Visclosky were in charge, we would get a lot more done around here. With that, every sport needs to have an anchorman. If you want a tug- of-war, you've got to have an anchorman. If you are in baseball, you need to have a closer. And when trouble is a-brewing on the House floor, our side turns to our next speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), and I would like to yield to him.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I want to thank the gentlelady from Maryland for her remarks. It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), another frequent presiding officer and accountant by training and trade prior to his service in the House of Representatives.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), who was a great presiding officer during what we called on our side of the aisle the ``troubled years,'' those of the Pelosi speakership, thinks that our debates are boring and that they're not riveting, seat-of-the-pants, edge-of-the-seat type things. Another wonderful presiding officer on our side, whose stern countenance keeps the House in order, is the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner), and I would yield to him.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for those remarks. I'm glad that Mrs. Biggert talked about her experiences in the chair because I think all of us have memories of that, going back a number of years, or a few years. Just before I yield to my next colleague, I just want to say, in the very first speech I gave on the floor, I had brought in the American humorist, Dave Barry, to be my guest press secretary. Some folks in my party said I should have my head examined, and I'm sorry to report that isn't the first or the last time that that's happened to me over the last 18 years. But he wrote my speech, and it was all about the warning labels that need to be on stepladders. Mr. Johnson was the Parliamentarian, but John was his deputy at the time. And Dave Barry wrote in my speech: ``Now, I'm not saying that all lawyers are scum- sucking toads.'' And we had to go to the Parliamentarian's Office to get it checked out to see if I could call lawyers ``scum-sucking toads.'' I'm pleased to report to the House 18 years later that that's not a violation of the rules, so I intend to use it in future speeches. It is now my pleasure to yield to someone who, during his championing of eliminating pork and earmarks, wore a path out between where he was seated and the Parliamentarian's desk, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, its now my pleasure to yield--and you'll notice a theme here. There's nothing greater than the honor of being asked by the Speaker, either Mr. Boehner or Ms. Pelosi or Mr. Hastert, to be the Speaker pro tem and preside over the House, and you'll see a theme of Members from both sides who have had the privilege of doing that and have had the benefit of the counsel of Mr. Sullivan. One of our best presiding officers, the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), I am pleased to yield to her.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished minority whip for those observations. It is now my pleasure to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California, who, sadly, like Mr. Sullivan, has decided to move into retirement. And like Mr. Sullivan, he will be greatly missed for his institutional knowledge in the House of Representatives.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Speaker very much, and I understand that I can't ask unanimous consent to give half to the dean of the House, but we're going to work it out, and since we're talking about the Parliamentarian, hopefully we'll get a favorable ruling from the Parliamentarian on the distribution of time. I'm going to be joined on the Democratic side in this rare burst of bipartisanship by the dean of the House, Mr. Dingell of Michigan, and a number of Members on both sides of the aisle are going to come talk about what to some of us was kind of a shock, and that is the announced retirement of our Parliamentarian, John Sullivan. Because I'm going to be here for the full hour along with Mr. Dingell, I'm going to yield to Members who have other time commitments, but I want to make sure that they have the opportunity to say what it is they feel they need to express about Mr. Sullivan's service to the House. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Thornberry of Texas.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Madam Chair, sadly, in a set of occurrences that is becoming all too frequent in our country, yesterday, at 7:40 a.m., in the town of Chardon, Ohio--for those of you that aren't familiar with our part of the world, about 25 miles east of Cleveland--allegedly, a student brought a gun into the cafeteria of the high school, opened fire and shot five of the students. As I stand here today, three of those students have succumbed to the injuries received and have passed away. Two continue to be under medical care. I would indicate that in these tragedies there are also items of heroism. An assistant coach at Chardon High School, Frank Hall, chased the gunman out of the high school at great risk to himself, but perhaps saving further tragedy. So, Madam Chair, on behalf of all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats in the State of Ohio, I would ask the House to observe a moment of silence in honor of the fallen, the staff at the school, their families, and the city of Chardon. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, the gentleman is an honorable Member and I'm going to go with that, but I want the concern to be mentioned.