Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 496, the reauthorization of the Appalachian Regional Commission. While we would have enjoyed having the House bill on the floor, we appreciate very much having the Senate bill. I want to express my thanks during the first part of my remarks to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota, for really making sure that this happened. I had the pleasure of being the chairman of this subcommittee in a couple of previous Congresses ago, and this is a difficult bill to navigate through the House and the Senate. And the fact that we're here today is a tribute to the leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota. I also thank the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Mica of Florida. And I want to thank a colleague of mine from Ohio, because in this bill we have added three counties in Ohio to the 29 counties in Ohio already located within the ARC. And the last county was Columbiana County added in 1990. We now are adding in this bill Ashtabula, Trumbull and Mahoning Counties. And the fact that they're in the bill is not only a credit to Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but also to Mr. Tim Ryan, the Congressman from Youngstown, who shares at least two of those counties with me. And we saw the vital need to have them included in the ARC. And we're very grateful. On the Senate side we are grateful to Senator Voinovich for making sure these counties, despite the fact that we have been at this 5 years, and every year we get the counties added in the bill, and then it goes over to the Senate and somebody has a goofy idea over there and they drop out. This year I'm grateful that Senator Voinovich and our colleagues in the House have maintained these three counties in the bill. And just the way when my friend and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Space) was speaking, we recognize the value of John Kennedy's vision when he dispatched folks to look at the conditions in Appalachia. And we've really moved light years from that. The ARC is a template for economic development in all of those regions. And we just want to be part of it. If you look at a map of the State of Ohio, the only sort of areas of white, and white being where there is no Regional Development Commission, Federal Commission, are the three counties that are being added today. Just one example, Kinsman, Ohio, the home of Clarence Darrow, the famous orator and attorney, is looking at a major sewer project. We are working with the United States Department of Agriculture, but by being in the ARC, they will get extra points, extra opportunities to make that a reality. So when you are dealing with 300 landowners and a price tag of $20 million, the assessment isn't astronomical in terms of $70,000 or $80,000 just to hook up the water and sewer. So we are excited about this opportunity and very grateful that this bill has come to the floor in a way that adds these counties. I would say to Mr. Space that we are all suffering, rural America, suburban America, exurban America. I don't like to trumpet in a partisan fashion on the floor, but I will tell you the folks in my part of Ohio want us to do something. They have said enough arguing. You have a lot of brainy ideas in Washington, DC. It is time to stop favoring one group over the other. Let's bring it all together and let's talk about oil, let's talk about coal, let's talk about nuclear, let's talk about renewables, but get it done so I can put gas in my gas tank.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support today of the Senate amendment to H.R. 802, the Maritime Prevention Pollution Act of 2008. I want to give credit and pay tribute to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings of Maryland, for their diligence in working this bill and working the will of the committee and today the will of the House. I join Mr. Oberstar in expressing my regret that the other body has not acted in as prompt a fashion, and therefore we may be too late with this legislation. Hopefully that isn't the case. This type of legislation is exactly what our committee should be about. Those of us, as the current occupant of the chair who hails from the Great Lakes region, as does the chairman of the full committee, know the great work that has gone into the restoration of the Great Lakes over many, many years. I am reminded as I listened to the chairman talk about the action or inaction of the other body that Johnny Carson, before the restoration of Lake Erie in particular was in full swing, used to joke that Lake Erie was a place where fish went to die. I think it is appropriate to say that at this moment in time, the Senate, regardless of who is in charge, is a place where bills go to die. This bill will implement international requirements to reduce air emissions from ships for purposes of U.S. law and will establish more stringent standards for the emissions of airborne pollutants from ships as well as the sulfur content of fuel oil used in United States waters. As Members may remember, the House first passed this bill in March of 2007, again thanks to the splendid leadership of Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings, with a broad bipartisan majority. Since that time, the bill has languished in the other body, to the point where we may well be prevented from voting on proposed amendments to the underlying convention at the next meeting of the International Maritime Organization. As a result, our abilities to push for strengthened measures have been significantly weakened. Nonetheless, this is important legislation. I am pleased we will be sending it to the President as a first step to improve environmental conditions in our ports and along our coasts. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, the reason that I nominated the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) as sort of the energy czar of the United States Congress is exactly the reasons that he indicated. If you look at the legislation that has effectively dealt in part with the difficulties we find ourselves in, the gentleman's transit legislation certainly gets people into mass transit and out of their automobiles and saves fuel. The gentleman's Amtrak legislation is historic, and in the short run a robust Amtrak means good things for America in terms of jobs and moving people to and from work. I think I saw something on the news where they were tracking what has happened to people's behaviors since the price of gas has gone up, and I believe Amtrak has seen a 13 percent ridership increase since gas has increased, a testament to Amtrak, and also a testament to the gentleman's bill that made sure that Amtrak isn't operating hand to mouth as we move through this process. Similarly, the gentleman's vision for intercity rail in this country is again something where we lag far behind our friends in Asia and Europe, and he has for the first time, at least since I have been here, put real money, $350 million a year for 5 years, into the notion of high-speed intercity rail connections principally in the Midwest of the United States. But all of us recognize that that piece at least is some years away in terms of it being a viable alternative and impacting the cost of gasoline. So, again, I would make the suggestion that there are good ideas on both sides of this aisle. There are many gifted Members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats. We should have a national debate. And, for the sake of the people that I represent and others represent, we should get something done and we should get them some relief today. But, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to Mr. Rayfield and we were trying to remember whether it was General William Tecumseh Sherman who said: If asked, I will not run. If nominated, I will not serve. If elected, I will not serve. I think that is what the gentleman from Minnesota said to my suggestion and I hope he in fact reconsiders that, because of all of the people in this body, he commands tremendous respect on both sides of the aisle. He has demonstrated again and again not only as the ranking member in previous Congresses of our committee but now as the chairman that he can put together the best ideas of both sides, and not only move forward ideas that he firmly believes in but find consensus and actually get bills done and signed into law. So I hope the gentleman, unlike my fellow Ohioan, General Sherman, reconsiders. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know that it will come as a surprise to the Speaker that I spend just a couple of minutes talking about energy today, and I want to talk about it in the context of our committee. I think the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, can probably cite the statistic, but every year I have been here, and this is my 14th year in the United States Congress, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I think under both Republican and Democratic leadership, has distinguished itself in the bipartisan and efficient way in which we craft our legislation and actually get something done, when the other body is willing and when the chief executive is willing to sign it. I thought I heard before our July 4th recess Mr. Oberstar talk about the many numbers of bills that we have actually moved through the House, through the Senate, that have been signed into law, and it far exceeds a lot of the work that some of the other more contentious committees in this body, by their nature, no criticism intended, can compile, and I think it is in direct correlation to and as a direct result of the respect that we have for each other on both sides of the aisle on that committee, and now the stern but fair leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). That brings me to a frustration that I found and encountered over the Fourth of July recess. I was talking to Mr. Oberstar. I didn't quite have the adulation poured upon me at parades that he had in his district in Minnesota. There were some people that thought that $4.10 was a little bit much to be paying at the pump. But the message that I got pretty loud and clear is that they want us to resolve it. When you pull into the gas station, there isn't a Republican pump and there isn't a Democratic pump and there isn't an independent pump, there is just gas that costs a lot of money today, and someone making $8 an hour in Ohio for a $320 per week gross paycheck is struggling, with $60, $70 filling up the tank to go to and from work. There are a lot of opinions, and I will get into those in just a second, but I was reminded for the 12 years we were in the majority I happened to be supportive of something known as Davis-Bacon, which is the Federal prevailing wage law, and our committee is responsible for producing the Water Resources Development Act. We were stymied for years in getting necessary water infrastructure projects out to our communities because of the sort of Davis-Bacon problem, and that is the then majority leader believed that if it came to a vote on an amendment, at that time by one of our colleagues who is not with us anymore, Mrs. Kelly of New York, that that issue would prevail, and much to the dismay of Members in the then majority party, who happened to be a majority of the majority but were a minority of the House, if that vote were permitted to have taken place. That was a frustrating thing, and, sadly, I think we find ourselves there again on this energy question. There are Members in this House who advocate additional exploration and drilling in the United States, both on and offshore, in the West, in Alaska, off the east coast and the west coast. There are some who say no. There are some who advocate a replenishment and an increased investment in renewable, wind and solar. The gentleman from Minnesota is an expert on photovoltaic electricity, and certainly he has passed legislation that would be supportive of increased research and development of that type of energy generation. There are those who believe like the French we should add nuclear power back into our portfolio. France, I believe, generates about 80 percent of its power through nuclear power. We haven't had a nuclear power program in this country for a number of years. There are those in this House that object to that and don't think that that is a good idea as well. But the point is that I think that at $4, $4.10, $4.11, we have reached the price point where the American public, who has to get up and buy food, send their kids to school, pay their bills, pay their taxes and fill up their gas tanks, don't really want to hear why we disagree and what we can't agree on. I think that they are looking for a solution. And there are a lot of people in both parties who are bellicose on this issue, and I don't intend to do that. But I think I would say that the time to have this national debate is now. We need to determine what direction the country is going to go in. And like most issues, the Democrats aren't 100 percent correct, the Republicans aren't 100 percent correct. But we are expected to be the leaders of the Nation and we are expected to come up with solutions. So I would hope, not in the spirit of the old Water Resources Development Act where we were not permitted to have the House work its will, that the current leadership of the House would let the Members of the House work their will on what the energy policy of this country should be to give some relief to our citizens. And since I am in a commending mood, Mr. Speaker, I would nominate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to be the designee of Speaker Pelosi to head up this effort and use the same bipartisan manner he uses on all other issues to get us out of this mess. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman of the committee, and I thank him for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this is my 14th year in the Congress. This is the first year that we've not had a major dustup over Amtrak, and that is a direct credit to the hard work on our side of Mr. Shuster and Mr. Mica, and on the Democratic side to Chairwoman Brown and the chairman of our full committee, who Ms. Brown has referred to as the guru of transportation. And I think this bill is one that deserves every Member's support. I was glad that Chairman Oberstar, in his remarks, talked about the high cost of fuel and gasoline, and he talked about airlines. And I just want to throw another one in. Continental Airlines is a big carrier in my part of the world. They just announced they're going to lay off 3,000 people out of a workforce of 54,000. And in talking to them, their jet fuel costs in the last year have gone up $2.3 billion. And if you think about what $2.3 billion means, translated over the workforce, it means that if fuel hadn't gone up by that amount, everybody that works for Continental Airlines could have gotten a raise of $50,000. I mean, we're talking real money. I just left a presentation by Michael Ward, the CEO, President and CEO of CSX, and his new advertising campaign as he attempts to convince those of us in Ohio and West Virginia and Pennsylvania and Virginia and Maryland to build the national gateway project. They can take a ton, a ton of cargo from Cleveland, Ohio, to Baltimore, Maryland, on a gallon of diesel fuel. Now, that is where we should be making our investments, and if we can do it with freight, we can certainly do it with passenger rail. I'm excited about this bill not only because we're going to stop the sort of nitpicking that's gone on here about how much Amtrak could get as a Federal subsidy. I've been here when we had the administration send up zero as the Federal contribution; I've been here when they sent up $500 million. I think this year they sent up $800 million when everybody agrees that that's not sufficient. The chairwoman and I have traveled the world looking at passenger rail systems. There is not a passenger rail system in the country, in the world, that makes money and doesn't rely on their government to make a contribution. We have a societal choice. We can either have people get in their car and pay $4.05 a gallon for one person listening to the radio, or we can convince them that for trips of 400 miles or less that passenger rail is a viable alternative in this country. And Mr. Mica's vision of high- speed passenger rail is a viable alternative in this country, and they can get from point A to point B in a cheap, clean, environmentally friendly way; and this bill moves us in that direction. So congratulations, I think, go around to Mr. Mica, Mr. Shuster, Ms. Brown, and Chairman Oberstar. We should be embarrassed, Mr. Chairman, as Americans when you look at what the Asians and the Europeans are doing with passenger rail that we have such a sad state of affairs in the United States of America. It's time to stop it, and I just want to thank all four of the leaders of our committee for including a proposal to make a real commitment for the first time in the history, of recent history of passenger rail to the Midwestern part of this United States. And I know, I know for a fact that if we put the Federal resources to build a high-speed rail line from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati, people would beg, would beg to be on that train for 120 miles an hour to get their business done. My congratulations. Good bill. We all need to vote for it.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman would yield to me on his reservation, I would make this observation to the gentleman and to the House. This amendment that Mr. Miller and I crafted, obviously, one of the things that vexes, and it doesn't matter whether it's financial services or anything else, one of the things that continues to vex and cause tension between the Federal Government and the States is this whole issue of preemption. So when Mr. Miller came to me with the original amendment, we began to hear some concerns. And quite frankly, the concerns were are you opening the door to a Maryland-type situation, where they can pass a State law that says that nobody can foreclose on property for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years. And clearly, although I happen to think that that kind of abrogation of property rights is an unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority, I understood the concerns. And so I will tell the gentleman on his reservation that we sought the advice of the OCC and the OTS and received a list of things that are already preempted. And as I think the gentleman has accurately stated, the manner, the process in which foreclosures have happened have always been the purview of the States. And then the boarding up of properties or the maintenance of properties that are foreclosed. And so it is my attempt through this unanimous consent request, I think, from all Members, and I think Members on both sides of the aisle have some concerns about this. This wasn't limited to Republican Members. There were some Democratic members that had concerns as well. The OCC has indicated to us that this answers that concern. It doesn't deprive them of their authority under the National Bank Act. Some of the banking institutions that were originally concerned about the amendment have indicated the that this is language that they can live with. And just as a Republican Member of the House, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia, under his reservation, that this is typically the point in our debates where our distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee skewers us as Republicans for being for States' rights on some days and being against States' rights on other days. It was my goal to make sure that States' rights were preserved on those things that they've always had the opportunity to regulate, and not impinge upon those, but also recognizing that not all the best ideas in terms of how to proceed on process or maintenance necessarily emanate from this Chamber. I thank the gentleman for yielding on his reservation.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that I have offered with Mr. Miller of North Carolina be modified and amended, and I will describe that--but then I know the Clerk has to report it--just by adding 2 words, on line 7, after the word ``foreclosure'' adding the word ``process,'' and on the next line, after the words ``foreclosed property,'' add the word ``maintenance.''

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. It's a good amendment. I hope we can all vote for it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a valuable member of the full committee, subcommittee, and the former Chair of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. LoBiondo.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume to, one, thank the distinguished chairmen of the subcommittee and the full committee for working with us to massage this language and for accepting our amendment. It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the coauthor of the amendment with me, who spoke during the course of the general debate and who, when this issue was coming up, because of the importance of natural gas and because of the importance of natural gas in the gulf coast, immediately came to me and said, can we continue to work on this as we bring it to the floor? And I again want to commend Mr. Boustany and his colleagues from the gulf coast for bringing this to our attention.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would advise that I am prepared to close if the gentleman is.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman. I had intended to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment. I would indicate to the chairman and the sponsors of the amendment that we are prepared to accept the amendment. I do have some concerns about the scope of the alleged incidents that will be reported via the Web site and the manner in which it will be presented, but I pledge to work with the amendment's sponsors as we move this bill to conference to facilitate those.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I indicated during the opening remarks general debate on this bill that this is an amendment which I cosponsored with Representative Boustany, and it would authorize the Coast Guard to consider qualified State and local security assets, personnel and resources, made available to a liquefied natural gas terminal when determining whether security resources are available to carry out necessary security measures. This language carries out an agreement that was developed in a colloquy with Chairman Cummings during our subcommittee's and the full committee's consideration of the bill. Mr. Chairman, all of us want to ensure the highest levels of security at LNG terminals and other at-risk assets. This amendment would do that by leveraging the collective resources of Federal, State, local, and private sector officials. I urge all members to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings, do you want to say anything about the amendment? I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank both chairmen and want to again congratulate Mr. McNerney on his amendment. I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very much. I want to thank the chairman for not only his work on the bill, the manager's amendment, but also this issue. I look forward to working with him to solve this problem which is looming out there for these 16 million boaters that never thought they would need a discharge petition when they went walleye fishing on Lake Erie. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would advise the distinguished chairman, I have no other speakers and am prepared to yield back whenever you are finished.

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have asked for the time in opposition to the amendment for the purpose of engaging the distinguished chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in a colloquy relative to the issue of recreational boating. Mr. Chairman, as you know, during the consideration of this measure before the Rules Committee, I offered several amendments related to discharges from recreational vessels. Those amendments were not made in order under the rule. I am still concerned about the impact the proposed regulations may have on more than 16 million recreational boaters in the United States. At the Rules Committee, you were more than gracious in suggesting that we would work together to develop legislation, hold hearings in the committee and move legislation quickly to the House on this subject. I would ask the chairman, and in saying this I also want to give a tip of the hat to Candice Miller of Michigan, who has been a real champion on this issue as well, but I would ask the chairman if you would be willing to work with us to bring legislation to the House floor and to get it prompt consideration, as this deadline is now approaching in September? I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I am happy to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for his observations.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. It is my understanding that the gentlelady's time has expired. I learned the hard way today that I don't have the right to close. But I would be happy to yield the balance of our time to the sponsor of the legislation, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her thoughtful amendment. We are willing to accept her amendment, which will require the Department of Homeland Security to assess measures that may encourage maritime workers to accelerate application rates for the TWIC card. We all know a deadline is looming. The only observation I would make so that no one is under a misapprehension, nobody has been prevented from working yet, because the TWIC requirements don't go into effect until September. But we support the gentlewoman's amendment. We think it is a thoughtful amendment. I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the full committee for his thoughts.