Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

I agree with the gentleman from Texas.

I understand the gentleman's concern. We will work with him.

I thank both Ranking Member Brown of the Rail Subcommittee, who's leading this legislation on the floor tonight, and Chairman Petri, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, for their leadership and also directing in a bipartisan manner this legislation that we brought forth from our committee with very, very strong support, Members, again, from both sides of the aisle.

I know that there are some folks that have raised some concerns, and I'll address them; but very simply, what is taking place here is that the European Union is trying to impose, in January, an air emissions tax. And they're going to start the clock running, they want to start it running January 1, the meter will start, and American airlines will get the bill in 2013.

Now, you heard some comments here that we don't want folks to follow the law or operating in--there was an example of double-hull ships operating in U.S. waters. Well, we're not talking about, again, anything that's even similar to what's being proposed here. What they're proposing is, say, from Los Angeles or Chicago or New York, anywhere in the United States to anywhere in the European Union, to tax. And the meter starts running the minute the plane departs from any point in the United States until it reaches Europe, and the same thing when it departs Europe back to the United States.

Not only does this violate international treaties, the Chicago Convention; we've never had anything like this imposed or proposed before. It is not flexible. We've heard the term used it's ``flexible.'' It's not flexible.

The other thing, too, is we're trying to work with others and work with the European Union. And many states have now joined the United States--in fact, they've taken the lead on some of this, both in conference in New Delhi and in meetings in Oslo, and they said this is unfair. So it's not just the United States that's saying this is unfair.

Now, if the European Union chooses to impose a tax within its boundaries, or if we say within our waters you do certain things--like double hull if you want that ship to go there--that's fine with us. If they want to improve emissions in their airspace, that's fine with us. But that's not what they're doing here, and that's why we have this opposition.

The second point is, and I don't want to get into the climate debate, but if you really care about eliminating emissions--and I know the airlines do because the more emissions they eliminate and the more they can conserve fuel, that's their bottom line and that's very important to them. But that being said, again, one of the most important points of all of this is that, again, this money that they're collecting--and it's a tax grab by the European Union--this money that they're getting, there's no requirement that it goes into eliminating emissions from aircraft.

In fact, they told us that you can buy your way out or you can buy some other trade for some other industry. So it doesn't set out to do what, again, is being forecast or demonstrated. In fact, they're very unclear as to how this will be totally instituted. It's what's called an article 25 provision within their current law. And as I've checked, this is almost the end of October, this goes

into effect in January. And they couldn't tell us on Friday and they couldn't tell us here in the United States or in Brussels what provisions of article 25 and exactly how they will implement this.

So I think that what will happen here is we'll send a strong message: Yes, we're for protecting the environment. We have no problems with the European Union taking measures within their borders, and our airlines should comply and other carriers should comply, both departing and arriving. They can do that. But when you stop and think that this would impose a European tax over the skies of the United States, never heard of anything like that before.

So, again, we are willing to work with our European counterparts. We believe that November 2--we were informed when we were in Montreal meeting with ICAO representatives that this will be brought up before that international body, the International Civil Aviation Organization. It sets all the protocols, the standards, security safety provisions. And we will win in that body a legitimate vote by a very wide margin. The Europeans will be left behind on this issue.

But we all want to work with them. They're our friends. This shouldn't lead to a trade war. It should lead to a resolution that does improve our environment and that does allow the European Union to do what they need to do. And, also, if we're going to impose this, that we have some understanding of how we can do better in reducing air emissions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Truck Driver Appreciation Week. I want to commend America's 3.2 million professional truck drivers who serve our nation by expediting commerce and goods essential to our homes and businesses.

One out of every fifteen people across the country are employed in the trucking industry, making it one of the nation's largest employers. The trucking industry is responsible for nearly 68 percent of the total U.S. freight tonnage and over 80 percent of communities rely solely on it for their goods and commodities. This industry is fundamental to our economy.

America's truck drivers are dedicated to keeping our highways safe. They follow stringent safety regulations, attend frequent training programs and educate the motoring public to help keep our highways and interstates safe.

While regulation of transportation commerce and safety is necessary, we need to be careful we do not over-regulate and harm such a vital industry. We need to allow these dedicated and hard working professionals to perform their jobs with the support of our government and without unnecessary government interference.

This week I join my colleagues in extending a warm thank you to them and to their families for the sacrifices they make each and every day for this country.

Today, I honor these wonderful Americans for their dedication and service rendered to our nation's economy and for delivering everyday life's essentials safely and securely.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2887) to provide an extension of surface and air transportation programs, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2887.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to extend once again authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration and for our Nation's transportation, highway, and transit programs.

Unfortunately, these are extensions that have been piled upon extensions for both of these programs. And while the legislation before us is important and it signifies a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to move forward, it must not be just a temporary bandaid for our important aviation, highway, rail, and safety programs, and for future job creation for our Nation.

To build our Nation's infrastructure and to really put people to work, we need long-term reauthorizations for these programs. Unfortunately, this bill is the 22nd FAA extension and the eighth surface transportation extension. Congress, unfortunately, has delayed passing a long-term FAA reauthorization for over 4 years, and a surface transportation bill has lagged for some 2 years. This action today represents a last chance to roll up our sleeves and get transportation projects moving forward in America again.

A couple of comments about this legislation.

H.R. 2887 is a clean 6-month extension for surface transportation programs, and it's also a clean 4-month extension for aviation programs. The extension's funding levels are consistent with the Full- Year Continuing Appropriations Act, our CR passed by Congress in April of this year.

For surface transportation, the bill authorizes $19.9 billion for highway, $660 million for highway safety, and $5.1 billion for transit, for a total of $25.6 billion. That's just for the 6-month period. While I would like to do a 6-year bill, our intention with this action today is to remain firmly committed to the commitment to do a 6-year transportation bill.

This is a 6-month extension. Why 6 months? Because our States and our other entities that depend on a reliable funding partner must have some certainty. When we did the CR--which expires in just a few weeks here-- we were able to extend, on the seventh extension, our transportation programs

until the end of this month. So we think this is being good stewards and responsible, again, in extending for 6 months a period in which there can be some stability in these important transportation projects, and also to make certain that jobs and employment in this area move forward.

In July, I released a transportation reauthorization proposal. This was an outline. We've been working with our Democrat colleagues in a bipartisan fashion since that time to actually craft language which is acceptable to set forth the policy and the funding schedule, all of the authorization that's so important to keep our Nation's infrastructure projects moving forward. So this should give us enough time to complete that process and get that legislation before us. With unemployment in the construction industry at record-high levels, it's imperative that we also provide this time.

Let me talk about FAA for a minute. This bill does authorize funds through the end of January for FAA. This is a list of extensions of FAA. I had the opportunity, as the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, in 2003 to craft a 4-year FAA bill, which expired in 2007. So I helped write the last FAA 4-year authorization that expired in 2007. Here are the extensions.

The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate. Here, if you start in when you had the Obama administration take over, they also controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. And we get down to the 17th extension under Democrat control, and I have agreed to three of them. I said enough is enough, and we must move forward with a long-term authorization. I stand before you today and say that, while the measures that we took in the last extension for FAA were somewhat extraordinary, this situation demands attention and action for long-term legislation by the United States Congress, and I'm going to make certain that we do everything to see that people are working in this industry and that we meet our responsibility for setting the policy for one of the most important industries in the United States, our aviation industry.

So this is the history of what has taken place. This is the 22nd extension, and I can guarantee it will be the last extension because we must and we will pass a 4-year authorization. While there are some issues that remain to be resolved, we will continue working in a bipartisan manner. We passed legislation from the House. I look forward to working with Senator Rockefeller and others, Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking Republican in the Senate, Mr. Costello and Mr. Rahall, to get this legislation done.

I urge my colleagues to support these two extensions rolled into one,

I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, I enjoy working with the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, and just wanted to comment on his discussion of the FAA shutdown.

Just for the record, the facts are that the House of Representatives, in a bipartisan vote, passed an FAA extension on July 20, 3 days prior to the deadline, July 22, 2011.

Fact: the FAA extension contained reductions in thousand-dollar-plus airline pork subsidies affecting only three airports. The language that we adopted from the Senate affected 10 airports within 90 miles.

The Senate Democrats, after 2 weeks of forcing a partial FAA shutdown, meekly went to the Senate floor and, in 71 seconds, passed the House extension that was available.

I yield myself 15 additional seconds.

The fact is that only pork ticket subsidies were excluded.

The fact is that the Democrats controlled the United States House and Senate for 4 years, letting FAA authorization expire in 2007, forcing 17 extensions, and even with the Presidency from 2009 until the beginning of this year were unable to pass FAA legislation.

I yield 3 minutes to the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, I think it's important that we pass this bipartisan extension. We wouldn't be here passing a combination of the transportation, highway, transit and FAA extensions if we hadn't taken action that was extraordinary. There was more than sufficient time for the Senate to act.

Again, and I will submit this as part of the Record, the Democrats had complete control of the House and Senate in extraordinary majorities and never passed a bill, never appointed conferees. We have only had this responsibility since the beginning of this year, and we will pass a long-term bill and take whatever action is necessary to do that.

Today we are moving the process forward, and I applaud leadership on both sides of the aisle, bipartisan, bicameral.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Again, just to deal with facts and reality, I think Mr. Cantor, myself, and others on the Republican side support transportation, building the country's infrastructure and jobs. But we have to look at what took place.

Of a $787 billion stimulus bill, only $63 billion, 7 percent, went for infrastructure. Now, the proposal this week is up to 12 percent of $450 billion. Eighty-one percent of the stimulus transportation projects were temporary, created temporary jobs for repaving sidewalks and short-term projects, and less than one-half of 1 percent of the stimulus money went for new construction.

I am pleased to yield at this time, if I may, 2 minutes to the chair of the Rail Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

I would like to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to one of our vice chairs, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Just to set the record straight, I went to the Democrat side, the other side of the aisle, when we proposed the stimulus legislation. I asked to double the amount for infrastructure. I think I got 14 or more votes from the other side of the aisle, but I had the motion to recommit. I offered it and it was not accepted.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we do need to move forward. This isn't the time to bicker. This is the time to put people to work. This is the time to pass long-term reauthorization.

I said earlier this cannot be another Band-Aid. We have had 21 extensions. This is the eighth transportation bill extension.

My dad used to say, you know, John, it's not how much you have, it's also how you spend it. We have to learn lessons. As of September 1, 2011, just a few days ago, 35 percent of the limited amount of transportation stimulus dollars for infrastructure still remained in Washington, so it's not just spending people's money, it's spending it wisely.

The other thing too is the money we spent; 82 percent of it went for short-term employment. Those jobs have come and gone, a little repaving, little jobs here. We need long-term commitment, so I am committed to do whatever it takes to pass a 6-year transportation bill and a 4-year FAA authorization.

The people of this country deserve no less than having responsible action by this Congress to move these important infrastructure and job- creating programs forward, and we are going to do it, mark my word.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, August 31, 2011 a Central Florida Soldier lost his life in service to our nation from wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit

with an I.E.D. in Wardak Province while assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division out of Ft. Polk, LA.

Specialist James joined the U.S. Army in June of 2008. Upon completion of his training in November of 2009, Specialist James reported to Ft. Polk, LA. where he deployed with his unit in October 2010 to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Specialist James's impressive list of awards and decorations include the Bronze Star; Purple Heart; Army Commendation Medal; Army Achievement Medal; Army Good Conduct Medal; Afghanistan Campaign Medal; Overseas Service Ribbon; NATO Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Global War on Terrorism Medal and the Combat Action Badge.

Specialist James was a former student at Pine Ridge High School in Deltona where he was an accomplished athlete in Football, Basketball and Track. James was known as a good student who was well liked by those who knew him.

We shall never forget the ultimate sacrifice Specialist James has given for his country. His actions will serve as an everlasting reminder of the dedication and sacrifice the members of our nation's armed services make every day.

Specialist James is survived by his Aunt and Uncle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my Florida Colleagues, Representatives Sandy Adams, Corrine Brown, Bill Posey and Daniel Webster, to honor and pay tribute to Scott Harris of Longwood, Florida, who passed away on Monday, August 29, 2011.

It was our honor and privilege to have known Scott, a veteran journalist who spent his career covering Central Florida. Scott's professional journalism informed and enlightened both his colleagues and viewers alike. He took the time to mentor many, and was a respected, longtime political analyst covering both Florida and national politics.

Scott knew the news business from the ground up. He worked his way up as a reporter at WCPX-Channel 6; assistant news director and anchor at WESH-Channel 2; and as news anchor, reporter and producer for WDBO-580 AM. Later in 1997, Scott was instrumental in launching News Channel 13, where he remained until this year. With his passing, Central Floridians lost a respected member of our community and a real star.

Scott is fondly remembered for his wisdom, humility and kindness. The sheer power of his personality made a dramatic impact upon the lives of many in Central Florida, both professionally and personally. When relaxing, Scott enjoyed the tranquility of sailing and the challenge of golfing.

Actually, Scott Harris is a stage name. Born Vincent McGough, he graduated from both Edgewater High School and the University of Central Florida. Scott proudly served our country in the U.S. Air Force prior to his lifelong career in broadcast journalism.

Scott is survived by his son Emery McGough of Central Florida, and three siblings, Jane McGough of New York City, Sue McGough of Central Florida and Tom McGough of Tallahassee.

Mr. Speaker, it is our privilege to recognize Scott Harris' contributions to our Nation and the great State of Florida. I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives of the 112th Congress to join me in remembering this great American.

Madam Chair and my colleagues, I rise in strong support of the proposal by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). We should all be thanking Mr. Terry for this initiative.

Not only are people in this country hit by incredible unemployment economic challenges and a dysfunctional Congress, but if they go to the local service station to fill up with gasoline, they're paying record prices.

I woke up this morning and I heard one of the commentators that was interviewing an expert, again, on energy, and he predicted that 1 year from now we will be paying between $4.50 and $5.50 for a gallon of gasoline.

Now, you just heard the ranking members criticize me for fast- tracking this legislation. I guess I beat some kind of record, never having waived before. I'm telling you I will waive this and anything else we need to do to get this country energy independent and find a way for the average citizen to be able to afford energy.

We need a short-term plan, and that's bringing energy into the United States without being held hostage to people like the regimes in the Middle East or Venezuela. This pipeline will bring in 1.3 million barrels of oil per day. That exceeds what comes in from Venezuela. It exceeds what comes in from Saudi Arabia.

How frustrated the people of America must be. Then, of course, is the attack on the FAA, the lack of reauthorization. How could they attack me? For 4 years they controlled this place with incredible numbers, huge numbers to do anything in the House, huge numbers to do anything in the Senate--4 years. I authored the last FAA authorization in 2003 that expired in 2007, and they sat on it and never did anything. They did 17 extensions. They forced us to do three. And I'm telling you, I've had it. If they've done this before in a different way, it's not going to be done that way anymore.

We sent them, last Wednesday, an extension, and it was a clean extension. It had one provision which they passed unanimously, and they don't like part of that one provision that stops funding of Essential Air Service subsidies, Federal taxpayer subsidies in excess of $1,000. So for three airports where their passengers are being paid a subsidy of $1,500 to $3,700--at three airports--they're closing down the FAA. They've had it since last Wednesday, and they've sat on it.

So I don't care how we've done things before. We're going to do things differently. I will be in charge of the committee at least through next year, and I'm going to find a way to do things. We're going to get reasonable energy to the American people. And a year from now, mark your calendar.

We didn't mandate that they build the pipeline. And I want the pipeline built with every safety consideration. Yes, the Obama administration shouldn't be asleep at the wheel, like they were with the gulf oil spill when they issued the permit and stamped it in just a few days. They issued more permits for deepwater drilling in their short term in office and then closed down the rest of the access to energy across the United States, and actually issued more deepwater permits in their first few months in office than the entire Bush administration and then were asleep at the switch when they should have been inspecting that procedure. And they should inspect this. This doesn't say you must build the pipeline. It sets a deadline for a response from this administration.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I am sorry the minority didn't have a copy of this fine amendment. It was modified slightly from the original

submission to comply with the requirements of the Parliamentarian to be in order.

Let me say at this late hour I won't take too much time. I am from the authorizing side, and it's always good to come here and hear the difficulties that the appropriators have in trying to make choices, and tonight is about making choices.

I do have to compliment Mr. Simpson, the chair of the subcommittee; Mr. Hastings, the chair of the full committee; and the ranking members, Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks, for their efforts, being up late at night and making these difficult choices in some very tough economic times.

Normally, I wouldn't come here and tell you what to do; but, again, coming from a State that has some 11 parks and preserves and national monuments, I have a great interest in some of these accounts.

Now, we all have to set priorities; and as I said, these are difficult times. The Department of the Interior, I noticed, had, I guess, in 2010 just under $11 billion that's being cut to $9.8 billion, a 7 percent reduction. People ask me about transportation projects. Whether it is FAA, on transportation, I'm reducing some of the accounts by 30 percent in authorization, so I know the difficulty you're facing.

Now, I also looked at some of the other accounts here. EPA, I think folks would be shocked to find EPA has $7.1 billion in this bill. That's quite a bit to operate that agency. Well, the National Park Service has $2.5 billion. I think if you ask people on the street where would you put the dollars, I think they would like to see something very tangible. They appreciate their national parks. And, again, you have difficult priorities.

My amendment is simple. It takes $2 million out of EPA's account for management programs, and it transfers it to the National Park Construction Account.

Now, this is not going to resolve a $10 billion backlog in maintenance and construction projects. I can give you examples. Just a few miles from here, Harpers Ferry, they have a $59 million deferred maintenance account pending. Florida, with its 11 parks and preserves and national monuments, has a $4 million backlog. And, again, my amendment won't solve even Florida's problem.

Even closer to home in my district--and I want to thank again the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and staff for working with me--we are attempting, after authorization in 2004, to finally finish a visitors center. I want to make certain that the Castillo San Marco Visitor Center and the backlog of some of Florida's 11 parks and national monuments, their maintenance and some of their construction costs, that we have those funds available. So that's why I offered this amendment.

Again, I know you have difficult choices. This won't resolve the pending needs either in the State of Florida or nationally. That being said, and also stating my position and intent, and knowing that the committee and I know Mr. Simpson is anxious to work with me and is committed to work with me, Mr. Hastings and staff, and in the interest of time and also not pressing the issue beyond my ability to retain my friendship and strong working relationship, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Petri, for his leadership. Also Mr. Costello, who formerly chaired the committee and now is the ranking member. I want to thank him for his dedication to our Nation's aviation system, safety. And also Mr. Rahall. You couldn't ask for better partners. Mr. Rahall is the Democrat leader of the committee, and we have a great working relationship. We have had a great working relationship to try to move forward legislation like a long-term reauthorization of FAA and other major transportation legislation that has been mired in delay. Quite frankly, my colleagues, I find myself very frustrated being here.

Now, this is the 21st extension. I complimented and don't let me not compliment the staff on both sides. We have great professionals that deal with this.

The Congress is fortunate and the Nation is blessed to have the kind of leadership we have with staff working on these important issues to move what accounts for about 8 to 9 percent of our GDP. That's the aviation industry forward, setting the policy, the programs, the funding formula, all those things these folks are responsible for. And they're good stewards of that responsibility. So I thank them in advance. I also want to thank Senator Rockefeller, Mr. Speaker, and others who have worked with us trying to bring this to a conclusion. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking Republican on the Senate side, worked in good faith to try to get this, again, inexcusable delay in passing the long-term reauthorization.

That being said, again, I find myself so frustrated. This is the 21st delay. We have a former chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello. Mr. Petri now chairs it. He's been active on this. I was chairman for 6 years of the subcommittee. We were all wanting to do the same thing-- and that's move forward with reauthorization.

The irony of this is I chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation in 2003, when we were wrote the last reauthorization. And we did that in some 6 months. And there were controversial provisions. That 4-year bill expired in 2007. We have not passed a reauthorization, even when the other side had humongous numbers in this Chamber and control of the other body. At one point, I think 60 votes to get something done. Nothing was done. Seventeen extensions under their watch. And, quite frankly, I'm embarrassed that this is the fourth extension. But I'm trying to do in 6 or 7 months what couldn't be done in almost 5 years. And we're going to get it done. We're going to get it done one way or the other.

Now, we have also done three what they call clean extensions to move this process forward. And we did need some time. You have to be reasonable because this is a new Congress. The other body, the Senate, passed their bill in February. We passed the first day in April our legislation. And here we find ourselves on the fourth, again, extension, which is regrettable.

All this, I say, my colleagues, could be resolved I think in a matter of an hour. There's been great work and discussions, informal discussions, in what we call preconference, where some of the principles get together and discuss the terms. All these issues are not new. Mr. Costello and I, Mr. Oberstar and I, we had discussed this. In fact, I think the other body took up the pending legislation from last time. My goodness, it was pending for 48 months. So there's no new issues here. Again, we find ourselves stalled in the process.

That being said, I call on the Members to pass this extension. This is a clean extension, except for one change; and it has two parts. The first part deals with Essential Air Service. That's the program that underwrites, again, routes for air service from local communities. This is a program that started at about $50 million a decade ago and now is approaching $200 million. We had a vote here in the House, and we decided to sunset that program, I guess with the exception of two of our exceptional States, Hawaii and Alaska, who have some unique geographic limitations on service. But the other body passed a provision, the Senate, passed a provision that would eliminate service based on distance, I think it's 90 miles, and it affected some 10 communities. Mr. Speaker, I'll insert in the Record the 10 communities affected.

So this is language that the other body passed and we are including. Now, I have made one exception, and it affects three airports, three States: Nevada, Montana, and New Mexico. A provision I put in is that no State or no airport operation that has service where the subsidy exceeds a thousand dollars a ticket can receive that subsidy. I don't think that's unreasonable, when we've got from now until the beginning of August to get our Nation's finances together. I want to see folks come down here to vote to continue to see subsidies for more than a thousand. One of these subsidies, and I won't state the State but you can figure it out, is $3,719 per passenger. That's obscene when our country is on the verge of debt crises and disaster.

If I have to take the entire reauthorization and we continue--now this extends through the 16th of September. I'm putting everybody on notice that each time we will pass reauthorization, if we have to do it extension by extension. So we're starting with this small part of what the other body has passed, and I'm adding what I think is a reasonable provision. A thousand-dollar subsidy in itself is almost obscene, if you ask the average Member of Congress. In fact, when I went to the Rules Committee, one of the members on the other side of the aisle was stunned that we were paying those kinds of fees.

Now, don't come here and tell me that we don't legislate on extensions. In fact, the other body put an entire bill, a regional safety legislation, on one of the past 17 extensions. So we've done this before. We need to work together on this. I would implore Members on both sides of the aisle to support this because this is in the people's interest. This has to move forward. I don't know of any other mechanism. I certainly am not going to allow this fiasco to continue and certainly I don't want the FAA to close down at midnight on Friday night. And that won't happen. Essential services will continue. Air traffic controllers will be at their job. There may be some people furloughed. But it is not my fault. It will be the responsibility of the other body, who does not take this up and pass it. They will be furloughing people and putting people out of jobs.

If you want to see people work, then let's pass the FAA bill. It has the Next Generation air traffic control provisions. It has safety provisions in there that are long overdue.

So, again, I'm a bit frustrated. I want the best for the Nation. I want the best for our air traffic control system, our aviation system, and thousands of people who depend--not just working in the Federal Government, but in this important industry--to move forward. Again, I'm so disappointed. But we're going to find one way. I may not be the most powerful Member, I may not be the most intelligent Member, I may not be the highest ranking Member. But I'll tell you what: I am a persistent Member. And we will pass reauthorization one way or another. We're going to get it done. So I appreciate everyone's indulgence in working with me on this project.

Thank you so much for yielding again.

The question has been brought up to try to shift the responsibility for, again, the possibility of the other body's not acting here to the question of the Republicans not appointing conferees.

I might point out just for the record that in the 110th Congress-- this is for an entire 2 years--the Senate never passed an FAA reauthorization bill, so we never even got to preconference. We never got to the issue. So they never appointed conferees. There was a bill passed. And, again, huge majorities on both sides.

In the 111th Congress, the House and Senate passed FAA reauthorizations and preconferenced for 5 months without naming conferees. They never named any conferees.

This process of preconferencing is part of the bipartisan nature of our committee and our work and bicameral discussions. As I said, they've been excellent. The staff has been working well. These aren't new issues. The other side controlled the process for some 4 years. The bills have been out there for some time.

I have the commitment from the leadership, when we are ready to go and having resolved most of the issues, and, again, there are only a couple and everyone knows what they are, I think that they can fall in place. But we need the leadership of the other body, in fact, the leader of the other body, to step forward and act in a responsible manner in dealing with me or the leadership of the House or someone in responding to a major impediment that we have to move this process forward. Then our leadership has said they will appoint conferees. We can sit down, resolve those issues in a public forum, and pass this. We could do that tomorrow.

So, again, it's not the question of appointing conferees. And if I have to take more strident measures to get this job done, we're going to get the job done one way or the other, as I said.

Now, I had a Republican ask me to modify the language that the Senate passed before the Rules Committee. There's a tape. You can all see it; it's part of the Record. And I said, No, I don't want to do that. I want to take what the Senate passed. The only difference here in the Essential Air Service is that I provided language that says that if you get more than a $1,000 subsidy that affects three airports, that will not be allowed. That's the only thing standing between us and shutting down part of our Federal Aviation Administration.

Thank you, my colleagues.

You just heard the comments. Again, I couldn't have a better friend or compatriot on many issues and on many improvements that we've made to transportation on the committee together: Mr. DeFazio, the gentleman from Oregon. He said this used to be a legislative body. Yes, it was a legislative body before the other side took over 4 years ago and closed down quite a bit of the process.

Now, has this been an open process on the FAA reauthorization? I submit to you that it has been from the committee.

Go back and check the committee records. We held more votes on this FAA reauthorization in committee than we held probably for the last 6 years--I know certainly for the last 4 years--on that one piece of legislation. On the floor, we had an open process. I think there were some 30 amendments, and 23, I believe, were made in order. So, unless they were duplicative or the Rules Committee took them out, it was an open process as opposed to a closed process with closed rules that, again, we had on major pieces of legislation for some time. So this has been an open process.

The House is going to act. The House is going to pass this. If we have to pass additional extensions, as I said, with the rest of the reauthorization piece by piece, then we are going to pass a reauthorization to set the policy, the programs, the projects, and the priorities for our aviation industry and for FAA. The only projects that will be stopped are projects for which, if the other body doesn't act on this extension, they will be responsible for.

The only difference in the extension--and we gave them three clean extensions, and this is a clean extension with their provision that passed with their language unanimously in the other body--is that I added three States--actually, three airports--that subsidized in excess of $1,000 per ticket, per passenger.

Again, when the Nation is going down the tubes almost literally because of debt, we can't make one little, tiny change and move this process forward? keep people working? put safety provisions that are in this reauthorization that we don't have now and move forward with it? There is something wrong.

Madam Speaker, the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee went through the list of the airports that are within 90 miles that would be affected by the provisions of this extension.

Now, all of those 10 airports were included in an amendment and a provision that's in the Senate bill and passed unanimously. The only difference, and he spoke briefly to one of them, again is the provision that I put in putting a restriction on paying more than a thousand dollars per ticket, per passenger subsidy. Those subsidies start in Montana at one airport with $1,357.

Another airport, one airport in New Mexico, has a subsidization per ticket per passenger of $1,563.

Now the granddaddy, the big enchilada in this whole thing is one airport in Nevada. Every ticket is subsidized $3,719.

Now you're telling me that they are going to close down parts of the FAA to preserve this subsidy when this Nation is on the verge of a financial debt crisis unheard of in the history of our Nation.

So, again, I've tried to deal on a bipartisan, bicameral basis working with folks to get this done. Twenty-one extensions over 4 years. I'm not adding an entire bill. I'm adding that one provision. The other side added in one of their extensions an entire bill.

The other language Mr. Petri spoke to was 10 airports that are within the distance of 90 miles that the Senate passed unanimously. So it's not like I am taking some language.

A Republican tried to change that in the Rules Committee, and I recommended against it. And we did not change it because, again, I want to have language that the Senate passed.

So that's what we boil down to on the eve of a crisis with FAA, on the eve of a crisis with our Nation's finances, we're going to come and vote here. And I want people to go back and say, ``I voted for a $3,700 subsidy for air service for one passenger for one ticket.'' I want to see that list of names.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, ASIWPCA, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

ASIWPCA is an independent, nonpartisan, national organization of state and interstate water program directors, who everyday works on implementing water quality programs under the Clean Water Act, CWA. Founded in 1961, ASIWPCA was created by the states, to serve the states, and is the only nationally recognized organization completely led by state water directors. After five decades the ASIWPCA continues to protect and restore America's watersheds to achieve ``clean water everywhere for everyone.''

Long before the enactment of the Clean Water Act, state and interstate professionals--including those from my own State--were working together through ASIWPCA to protect and improve water quality across America. In addition to serving as a liaison among these officials, ASIWPCA facilitates state communication with the federal government and promotes public education. ASIWPCA has built credible collaborative relationships with Congress, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Geological Survey, and the United States Department of Agriculture. ASIWPCA is a key contributor in the legislative, regulatory, and policy arenas. When the federal government collaborates with states through ASIWPCA, better regulations are drafted, superior policy is created, and the public is better served.

As the chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I can attest to the fact that ASIWPCA has met and exceeded the goals its founders established 50 years ago. In the future, we look to ASIWPCA to continue their work to help states develop and implement sound water quality policies that advance clean water and a healthy environment. This benefits all Americans, including those in my home State of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, in light of ASIWPCA's state membership, national leadership on water quality issues, mission to serve the public, state government representation, and proven track record and collaboration efforts, it is my sincere pleasure to congratulate ASIWPCA on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has relied on ASIWPCA's assistance and expertise for decades and will undoubtedly continue to do so as we seek to protect and restore our Nation's waters in the future.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and also the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for their leadership on this issue. I am pleased to be a sponsor of this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2018. We call this the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. It is, indeed, a bipartisan effort. It has broad support from both Republicans and Democrats. It is a measure to restore some balance between the EPA, our Federal regulatory body that oversees the Clean Water Act, and our States, which are responsible for implementation of some of the important work that ensures that we have clean water.

Now, I know there is no one that wants to in any way degrade the quality of clean water, that wants to lower standards for emissions, you know, that is not a good steward of our environment. But there is no question that the action that we've seen from EPA has unleashed an unprecedented backlash. Everyone has called this a huge power grab by EPA. And EPA has indeed created a regulatory nightmare that affects almost every State in the Union.

Our goal here is to assure that the Federal Government sets standards and that we do have a proper role for implementing the Clean Water Act. And once States have taken action, have their plans approved, that there can be some sense of reliability and stability in the decision that EPA has concurred with. What we've seen now is EPA changing the rules after States have had a commitment and outline of the protocols that they must follow, raising complete havoc. In fact, the agency's actions could jeopardize more than $220 billion worth of annual economic activity which is subject to the Clean Water Act section 402 and 404 permits.

So again, this is almost an unprecedented regulatory grab, creating a potential nightmare, leaving projects on hold. And these projects have not only an environmental impact, but they also have a job and employment and economic impact in the United States at a very difficult time for our economy.

This bill has been very narrowly drafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about protecting water quality in their States, and to again impose some restrictions on EPA in this overreach and to try to prohibit some of the second-guessing or delays of actually implementing a State's water quality permitting process and the standards and decisions that they have made under the Clean Water Act. This is also all done after, again, EPA has already approved a State's program. So we have great concerns about what's taking place.

The impact isn't just Florida. I have a couple of articles here I will refer to. The reaction in the Sunshine News, which is published throughout Florida, our former U.S. Representative who served in this House, who is now the agriculture commissioner in Florida, he released a statement saying that EPA essentially ignores concerns about the effect implementation would have on Florida's economy. He supports a bipartisan effort to again back up the new rules with sound science.

So whether it's Florida, or--here's a Fox News report relating to Appalachia that says, ``Appalachian Coal Miners Say EPA Rules Are Killing Their Jobs.'' Another article in The Florida Times-Union, ``Scientists: EPA `Race' to Protect Florida Rivers Could Leave Science Behind.''

So we join a chorus of numerous organizations. Mr. Gibbs talked about them. We have, again, a huge number of organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau, the National Mining Association, Associated Equipment Distributors, the Associated General Contractors of America, National Association of Manufacturers, groups from labor and others who also believe that this is an EPA overreach and will have a negative effect, both--and what we are hoping to achieve, again with having the States properly implement clean water regulations--but also a very negative impact on employment at a very precarious time in the economy of this Nation.

So I urge support of our bipartisan effort, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Jesse Otis Beall of DeBary, Florida who passed away on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

It was my honor and privilege to have known Jesse who, as the ``unofficial'' historian for the City of DeBary, has been involved in city events and organizations since moving there following his service in the Navy during World War II.

More than his service to our nation, we can never repay or adequately recognize the sacrifice Jesse, his wife, Arbutus, and his family made with the loss of their son and loved one, Charles Richard Beall.

Their son was killed while serving in Vietnam in 1968. It was my honor to help grant Jesse Beall's request to have our main transportation artery through DeBary, Florida named in his son Charles Richard Beall's name. I will never forget the day I stood with Jesse as work crews placed that sign honoring his son on that DeBary thoroughfare. Jesse was a patriot and an American Father who we will always remember and hold dearly in our hearts.

Jesse loved the outdoors and could often be found hunting, fishing or even wrangling alligators. But most of all, Jessie loved his adopted home of DeBary. As the town's historian, Mr. Beall often found himself the collector of all things DeBary. Members of the community would often transfer to him possessions or other items they found knowing that Mr. Beall would keep them for posterity sake. His collection continues a reminder of our area's past and proud history on which Jesse left an indelible mark.

Jesse is survived by his wife of 54 years, Arbutus; his son Roger; his daughter Rebecca Genest; his brother Gene; five granddaughters; and one great-granddaughter. To them, we offer our deepest sympathy and condolences. Jesse also had a daughter, Rochelle, who passed away in 2003 and his son, Charles, who was killed while serving in the Vietnam War and for whom U.S. 17-92 in DeBary is named.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize Jesse Beall's contributions to our nation and the great State of Florida. I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives of the 112th Congress to join me in remembering this great American.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2279) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica, I am writing concerning H.R. 2279, the

``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part III'' which

is expected to be scheduled for floor consideration today.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Sections 2 and 3

of this bill amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by

extending the current Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)

expenditure authority and the associated Federal excise taxes

to July 22, 2011. In order to expedite H.R. 2279 for Floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on the bill.

This is being done with the understanding that it does not in

any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 2279, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor this afternoon to present an amendment that would transfer $25 million from one of the accounts, that is the NATO Security Investment Program, to the Military Construction Army National Guard Account. I take this action for several reasons.

First, in our State of Florida, we have at least two projects that are very important to the operation of the National Guard. Our men and women who belong to the National Guard, not only in Florida but across the Nation, deserve an upgrade in their facilities. We have several projects that have gone on for years and years. One of the projects I understand has had difficulty in the contract falling apart. Nonetheless, whether it is in Florida, again, in south Florida, central Florida, or in any State, we should adequately fund the account that protects and provides the accommodations necessary for the facilities for our National Guard. So here we want to plus-up by $25 million from the NATO Security Investment Program to our National Guard facilities. Across the country I hear the same thing--that National Guard facilities, many of which are two or three times older than those who are serving there, need replacement.

So this is a general amount, $25 million, but I believe that it can help boost up the facilities account that is so important for Florida and for the Nation. I am willing to work with the committee in any fashion to plus-up this account. I am not trying to pick on NATO, although I believe that there is room in their budget to transfer these funds without doing any damage. I would ask my colleagues to consider this amendment.

I thank the committee. I usually don't get into other folks' turf, particularly military construction. I deal mostly with transportation in the House, and I understand the difficulty sometimes when other Members come in and try to manage some of the important dollars that are made available. I know the difficult choices that the committee has in trying to assign appropriate dollars, particularly for defense facilities construction.

Again, I won't just take up the House's time in unnecessary conversation, but it is a simple matter. We transfer $25 million from the NATO security investment account to fund military construction for our National Guard. We have the need across the Nation. It is evident in every State where we have National Guard activities. This isn't a great amount, but I think it can make a significant difference on a number of projects throughout the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Culberson for his leadership and for his willingness to work with us, both sides of the aisle. Again, if it is necessary to take funds from another account--and we chose NATO in this instance for this amendment--we would welcome any assistance in plussing-up our National Guard facilities and construction accounts.

So, again, thank you so much for your leadership--I know you have difficult choices and I know the people that serve in our National Guard are grateful for your leadership--and also for accepting the amendment at this time.

Offered By: Mr. Mica

Amendment No. 7: Page 6, line 18, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

Page 9, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(decreased by $25,000,000)''.