Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2043) to designate a Federal building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the ``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. It is my pleasure to bring to the floor a resolution authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 23rd Annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service. This service will honor the memory of 148 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty during 2003. This service will also honor a number of law enforcement officers killed during other years, who, for a variety of reasons, have not yet had their names inscribed on the wall of honor at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial located at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington. This service comes as part of Police Week, a week-long festival of events that remember those members of law enforcement who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Police Week includes events such as the annual Law Ride, a Police Unity Tour, Honor Guard competition, Blue Mass, and Candlelight Vigil. Since the first official memorial service was held in 1982, over 3,000 officers have been honored. Since that first service, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and its Auxiliary have served as hosts and sponsors of the event. This service, as are many of the events encompassing Police Week, is open to the public and free of charge. I support this resolution, which will allow the use of the Capitol grounds for this important service in honor of the men and women who keep us, our families, our communities, and the Nation safe and secure. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 376 introduced, once again, by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soapbox Derby on June 19, 2004. In sort of a parenthetical, I would not only commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) but last year when we had similar legislation introduced by the gentleman, he was detained by his other very important duties as the minority whip; and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and I spent about 20 minutes on the floor thinking about great things on the soapbox derby to breathlessly await his arrival. I am grateful that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is with us today. These races, which will be held on Constitution Avenue, allow young people from the Greater Washington Metropolitan area to compete with one another for the honor of representing their district at the National Soap Box Derby competition to be held this summer in the city of Akron in the great State of Ohio. Participants, who range in age from 9 to 16, compete in three different divisions, based upon experience. In preparing for these competitions, participants must construct their vehicle, with limited assistance, from stock supplies. The Soap Box Derby teaches the value of hard work, dedication, and ingenuity, and shows them the joy of a job well done. This race has been held for over 50 years in the Washington area. I am pleased that once again we can offer our support for this worthwhile event. The sponsors of this event have agreed to work with the Capitol Police to ensure the enforcement of all applicable regulations, and the event will be free of charge and open to the public. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend, the gentleman from California, that we have no additional speakers and would reserve our time subject to closing.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1904, similar to H.R. 2538, which was introduced by our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), designates the United States Courthouse located at 400 North Miami Avenue in Miami, Florida as the ``Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse.'' Wilkie Ferguson was born in Miami, Florida in 1938 to Bahamian immigrants and raised in the Liberty Square public housing project. Despite being raised in an environment of discrimination and segregation, Wilkie Ferguson attended the then segregated Miami Public School System and, upon his graduation, attended Florida A&M. After graduating from Florida A&M with a Bachelor's Degree in business administration, Wilkie Ferguson entered the United States Army, where he served as a First Lieutenant for 3 years, and then for another 2 years as a Captain in the Army Reserve. When he left the Army, Mr. Ferguson attended and graduated from Howard University Law School. His legal career began with Legal Services of Greater Miami. He also worked as a staff attorney for the Miami Dade School Board of Education before entering private practice. In 1973, his judicial career began when he was appointed a Judge of Industrial Claims, and later as a Judge on the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, and then the Third District Court of Appeals for Florida. In 1993, Judge Ferguson was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a post which he held until his death. This is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to helping the poor and the disenfranchised. I support this measure and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 2022 designates the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in Carbondale, Illinois, as the Senator Paul Simon Federal Building. This bill has the bipartisan support of the entire delegation in the State of Illinois. Although Senator Simon was born in Eugene, Oregon, he made the State of Illinois his home. Senator Simon's service to his State ranged from being a budding newspaper editor to public official to educator. After attending the University of Oregon and Dana College in Nebraska, Senator Paul Simon moved to Troy, Illinois, and pursued a career as newspaper editor and publisher. Having successfully built a chain of 14 weekly publications, Senator Paul Simon enlisted in the Army, where he served from 1951 to 1953. From 1963 until 1973, he was elected to various positions, serving in the Illinois House of Representatives, the State Senate, and also as lieutenant governor. He then continued to represent Illinois at the Federal level. He served in the House of Representatives from 1975 until 1985. Subsequently, Paul Simon ran for, and was elected to, the United States Senate, where he served until 1997. Senator Simon then returned to Illinois following his retirement and served as director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. He passed away on December 9, 2003. This is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to the State of Illinois and his country. I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased today that managing the bill for the minority is the distinguished individual who used to be our ranking member and then went on to bigger and better things as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). Although we are requesting that the Senate version of this bill be passed under suspension today, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) has been a tireless champion of making sure that the companion legislation, similar legislation to this, be passed on the House side. It is my pleasure to be with him today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2022) to designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in Carbondale, Illinois the ``Senator Paul Simon Federal Building''.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he might consume to another outstanding Member from the State of Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my friend and classmate. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3147) to designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the ``James V Hansen Federal Building,'' as amended.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3147 has been introduced by our colleague the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), and it designates the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the James V Hansen Federal Building. James Vear Hansen was born in Salt Lake City on August 14, 1932. After graduating from the public schools of Salt Lake City, he served in the U.S. Navy, and upon his discharge attended and graduated from the University of Utah. Following his graduation, Mr. Hansen began a long and successful career, notable in his devotion to serving his community. I have already mentioned that he served honorably in the Navy, but he also served on the Farmington, Utah, City Council for 12 years and in the Utah State House of Representatives for 7. During his final year in that body, he served as speaker, and in 1980 was elected to this body. He served with distinction in the House of Representatives for 22 years. While serving in the House, James Hansen served on a number of committees, including the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Resources, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. He also served as chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as well as chairman of the Committee on Resources. During his time in Congress, he devotedly served his constituents and the Nation by preserving key military facilities in his district. He fought for the responsible use of public lands and secured key investments in Utah's infrastructure in advance of the 2002 winter Olympic games, which were some of the most successful in the modern history of the games. I am honored to support this legislation for a man worthy of such an honor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of our time be yielded to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the author of this bill, and that he be permitted to yield time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3147 and S. 2022.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for yielding me time. I have been here 10 years, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say that the other day in our Republican Conference, where this was discussed, the most eloquent talk on behalf of a State was given by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) on behalf of the citizens of the State of Georgia, and Georgians should be proud of his representation as well as the other Members who are sponsoring this amendment. Having said that, I think he is wrong, however. I am glad he brought up charts because I have three charts that have been given to me over the last couple of days. One chart prepared by the gentleman from Georgia's group shows that Ohio is getting $359 million more over the life of the bill, the 6-year bill; I have a chart that was prepared by the gentleman from Illinois that shows we are getting $225,000 more; and I have a chart prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation that shows that we are losing $128 million. Facts are stubborn things. Charts each make different assumptions in this particular debate. That is why the committee has always had the position that, look, the problem with this bill is we need more money. We need more money so we can fix the donor/donee State problem. We need more money so we can fix the distribution problem. But it cannot be fixed with this amendment. I would respectfully ask the sponsors who come from donor States, if the assumptions made under the DOT chart are right, Florida is losing $187 million and Georgia 28. If they happen to be right at the end of the day, then this is not going to be a good thing. I would hope that the Members that are sponsoring this amendment standing up so valiantly for their States would let us try and work this out in a conference with the other body so we do come to a fair resolution and continue the growth that we had from ISTEA to TEA 21 and make TEA LU a bill that everybody can be proud of.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the committee.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield, the committee, both minority and majority, have asked me to use this amendment as a vehicle to make technical corrections in the bill.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the text which I have placed at the desk.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am proud to offer this amendment with the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). I offered a similar amendment in committee, and the chairman and the ranking member have been kind enough to work with us to incorporate as much as possible into the manager's amendment today. Mr. Chairman, as Members know, we have a manufacturing crisis in this country. We have lost an estimated 3 million manufacturing jobs. While many of us may hold different views on how that came about, I think we can all agree that the Federal Government should be part of the solution to the crisis. The problem here is that there is too much confusion currently as to what a manufactured good is. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) had a sense of Congress on the floor a little earlier that addressed this issue. Today, Buy America requires that a manufactured good must be made with components assembled in the United States. Subcomponents, however, do not have to be American made. This has caused a good deal of confusion. This amendment that the gentlewoman from Michigan and I are offering will correct the problem. The amendment is a modified version of H.R. 3682, the Protecting American Manufacturing Jobs Act, which was introduced by the gentlewoman from Michigan. We were able to work this out with input from the Federal Transit Administration so they can implement it. Under this amendment, we clarify that 60 percent of the components and subcomponents in a manufactured product must be American made. For construction projects and system acquisition, the amendment requires that 60 percent of the total cost of components and subcomponents in manufactured products must be American made. We also required that final assembly of any manufactured product must happen in the United States. By making these changes we will make sure that Federal dollars support American jobs. This is, in my opinion, a good amendment. It helps take care of our own manufacturing jobs in this country. I urge support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to make this observation. The Federal Government in the procurement process has no greater champion in this Congress than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. The hearings that he has conducted have literally saved the country and the taxpayers billions of dollars. This issue, however, while I appreciate every argument that he has made, it is time, not by being protectionist but it is time in the manufacturing sector that we take care of our own in the United States. It is not unreasonable to require that 60 percent, we are not asking for 100 percent, but 60 percent of these goods and projects be manufactured in the United States and there not be some shell game where they simply have to be assembled in the United States. You could have a machine with 150 parts and today's requirement is they could all be made overseas as long as we had a shop that assembled them here in this country. It is wrong, and I ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who, as I indicated in my other remarks, is the sponsor of the original legislation and the coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to give a piece of praise this morning to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the mighty work and just the first names of some people on the staff: Levon and Liz and Lloyd and Fraser and Graham and some other people that I will forget because they literally had to write this bill three, four, five different times from where it started at $375 billion. So when the gentleman from Minnesota was talking rightly about the contributions that the gentleman from Illinois has made, the staff of both the majority and minority have done yeomen's work to produce this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that is desperately needed in the United States. But I do feel constrained this morning to say despite the need, despite the need that everybody on the committee recognizes, this bill has been bungled, not bungled by the able leadership of the committee but it has been bungled. By not getting a signal to reauthorize this legislation when TEA 21 expired last September, AASHTO tells us that we have cost the economy over $2 billion, and 90,000 jobs that could have been created have not been created. The failure to make this bill $375 billion, and the gentleman from Minnesota was right on the money. This is not a number that the committee made up. Those numbers came from the Department of Transportation as the need that exists in this country. When I go home to Ohio, a lot of people say to me, I see that you're spending $18.4 billion this year alone to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. That is again something that a lot of people in this House think that we need to do after what we have done in Iraq. We are begging, trying to squeeze out $18 billion over 6 years to build roads in the United States. My constituents do not understand that and they have difficulty and, quite frankly, so do I. There was a lot of talk yesterday in our Republican Conference and criticism of Chairman Young that this bill does not embrace Republican principles. I have said it on the floor before: Abraham Lincoln in 1865, I just saw the special on the History Channel, got the guy that ran the Ames Shovel Company in Massachusetts to build the transcontinental railroad. That is a Republican principle. Dwight David Eisenhower was the spearhead behind the national highway system that we enjoy and use today for national defense. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush all recognized, and it is not to say anything about Democratic values, that Republican values in this country are based upon a strong defense and a strong infrastructure in this country. We are told that 32 percent of our major roads are in poor condition and that 26 percent of our bridge infrastructure is totally deficient. Last year, 1,400 Ohioans died on the roads in Ohio. One-third of those deaths, Mr. Chairman, are directly attributable to poor roads and roadside hazards. So why some bean counters have determined that we can do this bill on the cheap when the infrastructure needs of this country are crying out for repair is beyond me. But, having said that, again the gentleman from Alaska, the gentleman from Minnesota and the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee have done their level best. This is a good bill, it will help us, but we need about $100 billion more to get the job done.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about some of the smaller financial institutions in America. It has been about 6 years since the Congress passed the Credit Union Membership Access Act, a piece of legislation that forever changed the nature and the way the credit unions do business in this country, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Member Frank) for including in this regulatory relief bill provisions that benefit credit unions once again. Mr. Chairman, nearly 84 million Americans enjoy low-cost financial services at their credit unions. It is imperative that we allow credit unions to continue to change with the ever-expanding financial marketplace, just as we do with the banking and the thrift industry. Credit unions do an excellent job of serving their members, a tradition we need to help protect and preserve. Sometimes the members of credit unions will be the men and women who are serving our country valiantly in the Armed Forces. The bill being considered today would allow credit unions to build their own buildings on DOD facilities and to pay a nominal fee for rent, a practice which had been in effect but has recently been changed. Credit unions at DOD facilities provide our troops with the tools for money management so that while they are away defending our great Nation, their personal financial dealings back at home are not ignored. This may not always be profitable; but with credit unions, it is not a matter of profit. It is a matter of people. As member-owned not-for-profit entities, credit unions serve their members to the fullest capacity. Another provision that I want to highlight would allow credit unions who convert to community charters to continue to serve their select employee groups who were added before their conversion. As we are all aware, with today's troubled economic times, there are times when a credit union that has been associated with a plant or an industry and it is closed down or the jobs are lost, the credit union is lost as well. The credit unions that serve the people whose jobs are gone and whose plants are closed, rather than also shutting down and leaving, are instead converting to community charters. This accomplishes two things: One, it would allow the institution to stay open and bring in new members from the community; and, two, it allows those workers to continue their important relationship with their credit union. Mr. Chairman, again I want to congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts, ranking member Frank, and Chairman Oxley for crafting this bill, and I want to congratulate the trades that represent the credit unions in this town for making sure that H.R. 1375 has provisions with real teeth that benefit the credit union industry.