Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I used, please?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today offering this amendment with my good friend, Mr. Oberstar from Minnesota, the ranking member of the full Transportation Committee. I will yield him half of my time when he arrives on the floor. Unlike aviation, highways and transit, there is no dedicated funding for investing in our Nation's passenger rail service. This is a pretty simple amendment. All it does is restore $214 million to the Amtrak account, taking it to $1.114 billion, which is still about $300 million less than we had during the course of last year's discussion. As the chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee, we have had exhaustive hearings, oversight hearings, dealing with the Amtrak situation, and we have done a number of things. The CEO has been fired by the board. We have looked at their food service. They have entered into a new food service contract. If you look at this bill, and I want to commend Mr. Knollenberg, because last year he had an impossible task. The President sent up a budget of zero for Amtrak. We had an amendment process that we went through this time. This time we are up to $900 million in the bill, which I give him great credit for. But if you look at that $900 million, there is only $500 million for capital expenditures, out of which has to come a debt service of $280 million, which only leaves $220 million for the capital needs of this country for Amtrak, for passenger rail. There is nothing for operation, and I know that the response to that is going to be that there are some incentive grants in the bill. But that really does not get the thing done. Mr. Chairman, we have tried to be judicious with this amendment and looked for pots of money located within the bill solely within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I think we have achieved that. I believe it is a good amendment and I urge adoption by my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on my amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, 10 minutes by the proponent and 10 minutes by the opponent, equally divided and controlled by each.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the President but on this issue, quite frankly, he is wrong. I think that if he talked to his FAA administrator, we might have a different conclusion. I want to tell you what has my dander up this evening because Mr. Mica is right. This is an unusual procedure. This has happened once before since this legislation went into effect. The last time, 60 days went by, the Congress didn't do anything. Just like we didn't do anything this 60 days. The administrator of the FAA waited 19 months before she imposed the contract. This, the deadline was up Monday, the 5th of June. You get the feeling she was sitting with one of those desk calendar for left-handers that people get for Christmas and she could not flip to the 5th of June fast enough. I assume she reads the newspaper. She knew this debate was going to take place this week and that action of imposing that contract on the very first day that she could, in my mind, is a direct affront to this people's House and the 300 million people that are represented by it and shame on her. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I will close. Just a couple of observations. One, Mr. Mica, as the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, does a great job, and a lot of the advances in this country are due to his leadership and Mr. Costello's leadership. So I do not want anybody to leave the floor thinking they are having some kind of tiff, but there are some things that need to be straightened out. What both sides do agree on is that the air traffic control population is aging. Both sides agree that in 2007 between 4,000 and 7,000 of the 15,000 air traffic controllers are going to retire, and we do not have a farm team. We do not have a pipeline that is really working. For instance, through May of this year, the FAA has only hired one controller. Last year, they hired 762, but since they hired that 762, 400 have retired. It is a program and it is a process that is serious. You just do not show up at work one day and say I am going to be an air traffic controller and I am going to guide your family into Cleveland or Chicago or Washington, D.C. Secondly, I would say that the reason that the Kelly-Costello bill did not come to the floor is because things are scheduled on the floor. For anybody who is not familiar with our process, things have to be scheduled by the majority leader. The majority leader chose not to schedule the Kelly-Costello bill on the floor. That is why I began my remarks by thanking Speaker Hastert and Mr. Leader Boehner for having the courage to put this on the floor tonight so that Republicans and Democrats could talk about it. Lastly, there has been some discussion that somehow the Federal Services Impasse Panel is not competent to handle this complicated matter. I would say just from their Web page, the panel resolves impasses between Federal agencies and unions representing Federal employees arising from negotiations over conditions of employment under the Federal service labor management relations statute and the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act. I do not know what other body is capable of doing it; and I have to tell you, I would have preferred the Kelly-Costello bill. I would have preferred that it be brought up to a vote, but when the administrator of the FAA was flipping through her desk calendar so fast just so she could implement this contract, when she waited 18 months when given the same tools and the same opportunity, the only time that this has ever happened, I think, and I am a pretty calm guy, but I really think that she just took her finger and stuck it in the eye of 268 Members of this House and 75 of them happen to be Republican, 75 of them happen to be members of this President's party. I am insulted. And I hope tomorrow when this vote occurs, everybody that cosponsored that bill, everybody that signed our letter has the courage to not only be a cosponsor of legislation but has the courage to defy the President of the United States on this vote because, quite frankly, although I admire him, he is wrong on this issue.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5449) to amend title 49, United States Code, to modify bargaining requirements for proposed changes to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just briefly to the gentleman's baseball analogy, that is exactly why they make extra innings and we should have extra innings here. Secondly, again, this $173,000 figure, people in Cleveland, Ohio, that are sitting on their couch know that $173,000 is a lot of money, but again, if they are lucky enough to have health care and pension, that is 40 percent of that cost. The average is $127,000. Now, again, people in Cleveland, Ohio, think that that is a lot of money as well, but I am going to tell you, they think that the guy that walked away from Exxon with a $400 million retirement package, that really is a lot of money. The sum of $127,000 for someone who has dedicated his or her life to safely landing your family at an airport is not too much money. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the sponsor of the original bill.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Speaker Hastert for allowing us to have this debate tonight and also Majority Leader Boehner. There are some people on our side of the aisle that are not so happy that we are doing it, but I have to tell you that when you have 80 Republican Members of Congress supporting a piece of legislation, I think it is important to have the debate and have it now. I also want to thank Congressman LoBiondo of New Jersey and Congresswoman Sue Kelly from New York for being my partners in this endeavor as we move this legislation forward, and I want to thank Mr. Costello for standing up in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill is pretty simple. There is a contract dispute currently going on between the air traffic controllers in this country and the Federal Aviation Administration, and this bill simply sends them back to the table and asks them to reach a fair and equitable conclusion. Under current law, the FAA has unilaterally imposed their contract terms on the hard-working air traffic controllers in this country. Congress is not in the business of contract negotiations, nor should it be. The FAA is also at an impasse with four other bargaining units, and the Congress really shouldn't be in the business of constantly reviewing labor contracts. When this bill passes, the sides will resume negotiating and the existing contract will remain in place, there will be no disruption in service. If they are unable to bridge the gap, the matter then goes before the Federal Service Impasses Panel. The FSIP, as it is called, will assure that both sides are negotiating fairly, and if no agreement can be reached, FSIP then can impose contract terms on both parties. Some people might say, oh, man, FSIP, that sounds like a tough place for the FAA or the administration to go to. The FSIP board is made up of seven members, all seven appointees of this president, President George W. Bush. During the course of this debate tonight, we are going to hear, I think, some facts and figures, and I want to lay some of them to rest now. We may hear that the average salary for air traffic controllers is $173,000. While that may be true if you include all of their benefits, anybody that is lucky enough to have health care or a retirement package knows that about 40 percent of that is made up in those benefits. The average salary is really about $127,000. I don't know a lot of people in Cleveland, Ohio, that thinks that is too much for people that land the millions of passengers that travel our Nation's airways. You may hear that air traffic controller salaries have increased 75 percent, and we will explore that a little bit later. Some people are going to criticize the FSIP board saying, oh, man, there is no incentive for the air traffic controllers to go back and negotiate. I will tell you I have talked to both lead negotiators. There is a strong desire to get this done. And, again, at any time after the passage of this bill, if either side thinks that the other side isn't negotiating fairly, they can immediately call up FSIP and go to this seven-member panel, all appointed by President George W. Bush. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I hope our colleagues can support it with the two-thirds majority necessary. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half of my time, 10 minutes, be yielded to Mr. Costello, and that he be permitted to yield time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief comment before yielding to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). Mr. Mica continues to talk this bill reaching back. I just want to focus on the 60 days that was in the current law. It is inconceivable that anybody that has been here for any period of time thinks that this Congress can act in 60 calendar days on anything. Mr. Speaker, I have been here 12 years. For that entire 12 years we have been trying to repeal a telephone tax that was put into effect to pay for a war. Now some people say, oh, was it the Iraq war? Maybe the gulf war? Maybe Korea? No, the Spanish-American War. The Treasury Department just announced this week that they are going to let us repeal the tax that is 100 years old, but we were supposed to act in 60 days. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5449, the matter just considered by the House.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, going to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, it is a beautiful place. Mr. Chairman, I did not request this earmark; Mr. Shuster did. I think he has adequately defended it. I would rise, as the chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee, to tell the gentleman, in 2004, the EPA identified 495 counties across America, maybe some in your district, that are not in attainment. The purpose of this program, as Mr. Shuster laid out, is to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency; And he went through what it is going to flock out of the air. I would tell the gentleman, because I listened carefully to his discussion of the previous appropriations bill and this one, this is authorized. We did it in the Energy Act, $200 million a year for the next 5 years, $49 million is provided for these programs in the President's budget this year. I know the gentleman is busy. But if he ever has a free moment and you want to come to the Railroad Subcommittee, we did in fact conduct oversight hearings on programs like this, talking about the new technologies, talking about the public-private partnerships that are going to get us into the next century. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman, because of programs like this we are now able to move a ton of cargo from New York to Boston on one gallon of diesel fuel; and thanks to Mr. Shuster's innovations and foresight in earmarking this program, we are going to do it without polluting the air. So I hope the gentleman reconsiders this amendment. It is authorized, and we have had oversight.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In one of the few times since 1995 when we arrived in the House together, I am going to disagree with the gentleman from Illinois and will vote against this resolution today. I want to talk a little bit about the Cleveland experience and then the process and how we moved forward, which has been addressed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). I understand why the gentleman from Illinois has brought this resolution here today because I remember the shudder that can go through a community when 1,200 jobs are being discussed, in some cases more, some cases less. In Cleveland's case, they were jobs that pay an average of $54,000 a year. You are not just talking about the loss of the tax base. You are also talking about individuals who have made lives, whether it be in Cleveland, Indiana, Colorado, Missouri or other parts of the country. I had one grandmother who came up to me in Lake County, Ohio, after the decision was made to keep the facility open in Cleveland, and she said I want to thank you because it means my grandchildren will not be going to some faraway place. I can understand the shudder, and as the gentleman from Colorado said, maybe we should reexamine how we engage in this. But I want to talk about the process. The process, although it was nerve-racking, was also healthy. It was healthy because it gave me the opportunity to work together with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I am Republican and they are Democrats, and we all put our shoulders to the same wheel to get the same result. It was good to see the labor community and the business community in Cleveland all come together, because sometimes they have disagreements. It was encouraging to see the leadership of the city of Cleveland come together, with Mayor Campbell and others all working towards achieving this result. From bad news, good news took place. But as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) said, it was not because the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I are so powerful. This was a process done on facts. Anthony Principi and the BRAC commissioners and the professional staff, and hats off to Marilyn Wasleski in particular, they took the time to look at the numbers and figure out that when the Pentagon came up with its original proposal, they had the numbers wrong. Just one small example: they overvalued the square footage that was being paid to the General Services Administration so Cleveland did not score as well. It would have been easy to say we are not going to pay attention to that, but the BRAC commissioners paid attention. They paid attention to the arguments and observations; and at the end of the day, Cleveland did not win because Cleveland had more political muscle, Cleveland won on the facts and on objective standards. Another thing that impressed me, the BRAC Commission not only looked at the numbers, they looked at the human cost. They considered the value of the 1,100 people that work in that building, the Celebrezze Federal building in the city of Cleveland, and they said to those Federal employees, you have value, you have worth. They recognized what they have accomplished in becoming centers of excellence, and they were rewarded for that. That is exactly what we would want to encourage. The last thing I want to say, we have some force protection issues, antiterrorism protection for Federal properties are coming up in 2009. I understand that when it comes to the men and women who are serving in the active military, but the Cleveland facility is made up primarily of accountants. And I want to protect our men and women in uniform, but the folks in the Cleveland building are accountants, by and large. And I try to read all of the chatter from al Qaeda and everywhere else, and I do not hear a lot of chatter about taking out the accountants. I would argue that our civilian Department of Defense employees are valuable, but they are no more valuable than the people who work for the Social Security Administration or the U.S. Marshal's Office. Before we make sure that we fortify and penetrate all of these buildings for DOD civilian employees' work, we should look at force protection for everybody who works for the Federal Government.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for not only yielding me this time but also for his leadership in bringing S. 1786 to the floor and also the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) on the Aviation Subcommittee. I asked for time today to indicate that S. 1786 is exactly the kind of legislation that we should be crafting in both the House and the Senate and sending to the President of the United States in response to the devastation of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. And primarily what motivated me to come speak today is that there was mischief afoot in the other body as this bill was being crafted relative to the issue of prevailing wages. And there is some thought that while we should extend grants through the AIP program to help ailing airports, perhaps we could do it on the cheap and suspend what are known as Davis-Bacon wages. And I want to alert the House and my fellow Members that this is something that will come to a head in a couple of weeks. It is disturbing to a number of us. Davis and Bacon happened to be Republican legislators who, after the Great Depression, became concerned with the issue of bands of roving laborers going from market to market and undercutting the local labor market and not living in the community, not receiving a decent wage, not paying taxes that supported the infrastructure, the schools and other things that go on. And unlike S. 1786, other legislation that we have already crafted in the House and an executive order by the President of the United States has suspended, we hope temporarily, Davis-Bacon wages for the reconstruction of the gulf coast. And I have heard a lot of different stories as to why that was done. Some in my party say it is all going to go to the labor unions and we do not want to help the labor unions. I will tell them, not only was the history of Davis-Bacon of Republican origin, the sad and really the truth of the matter is that if we look at what the combined wage rates are in the gulf coast for the laborer, the carpenter, the operating engineer, it is certainly not some sop to the labor unions. For example, in Alabama, Madam Speaker, a laborer makes $5.15 an hour. Tell me, where we are going to find somebody to clear away the horrible debris in the gulf coast for less than $5.15 an hour, first of all, and why would we, as a Federal policy, even think that that was a good idea? The other unintended consequence of the suspension of Davis-Bacon is that we repeal things known as the Copeland Anti-Kickback provisions. And what that says is, if people are complying with the Federal Labor Standards Act, they have to, if they are a contractor, submit every week a certified payroll with the employee's name, what their wage rate was, what their Social Security number is, and what they did. They cannot come waltzing in as a contractor and say, I hired 50 guys with chainsaws last week and here is my bill. It makes sure that we do not permit profiteering in the gulf coast. It makes sure that our Federal dollars are spent as we intend them, and it makes sure that some unscrupulous contractors do not come in and make a boatload of money on the backs of the misery in the gulf coast. So while I think S. 1786 is a wonderful piece of legislation, we are doing it the right way, I do sort of serve notice to the House that there are some of us on this side of the aisle that do not intend to let this situation with reconstruction and the situation with Davis- Bacon stand much longer.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome this morning Father Tom Johns of St. John Vianney Catholic Church in Mentor, OH, as the guest chaplain today. I am honored to have Father Johns here today. I want to welcome him, his sister and brother-in-law, Trish and Denny, and their two children, Kyle and Kayla, to the House of Representatives. Father Johns has been with St. John Vianney since 1993 and became pastor in January of 1998. He is a treasured member of our community, and he also has a special Washington connection. Several years ago, Father Johns presided over the wedding of Kirsti Talikka Garlock, counsel for the House Committee on International Relations, and her husband, Vince. I know it is a thrill for them to have Father Johns here this morning as the guest chaplain. I first met Father Johns at the home of Jim and Ruthie Jackson a number of years ago, and they referred to him as Father Tom. Even though I am a Methodist and he is a Roman Catholic, I have to tell you that it is probably a good duty when you are marrying somebody like Kirsti and Vince. I have also had the sad occasion of being with him when he was the presiding official at the funeral of not only Jim Jackson but also Mike Brown. And Father Johns's ability to help friends and family get through those occasions really makes him a special person in my mind. It is a pleasure to have Father Thomas Johns with us today, and I thank him for being here.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz). (Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the last 30 seconds of my time. Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with Amtrak is that Congress has micromanaged its operation. What is wrong with Amtrak is that the United States Congress has not permitted David Gunn to implement the reform package that he sent up here in April of this year. I heard a lot of comments about the food service. I conducted that hearing with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), and these statements made on the floor are a little less than accurate. Lastly, I have to tell my colleagues that priority is important; but I need to remind people that I voted for a lot of stuff that I might not have thought is important: cranberry and blueberry research, sweet potato research, a tattoo-removal program, and even a national anger management program. Amtrak is at least as important as removing tattoos with Federal money.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the revival gusto that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) does, but I do want to oppose strenuously this amendment. We had, for a long time now, rather a vigorous discussion on the Amtrak system, and I do not know if the gentleman from Minnesota was present during that discussion, but when I hear the $550 that Amtrak should be thankful for, the evidence was pretty clear in the statements that we gave that that $550 was worse than a shutdown number; it was bankruptcy number, because Amtrak with its obligations for labor costs, almost $400 million, and for its debt service, almost $300 million, it would have forced the system into bankruptcy, ending not these long- distance routes, which were the subject of the last amendment, but all Amtrak service in all of the United States, including the northeast corridor and service out west. What this amendment does not allow us to do, now that we have squeaked the Amtrak number back up, it is not $1.2 billion. It is $1.176 billion which is below last year's spending, which is $1.244 billion. To take $100 million now after a lot of hard work, quite frankly, by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to identify some hard decisions for offsets, but that is the environment we find ourselves in, but we were successful in doing that, breathing new life into the Amtrak program, giving David Gunn the opportunity to implement the plan that he just sent to us on Capitol Hill in April of this year. Are we so impatient that we have to identify long-distance routes and we have to take a meat axe approach to the Amtrak budget that we cannot let some of the reforms work? David Gunn gets it. He gets that there is a problem with the food service, and he needs to do something about it. He gets the fact that the Acela high-speed train system has some difficulty with disk brakes that were manufactured in a poor fashion, and he needs to do something about it. Those of us on the authorizing committee get it, and that is why we have already had two hearings dealing with difficulties at Amtrak. The next phase will be to invite people with all the good ideas, and everybody in this chamber has good ideas about how to fix something, anybody that has a good idea on how to reform Amtrak, to invite the States to participate in providing quality inter city train service in this country, will be invited to appear before our subcommittee and also the full committee to engage in that discussion. But this amendment, I have to say, really is a wolf in sheep's clothing because its purports to help homeless people. Everybody in the Chamber I bet wants to help homeless people, but the real intent, I would suggest, is to take $100 million away from Amtrak that we have just been able to restore. It was unanimous. It was a voice vote. Everybody supported it on the last occasion, and that, again, puts us into a bankruptcy situation. It is bad policy. Every other industrialized Nation in the world recognizes that passenger rail service is something worth keeping. The United States Congress, or some of us, seem to be the only body in the world that think that it is not worth saving.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).