Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. No, no, no, you're going to like this. Actually, the deer tick is misnamed because it really doesn't come on deer. It comes more on the little gray mouse because the gray mouse is closer to the ground. And if you treat a cotton ball with an appropriate substance, you can relieve the deer ticks not only in Minnesota but here in Virginia and also in Ohio.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. If I seek to amend my amendment to say ``Great Lakes Restoration Fund/Climate Change,'' will the gentleman give me my 50 bucks?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the distinguished chairman yield?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair. There's a lot going on in Washington, Mr. Chairman, and I would tell you that people back home think we can't get along, but this is a great example of how we're going to get along, and I'm going to become the second member of this subcommittee to say something nice about a member of the Democratic Party, and that's the President of the United States, Barack Obama. President Obama became the first President of the United States in history to recognize that we needed to put real money into Great Lakes restoration. Those of us who live in the region selfishly know it, and those around the world know it as about 20 percent of the world's freshwater. We've nickeled-and-dimed and sort of moved along with some nice legislation in this House, some of it written by one of our former colleagues, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, the Great Lakes Legacy Act, but it wasn't until President Obama, and I suspect that his then-Chief of Staff, the new mayor of Chicago, Mr. Emanuel, was whispering in his ear because he was certainly conversant with these issues, that we need to address the Great Lakes as an ecosystem and make sure that we deal with it appropriately. So President Obama proposed $475 million a couple of years ago for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. However, as so many things occur around here, that went from 475 to 300, and now in this bill we find it to be $250 million. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is designed to mitigate toxic substances in the Great Lakes, to reduce the impact of invasive species, to improve nearshore health and reduce nonpoint source pollution, improve habitat and reduce species loss, and improve information engagement and accountability in the program overall. I just want to focus on one of those, and that is the invasive species, and not the invasive species that come in ballast water. This is an invasive species that is swimming up the Mississippi River, the Asian carp. The Asian carp and I have something in common: The Asian carp can eat 20 percent of its body weight a day, and this Asian carp, if it is successful in breaking through the electronic barrier and getting into the Great Lakes, will devastate that entire ecosystem. This is important. I know that there are some Members who are going to say, well, I love the Great Lakes; I love the fact that the President made this designation; you're right, we need more money, but what doesn't need more money in this bill, and the account from which I'm taking it, climate change, but if we don't take care of the Great Lakes, 20 percent of the world's freshwater, we're not going to have to worry about climate change because we're all going to be dead. We need to make sure that we protect this valuable resource. And on this instance, Ms. Jackson, the administrator at the EPA, has been really a great partner in implementing these programs. She has over 300 projects under way at this current time. I know this is a heavy lift, I know that it's selfish, but I would tell you that it's not selfish because the Great Lakes continue to be the treasure of the world, and there's going to come a time when water is the new oil when it comes to an important resource. I urge Members of the House to please support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

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

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, as we sit and endure this mini- filibuster about how horrible Republicans are when it comes to this bill and the environment, I want to give a perspective about how some of these riders actually got in the bill. I and a number of my colleagues have spent a lot of time talking with this EPA, this EPA administrator, and it's like talking to this lectern. Nothing gets through. And I want to bring to your attention one particular matter that I put in this bill that's a rider, and it has to do with the U.S. EPA draft notice 2010-X, and that was a notice that went out to the manufacturers of lawn fertilizers. Now, everybody in the Chamber would agree that the people who manufacture lawn fertilizer, what they put in the bag should be safe; it should not harm the environment; and it should actually what do it's supposed to do, and that's grow grass or do something else. However, the EPA, because they had precious little to do, decided that they weren't content with regulating what was in the bag. They want to regulate what's on the bag, and not the list of ingredients but what the product is called. So draft regulation 2010-X says that these companies need to reevaluate the trademark names--some of them that have been in effect since the 1960s--and remove those that the EPA determines are misleading to the public. Now I sat down with Ms. Jackson, the administrator of the EPA, and went over this. She sort of smiled and said, You know what, this really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I brought it up in subcommittee last year and withdrew it at the request of the then-majority who said they'd work on it. Well, it's still here. And here is a list of the words that they determined you can't use if you are in a lawn fertilizer business: ``Germ shield,'' ``100 percent protection,'' ``professional grade,'' ``pro,'' ``safe,'' ``safer,'' ``safest,'' ``natural,'' ``environmentally safe,'' and ``green.'' Now, hold on a minute. There's a company in Ohio. It's not in my district--full disclaimer--but it's called Scotts, and they make a product called Turf Builder. They also make a product called Turf Builder Pro. This draft notification tells them they can't call it ``Pro'' anymore because it's misleading to the public, even though the word ``Pro'' was installed to create a brand that small hardware stores could sell so you didn't have to go to the big-boxes, the Wal-Marts, the Kmarts, and those other companies. So it's a niche brand for smaller retailers. But you can't call it that anymore. You can't claim that a bag of lawn fertilizer does anything green, unless that ``green'' applies to livability and sustainability. Now, Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up, green was a color. This folder was green. Not anymore. If I can't demonstrate this folder has something to do with livability and sustainability, I am misleading the people that are watching this program. There's another company in Ohio that's over in Toledo--Ms. Kaptur's district--they have a product called Anderson's Golf Pro. And the EPA has indicated that they are not allowed to call it ``Golf Pro'' anymore because you don't have to use the seed or the weed and seed on a golf course. You could use it, Mr. Chairman, on your front lawn. So they have to call it ``Anderson's Pro.'' Well, wait a minute--they can't call it ``Pro'' anymore either because that's misleading. So they can call it ``Anderson's'' and hope you can figure out what you are supposed to do with it. I told my friends at Scotts, You have really barely scratched the surface on this thing because the product that Scotts manufactures that I like so much is Miracle-Gro. Now can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, how is the EPA going to be able to certify when I put that Miracle-Gro on my tomato plant that a miracle has occurred? You are going to put a tremendous burden on the Vatican. All these little old ladies are going to be at the airport, flying over to Rome to talk to the College of Cardinals and say, Did a miracle occur? That's why some of these riders are in here. You have to be able to talk to people. And if they won't talk to you, you have to take action, as is contemplated by the Constitution as a coequal branch in the government. We have done that. And I'm sorry that it offends some of our colleagues. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the reasoned and balanced approach he has taken to this. Rather than filing a knee-jerk reaction either in committee or now on the floor, he has recommitted to working together to solve this problem. It's a problem that needs to be solved. And I just want the record to be clear: In 2008, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation--not the State legislature, not the State--enacted ballast water exchange regulations that would have gone into effect, had they pushed the issue, that are 100 times more stringent than the international standard and would have gone to 1,000 times more stringent a year after that. Only two States, New York and Minnesota, had something in their regulations called ``innocent passage,'' and that is it applies to all ships that pass through New York's water, whether they take on ballast water or discharge ballast water or whatever. I take a backseat to no one in this Congress on the issue of invasive species in the Great Lakes. My first piece of legislation I wrote was with Senator John Glenn, the Invasive Species legislation, in 1996. But this particular provision by the New York Port Authority would cripple and perhaps eliminate commerce on the Great Lakes. So this deserves thoughtful consideration. It deserves our study. And I would again commit to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to work with you and the chairman to find a way that solves this horrible problem of invasive species in ballast water or anything else but doesn't stop interstate commerce on the Great Lakes.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment would take $6 million from BLM's Lands and Resources and transfer it to BOEMRE. The BLM's management account has already been cut $43.5 million below fiscal year 11, $15.5 million below the President's request. This fund allows the BLM to take care of more than 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres; further cuts to this account would not be warranted. I want to commend the gentleman for the location where he wants to send the money. I have no big opposition to the increase in the BOEMRE spending. But we did the best we could to balance this particular piece of legislation. BOEMRE has already been increased by $37 million above fiscal year 2011. It's also been increased significantly in several continuing resolutions. Therefore, because of the location of the offset, I urge our colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana for his amendment, but he again targets the account that we talked about in the last amendment, and that is the Bureau of Land Management's land and resources account which, as I indicated during the last amendment, is already cut by $43\1/2\ million below the fiscal year '11 level and $15\1/2\ million below the President's request. In addition, this time the gentleman attempts to reach the Secretary's account and wants to reduce it by $6.8 million. Nobody likes to stand up for bureaucrats or the Secretaries around here, but that account has already been cut by $33\1/2\ million. Any further reductions could impede the new Office of Natural Resource Revenue, which collects royalties for on- and offshore oil and gas production, which I know is so important to our friends in the minority. For those reasons, again not because of the place where the gentleman wants to put the additional funds but because of where they come from, I urge opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am congratulating Hungary on the series of events which pay tribute to the lasting idea of freedom and the principles of liberty. Hungry will erect a statue in commemoration of the centennial anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's birth. Hungary will honor President Reagan for his contribution toward ending the Cold War and promoting democracy and liberty in Central Europe. In addition, Hungary is hosting the Hungarian Freedom Dinner and establishing the Hungarian Freedom Award. I also note that Hungary formally and symbolically overcame the legacy of Communism by having recently passed a new Constitution, replacing its previous, temporary Constitution rooted in the Soviet era, to solidify the rule of law. In addition, I recognize Hungary as an important strategic partner of the U.S. in Europe, and commend the country for reaffirming its commitment to transatlantic values, the principles of constitutionalism, and republican government; and contributing to the stability of the region. Hungary is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and is an ally of the U.S. Hungary has been an important ally of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recently gave invaluable assistance in freeing the two American journalists captured in Libya. Historically, Hungarians have fought for the ideals of freedom, popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and the cause of liberty at home and abroad, most notably in 1848, 1956 and 1989. Michael Kovats de Fabriczy fought for, and died defending America's independence during the American Revolution in Charleston, South Carolina. In the Revolution and Freedom fight of 1956, Hungarians rose up against communist rule first within the eastern bloc countries. In 1989, Hungary was the first country to open its border and allowed refugees from East Germany to cross. Hungary became the first among the former Soviet bloc countries to transition to a Western-style parliamentary democracy. In transatlantic relations, between 1995 and 2004, Hungary played a critical role in implementing the Dayton Peace Accords in the Balkans by allowing its airbase at Taszar to be used by coalition forces transiting the region. Between April 2003 and December 2004, Hungary helped stabilize Iraq by deploying a 300-strong battalion to Iraq as part of the Multi-National Force, and in 2003 allowed the Taszar airbase to be used for training the Free Iraqi Forces. Since 2006, Hungary has led a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan and has also deployed an Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team, which operates in partnership with the Ohio National Guard and other United States military personnel in Afghanistan. More recently, Hungary's military has taken over command of a joint battalion on the Balkans in support of NATO missions, and Hungary's Papa Airbase is the home base of the Strategic Airlift Consortium's C- 17 operations for NATO missions. The United States and Hungary share common values of democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, cultural diversity, religious tolerance, and social mobility; and the United States is home to approximately 1.5 million Hungarian-Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Hungary on the commemorative events to honor the legacy of Ronald Reagan in the region; recognizing Hungary as an important strategic partner of the United States in Europe; and commending Hungary for reaffirming its commitment to transatlantic values, the principles of constitutionalism, and democracy; and contributing to the stability of the region. We wish Hungary a prosperous future.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. This is a simple, straightforward amendment. During the committee markup of the Military Construction bill, under the able leadership of the subcommittee chairman, an amendment was offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona to deny funding to the President's Executive order dealing with project labor agreements. The matter was accepted by voice vote. It was accepted by voice vote because, quite frankly, I couldn't rustle up enough votes in the committee to overturn it. However, this continues a pattern that we've seen in this Congress. I believe we've had on the floor four votes on whether or not Davis-Bacon should be the law of the land. In each one of the cases, the proponents of Davis-Bacon have been successful, the last one garnering 52 Republican votes. This would be the third vote by those who would wish to do away with project labor agreements that will occur on the House floor. In the previous two, again, the proponents of project labor agreements have prevailed. In the last instance, 28 Republicans were, in fact, supportive of project labor agreements. Mr. Chairman, basically, project labor agreements are those agreements wherein someone who is doing a construction project determines that they want to have an all-encompassing universal agreement that covers the construction from start to finish. If union labor is involved, it denies unions the ability to strike. It denies the contractor the ability to lock out. Wages are set. Terms are set. Conditions are set. And, quite frankly, the project labor agreements have been resounding successes. As a matter of fact, project labor agreements, 90 percent of them are used by private industry. Some of the biggest users of project labor agreements are the Disney Corporation and, in fact, Walmart. So neither of those companies have ever been sort of identified as big labor- loving organizations. Now, this is a backdoor piece of language in line 16 to 21 because it doesn't attack project labor agreements. What it does is, if you go back and look in February when President Obama enacted this Executive order, he said: I don't know which is going to be better and which is going to be cheaper, based upon the size of the project, where the project is located, what it is we want to get done. So funds are appropriated to the agencies. Say it's the Department of Veterans Affairs and they're going build a new hospital. You say, Department of Veterans Affairs, you study which is going to bring that project in at the best quality, the best price, on time, and giving the taxpayer the best bang for his or her buck. Well, this amendment strikes that funding. And so it doesn't say you can't use project labor agreements. What it does say is that the agency can't make that comparison. And if you're not making that comparison to find out which is better for the taxpayer, which is in fact going to cause the project to come in at the lowest cost and with the best quality and under time, then it has nothing to do with saving the taxpayer money. We hear a lot about these are tough times and we have to tighten our belts. I agree with that. I voted for that consistently. But that is just union bashing. This is just saying we don't want to know whether a project labor agreement can develop a project that is cheaper, of better quality, and under time. Quite frankly, although there are studies on both sides, there is an organization called ABC. They have a study that shows that it adds so much cost. You have a study by organized labor that says it reduces so much cost. I choose not to look at either of those because each of those folks and organizations, quite frankly, have some skin in the fight and have some incentive, if you will, to look at the data one way or another. I would go with our nonpartisan, bipartisan Congressional Research Service, which last October was asked to study this issue, and they indicated, quite frankly, that the jury is out and, if anything, the data indicates that they really can't say and they can't find any convincing data as to whether or not project labor agreements save money or don't save money, which really is the genius of the President's Executive order because it says you should study it. Quite frankly, the CRS goes on to indicate that in those areas of the country where there's a lot of organized labor, the project labor agreements tend to bring these projects in on time, under cost, with better quality. In those areas of the country which aren't heavily unionized, the opposite is, in fact, true. So with the jury being out and all of us wanting to achieve the greatest savings for the taxpayer and build good, quality projects in the military construction account which benefits our men and women in uniform, why would we deny the departments the opportunity to study which way is cheaper, better, more effective, and with a better quality? So there's only one reason. It's to continue this constant drumbeat of: We hate unions. And that's not a good reason to have this language in the bill. I urge support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the distinguished ranking member very much; and, you know, Mr. Harris from Maryland is a wonderful new Member, and I enjoyed his remarks very much and his passion, and it would be a compelling argument if his facts were correct. The difficulty is no one on this floor would support project labor agreements if the evidence was that project labor agreements increased the cost of a construction project by 10 to 20 percent. The study cited by Mr. Culberson, the chairman of the Subcommittee, by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, concluded that the effect of PLAs on construction costs was strongly influenced by the degree of unionization in an area. In highly unionized cities, the costs of a PLA are less and the project comes in under cost, under time, better quality. And those that don't have, as apparently the First District of Maryland doesn't have as many unions, the evidence does, in fact, come in; in some of those cases costs can increase by 5 to 9 percent, not 10 to 20. But the problem with this language is, it doesn't condemn project labor agreements. This is an appropriations bill. What this amendment does is deprive the agency of the funds to study in your area--my area happens to be heavily unionized, so Cleveland, Ohio--prevents the VA from studying whether or not use of the PLA would save the government money or cost the government money. And I've got to tell you, if the conclusion is that it's going to cost the government money, it's like ``I Love Lucy'' and Ricky Ricardo. I mean, I'm sure that somebody is going to ask the head of that agency, you know, you've got a lot of explaining to do why you went with a program that's going to cost the government more money. That isn't what this is about. This is union bashing. This isn't costing or saving money. It's just we don't like unions, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman very much. I want the body to know that Ms. Richardson was going to offer this amendment and, over the weekend, permitted me to offer it as a member of the committee. I appreciate that very much. She is certainly a champion of PLAs. I want to address the gentleman from Georgia's observations because he is exactly right, and it doesn't change anything that I said. The VA said that you should study both PLAs and non-PLAs based upon the area of the country. Now, he is correct. The VA study said that in three of the five that they studied, PLAs would have increased labor costs. It doesn't say anything about the benefit from having increased quality, on time, and all that other business. But what happened to the other two? In 40 percent of them, the answer is either there was no difference or they reduced costs, which is exactly the point. The amendment strikes out the language inserted in the bill by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) that would prevent an agency from studying which way gets you the bigger bang for the buck. Why would we want to do that? I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. First of all, I want to indicate that I am offering this amendment with my friend and neighbor. Actually, he is in the office next door, Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey. And this deals with the Fire and the SAFER grant programs. I also want to indicate that I have nothing but respect for the full committee chairman and the subcommittee chairman, who have been dealt a difficult hand with the 302(b) allocations made in front of them, and as they face the awesome responsibility of funding the programs that defend our country. However, the Chair I think may remember during the discussion of the continuing resolution in H.R. 1 that there was some discussion about what funding levels were appropriate for fiscal year 2011 for these two grant programs which aid our first responders. In the one iteration of H.R. 1, there was something along the lines of a 75 percent reduction from these funds. Those funds, however, were restored by overwhelming votes of the whole body. Over 300 Members supported Mr. Pascrell's amendment to put the level back up at $820 million for fiscal year 2011, and just shy of 260 Members supported Mr. Price of North Carolina's amendment that dealt with how those funds could be utilized and spent. Now, again, faced with the difficult decisions that the chairs find themselves in, the average reduction, and this isn't a bill that came to the floor with across-the-board cuts, but the average reduction in spending is about 14 percent for the bills that the Appropriations Committee is considering. Yet these funds have gone from $820 million to $350 million, which is on the order of about a, well, 60 percent reduction. The amendment that I offer with Mr. Pascrell would transfer funds out of the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer to restore those funds not to the $820 million that 300 Members of the House indicated should be spent in the last fiscal year, but restores them to $670 million equally divided between the two programs that I have indicated. Now, at that level, these funds will still receive a 19 percent reduction from fiscal year 2011 and, again, citing my great respect for the chairs of the committee, on more than one occasion I have heard it remarked that this is a national Homeland Security bill and there needs to be some nexus between this funding and a national purpose, that we should not be in the business of funding every local and/or volunteer fire department in the Nation, and I agree with that sentiment. However, I can just tell you that faced with amazing budget pressures back in our local communities, when the Grand River in Painesville, Ohio, flooded a couple of years ago, it wasn't FEMA, it wasn't the Coast Guard, it wasn't the National Guard that plucked these folks out of their homes and plucked them out of the river and saved their lives and saved their properties. It was our firefighters and our police officers. So if we make a determination as a Congress that we are in the FEMA business--that is, emergency management business--and we will provide funds to help rebuild and reshape and fortify and all the other things, then we need to be in all parts of the emergency management business, and that includes the first responder portion of that. Therefore, I know that we have attempted to come to some agreement on this amendment to try and get all parties on board. Sadly, we haven't been able to do that, not for lack of trying on the part of the chairman. But we find ourselves now with this simple amendment that transfers funds from the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and restores it to our local communities and our first responders. Again, I want to thank Mr. Pascrell for his cosponsorship. I urge support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that 2 minutes of my 5 minutes be yielded to and controlled by the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, to yield time as he should see fit.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster). I understand this is the first rule he is managing, and you're doing a brilliant job so far. Hopefully that will be the case for the next 50 minutes as well. I want to also congratulate Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee for coming up with this rule. I have been here in the minority, I have been here in the majority, and the 33 amendments made in order under this rule beat by 28 the number made in order when we last considered this piece of legislation. So congratulations to you. Sadly, I think for my friends in my party, one of the amendments made in order is mine. And it's what's caused me--although I fully support the rule; I'm going to vote for the rule--it's what causes me some angst relative to the bill. I have to give a little bit of context and history. I was on the Transportation Committee when the first reauthorization of this bill was supposed to take place. This bill hadn't been reauthorized since 2003. This bill is about America's future because, among other things, it takes our air traffic control system from ground-based radar to satellite-based so that we can do a lot of wonderful things and continue to be the world leader. So we need to get this bill done. But a funny thing keeps happening to this bill on the way to the bank, I guess. We first had a fight between Federal Express and UPS. It really doesn't have a lot to do with NextGen, but that screwed up the bill for a while. Then we had a fight with the air traffic controllers in the Bush administration, and that screwed up the bill for a while. Then we had a problem with something called PFCs; how much a passenger pays as a landing charge. Those fees, of course, are then turned into runways and infrastructure and employ a lot of people. So we didn't have a bill. And then we almost got a bill. In the last Congress, Jim Oberstar and John Mica and Jerry Costello and Tom Petri did a really nice job, sent the bill over to the Senate, and a couple of Senators decided that they wanted to favor one airline over others and have additional flights-- long-distance flights--from Reagan National Airport to their homes, I guess, on the west coast. And so one airline would have received 48 percent of the benefit and everybody else would have gotten the scraps. We didn't have a bill. Again, you say, Why do people get frustrated with Washington? What do any of those things have to do with whether or not we continue to be the world leader in aviation? So now we come to this bill. And I have to tell you there is a poison pill in this bill. The Senate will not take up the bill as currently written. The President issued a statement of administration policy last night indicating he will veto the bill. And it's all over this one issue. This one issue doesn't belong in the bill. Now, there are people around here that love unions and the unions can do no wrong. There are people around here that hate unions and unions can't do anything right. But what happened is the airlines and the railroads are organized and regulated under the Rail Labor Act, as opposed to the National Labor Relations Board Act. It's been that way since the 1930s. And for years the rule was that--75 years, actually-- that if they wanted to certify a union, you had to get a majority of people in the whole class. And Mr. McGovern is exactly right. Can you imagine there's about 200,000 people that are registered to vote in my congressional district. And so I stand for election, and if I got 70 percent, so 100,000 people show up--only half, which is about what we're averaging in this country--100,000 people show up, 70,000 vote for me. I'm pretty happy, popping the champagne corks, thinking I got a nice election going. But under the structure that's been in existence for all these years, those 100,000 people that didn't show up, they're counted against me. They're counted as ``no'' votes. Americans don't understand that kind of election process. It just doesn't make any sense. And the argument and the pushback against this is, Well, it's been that way for 75 years. Now, the Speaker, I know, is a learned historian of American history. When the Constitution was written, only white men who owned property could vote in this country. And I'll bet if you asked the white guys, they were probably pretty happy about that, and they would say it works okay. For another hundred years, the women in this country couldn't vote. And maybe if you asked some of the men, they were probably happy about that as well. Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair. So the National Mediation Board, which has jurisdiction, changed the rule. They had a hearing. They asked for comments. They had a public meeting. They took a vote. And they changed the rule to the more fair procedure wherein those people that actually show up and vote, that's going to be the vote. Now, have horrible things happened since this rule went into effect? No. One of the prime proponents of this rule change, Delta Airlines, they've had four elections since the rules were changed. The union has lost all four. And this dumb argument I heard the other day that only three people can come and form a union, that's nonsense. They had a 94 percent turnout at their election. So this encourages turnout. The other thing I just want to mention is there's a lawsuit pending on this. The Air Transport Association sued the National Mediation Board. They lost.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. It's now in the Court of Appeals. We do our darnedest to say we're going to drain the swamp and do all the other stuff around here. But in this lawsuit--they've got a lot of members, the Air Transport Association--but here are the airlines--and I want everybody listening and following at home figure out what's going on here. The following members of the Air Transport Association opted out of this lawsuit: American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Southwest Airlines, UPS Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways. This is a bad deal and we shouldn't be doing it.