Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I would yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in two short colloquies with the chairman of the full committee, if I may. Mr. Chairman, first of all, would you be willing to enter into a colloquy regarding the withdrawal of funds from the seamen's accounts authorized under section 405?

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair. At this time--if the gentleman is reserving his 2\1/2\ minutes--it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. LaTOURETTE. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2830, and I'll tell you why in just a second, but just a couple of editorial notes. One is that it is my belief that this Coast Guard reauthorization is brought to the floor in the best traditions of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And I want to commend the ranking member of our full committee, Mr. Mica, for his diligence and work, and also for expressing his remaining concerns. I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Cummings, who I've had the pleasure now of working with about a year and a half, and I will tell you there is no Member that is more dedicated to not only the mission of the Coast Guard, but the safety of those that they entrust with supervising. It is a pleasure to serve in the post of ranking member with Mr. Cummings as the chairman. And, also, a special affection for the chairman of the full committee. I made the observation at the beginning of this Congress, and I'll repeat it again today, that obviously, as a Republican, none of us were excited about being thrust after 12 years from the majority party to the minority party, but if there was to be a Democratic Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, there is no one more deserving, in my opinion, perhaps in the history of the institution, than the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He really takes our committee, no matter what the issue, above partisanship to the goals of the Transportation Committee, and that is, safeguarding our waterways and building America. And, lastly, while I'm saying nice things about people, I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the Speaker of the House, Mrs. Pelosi, has installed you as the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of this piece of legislation. I rise in strong support of this bill. And I am especially proud of the ballast water provisions and the marine safety provisions located within the bill. This bill will establish national standards requiring the treatment of ballast water to minimize the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes and other U.S. waters. The bill will build on a lot of work that has already been done. Those of us that are from the Great Lakes know very well the importance of this issue. I am disappointed that we'll have a colloquy later with the chairman of the full committee relative to an amendment that was offered at the Rules Committee that would protect millions of recreational boaters from falling under a discharge permitting program designed for large oceangoing vessels. In the absence of this language, come September recreational voters will be facing fines of up to $32,500 a day for violations of program rules. For more than 30 years, Mr. Chairman, both recreational and commercial vehicles were exempted from these programs, and I hope that the majority will join us to develop language addressing these understandings. As well, when we get to the amendment portion of the bill, I have an amendment that I'm offering with Mr. Boustany of Louisiana that addresses some of the concerns raised by the ranking member, Mr. Mica, relative to waterside security for liquefied natural gas facilities. Again, I want to thank the Chair of the subcommittee and the full committee for working with us. I want to thank Mr. Boustany for his dogged work to make sure that we come up with a resolution that not only fits with the reality of assets that are available, builds on a long tradition that we established in 2005, but also permits us to move forward with the goal of attaining cheaper energy for Americans through the form of natural gas. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair very much and would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Howard Metzenbaum, the tenacious and scrapping Senator from the State of Ohio who died this week at the age of 90. I never had the privilege of serving in the Congress with Senator Metzenbaum, as he retired the same year I was elected. Nevertheless, I followed his career closely from the sidelines and admired him because he was so truly authentic and larger than life. Agree with him or not, he was one of the most important political figures in our State in the last century. I respected Senator Metzenbaum because he was so true to himself and his core beliefs and values, even when they were immensely unpopular. He was unflinchingly liberal and made no apologies for it. The Buckeye State--long before we'd been tagged red or blue-- consistently rewarded him at the polls for his fighting spirit and his ``don't mess with me'' attitude. In Metzenbaum, Ohioans had a tenacious, extraordinarily hard-working and committed Senator who helped elevate so many issues of importance to Ohioans to the national stage. One of his most remarkable accomplishments, in my estimation, was giving workers 60 days notice of plant closings, a scenario that has become all too familiar in our State. He is best known for championing workers' rights and the middle class, challenging and aggravating corporate America, and ferreting out wasteful spending. Yet, he had a soft and compassionate side as well, and led the effort to change the law to make it easier to adopt a child of a different race. That one legislative victory made adoption a reality for countless families, and gave so many children a loving home. Howard Metzenbaum was a man of remarkable wealth, yet he chose to devote so much of his life to public service. He brought to Washington the same work ethic that he'd bestowed on his business affairs, and never seemed to slow down or coast as his years in the Senate stretched on. He left the institution just as feisty and combative as he'd arrived. Today, far too many politicians' choices are guided by polling data, focus groups and the ramblings of pundits and talk show hosts. Senator Metzenbaum left public life before the Internet took hold and the media feeding frenzy crested, yet I have to believe that the Junior Senator from Ohio wouldn't have been tamed or tempered by talk radio, 24-hour news cycles or the blogosphere. To the contrary, I think it would have emboldened the unapologetic, unabashed and ferocious liberal who, against many odds, earned the respect and support of so many Ohioans. This week, Ohio and the Cleveland area lost a political giant. My thoughts and prayers are with the Metzenbaum family.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am not happy to have the opportunity to speak today. The gentleman from Washington is my classmate. We were both elected in 1994. The distinguished chairwoman of the Ethics Committee I've known for 25 years. I served on the Ethics Committee for 4 years, had some of the same circumstances that Mr. Hulshof was previously talking about at the time. Mr. Hastings and Mrs. Tubbs Jones were also members of the Ethics Committee. And there's a reason that we take that oath of secrecy, and it's why, unlike Mr. Hulshof, I voted ``no'' last night. My belief has always been that the ethics process here has worked when left to its own devices, and by ``left to its own devices,'' when leadership on either side stays out of it and permits five good Democrats and five good Republicans to consider what is sometimes a messy business. But it needs to be not aired in public as, sadly, this new whatever we did last night will do, because, and I used to be a prosecuting attorney, as did the chairwoman of the committee, there are many times when a case is brought to you and there are no facts to support that case, but you will be accused on page 1 and the case will be dismissed on page 45, and when you're in public life, by the time you get to the retraction on page 45, your career is ruined. So every Member that embarks upon the ethics process takes the oath that we will hold close to us and not discuss with our colleagues, not discuss with the press, not discuss with others if we have a Member under investigation, if allegations are made against a Member, not to protect a Member, not to shield that Member from scrutiny, but so that we don't shoot the Member until there has been an adjudication that he or she has done something wrong. I took that oath. Every member of the committee takes that oath. We take that seriously. Now, yesterday evening when I was preparing to make a determination as to how to vote, I received a memo from Doc Hastings, Representative Hastings, that had included in it the opinion of the nonpartisan, bipartisan professional staff of the Ethics Committee where they opined on how, if at all, what was being done last night would impact upon the ethics process of this House. I have to tell you that the memorandum wasn't written for Republicans. It wasn't written for Democrats. It was nonpartisan, bipartisan, and I found a lot in it that I thought that's an interesting point and I hadn't actually thought about it. I was grateful to receive that memorandum from Doc Hastings, not knowing how it came to my possession or attention other than Doc Hastings provided it. I'm dismayed on this point of personal privilege, however, to then be in receipt of a letter written by my friend the chairwoman of the committee that, in my opinion, has a tortured construction of rule 7 of the committee. It correctly indicates that we take the oath of secrecy and matters should only be discussed in accordance with the rules of the House. Mr. Hulshof, I think, has adequately talked about 7(d), and what that indicates is that we're not supposed to talk about if Representative Y is under investigation until that matter moves to the public phase, that being the adjudicatory hearing, which we achieved against the gentleman from Ohio a number of years ago and which we were all involved in. It does not, in my opinion, indicate that when a memorandum that might be instructive to the other Members of the House on a matter before the House should remain secret. And I would just say that we would then read paragraph 7(g) that indicates that, ``Unless otherwise determined by a vote of the committee, only the chairman or ranking minority member of the committee, after consultation with each other, may make public statements regarding matters before the committee of any subcommittee.'' The gentleman from Washington says that is what he did. And if the gentleman from Washington did that, I find no violation of the committee rules. I find no violation of the House rules. And I think what is most unfortunate, and it really goes into why the matters before the Ethics Committee need to remain secret, the letter suggests, it doesn't suggest, it says that Representative Hastings has broken the rules of the House, and if he does it again, there is going to be a complaint. Well, if someone feels that way, then file a complaint. But it is entitled to the confidentiality which it is now indicated has somehow been broken. And I want to indicate that besides my disappointment, that what is roiling this House, and I think those of us that are centrists, moderates, those of us that are institutionalists, we now are roiled in the House because the rules don't seem to be the rules. The rules apply when people think they should apply. And if the rules don't apply, well, then we will make a new rule. And last night's example, and it ties in directly to this point of personal privilege, couldn't be any clearer. The new majority, because of the Medicare part D vote that Representative Hulshof talked about that we wrongly held open for 3 hours to achieve a certain result, in outrage in response to the culture of corruption that permeated this place until 2007, led to a rule change. And the rule change was that we will hold no vote open in this House for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome or changing the outcome. Well, that is just what we did last night, sadly, Mr. Speaker. For 12 minutes, 12 minutes after the final vote was cast, the vote was held open. It was 204-209. And during those 12 minutes, four Members of the majority party were persuaded to switch their votes. There is no other explanation. But where we find ourselves, and why this point of personal privilege is so important, where we find ourselves is that the rule is written in such a way that says you can't hold the vote open for the sole purpose of affecting or changing the outcome. Now, we are going to have to bring in Kreskin. We are going to have to have ESP to climb into the mind of the presiding officer. And unless the presiding officer says, do you know what, I know what the rule is, I know what clause 9 of rule XX says, but I kept the vote open to affect the outcome. Short of that, there is no way to enforce the rule. And it puts us in a very difficult place. And I would ask my friends that are today in the majority to remember the 12 years that they were in the minority that they felt so oppressed, and in many cases had the right to feel oppressed, by some of the heavy-handed tactics that were employed on the conduct of this floor. When you have a rule that can never be enforced, when you have rules that you don't pay attention to, it leads to discontent. It destroys the fabric of the institution. The minority serves an important purpose in the House of Representatives. It is the loyal dissent. It is to make sure that the majority just can't run roughshod and do what they choose to do in violation of rules, practices, precedents and procedures. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that last night the rules were once again broken. I believe that the totality of the circumstances will demonstrate that. But what I do not find is that my friend and classmate from the State of Washington violated rule 7 of the Ethics Committee.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis for moving this legislation expeditiously through the committee and on to the floor today. And I want to thank the other Mr. Davis from Illinois and Mr. Burton for so ably managing it today as well. Mr. Speaker, Michael Kashkoush grew up in Michigan, and then he moved to Chagrin Falls to start high school. He was the beloved son of Marwan and Mary Jane Kashkoush. He spent his freshman and sophomore years in Chagrin Falls, and then moved with his family to London for a year and returned to Chagrin for his senior year, graduating in 2001. Michael was like many young men. His high school years had been about girls, friends, lifting weights, sports, and parties. He started college with great intentions, but didn't find it a good fit for that moment in his life and, after 2 years, he announced to his parents that he wanted to join the Marines. The exceptionally bright and capable young man said that he had led a soft life and wanted to be a marine because ``they're the toughest and most disciplined in the world.'' The Marines were the matching puzzle piece for this gifted former high school wrestler and football player. Michael's father urged him to finish college and instead attend officers school, but Michael believed he could not lead unless he knew what it was that the grunts had to do. Marwan Kashkoush stood behind his son's choice. Michael was an exemplary marine and was promoted to sergeant in 2005 in counterintelligence/human intelligence. He had never spoken Arabic, but at the Defense Language Institute in 6 short months he mastered the language. He had a limitless future in the Marines. In 4 short years, the United States Marine Corps made Michael Kashkoush a man. They gave his self-described ``soft life'' purpose. He was very proud of his military service to our country. On January 23, 2007, just 10 days after being sent to Iraq, he died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province. Earlier this year, Michael's father and stepmother, Phoebe Brockman Kashkoush, wrote to me and asked me if I would introduce this piece of legislation in honor of Michael. It was a wonderful idea, and it is a perfect one for Chagrin Falls, Ohio. Chagrin Falls is a small, tight-knit community where neighbors are close and there is a genuine sense of community. It is a place where there are almost as many American flags as front porches, and when one of their own died, it deeply touched the community. Chagrin Falls, a town of about 4,000 people, turned out en masse for the funeral services, and some 600 people crammed into St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, where they sang a joyful, tearful rendition of Don McLean's ``American Pie.'' The Jaycees adorned street posts with hundreds of flags, and more than 300 people walked the half-mile trek from the church down South Franklin Street in blustery snow to Michael's final resting place. It is fitting, Mr. Speaker, that the Chagrin Falls Post Office be named in honor of Sergeant Michael Kashkoush, and it is a wonderful remembrance for a family who has lost so much. The father who first resisted his son's plan to enlist credits the Marines with changing his life. He said, ``They built me my best friend.''

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, again I yield myself such time as I might consume just simply to thank the honorable Speaker of the House for introducing this resolution and, again, to commend the selfless acts, thousands of selfless acts of the volunteers in the San Francisco Bay Area, also my good friend on the Transportation Committee, Mrs. Tauscher, for her stewardship of this bill. I urge passage.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 853 honors the efforts of all of those that volunteered to assist the response to the recent oil spill in San Francisco Bay. Last month a cargo vessel collided with a span of the San Francisco Bay Bridge, resulting in a gash to the vessel's hull and the release of approximately 58,000 gallons of fuel oil into the bay. Following reports of the oil spill, the Coast Guard, with its Federal, State and local government partners, initiated a response to the spill which has resulted in the deployment of 440 personnel and the recovery of more than 4,000 cubic yards of oily solids. In addition to the critical work performed by the Coast Guard and other government officials, literally thousands of volunteers have assisted in cleanup operations at beaches throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Volunteers have assisted professional cleanup crews in removing oil from beaches and have reported sightings of oil-affected areas and impaired wildlife to oil spill response personnel. Additionally, volunteers were required to undergo at least 4 hours of hazardous waste and emergency response training before participating in the cleanup efforts. I want to commend the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, and join with her today in thanking these volunteers and honoring their efforts to respond to this unfortunate event. I also want to take time to thank all of the Federal, State, and local officials for their efforts to contain and minimize the environmental and economic impacts of the spill. I urge all members to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time. General Leave

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend and colleague from California that I have no further speakers at this time and would reserve until she finds herself in a similar position.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the time remaining on each side.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would yield 2 minutes of our time and ask unanimous consent that it be added to the gentlewoman's time so they have 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 822 recognizes the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Port of Los Angeles. The Port of Los Angeles is the busiest port in the United States in terms of maritime cargo volume and, when combined with the adjoining Port of Long Beach, is the fifth busiest commercial seaport worldwide. This trade is a critical component to our national economy and directly and indirectly supports millions of jobs nationwide. The port has also taken action to lessen impacts on the surrounding areas and the environment by recently implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from ships and port operations. I join the resolution's sponsor, Congresswoman Richardson of California, and all of the cosponsors in recognizing the Port of Los Angeles' first 100 years and in wishing the port continued success in the future. I urge all Members to support the resolution.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 822 recognizes the 100th anniversary of the Port of Los Angeles. The Port of Los Angeles is the busiest port in the United States in terms of maritime cargo volume and, when combined with the adjoining Port of Long Beach, is the fifth busiest commercial seaport worldwide. This trade is a critical component to our national economy, and directly and indirectly supports millions of jobs nationwide. The port has also taken action to lessen impacts on the surrounding areas and the environment by recently implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from ships and port operations. I join the resolution's sponsors, Congresswoman Richardson of California and Congressman Rohrabacher of California, and all of the cosponsors in recognizing the Port of Los Angeles' first 100 years and wishing the port continued success in the future. I urge all Members to support the resolution. And I want to congratulate one of our newest Members in the House, Congresswoman Richardson, on guiding this legislation to the floor in such a quick manner. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I am going to continue to reserve. But I do see the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee on the floor, and if 2\1/2\ minutes isn't enough time for his observations, I would be happy to inquire to see if the gentlewoman needs time. Would you like me to yield to the chairman?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to another gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).