Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday my friend and colleague, Lou Stokes, returned to the House of Representatives. I wanted to take this opportunity to tell him how much his presence and guidance were missed in this institution, and how the Congress is enriched to have him back, and in good health. Anyone who knows Lou Stokes knows it would take nothing short of major surgery to keep him away from the House of Representatives. As it turns out, it was major heart surgery that kept Lou away, which seems fitting because Lou has one major heart. I am pleased he came through his surgery with flying colors, and know he will resume his work with the same level of intensity and commitment we've all come to expect from him. I thank the fine doctors of the Cleveland Clinic for taking care of our good friend, and sending him back to us as good as new. As a member of the Ohio delegation and a Representative from northeast Ohio, I have always valued Lou's experience and wisdom, and feel blessed to have a role model like him in the House. In all my dealings with Lou Stokes he has been fair, forthright, and decent, and it is greatly appreciated. So, on the occasion of his return to the House, I wish him well. The dean of the Ohio delegation was dearly missed, and I for one am very glad that he is back.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, today on the House floor we are considering House Resolution 316--a measure deploring individuals who deny the historical significance of the Holocaust and commending the fine work of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I rise in strong support of this measure, as it is important that we never forget or attempt to diminish the historical significance of one of the most heinous chapters in history--the Holocaust. There are some who seek to revise history, to alter it in such a way as to deny the Holocaust. This is insulting to the memory of the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, and this type of destructive, divisive thinking should not be given credence. In the 104th Congress I have had the honor of serving on the council of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the fine work of the museum staff, from its director, Walter Reich, to its chairman, Miles Lerman, to Stan Turesky, Director of Congressional Relations. The museum truly is an American and international treasure and goes far beyond the traditional purpose of a museum, which is to preserve and record history. This museum compels its visitors to consider the moral and spiritual consequences of the Holocaust. It accomplishes this by exposing the visitor to stark and unsettling examples of hatred, heartbreak, and heroism. The stories of perpetrators, victims, bystanders, rescuers and liberators confront the visitor and demand attention. By doing so, the museum forces us to learn important lessons about the Holocaust and our everyday lives. On this Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust--Yom HaShoah--we as a nation should rededicate ourselves and our commitment to overcoming bigotry, hatred, and intolerance. We should condemn those who want to dismiss the Holocaust, and embrace the efforts of those who rightly believe that we as a nation can learn from the Holocaust experience and ensure that it will never again be repeated.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, this evening at Fairmount Temple in Beachwood, OH, a Yom HaShoah V'Hagvura Commemoration is being held. Had the House of Representatives not been in session this day, I would have joined my friends and constituents at this special community event. I deeply regret not being able to attend the Yom HaShoah Commemoration, and wish to commend those who worked so hard to make the evening a success. The purpose of this community commemoration is to remember the Holocaust and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. This evening's special commemorative event is part of the larger Holocaust Day of Remembrance--an internationally recognized day set aside annually to remember the victims of the Holocaust, including the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their evil collaborators. As the member of Congress representing Ohio's 19th District, it has been a profound honor for me to serve on the council of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. This council was created by a unanimous act of Congress in 1980 and was charged with the task of creating the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Our mission is to encourage remembrance of the Holocaust--to remember its victims--and to assure that never again in history will we allow bigotry and hatred to run unchecked. There are some who will assert that the Holocaust was about Jews and therefore any remembrance of the Holocaust will have meaning only to Jews. Those people could not be more wrong. When we remember the Holocaust we remember a historical truth too great for most to fathom, but one that can never be forgotten. If we know anything about history, it is that it tends to repeat itself. The Holocaust, however, must never be repeated. While it is painful to dwell on such a heinous slice of history, it is a pain that should never be far from the hearts and minds of all Americans, for America responded to the horror of the Holocaust in a way that was tragically and regretfully inadequate. The systematic extermination of European Jews began in June 1941 when the German Army invaded the Soviet Union, yet it would be some time until reports of atrocities would filter back to the United States, and even longer until they were taken seriously. Most Americans, meanwhile, remained unaware of the horror inflicted on European Jews, as reports of atrocities were not widely publicized by the media. American and British Jewish organizations, however, took the reports with the seriousness they deserved, and only at their insistence did the American and British governments decide to act to rescue those European Jews who had fallen victim to the Nazis. As you commemorate the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising this evening, it is important to remember that at the same time the uprising began--April 1943--the Bermuda Conference opened. This emergency conference was intended to outline a solid plan for rescuing Jews from Nazi atrocities, yet little was accomplished, as both British and American delegates fretted over what to do with those Jews who would be rescued. The United States would not budge on its immigration quotas, and Britain would not even consider the possibility of admitting rescued Jews into Palestine. The two governments exhibited cowardice and indifference while those staging the revolt displayed unparalleled backbone and heroism. The inaction at the Bermuda Conference, unfortunately, would lead to additional torture and extermination of Jews. This followed, of course, our country's unwise refusal to relax immigration quotas following the Evian Conference in 1938. It hardly seems possible today given our country's leadership in helping others, but of the 33 countries represented at Evian, only the tiny Dominican Republic agreed to accept a significant number of Jewish refugees. The American response to Hitler's Germany is a legacy of shame we can never forget. Meanwhile, at the same time America and Britain could not agree on what to do about rescuing Jews from Nazi atrocities, Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto residents were carrying out an orchestrated revolt, refusing to report to deportation areas and staging an armed uprising. The Jews fought valiantly against their Nazi tormentors, even as German forces began destroying the ghetto, setting buildings on fire to force out those in hiding. Finally, on May 16, 1943--nearly a month after the heroic uprising began--the Nazis in one last act of horrific bravado destroyed the Great Synagogue to symbolize victory. With the ghetto reduced to rubble, those Jews who survived the monthlong violent Warsaw Ghetto uprising were deported to forced-labor or extermination camps, where Nazi horror, tyranny and hatred continued to reign. On this day, it is my fervent hope that all Americans will pause and embrace the spirit of the Day of Remembrance, and the tireless efforts of those who seek to make this day resonate with significance--from my friends at Fairmount Temple to all the Jewish, community and civic organizations across the country, to the dedicated staff and council of the U.S. Holocaust Museum. May all Americans make a lasting commitment never to forget the Holocaust, or the moral, spiritual, and ethical questions it raises for those of us blessed to live in a democracy.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, as the House of Representatives considered overhauling our nation's immigration policies, members had an opportunity to separate legal immigration from illegal immigration issues. I supported efforts to delete the legal immigration provisions from H.R. 2002, the ``Immigration in the National Interest Act.'' Some might question my motivation for doing this, however, it is my contention that just as the problems relating to legal and illegal immigration are different, so too are the solutions. You could argue that the work of a brain surgeon and a barber both involve the human head, yet no one would think of going to a barber for brain surgery or a brain surgeon for a haircut. This is precisely the type of ill- conceived logic we employ if we attempt to lump illegal and legal immigration into one reform package. The two issues deserve separate consideration, and that is why I supported the measure to give each reform vehicle the attention it deserves. The U.S. Senate has already seen fit to separate legal from illegal immigration, again with the belief that our proposed reforms of legal immigration go too far. The legal immigration provisions contained in H.R. 2002 would drastically reduce legal immigration--up to 40 percent by some estimates. It also would reduce the potential for families to be reunited and would decimate the intake of refugees. History has not been kind to us as a nation when we have followed similar paths before. During the 104th Congress, I have had the great pleasure of serving as a member of the Council for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. In my capacity on council, I have had been afforded the time and luxury to delve deeper into the history surrounding the Holocaust, and I have paid particular attention to the emigration of Jews from Germany in the 1930s. It strikes me that as we consider reforming our legal immigration policy, we should study this tragic period in history carefully, as there are many lessons to be learned. In July 1938, delegates from 32 countries including the United States, France and Great Britain met at the Evian Hotel in Evian, France, for what has become known as the Evian Conference. The purpose of this conference was to determine what these countries should do in response to the thousands of Jewish refugees who were shunned both by their home country and abroad. Unfortunately, little was accomplished at the Evian Conference because no country was willing or had the fortitude to accept large numbers of Jews, including the U.S. Since the early 1930s, Jews had been fleeing Germany for a variety of reasons. Initially, the German government encouraged those who could flee to do so, and to take whatever possessions they could with them. Eventually, however, the Nazis made this increasingly more difficult, slapping emigration taxes on Jews and making it impossible for them to survive elsewhere because their funds were tied up in German banks. The anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany, as we all know, was oppressive. The Nazis wanted to make Germany a place devoid of Jews. As a result, Jews fled by the tens of thousands, often entire families at once. They sought refuge in Western Europe, the U.S., Central and South America, and even China. It is believed that as many as 90,000 Jews emigrated from Germany to the U.S. during this period in history, and many more would have come to our fair land had the U.S. been more willing to accept them. Unfortunately, we were not. Our country's unwillingness to accept these Jewish refugees took a most tragic turn in May 1939, for it was at this time that the S.S. St. Louis, a German passenger ship, left Germany for Cuba. There were nearly 1,000 Jews on board the St. Louis as it headed toward Havana, yet when it finally reached its destination the ship was turned away by Cuban authorities. The St. Louis then pleaded with U.S. officials to let the nearly 1,000 refugees enter America, yet the U.S. denied the ship permission to land and denied entry visas to the refugees. In June 1939, the ship turned around and returned to Europe. Fortunately for those on board the St. Louis, the countries of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and Belgium agreed to accept the Jewish refugees, although this blessing would be brief and mixed. The following year, in 1940, German forces occupied the region. Many of the passengers aboard the St. Louis--those same passengers America turned away--were dealt the cruelest of fates. Many were subjected in their new homelands to the same horrors from which they had fled--the full wrath of the Holocaust--ghettos, concentration camps, deportations and death chambers. Fear, prejudice and ignorance allowed America to turn its back on those who sought refuge here in May 1939, with the most tragic of outcomes. America is supposed to be a haven for those oppressed by other nations; it is supposed to be the land of hope and opportunity. Ours is a country that welcomes those who want to come here, contribute to society, and live the American dream. It is regrettable that we as a nation have been unable to respond to the severe problems of illegal immigration in a sensible, meaningful way. It would be just as regrettable to gut a rich heritage of providing safe harbor for those who seek to come here legally because we cannot deal with a failed illegal immigration policy. As a nation, we must take full responsibility for our generosity in welcoming others to our land, and full responsibility when that generosity backfires or fails. In separating legal from illegal immigration reform, we have our best chance to answer that call to responsibility. Just as we should not reward those who refuse to make a difference as Americans, we should not punish those who come here and strive to do so. Throughout history, legal immigrants have enriched our economy and the goodness of our country. We will never know what kind of productive lives those aboard the St. Louis might have led on American soil because we did not give them the chance. It is a shame we will always bear. Legislative action or inaction in Europe and the United States contributed greatly to a tragedy we cannot repeat. Ours is a country made up of immigrants, and the rich tapestry we enjoy is because so many people, including many of our own grandparents and great-grandparents, had the hear and the will to come here. More importantly, the United States had the heart and the will to welcome them, and it is not something to relinquish now.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 369. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Solomon and Chairman Clinger for brining this resolution to the floor today. I also want to commend and applaud Chairman Clinger for his continued efforts to get to the bottom of the travel office investigation in a fair and bipartisan manner. Although the minority hasn't been crazy about the fact that the committee is investigating the firing of seven long-time civil servants, there have been no complaints that I can recall about the fairness Chairman Clinger has demonstrated in conducting these hearings. Like many in this House, I will greatly miss the chairman's leadership and would suggest that there would be no need for a civility pledge in this body if we all took a cue from Bill Clinger. In urging Members to support H.R. 369 I would ask that they answer, for themselves, three questions: First, is there precedence in the House for such a resolution? Second, is there a need for this special request? and Third, will it fairly expedite the committee's work to the benefit of all concerned? The answer to all three questions is a definite--yes. First, similar resolutions have been adopted by the House, at the request of the then majority in the 93d, 95th, 97th, 100th, and 103d Congresses. The language proposed by H.R. 369 is identical to the text adopted by a vote of 416 to 2 on Jan. 7, 1987, relating to the Select Committee on Iran-Contra. Second, there is unfortunately, as Chairman Clinger noted, a need for this legislation. Over a 2\1/2\ year period, requested documents have trickled into the committee drip by drip. Molasses flows faster in January than the document production in this matter. Sadly, the record before the committee reveals that statements, reports, and documents are at variance with one another. The report authors and investigative agencies were hamstrung by either a lack of information being provided by witnesses or documents; or pertinent information was deliberately left out of reports because the authors possessed the attitude--``If it doesn't fit, you must omit.'' And, a number of key witnesses have declined, refused or evaded staff interviews and document requests. Third, this resolution will provide what those of us with courtroom experience term ``judicial economy.'' The over 50 potential witnesses can be deposed at the staff level and will permit the chairman, in consultation with the minority, to determine which witnesses should appear before the full committee. This procedure will allow the investigation to move to conclusion more quickly; will eliminate duplicative or valueless witnesses; and will save time. As the depositions will be conducted under oath, the witnesses will be encouraged to provide a truthful account the first time rather than conflicting accounts in documents, staff interviews and testimony. The expedited procedure of H.R. 369 will ensure that criticism which has been leveled against the other body's probe of Whitewater--too many hearings; too many witnesses; taking too long; and designed to embarrass the White House in an election year, will be avoided and the committee's legitimate oversight responsibilities may conclude. For all the aforementioned reasons, I again commend Chairman Clinger's work, and would urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, yesterday I was unavoidably detained. As a result, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 44. However, had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yes.'' I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record following rollcall vote No. 44.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the inclement weather in the Cleveland area, I was unable to arrive in Washington in time for votes this afternoon. As a result, I was unable to vote on rollcall votes No. 1--procedural vote--quorum call--2, 3, and 4. However, had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes Nos. 2, 3, 4, and ``present'' on rollcall vote No. 1.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, while the Congress has been grappling, often in a partisan manner, with the task of balancing the Federal budget, I received word yesterday from home that quickly made me remember what's most important in life. Fifteen years ago, I was a young, enthusiastic, idealistic, and probably obnoxious, public defender. Shortly after my arrival our office was joined by another young attorney, Chuck Cichocki. Chuck and I shared pretty much the same dreams and hopes. We both wanted to do our jobs well; we both wanted to build a family; and we both wanted to give our children the ability to share the American dream. Both of us were pretty successful in realizing those goals. With his wife, LaVonne, Chuck's family welcomed three beautiful children into the world. Chuck and LaVonne enjoyed a model marriage, a nurturing family, a respect of their community and each other. Sadly, the news from home yesterday was that, after a long and courageous struggle with cancer, LaVonne passed away. LaVonne Cichocki was a loving wife, a devoted mother and a great friend to all who knew her. Despite her pain, she remained active in her family's activities, her kids' school activities, and her participation in the events that helped shape the community in which they lived. The world is certainly a better place today because of LaVonne's life, and, sadly the sun shines a little bit dimmer with her passing. Mr. Speaker, our prayers must be with the Cichocki's today, and my most fervent hope is that we redouble our efforts and focus our attention more on helping families like Chuck and LaVonne's realize their dreams, and less time fighting for political points.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, the primary focus of the 104th Congress has been to tackle the immoral and ever-growing Federal debt. This Congress has embarked on a historic plan to balance the budget in 7 years, or by 2002. For far too long, the Congress has thought only of today, with little thought of tomorrow. For decades, the Congress has irresponsibly continued to pour truckloads of money into programs that provide marginal results at best, programs which overlap services, and programs which provide services no longer needed. America recognizes that what we are doing in Washington--scaling back government, reversing decades of fiscal irresponsibility, is a revolutionary process, and one that is often painful. All I have asked in this budget process is that we go about it fairly, that we level with the American people and refrain from the monkey business of the past. Recently, I was one of ten Republicans in the House to vote against the House-authored version of the budget. While I wholeheartedly agree with the necessity of balancing the budget in 7 years, I could not in good conscience support that version of the budget because it contained numerous favors to special interests. I promised my constituents that if a majority of my concerns were addressed and corrected, I would support final passage of the budget plan. No legislation is perfect, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 is no exception. On the whole, however, I feel this is a budget plan that is fair; it is based on real numbers and it enables us to reach our goal of balancing the budget in 7 years. Furthermore, many of my concerns have been addressed and corrected. Nursing home standards have been restored; problems with the Medicaid funding formula have been fixed, including a spousal impoverishment clause; several environmental areas of concern are now addressed, and greater protections have been added to the pension provisions area. We could wrangle over the details for years to come, but the clock is ticking and we must address our country's horrific debt now. In the coming 7 years, the lives of all Americans will be changed as a result of having a balanced budget. Economists agree a balanced budget will lead to falling trade deficits, rising productivity and a higher standard of living for Americans. Reductions in interest rates will be substantial. For example, the 30-year Treasury bond, now at 6.4 percent, could decrease by as many as 2 percentage points. Lowered borrowing costs will be tremendous for business investment and other areas of the economy sensitive to changes in interest, including housing and the automotive industry--something vital to the economy of northeast Ohio. Also, a balanced budget is expected to free up billions of dollars for our States and cities. A Senate Budget Committee study shows that $919 million will be freed up for Ohio, and $56 million for Cleveland. What will a balanced budget mean to you on a personal level? How will it impact your daily lives? Here are some of the highlights: Interest on home loans for the average 30-year mortgage will drop as much as 2.7 percentage points, according to a National Association of Realtors study. With a 30-year $50,000 mortgage at 8.23 percent, families would save more than $1,000 annually, or more than $32,400 over the life of the loan. Interest on car loans will drop by as much as 2 percentage points, according to a Joint Economic Committee study. Hence, if you take out a 5-year $15,000 loan at 9.7 percent, you will see an extra $900 in savings for your family budget. Meanwhile, interest on student loans also will drop as many as 2 percentage points, according to an Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee study. If your son or daughter borrows $11,000 at 8 percent interest, they will pay $2,167 less for schooling. When our goal of a balanced budget is realized in 2002, the changes in our economy will be significant. Companies will be able to invest in new equipment and productivity will rise; this will lead to higher wages and better living standards. Best of all, a balanced budget will help create an estimated 6.1 million new jobs, according to a Joint Economic Committee study. These jobs will benefit the middle-class, welfare recipients, and high school and college graduates. It is time we, as Americans, return to a life of fiscal responsibility; the Federal Government should and can be a role model. Americans are conditioned to believe Washington only does what is right for itself, not for America. This Congress is different. This Congress is committed to putting the needs of America and its financial future first, above all else, including our own re-elections. I am proud to vote for the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, a vote for the future of America. With a balanced budget, we can return to an America we can all be proud of, one where every American has an opportunity to succeed, and one where all Americans can provide for their families and save for their futures. A balanced budget is truly our last, best hope to restore the American dream.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of the Clinger antilobbying amendment, which would prohibit Federal agencies from using appropriated funds to promote public support or opposition for a legislative proposal. This amendment is not about stifling free speech, it is not about muzzling lobbying activities. What the Clinger amendment is about, ladies and gentlemen, is the Congress laying down the law and saying ``It is wrong for us to spend a dime of taxpayer money so Federal agencies can lobby the Congress and attempt to shape legislation to suit that agency's agenda or whims.'' As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I saw this practice first hand as we worked on legislation overhauling the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency actually allowed its employees to prepare lobbying materials for the committee members. These included fact sheets which had little to do with facts. Instead, these were thinly guised agency propaganda filled with political undertones. One of the arguments that has been advanced is that this amendment is unconstitutional. That argument is without merit. The constitutional argument apparently has two prongs--one claims that the first amendment is impacted; the other focuses on the separation of powers between this branch and the executive branch. It's difficult to see how the first amendment guarantees of Federal officials would be impacted. The language isn't as restraining as the Hatch Act; employees on their own dime may enjoy the freedoms of speech, association, expression, and the right to petition. And, if I understand the CRS opinion correctly, nearly identical language has been included in the Interior Department appropriations for about 15 years. Turning for a moment to the separation of powers issue, clearly the proposed action is within the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution; the administration's constitutional rights are found in article II, section 3--that is, the President shall ``take care that the laws are faithfully executed'' or to ``recommend to Congress' consideration such measures as he deems necessary and expedient.'' Chairman Clinger's amendment doesn't restrict the administration's ability to enforce or administer the laws of the United States. It doesn't restrict direct contact with Members, and it exempts the President and his Senate-confirmed appointees so it in no way hampers the President from faithfully executing the laws nor providing suggestions to Congress. However, Federal agency employees should not be preparing lobbying materials to influence the legislative process. It it's a part of their job description then their job description needs to be rewritten. This is a wildly inappropriate use of taxpayer funds, and we as a Congress should seek to stop it, not just for the 104th Congress, but in the future. What Chairman Clinger has proposed is a commonsense amendment. It is not harsh, it is not radical, it does not jeopardize the Constitution or our right to free speech. I think Americans would be appalled to know that at the Department of Veterans Affairs, employee check stubs contain a message from Secretary Jesse Brown urging opposition to the House budget plan. That the U.S. Department of the Interior sent a letter to public land constituents indicating opposition to the Livestock Grazing Act. That the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assembled a ``Taking it Too Far'' slide show and panel discussion to oppose the takings legislation. That the Corporation for American Service [Americorp] published its first annual report containing selected press clips praising Americorp and criticizing congressional action. Who pays for all this? You, the public. Is this how you want Federal employees to use their time, crafting political propaganda? I don't think so. The American people know this is wrong, and they should be offended that this practice has been allowed to exist so long without any adequate remedy. Maybe I could muster up some sympathy for those who oppose this amendment if we were faced with some dire shortage of lobbyists in this town. Of course, that's not the case. This morning, just out of curiosity's sake, my office called the Office of Records and Registrations to get the latest tally on the number of lobbyists. Right now, we have 6,531 active lobbyist registrants on Capitol Hill; that's more than twice the number of people who live in my hometown, Madison Village, OH. Of course, it only gets worse. If you tally up the lobbyists who are active registrants with clients, we've got--get this--12,556 lobbyists. And on the inactive, but still registered front, we've got another 37,181 lobbyists. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but it sounds to me like we've got our lobbying needs covered and we can make do without Federal employees, who do not even register as lobbyists, jumping into the fray. Where I come from, I'd say we've already got more lobbyists here than you can shake a stick at. Enough's enough. Let the Federal agency employees do their real jobs. Support the Clinger amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, the world continues to mourn the loss of Yitzhak Rabin, the proud and gracious leader of Israel, a man of great courage, resolve and goodness. His deep and abiding love of Israel is beyond reproach. He was that rarity in history, a leader who was revered and admired not only by his citizens, but around the world. He was a man of great integrity and selfless almost to a fault. His devotion to his country was unwavering, from his participation in the Jewish underground army, to his command of the Six-Day War, to his election as Israel's youngest Prime Minister. But his greatest devotion and his greatest contribution, not only to Israel, but also the Middle East and the entire world, was achieving a lasting peace. That lasting peace was something few thought possible. However, in the mind of Yitzhak Rabin, a thoughtful and reasoned man, it was not only a goal that was possible, but a goal that must be achieved if Israel was going to survive. Rarely in history do we find examples of such integrity and loyalty. This was not a man concerned with politics or appearances or his own popularity, but instead one who chose to lead his country, as he had been asked, and to live up to whatever challenge might face him, no matter the consequences. In one of the greatest challenges of the 20th Century, he embarked on a dramatic plan toward achieving lasting peace with the Palestinians. Against every possible obstacle, his dream was realized on the South Lawn of the White House on September 13, 1993, when a peace accord few thought possible was signed. Israel and the world continue to weep and grieve over the senseless taking of the life of Yitzhak Rabin. It is the cruelest of ironies that a man so committed to peaceful resolutions would meet his demise at the hands of another Jew; it was an act of such senseless violence. Yitzhak Rabin will be replaced, and the world is hopeful that his legacy of peace will continue, but his are shoes that truly cannot ever be filled. Yitzhak Rabin's love of country, his will, his great intellect and sense of compassion cannot be duplicated. His was a greatness that will go unparalleled in history. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow once said of greatness: The heights by men reached and kept Were not attained by sudden flight, But they, while their companions slept, Were toiling upward in the night. Yitzhak Rabin toiled upward in the night his entire life, for seven decades. He toiled for a country and a people he deeply loved, a people who surrounded him with a great deal of affection at the time of his death. America, Israel and the world will never forget Yitzhak Rabin or his lasting contribution to the betterment of all mankind. Like Longworth said, the truly great toil upward in the night to reach the greatest of heights. In that darkness, Yitzhak Rabin dreamt the sweetest of dreams, one of true, lasting peace.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2274, the National Highway System Designation Act. I commend Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri, as well as their hardworking staffs, for their tireless efforts in bringing a bipartisan bill to the floor which not only reauthorizes the NHS but addresses funding shortfall problems which, if not corrected, will fall on the backs of our States. The other day a reporter, during an interview about the NHS, mentioned to me that the NHS bill was, according to her editor, not very exciting. While roads and bridges do not necessarily equal the gripping drama of the O.J. Simpson trial or a Clint Eastwood movie, the NHS is essential to each and every person in this country. The NHS represents some of our Nation's most heavily traveled byways, and while only containing 4 percent of U.S. roads, supports 40 percent of total vehicle travel and 75 percent of heavy truck travel. More importantly to anyone who travels our roads, the NHS means safety for travelers. Improvement of NHS routes, including widespread lanes and shoulders, controlled access and divided lanes, will help reduce accidents and fatalities. The NHS will help alleviate congestion on crowded urban highways. Also, it should not be overlooked that adoption of the NHS will not increase taxes. The funding will come from existing highway user-fees deposited in the Highway Trust Fund. While this legislation corrects many problems and gives States flexibility, it successfully fixes the 1003(c) problem. This problem is the result of highway spending exceeding the estimates placed into ISTEA. If not corrected, 1003(c) will result in an estimated $4.2 billion in highway funds being cut from State apportionments in fiscal year 1996. For Ohio alone, not solving 1003(c) would mean a loss of $98.8 million. Additionally, for Ohio and other minimum allocation States, this legislation effectively addresses this issue. Although taking transportation trust funds off budget is not in the bill we are debating today, I wanted to take this opportunity to commend the leadership of Chairman Shuster and ranking member Mineta, in addressing this issue. They have set the stage for this essential measure being brought before the House so we can decide this issue once and for all. H.R. 842, legislation which will take transportation trust funds off budget, will put the trust back in the trust funds. In my State of Ohio, the Ohio Department of Transportation reports that we send about $1 billion in Federal motor fuel taxes to Washington annually. Last year, however, Ohio got back only $600 million of that money in Federal highway funds. What happened to the rest? Of the remaining $400 million, $345 million of Ohio gas taxes went to pay for the Federal deficit, while the remaining disappeared into what ODOT has termed ``a bureaucratic black hole inside the beltway.'' This trust fund was created to keep funds for transportation projects around the country. Previous Congresses have abused the transportation trust fund as a smokescreen for their overspending in the general fund. I commend the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their commitment to put an end to these budget shenanigans. Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to add my voice to the many others who have commended ranking member Norm Mineta. As a new Member of Congress, I have come to have the utmost respect for Congressman Mineta's insight, arguments and bipartisan handling of transportation issues. My regret is that his departure from this body will deprive our number of great wisdom. I shall greatly miss his presence and wish him nothing but the best. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2274.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, because I was unavoidably detained, I was not recorded on rollcall votes Nos. 664, 665, and 666. However, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these measures.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and support his substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I say ``Thank You'' because I had planned to offer an amendment with Congressman Quinn to the bill that addressed funding for the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab. We approached the committee staff with our case and Chairman Rogers' amendment addresses our concerns and saves from extinction this most valuable of scientific centers. The Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab is a fact-finding and fact-interpreting agency. It helps the Federal Government meet its scientific, ecosystem, and management responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada. This responsibility spans 8 States, two provinces, and contains a 1,000-mile international border. The loss of the research lab would put these responsibilities in severe jeopardy. The GLERL has recently completed studies in Lake Erie to help figure the role of wetlands in reducing the effects of nutrient inputs from non-point agricultural sources. This information will help farmers develop coherent, nonregulatory pollution control. So far, GLERL work has saved billions of dollars. Its nutrient dynamics and modeling work contributed to saving more than $10 billion dollars of ineffective additional sewage treatment. The present GLERL appropriations level is $5.6 million per year; these savings are equivalent to over 1,000 years of GLERL funding. The research lab's expertise and research related to contaminated sediments were key to the findings and recommendations of a scientific panel, led by GLERL scientists, that the Coast Guard relax their proposed regulations, thus saving the shipping industry tens of millions of dollars in lost time and additional costs. The GLERL also helps saves lives. GLERL's Great Lakes Atmospheric Wave Model gives local emergency preparedness agencies the ability to make advanced predictions of shoreline flooding caused by storm surges. GLERL's research will give property owners and industries time to protect their property and evacuate to higher ground. GLERL's PATHFINDER model for oil/chemical spill trajectory is used by NOAA on the Great Lakes for spill response and by the Coast Guard to help guide search and rescue operations. When zebra mussels clogged the water intakes in Monroe, MI, and cut off drinking water supplies, GLERL went to work to determine not only how to control zebra mussels, but how to keep them clear of vital water lines. When the people of Milwaukee became sick--and some died--from contaminated drinking water, GLERL began an intensive search to understand near-shore water conditions which will help prevent future health catastrophe caused by drinking water contamination. The United States is tremendously lucky to have the Great Lakes, which account for 20 percent of the world's fresh water surface. A vital link in the competitiveness of the Great Lakes region are the Great Lakes themselves--a system of five lakes which connects our breadbasket and heavy industries to other destinations across the globe. The Great Lakes are key to our past, and they are key to our future. The Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab is a multifaceted lab that provides a great and vital service. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and also in favor of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which was established under the 1955 U.S. Canadian Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, plays a critical role in protecting the health of the Great Lakes' $4 billion fishery industry. The commission consists of eight commissioners, four appointed by the President and four by the Prime Minister of Canada. It is funded through a 69-percent to 31-percent cost share agreement between the United States and Canada respectively. The benefits of this commission are enjoyed by the United States, Canada, and the tribes. Because the commission coordinates effective fishery management strategies throughout the region and coordinates binational natural resources in the Great Lakes region, it is imperative that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission continue to be funded through the State Department. We have spent many years cultivating a good relationship between nations and tribes. Although the Great Lakes have definite boundaries on paper, taken as a whole, this is [[Page H 7631]] one massive region used and shared by many. Hence, if there is a problem in the Great Lakes in Canada, it becomes the problem of the Great Lakes in the United States. It was just such a crossing-all-borders problem that actually spurred the formation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The ``problem'' of which I speak, Mr. Chairman, has been described as slimy, ruthless, unsightly, heinous, scum-sucking and parasitic, words which ironically have all been used at least a time or two to describe certain members of Congress. But I assure you Mr. Speaker, these words in this instance are reserved for an ell-like species that is wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes--the sea lamprey. For those who are not familiar with the sea lamprey, let me assure you this is not something you'd want in your backyard. In the Great Lakes we have seen an invasion of this eel-like, nonindigenous species. And, in addition to being just a hideous looking thing, the sea lamprey is parasitic and can destroy 10 to 40 pounds of fish during its parasitic period. This slimy eel-like thing just clamps onto its prey and devours it. If you've ever had the misfortune of seeing footage of the lamprey in action, suffice it to say you should just be thankful it doesn't do to people what it does to fish. It's the kind of creature you'd expect Steven Spielberg to invent to scare the bejeepers out of us in theaters. It is so vicious, so deadly and leaves behind so horrid carnage that if you made a movie about it, it'd make ``Jaws'' look like ``Free Willy'' and ``Jurassic Park'' look like ``Barney.'' But unfortunately, the sea lamprey is no Hollywood special effects creation, it's real. And it also is a very real threat to the health and future of the Great Lakes. Before the creation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the sea lamprey virtually destroyed the entire region's prosperous recreational and commercial fisheries. It practically wiped it out. However, through the use of lampricide to control larval lamprey in streams, the commission has been able to reduce the lamprey population to 10 percent of historical abundance. Furthermore, the commission also is examining several nonchemical methods for controlling the sea lamprey, such as sterilization of the male lamprey. Lamprey research, like our fishery management plan, is something best handled jointly between the United States, Canada and tribes. We cannot backslide on these efforts, as the future health and growth of the Great Lakes' fisheries is dependent upon our efforts to control, and hopefully one day, eradicate forces like the sea lamprey and zebra mussel. For this reason, and the many other strategies employed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, I urge that the funding be maintained through the State Department.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment when considered with the amendment that will be offered later in the bill deals with and revisits the question of the multimission small boat unit streamlining plan developed by the U.S. Coast Guard. Members may recall that during the markup and also floor consideration of the Coast Guard Authorization Act, a similar amendment at that time offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] was considered. While there were in fact many sympathetic Members on the floor, the theme of fiscal restraint and where the heck is the money going to come from heavily weighted on some votes. This amendment, together with the amendment to be offered later in the bill, transfers $6 million from the Secretary's O&M account to the Coast Guard. The second amendment would then add restrictive language that would protect funds in the bill to be used to close or downsize small boat stations. This is a bipartisan amendment whose principal sponsors include the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown]. I am offering this amendment because it is an amendment that just makes sense. The U.S. Coast Guard's small boat stations save lives and greatly contribute to safety. They ensure a rapid response to emergency calls. When a small boat station is closed, safety is placed at risk. Like many people on the floor, I consider myself to be fiscally responsible and conservative and I am as committed as anyone to making our Government smaller, less intrusive and more accountable. I am also strongly in favor of balancing the budget. While I understand and appreciate that the Coast Guard is taking its streamlining program so seriously, the $6 million in savings that will be achieved from shutting down these stations is minuscule when you consider the big picture, which is overall savings of $400 million. What price tag do we put on maritime safety? We have all been told that the Coast Guard is making some remarkable advances in search and rescue due to new technology. Boats that used to travel 12 knots now travel 27. Helicopters can reach the highest of speeds. However, who wants to explain to the mother whose child is drowning that, ``Ma'am, the boat that we sent to rescue your boy was the fastest that we could find but it just had to travel too far to get there''? Advanced technology will not sell to the grief-stricken. Fast boats and fast helicopters are no consolation. I have the highest praise for the U.S. Coast Guard. Its service is second to none. In fact, just this past week the Coast Guard valiantly rescued a couple from Lorain, OH whose boat went vertical in a matter of seconds in one of Lake Erie's famous storms. For over 8 hours this couple clung to what was left of their boat in 66-degree water. Finally the storm passed, the sun came out, and a rainbow formed. The gentleman saw the rainbow and said to this financee, ``That is God's covenant with us.'' I would argue that the arrival of the Coast Guard was also God's covenant as the Coast Guard so often performs miracles. This amendment saves the stations and finds the dollars to do it. I ask support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman would yield further under his reservation, if the gentleman is referring to the potential DeFazio amendment, I believe, which deals with the same issue, I believe that his amendment will not be forthcoming and he is as a matter of fact the principal cosponsor of this particular block of amendments.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. That would be correct.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. That is correct.