Floor Statements

I thank our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Duncan, the gentleman from Tennessee, for yielding. I am pleased to join with the chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, whom I have had the opportunity to work with in a number of capacities.

In support of this resolution, I am pleased to be a cosponsor.

The Coast Guard Academy, not a lot of folks know a lot about it. Everyone has heard of West Point, the Air Force Academy out in Colorado Springs. Everyone has heard of Annapolis and the U.S. Naval Academy close by here.

I highly recommend to Members who have not had the opportunity to visit, to visit the Coast Guard Academy, one of our finest military service academies, unsung heroes. It has over 50,000 men and women in service and many of the leaders come from the Coast Guard Academy.

One of the neat things I have to do as a ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, the chairman, and myself get to serve on the Board of Visitors, as do some other Members from Congress; and you get to see firsthand the operations of the United States Coast Guard Academy.

I have been there and had the opportunity to meet with their leaders. They are very fortunate to have Admiral Scott Burhoe, who is doing an outstanding job of providing leadership and direction and commitment that the Coast Guard has always had to the young men and women who attend and graduate there.

The motto of the Coast Guard is Semper Paratus, and that's ``Always Ready,'' and that's the mission of the Coast Guard Academy, to make those young leaders always ready. They are our first line of defense nationally, the United States Coast Guard.

We call on them, whether it's for safety or national security.

These are some of the most fantastic graduates, young men and women of this academy, and everyone who wears the label of being part of the Coast Guard. They don't whine. They don't whimper. They never come here asking for more compensation, more rights, more employee benefits. They get their mission assigned and they do their job. They are incredible. They are underpaid and overworked, but they are always ready when the Nation needs them.

I am pleased again to join others in recognizing the leadership of Thad Allen. We saw, when we had the spill in the gulf, who was responsible as the first responder from the Federal level--the United States Coast Guard.

I was dismayed when the Obama administration proposed its budget earlier this year before this spill and recommended cutting 1,100 Coast Guard positions, cutting back ships, helicopters, airplanes, and other assets that are so essential for the Coast Guard to carry out its mission. We give our men and women in the military, whether it's Coast Guard or any other service, the resources to do the job, and then we commit them to complete that job and they get it done.

So I am also pleased that both sides of the aisle stepped up when those cuts were proposed and they did not accept that recommendation, and those cuts are not going to take place because of bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle.

So, again, we are here to recognize the accomplishments not only of Thad Allen, but our new Admiral, the head of the Coast Guard, Bob Papp, an incredible gentleman.

How blessed we've been to have people like Thad Allen who, I think way back when I became a ranking member, was dealt probably every difficult situation, starting off with unrest in Cuba and problems with Guantanamo, preparing for any possible mass migration, through the Deepwater controversy, things he had nothing to do with but inherited those challenges and stepped up to the plate every single time. And then as he's about to retire, as he's about to exit his command and Bob Papp take over, he was dealt the cards of the oil spill and stepped right into that, and he has provided leadership. We haven't provided all the direction, resources, or assets that we should to deal with that, nor the administration, but Thad Allen and others have been there.

And Scott Burhoe continues to lead a great academy we can all be proud of.

So I join my colleagues in recognizing 100 years of service to our Nation, the United States Coast Guard Academy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Petri and Mr. Costello do a great job in leading the Aviation Subcommittee. They have both had the opportunity to serve in leadership positions. As a former chair of that Aviation Subcommittee, I do thank them for their work day in and day out to make certain that the United States continues to have the safest skies and continues to fly the safest flights of anywhere in the world.

Mr. Speaker, still, about two-thirds of all of the passenger flights in the world occur in the United States of America. Some 94 million commercial flights were handled last year by our air traffic controllers. Again, the safety record is just unprecedented. When you stop and think of all of the potential for human error, for something to go wrong, and of the record we have achieved, it is remarkable.

I am sad that we don't have an FAA reauthorization bill here. I am pleased that my legislation, which I crafted back in 2003 or 2004 and which expired in 2007, I believe--some 3 years ago--may be on its 15th extension this week. I knew I wrote a good bill. I didn't know, though, it was that good to last this long, but I look forward to passing that legislation which is so important that it sets forth the policy, the projects, and the funding for keeping our aviation system safe and sound.

This resolution does honor the men and women who serve as air traffic controllers. As you know, there are 50,600 air traffic controllers-- those are Federal air traffic controllers--who operate in the towers, in the TRAYCONS, and in other facilities that we have. In addition, we have 1,250 civilian contract air traffic controllers. Now, that doesn't sound like many--it's a little less than 10 percent--but we also honor those private contract tower air traffic controllers. They serve at 250 airports. The contract towers represent 45 percent of all control towers in the United States because they are smaller facilities, but they are scattered in 250 locations across the country, and they handle about 25 percent of all of the traffic.

So, on 9/11, when our air traffic controllers were doing such a great job, the Federal air traffic controllers, we also had contract air traffic controllers. Unfortunately, they earn less pay, but all of the reports we have are that their safety record is equal to, if not superior to, in performance, and there have been several studies that have confirmed that.

They don't get as much compensation, but they do a great job, and we recognize them too.

The final thing that I want to do in recognition today of air traffic controllers, the unsung heroes of our military, men and women. We have more than 9,000 military air traffic controllers.

Now, an FAA air traffic controller, the average pay is $109,000, the base pay, I think about $160,000 with benefits. The average military air traffic controller, their base pay is $36,964. Here are dedicated men and women who serve, and there's 9,000 of them, who also have an incredible safety record.

It's not just at a commercial airport. These folks are all around the world. You saw them in Baghdad. You see them at foreign assignments, where they've had to land and attend to aircraft in hostile conditions and at very low wages. Each day, day in and day out, they do a great job in representing the United States of America and serving our military airlift needs.

So we commend all of our air traffic controllers today. We're going to need more of them, folks. They're retiring in record numbers. I'm told there may be 60 percent of the air traffic controllers, you know, many came on with Ronald Reagan when he replaced all of them, and they're aging now. They have a mandatory retirement age, and we need to replace them.

So we salute them for their work; we welcome the new hires on board. We've got to redouble our efforts to get the best trained, the most qualified on the job as soon as possible, because you just don't come on and take over New York airspace air traffic control or any of the other congested corridors and do it overnight. It takes years of experience. And those are the people we want to replace, these people that have dedicated their life to safety and service.

So we salute them. And I join Members in asking for passage of this resolution in their honor.

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost three years since the last reauthorization expired in September 2007. As Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee in 2003, I guided that bill to completion in just seven months.

This had been the longest period of time between reauthorizations in the history of the FAA.

This is the fourteenth in a series of FAA extensions and the sixteenth time we have come to the Floor to keep the FAA in business.

Both bodies have been actively negotiating to produce a final bill that sets priorities and improves our airspace system.

We cannot allow needless, controversial provisions to hijack important initiatives to improve aviation safety and allow the industry to grow.

The situation has delayed bipartisan safety legislation that passed the House last fall and now sits idle. This is simply unacceptable.

I support this fourteenth extension and hope that we can quickly resolve our issues and produce a much-needed FAA Reauthorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that Ms. Norton, the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, is here today. She chairs one of the important subcommittees of Oversight and Government Reform. It's been my honor to serve on that committee for some 18 years. I think most of that time she has been here and has done a great job in representing the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Paula Hawkins would be very proud that Ms. Norton is here today; and I have served with the two of those individuals, both Paula Hawkins and Eleanor Norton. There are many similarities. They are very determined women, very accomplished women, and women who love the people they represent and do a great service for them.

I had the distinction of being the chief of staff for Senator Hawkins from 1980 to 1985. Before that, I knew her in Florida in the community of Maitland. I lived in Maitland Shores. She lived down the street in the city of Maitland. Paula Hawkins was a wonderful lady, a great human being, a patriot, and she really broke a number of the glass ceilings and barriers for women.

I might say, among her accomplishments, she was the first woman elected statewide in the history of the State of Florida, and she did that on her own. She started, actually, in her community, working on some local issues, and she took those local issues to her fellow citizens at city hall. She had their voices heard. And she wasn't elected to any position, just an active community leader. From that, she ran unsuccessfully for the State legislature. But when people saw her talent, they knew that this individual was a fighter for the people.

In fact, she gained the reputation when she got elected statewide to the first office as the ``fighting housewife,'' ``the Maitland housewife.'' She was known affectionately as ``the Fighting Maitland housewife'' during her entire lifetime, even when she was a Member of the United States Senate because she fought for the people in her community, and she didn't take any hostages. She represented them well. She had her principles, and she had her philosophy. She never wavered. I think her personal morality--she is a member of the Church of Latter- day Saints,

a Mormon, strong in her beliefs, strong in her philosophy, and I think that was also a guiding light for Paula Hawkins.

Along her side during that entire journey was a wonderful individual, Gene Hawkins. Gene survived her. She passed away, as Ms. Norton said, December 3 of last year, but her memory and her achievements do live on. Not only, as you heard Ms. Norton describe, was she elected statewide in the State of Florida, but also was the first United States female Senator in her own right--no family member preceded her--and that was quite an accomplishment. We think that now, some 30 years ago; but it was an accomplishment even in 1980 when she achieved it.

When she came to Congress, she set her path, and she had her priorities, and one of those priorities were our children and youth. In fact, they committed to her care a committee that was called, I believe, Family, Youth and Drugs because she was interested in family, she was interested in youth, and she was very dedicated to doing away with the scourge of illegal narcotics.

Now, some people who get involved in committee work make their mark. Paula Hawkins set the mark. She passed, as everyone knows in the country, the national missing children's legislation. She knew that missing and exploited children were a national problem, but not a national priority. I remember when she said, It's amazing that an automobile, a refrigerator can be quickly identified by our law enforcement folks but missing children could not. So she set up the mechanism that long survives her in a national missing children's center that President Reagan opened on June 13, 1984.

There are many accomplishments too, and I'm anxious for this legislation to be heard in the other body. Simple things like there wasn't a Senate daycare center, and that daycare center is still operating today. So not just Members of the Senate--and many of them are far beyond the age of having children eligible for daycare--but there are many hundreds of employees and staff who do have young children, and Paula Hawkins saw that their needs were taken care of. Just a small thing.

There's dramatic legislation. Most people would never know today, almost all of the labor legislation--she was on the Labor Committee in the Senate. But it was interesting to watch her because, being a male and, you know, sometimes men think a little bit differently than women. You don't think of all the problems that women have. And at that point in life, she became their champion.

So the labor laws in this country even today reflect her influence, simple things like trying to make certain that a single woman had some way to get to work, some simple way to care for the child, some consideration for the special concerns and needs of women who want to be productive in our society. And even the laws today have the mark of a great United States Senator.

So, today I know many people are focused on the death and loss of Senator Byrd, and many of us who got to know him mourn his loss and his many contributions. Paula Hawkins wasn't here as many terms as Senator Byrd. He was here for nearly half a century. Paula Hawkins was here for only one term, but her deeds and her good works prevail even to this day.

So to her husband, Gene, to her daughters, Genean and to Kelly and to Kevin, her son, we're excited about having in their community, in Paula's community, the Maitland Post Office just down the street from where she lived for many years, a small remembrance. And it is fitting that when we do remember folks like Senator Hawkins, that the public can enjoy their memory. So on the Maitland Post Office will be a plaque dedicating that building and that postal facility to the memory of a great American leader, former United States Senator Paula Hawkins.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I am pleased that Ms. Norton would be here today and honor the memory of my friend. I had the opportunity, as I say, to have worked with Senator Hawkins, both as she built the Florida Republican Party from precinct to the State level, as she built her reputation and service to not only the community of Maitland, of Winter Park, central Florida, Florida, the State, and the Nation, but it is fitting that we do take this step today to name this structure in her honor, a small token of our appreciation for her dedication, her service, her patriotism.

In closing, let me just say that the gentlelady from the District of Columbia probably knows some about my traits. But I have to tell her, in closing, that the one thing I learned from Senator Paula Hawkins is persistence. It beats power. It beats position. It beats wealth. It beats all the cards that may be dealt to you in a positive or negative fashion. But persistence, and I think the gentlelady knows what I mean, that I am a persistent person, and now she knows the rest of the story as to where that persistence came. And it was from the lady we honor here today, Senator Paula Hawkins.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you so much. We affectionately refer to the gentleman from Texas as Judge Carter, but a distinguished Member of Congress, a part of the leadership of the Republican team, and thank you also for coming tonight before the Congress and the American people, House of Representatives, to review probably what is one of the worst ecological disasters, natural disasters our country has ever experienced, and actually to come here and to review some of the timeline of what has taken place. You've touched on a number of important issues.

First of all, as someone who comes from the State of Florida--we're part of the Gulf Coast--I have to extend our deepest, heartfelt sympathies to those that lost lives, both on the rig, and now we heard today from some of our colleagues, in an extensive review that we participated in on our side of the aisle, from some of those from the adjoining States, how their economy is suffering and how the proposed moratorium that's being arbitrarily imposed may make this disaster even worse. It's hard to imagine it being worse, but again, we empathize with those who have lost lives, who have been injured, and now have seen their livelihood dramatically impaired by this natural disaster.

What we've got to do, though, is we've got to step back. We've got to look at what took place, and then we've got to look at some remedial action. Judge Carter, gentleman from Texas, raised some excellent points. This is now 60 days, almost two full months, into this disaster that took place on April 20. We have not had the proper response. That's evident.

The gentleman talked about the need to bring skimmers and other craft in. He spoke about waiving the Jones Act, which President Bush did I think in 4 days afterwards. We haven't really called for a waiving of the Jones Act, but we would support it. It probably should have been done. There have been offers of foreign vessels.

I was absolutely dumbfounded; on Saturday, I received an urgent e- mail from those who are involved with American-flagged vessels, one of the leading maritime ship owners, domestically flagged, U.S. flag, who contacted me on Saturday. The message just floored me. Mr. Mica, our industry, American flag industry, doesn't mind waiving the Jones Act. The Jones Act does protect American jobs and American labor. Again it's great to have those flagged vessels. Waiving it is done on rare occasions and in emergencies, as President Bush did.

I was informed that we have flagged Jones Act-compliant vessels, American flag vessels waiting--this particular company, one of the largest maritime companies in the United States, American flag, has been waiting for a call. They've been waiting for a call from the Department of Homeland Security, from the Coast Guard, any Federal agency, or BP, to come in and provide--they have vessels that can help and could be helping in the cleanup even before we exempted vessels, foreign vessels to come in on this, and we've had an offer of that for some time. So I was shocked.

I sent to Secretary Napolitano yesterday a letter and I outlined the information I got. I lead the Transportation Committee in the House on the Republican side, but I said, Madam Secretary, this is unbelievable that no one has even availed themselves of the American flag vessels who are ready, who have equipment. We should not be endangered in Florida or in other States in having that oil up on our shores. We have the capability that has not even been utilized to date. So this was my letter, my plea to the Secretary, and I'm shocked and disappointed.

The other thing, too, is there seems to be a conflict. Last night, we heard the President say that we have been in charge, he's in charge as the Commander in Chief. Under the Oil Spill Recovery Act that we passed in 1990 after Exxon Valdez, it's pretty clear the chain of command, but Thad Allen, who is in charge of this, former Coast Guard commandant now in charge of the spill cleanup, he said, but we do not have the capability, the United States Government does not have the capability-- he said that over and over again, that the private sector has this capability. Here again we have U.S. flag vessels that can do the cleanup haven't gotten a call, still waiting. The Jones Act they could have waived and allowed those who volunteered assistance with skimmers and other equipment, that has not come in.

So while there are folks in this administration who say they're in charge, there is some disconnect here in getting the equipment, getting the resources out there. In fact, the private sector has been in charge, and this is the first time the President has met with these folks. I was dumbfounded, too, today--and I think Judge Carter was in that meeting and other Members on our side of the aisle--when we heard the gulf coast delegation say they have requested but not yet met with the President of the United States. It's hard to believe the President would not meet with the elected Representatives of the gulf coast States to sit down.

And then time and again we heard in the review that took place today of requests, simple requests for berms to stop the oil coming into the marshes, simple requests to act now, sooner rather than later. And we've seen the results of now that oil is making its way towards the Florida shores and doing even more damage. So if in fact the President is in charge, we need to free these vessels, employ every means possible to keep this disaster from going further.

One other thing I disagree with the President on. I know it's important to act, and he did act in imposing a moratorium, but I think what they've got to do--and I believe he revised that moratorium to not affect the 3,500 shallow water drilling sites, but it is closing

down the deepwater drilling sites. Some of those are exploration sites. In fact, they probably should be closed until we have assurances that future deepwater drilling can be done. My point here is that by closing all of them down with a blanket moratorium, we are putting more people out of work, taking a horrible situation and making it worse. We will have even more people unemployed.

So I think the logical, reasonable approach would be to send inspectors in, hire, retain whatever we need, or if they have government officials to go in and see that the deepwater drilling that is taking place where they actually have the well in production--which I think is about half of the approximately 30 deepwater wells that are out there. We don't want to make the situation worse economically for those that have lost their job, seeing their business close down or, again, see thousands of people put out of work by the wrong approach.

So a reasonable approach. First, we get every piece of equipment, whether it's U.S. or foreign flag, there. This can be cleaned up. This is a doable job with U.S. vessels that have been waiting to hear that call from the administration. And then secondly, let's also be reasonable in the moratorium. I have been a strong advocate of keeping the U.S. independent and free as much as we could, drill where it's safe. My State of Florida I helped on a 100-mile setoff years and years ago. I thought that was reasonable. But you know, it may or may not make a difference because this was only 45 miles off the coast of Louisiana, as we see.

The other thing we need to do is have a good backup system. We shouldn't be rubber-stamping approvals of any company, whether it's BP or anyone else. BP, in February of 2009, gave this--and this is a copy of it--this is the plan for their exploring that site and their doing an exploration well, a development well. This plan was submitted in March of 2009, over a year ago, and this is the one-page approval. I got a copy of this before our Transportation Committee hearing just before it took place. This is the one-page, carte blanche approval. I don't think some of the people in the Minerals Management Service even read this 59-page request. And we've heard hearings lately as to the failures of BP to outline a good, solid proposal.

This proposal is the basic plan for drilling that BP submitted. It also refers to a much bigger document, and that's the actual 500-plus- page document that details all of the spill cleanup procedures that BP would employ. That was also rubber-stamped with this approval, this one-page approval. So this was done by the Obama administration with people sleeping at the switch or not paying attention.

What's shocking, and I heard former-Governor Palin telling the country this--and people should listen to Governor Palin on this--Sarah Palin, when she was the Governor, she was tough on the oil companies. No one passed anything by her. She cracked down on them, made sure they towed the line. And what was interesting is Governor Palin told what they did is, she said this never would have happened, this kind of approval, in her State because there would have been more scrutiny.

The plan that BP offered, in addition to this 59 pages of the 500 cleanup plan, it looks like BP merely mirrored the Alaska plan; in fact, it told how they were going to deal with cleaning up walruses, seals and polar bears, none of which I've seen in the Gulf of Mexico. So, again, the Minerals Management Service was asleep at the switch.

What's finally startling is two things: one, I had our Transportation Infrastructure Committee get a copy of the President's budget. This is the Obama budget--not doctored or anything. I have the exact pages and cover copy of the budget. And in February of this year, before this oil spill, the President submitted a budget to our T&I Committee, Transportation and Infrastructure, that oversees the Coast Guard to slash the Coast Guard, our first responders, by 1,100 positions. In addition, he wanted to decommission and take out of service ships, helicopters, aircraft, all which are necessary for our first responders.

I remember when Frank LoBiondo, who is my ranking member on the Coast Guard Committee within our Transportation Committee, when we heard about this, we sent out this press release--this was in February, after the President had recommended cutting our first responders. We said-- well, we said it's outrageous, but we said this is a recipe for disaster. This is dated February 25, after we got this. Then startling in this also, if you look a little bit further in the budget--not under our purview, but our staff found this--that the Minerals Management Service that the President talked about last night and how we need to clean that up and everything, in his budget that he proposed to Congress, he proposed slashing the Environmental Review Agency within that, or activities within that, agency by $2 million; pretty dramatic cut for someone who has to review, again, what the private sector submits, their plan, slashing that plan. I thought this was just unbelievable.

And finally--this is in February. In March, the President came out-- and this is the story in The New York Times--and said that we have to increase drilling in the gulf. This is it. I didn't make it up. It's The New York Times: ``Obama to open offshore areas to oil drilling''-- and it says right here, the gulf. So first he's slashing first responders, then he's next proposing slashing the agency that does the environmental reviews. The review, again, the oil companies present that to the Minerals Management Service, they review it--I showed you the rubber stamp, April 6, that they approved it.

And then finally, again, the main thing now is cleaning this mess up. And we've got to employ everyone we can, every piece of equipment, be it domestic or foreign, keep that from coming in.

This is a doable job. When Governors ask to take steps, the solution doesn't need to be caught up for weeks in approvals from agencies. It shouldn't be why we can't do something. It should be, how can we get this accomplished? We've got people around the coast whose livelihood now depends on this. We can't let this disaster that's already done great damage to our economy--we have incredible loss of life that we've seen, and, again, we empathize with those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy, but we can't make a horrible tragedy even worse. So reasonableness on this approach.

I thank Judge Carter, my colleague, the gentleman from Texas. I see we also have another outstanding member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Olson, also a gentleman from Texas. I thank you for coming out tonight, sharing with the Congress, the House of Representatives and our colleagues, some of the facts and information that need to get out to the public so that we can get this mess behind us. Thank you so much, and I yield back.

Well, I will tell you right now that we are open to suggestions. We are looking at trying to be reasonable in whatever we do. To just impose unlimited caps on liability could be a very serious and damaging measure.

First of all, let me say I believe that BP must be held accountable, fully accountable. Certainly, that company has the resources. They must be responsible for the cleanup. Even though there is a limit under the current 1990 statute of $75 million, they must be held accountable, far beyond that, for economic damages.

What we don't want to see is that we make the terms for liability so high that only a few multinational corporations will ever be in the oil business. Small producers in Texas and throughout the gulf--there are thousands of people in business--do a good job day in and day out. 3,500 of 3,600, I believe, active rigs in the gulf are in shallow water, but they shouldn't be penalized by the failure of government or by the failure of a big corporation. Let's hold their feet to the fire.

So we are going to work with the Democrats. We are going to work with the administration. We are going to try to craft something that is fair and reasonable, that holds people accountable and that holds their feet to the fire.

The current fund that we have shouldn't be just a slush fund or front financing of the cleanup for BP or for any big company. That was actually set up for orphan spills or for a company that may not have the assets but

that was responsible for a spill. We want that fund to continue to work, and we may need to put more funds in it to make certain that we have coverage for the future. Again, what we don't want to do is put in place insurance and liability limits that are so high that very few people can meet those requirements.

So we are crafting that legislation. We want to do it in a bipartisan manner. The law does need to be altered. We should learn, and we should benefit by this horrible experience, and we should make it better and make certain that it doesn't happen again.

Again, thank you for your leadership and for asking me to participate tonight.

Will the gentleman yield?

In conclusion, I do want to say that I work very closely with Mr. Oberstar, the Democrat chair of the T&I Committee. When we found out that the $1.6 billion fund has a $150 million cap for emergency use, we came together last week. I offered legislation specifically to deal with that. Again, we have to act in a responsible manner for the country. We passed that. The House concurred with us. We have provided some temporary relief.

Again, I'm not going to let the $1.6 billion or the $150 million be a piggy bank for BP or for any responsible parties, but we want to make certain that all of the resources are there on an emergency basis to the administration, to the Coast Guard, to whomever, so no one can say that Congress didn't act in a timely fashion. We were alerted that some of the funds were running low in that emergency portion of the $1.6 billion, which is put out in advance.

So I talked a little bit before about the legislation we are looking at on liability caps, and that is what we have done in a bipartisan fashion today. We did that, and we are prepared to do even more on the caps, whatever it takes and whatever resources and assets of the government and of the private sector we can bring to bear to bring this horrible disaster under control.

Thank you again for your leadership, both of our Texas Members--Mr. Carter and Mr. Olson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is an emergency situation, and it requires emergency action by the House of Representatives.

The United States Senate, the other body, has acted and sent us S. 3743, which will allow us to expand some of the use of the funds that have been accumulated in the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund on an emergency basis. I am pleased that the other body acted. This is a unique and very difficult situation dealing with a very unique and difficult national disaster.

First, I would be remiss if I didn't remember today those families who will be in Washington visiting with President Obama. Eleven individuals lost their lives when the oil rig, the Horizon, exploded in April. I know the President will be meeting with them. And, on behalf of all the Members of Congress, we extend our condolences for that loss of life.

Right now we are dealing with the results of that disaster. This disaster and explosion, sinking of the rig and the uncontrolled oil spill--fortunately, there has been some progress in that regard, but incredible amounts of oil have spilt into the gulf and now endangers the shores of at least four of our States.

In 1990, we set up an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and that was after the Exxon Valdez. That fund has in it $1.6 billion, a substantial amount of money.

Now, that fund was not set up to relieve anyone of responsibility if they are negligent, and it was also not a fund to pay for cleanup costs that are clearly assigned, clearly identifiable. A lot of it was intended for what they call an ``orphan spill,'' or a spill where you don't know where the oil came from, the polluting substance came from.

Within that $1.6 billion trust fund for oil spills that we created, we have an emergency fund of $150 million that can be expended immediately. Now, what has taken place is that fund, the 150 million emergency dollars that can be spent--right now Thad Allen is doing a great job in leading the effort for the United States--and, as you know, he just retired from the Coast Guard--doing a wonderful job, but he has the responsibility of reacting now and immediately.

It took some time for the administration to get him in place and also to declare this a spill of national significance, but he is on the job and he needs the resources.

Now, the resources are running out. We do have a letter, which I will submit for the Record and to the Congress at this time. This is to the Speaker of the House, and it is from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

And he says, ``All the costs of this fund also that are being expended at this point must be repaid. But, at this current time, in just a matter of days, the emergency fund will run out.'' So we have documentation of the need from OMB.

And just a few minutes ago, we received from the Federal on-scene coordinator the statement that their requirements to support the continuing ongoing effort will bring the emergency fund to a critically low level over the next 7 days.

So we can't have the cleanup efforts come to a halt. We must act. Now, I saw the need for this yesterday and met with colleagues on my side of the aisle. We had a hearing in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Mr. Oberstar and I agreed that we must act. The Senate has acted.

We have before us S. 3473. This morning, myself and other colleagues in Congress introduced H.R. 5499. That's mirror legislation. So both the Republican and Democrat House and Senate agree on the provisions of this legislation, which will allow in $100 million increments the expansion of the emergency fund.

Now let me make this very clear: the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is not going to be a piggy bank for BP or for other responsible parties. This money must, should, and will be repaid. This is only a temporary measure. It is only a temporary measure, too, because the money that they are repaying goes back into that larger fund, not into the emergency fund. This legislation will correct, again, the inability of accessing a larger amount of money on a needed basis.

So we have introduced mirror legislation today. This is a cooperative and bipartisan effort. However, this is a terrible disaster, and questions need to be raised about what has caused us to get to this situation. Quite frankly, I'm quite baffled about some of the administration's positions on deepwater offshore drilling.

In the beginning of this year, in February, we received the budget from the President of the United States and the administration. In this budget, they proposed cuts to the Coast Guard of more than 1,000 positions. They also proposed cuts to and proposed the decommissioning of some of the ships, the helicopters and the planes that we see now involved in this very important mission. Not only did they propose cuts to the Coast Guard, our first responder, but in February they also proposed cuts to the Department of the Interior--and look this up, if you will--and to the Minerals Management Service, which is responsible for environmental reviews. This is what they proposed in February.

Then in March they proposed the expansion of drilling in the gulf. I remember I and Frank LoBiondo, the ranking member, sent out a press release when we read about these cuts within the Coast Guard, and we said that this was a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, those cuts have not been enacted; and I believe, even before this oil spill, there was bipartisan support not to enact those cuts that were recommended.

In light of the administration's policy to expand drilling in the gulf, some people say I've been too tough on the Obama administration. I think the Obama administration does have a responsibility in this. They did issue the permit that allowed the drilling, and I have the 1- page permit.

Here is the 1-page approval: April 6, 2009, approval for deepwater drilling at 5,000 feet.

I have what I call the ``deficient plan'' that they approved that was submitted by BP in March. So in less days than it took in some instances to approve now of a cleanup of proposals, they rubber-stamped and gave carte blanche approval.

Let me say that I also criticized the Bush administration, but I went back and looked at what the Bush administration did with the agency that was responsible for issuing these permits. This is a memorandum from the Office of Inspector General, and it is dated September 9, 2008, which was during the Bush administration. This is what the Bush administration did in that agency that issued this permit under this new administration.

This memo conveys the results of three separate Office of Inspector General investigations into allegations against more than a dozen current and former Minerals Management Service employees. I went on to read what else the Bush administration did with regard to this agency that was responsible for issuing these permits.

Listen to this: Collectively, our recent work in the Minerals Management Service has taken well over 2 years. They investigated these folks. It also involved the OIG, Office of Inspector General, and Human Resources. There was an expenditure of nearly $5.3 million in OIG funds. There were 233 witnesses and subjects who were interviewed, many of them multiple times. Roughly 470,000 pages of documents were reviewed, and people were prosecuted, under the former administration, in this agency.

Now, the latest reports I have, which I discussed yesterday at the hearing, were that, in fact, we have reports of inspections by this agency, the Minerals Management Service, which were supposed to be done by these officers of that Federal agency. They were actually penciled in, we believe, and those are the reports we have by oil workers, which were then inked over by these folks. It is nice for this administration to have spent time rewarding BP with safety awards in the prior year. It is nice for them to have a good working relationship with those folks who are responsible for issuing the permits, but I think we need to take a closer look at how we got ourselves into this situation.

What brings us to this day when we've expended the emergency fund for cleanup that we have to take an emergency step like this?

Now, I support this measure, but I'm telling you that every penny needs to be paid back. This fund, this Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that was put in place, shall not and cannot be used, as I said before, as a piggy bank for BP or for any responsible parties.

Where is the money? Where is the billing?

In the private sector, if you have a bill due, you pay it. As of yesterday, the staff told me that BP has been billed $69 million. As of yesterday, the information that we had is that they hadn't paid the bill. If they paid the bill, we still probably would have to be here because of the terms of the current legislation to allow access to additional money, but that money needs to go back into the trust fund, and it needs to be paid for by the responsible parties.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to urge the Congress to

move quickly in enacting the FY 2010 Supplemental request. On

June 4, 2010, Secretary Napolitano announced that the Coast

Guard believes that within the next two weeks funding levels

in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund's expenditure account

will drop to levels that will force the Federal On-Scene

Coordinator to begin to cut back Federal Deepwater Horizon

response activities. We cannot allow the lack of funding to

hamstring our Federal response to this national catastrophe.

On May 12, the Administration proposed legislation to

support the BP/Deepwater Horizon response and speed

assistance to people in need. Included in this package was a

provision that would permit the Coast Guard and its National

Pollution Funds Center to move funds from the Oil Spill

Liability Trust Fund to the Emergency Fund so that the

Federal response effort can continue without interruption.

Specifically, the legislative changes would permit the Coast

Guard to obtain additional advances in tranches of $100

million up to the incident cap for the Oil Spill Liability

Trust Fund. All of these costs are being billed to the

responsible parties and the receipts will be deposited in the

Trust Fund.

The President has ordered Federal agencies to bring all

available and appropriate resources to bear in response to

this disaster. Without legislative authorization, however,

the Coast Guard cannot access the additional emergency fund

resources necessary to pay for the Federal agencies' response

to this tragic oil spill.

We appreciate your support in moving this critical

legislation forward in the coming days.

Sincerely,

Peter R. Orszag,

Director.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cao), also a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), also a senior member of the T and I Committee.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will summarize for our side.

First of all, again, this is an emergency situation. We have to act, we must act, and we will act. Let me make it clear, and I'm glad everyone on the other side has made it very clear, that BP's feet will be held to the fire to repay this money.

Now, it's good to come out here and hear that BP has called the other side and told them that they're going to pay, the check is in the mail, and that's all well, fine, and good. But I'd be glad to send somebody down to OMB and show them how they can send a rapid request for payment to BP as this thing moved forward because, again, the taxpayer shouldn't be left on the hook nor should this fund be left on the hook in any way for responsibility for this cleanup.

Finally, just a couple of points. It was mentioned that the Bush administration gave 4,200 leases--I think that was the figure--and that is true. It's also true, and the Democrat staff did an excellent job--I complimented them yesterday--in getting a list of the current drilling and production activities in the Gulf of Mexico, and I'll submit this to the Record. But if you look, there are about 3,500, 3,492 wells in relatively shallow water, 200 meters, about 600 feet up to the surface. There are only 25 a thousand meters below.

The Obama administration, coming into office, issued--these are deepwater, 1,000 feet to 8,000 feet--more than two dozen. We'll also submit that to the Record.

Now, if they knew this was a management problem in the Minerals Management Service, and I just cited the Bush administration investigated that agency for 2 years and conducted a very thorough review of what was going on, they must have known there was a management problem when they inherited it.

Instead, what did they do? Faster than BP can pay their bill, they took the proposal from BP in deepwater, some of the deepest water drill--here are the number of ones that the committee found that there's deepwater drilling in--and they carte blanche, rubber-stamped approval of this outline that BP gave them. One page, April 6. Those are the facts.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, maybe you could explain, for the benefit of this side of the aisle in the House, what the changes would be.

I did have several changes that I would have liked to have addressed. I believe this particular legislation just deals with this spill. I would have hoped that we could have modified this so that, in the future, we wouldn't have to come back on an individual-spill basis to do what we are doing here today.

And also, because this is a unique circumstance, we have not found ourselves in this situation before, we could make some additional changes to the measure that would, in fact, sort of, clean up the statute.

But, again, I am not sure what particular parliamentary or minor technical changes the majority is prepared to make in the legislation at this time. We do want to be agreeable and move the process forward. Maybe, now, with those questions, you might respond.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield the gentleman from Florida, my colleague from Florida, 30 seconds of my time.

Madam Speaker, I guess as we conclude the extended time of debate on this measure to again revise some of the provisions of the emergency portion, $150 million emergency

fund within the $1.6 billion Oil Liability Trust Fund, I understand that there has been identified a minor technical glitch in the legislation as it came from the other body.

As a great American, former United States Senator Bob Dole, he used to say that his body, the U.S. Senate, is a great place if you like to see paint dry and grass grow, as far as the speed in which things are done.

However, here they have acted with due diligence and great speed and, in that speed, have made a minor technical error. And I am not going to tell anyone about it. And because this is a situation in which we must proceed on an emergency basis, I am going to overlook it, in fairness.

I would also like to yield to the gentleman, our honorable chairman of the T&I Committee, my partner, Mr. Oberstar.

Reclaiming the time, also keep in mind the time that I yielded to the other side when they ran out of time, Madam Speaker.

But to conclude debate, again, I thank everyone for this bipartisan effort. Even though, again, we have a minor technical glitch, we want to move the legislation forward; so I urge my colleagues to pass the measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as we recognize Memorial Day 2010, I wanted to remember each of the American Service Members from Florida's 7th Congressional District who have lost their life to hostile actions since 1996 as reported to me by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Let us remember all those who have fallen in service to our Nation. Let us never forget those who have served and paid the ultimate price so that we can live in this great land.

We must forever keep these heroes in our thoughts and prayers. Let us today, on Memorial Day and every day, thank the good Lord for their incredible sacrifice.

They have made it possible for all Americans to live in freedom. Let us also remember and pay tribute to the families and loved ones whose loss is immeasurable.

On Memorial Day and every day, let us continue in our hearts and minds to hold dearly all those who have served and are serving this Nation.

May God continue to bless the United States of America.

1. Patrick Fennig, Air Force, Palm Coast--June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers.

2. Michael Heiser, Air Force, Palm Coast--June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers.

3. Brian McVeigh, Air Force, DeBary--June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers.

4. Kenneth Conde, Marines, Orlando--July 1, 2004, Iraq.

5. Jason Dwelley, Navy, Apopka--April 30, 2004, Iraq.

6. Bradley Fox, Army, Orlando--April 20, 2004, Iraq.

7. Arthur Mastrapa, Army, Apopka--June 16, 2004, Iraq.

8. Antoine Smith, Marines, Orlando--November 15, 2004, Iraq.

9. Theodore Bowling, Marines, Casselberry--November 11, 2004, Iraq.

10. Patrick Rapicault, Marines, St. Augustine--November 15, 2004, Iraq.

11. Arthur Williams, Army, Edgewater--December 8, 2004, Iraq.

12. Carlos Gil, Army, Orlando--February 18, 2005, Iraq.

13. Alwyn Cashe, Army, Oviedo--November 8, 2005, Iraq.

14. Gene Hawkins, Army, Orlando--October 12, 2006, Iraq.

15. Sean Tharp, Army, Orlando--March 28, 2006, Iraq.

16. Marco Miller, Army, Longwood--December 5, 2006, Iraq.

17. Nicholas Rogers, Army, Deltona--October 22, 2006, Iraq.

18. Angelo Vaccaro, Army, Deltona--October 3, 2006, Afghanistan.

19. John Mete, Army, Bunnell--September 14, 2007, Iraq.

20. Brandon Bobb, Army, Orlando--July 17, 2007, Iraq.

21. Sandy Britt, Army, Apopka--August 21, 2007, Iraq.

22. Alexander Rosa, Army, Orlando--May 25, 2007, Iraq.

23. Bryan Tutten, Army, St. Augustine--December 25, 2007, Iraq.

24. Adam Quinn, Army, Orange City--October 6, 2007, Afghanistan.

25. Robert Miller, Army, Oviedo--January 25, 2008, Afghanistan.

26. Jason Dahlke, Army, Orlando--August 29, 2009, Afghanistan.

27. Randy Haney, Army, Orlando--September 6, 2009, Afghanistan.

28. Anthony Davis, Army, Daytona Beach--January 6, 2009, Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 334, Motion to Table, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Motion to Recommit

Madam Speaker, as our country pauses to recognize National Missing Children's Day, I rise to remember one of our former colleagues, Paula Hawkins, who tirelessly championed children and children's issues and to pay tribute to this extraordinary woman by renaming the Maitland Postal Facility in her honor.

Former U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins authored and helped secure enactment of the Missing Children Act in 1982 which authorized the Attorney General to collect and exchange information to identify and locate missing persons, especially children. Having served as her Chief of Staff when the legislation passed, I can say with certainty there would not be Federal missing children's statutes or the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children if it was not for Senator Hawkins' determination and tireless work.

On October 13, 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed the Missing Children's Act into law, and this year marks the 28th year in national recognition of the law's passage. It is appropriate that on this day, the entire Florida Congressional Delegation join with me in introducing legislation to rename the Maitland Postal Facility at 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida to bear the name of Paula Hawkins.

Senator Hawkins, known as the ``Maitland Housewife'', began as a community activist in that city and went on to become the first female elected to the U.S. Senate without family connections. Paula Hawkins also has the distinction of being the first Florida statewide elected female when she won a seat in 1972 on the Public Service Commission. With her passing on December 4, 2009, we lost a remarkable public servant and trailblazer for women and all Americans in the state and national political landscape.

On behalf of the Hawkins family, a grateful home state of Florida and a thankful nation, this Post Office renaming is a humble tribute to our former U.S. Senator, Paula Hawkins.

Might I first inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Rooney for introducing this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. I thank you for remembering today the missing children's law that was passed some 28 years ago.

It's hard to believe time passes by, and sometimes some of the details of how laws or important changes in our legal system and our approach to issues like missing children, how things happen. I thought it would be good to come out to the floor this afternoon, and I again thank you for paying attention to the missing children law. Again, hard to believe that it's almost three decades since it's passed. I heard some of the speakers speak about the law, and I think it's important as we remember today, as we recognize the missing children's law and this anniversary, how it all came about.

If you are here long enough in Congress, you find that certain people get dedicated to a proposition or to an effort or a cause and they spearhead that cause. In 1981, I had the great honor to be selected as chief of staff for United States Senator Paula Hawkins. She was probably the first woman elected to the United States Senate in her own right. She had no husband or family ties. She was just popularly elected to the U.S. Senate. She had a different set of agendas, and it was wonderful to work with her and learn from her. I knew her as a very determined woman who shook up the Public Service Commission. Everything she got ahold of she went after sort of like one of those pit bull dogs.

As chief of staff, I remember calls from a gentleman by the name of John Walsh, who had lost his son, and he and his wife Reve were very distraught trying to find that child. Senator Hawkins became aware of their plight, and she took ahold of that issue and their search for their lost missing son, Adam, and she never stopped. I heard other references to children that were lost or murdered before that, but I can tell you, there would not be today or not have been in 1982 a law passed relating to missing children if it weren't for Senator Hawkins.

I distinctly remember one policy meeting we had with the newly elected Senator, and she had some interesting advisers. One is well known, a national adviser, Charlie Black, a good friend of mine. Another one is a friend and political consultant many of you have heard of, Dick Morris. We were in a meeting room in her Senate office in the district in Winter Park, Florida, after Adam was missing, and John and Mrs. Walsh had asked the Senator to help find their son.

And they sat in this policy meeting, and at the time they talked about national issues, Social Security, national defense, and what the Senator's priorities should be. And I will never forget at that meeting, Senator Hawkins interjected after each national issue at that time was brought up, ``And we have to do something about missing children.'' Time and time again she brought it up, and she never stopped after that until she passed the law. She guided it through the Senate, through this body, and made it become law because of her determination to make certain, and I remember her saying this, and I want this in the Record, ``If we can find a missing refrigerator or we can find a missing automobile, why shouldn't we be able to have a law that helped us find missing children?''

And so it was her determination that made this law possible some 28 years ago. It was her determination that helped to create the Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

She doesn't hear this praise because she passed away last December. And during her many testimonials and obituaries, it was written she was the author of the Missing Children's Law in 1982 that President Reagan signed into law. And that, my friends, my colleagues, is the rest of the story.

This law from three decades, nearly three decades later, is a result of a very determined woman who thought children should be a national priority and we should have a law that assisted when a child is lost and a national center to carry on that work. They've done a great job.

John Walsh and his wife have turned unbelievable human tragedy into something positive in their effort. The loss of Adam, a great, great loss. You can't imagine parents losing their child. And I was with the Walshes in New York

City when they were notified of their child's remains being found. It's something you cannot even possibly imagine as a parent.

But, again, out of that tragedy came a law that's helped us find, reclaim, and account for thousands, literally thousands of missing children.

So, as you pass this resolution today, I commend you. I urge my colleagues to adopt it and just wanted to provide a little background for the history and Congressional Record of how this law came about.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring special recognition to the Bach Festival Society of Winter Park, Florida. This year 2010 marks the 75th Anniversary of this significant cultural organization and its outstanding music festival.

Over the past decades thousands of people have enjoyed and participated in the special event that highlights and appreciates musical performances and talented artists. This unique event which has been supported by local citizens, state and federal agencies has enriched the lives of countless individuals for three quarters of a century.

This year's 75th Winter Park Bach Festival coincides with the 325th birthday of Johann Sebastian Bach. Although the composer and master of music is long departed, this extraordinary music celebration allows his work and the music of other great masters to live on and be enjoyed today.

Congratulations to all those associated with and supporting this effort, including the festival's host Rollins College and its renowned Knowles Memorial Chapel. Special recognition is also well deserved for the Bach Festival Board of Trustees and its staff who work to carry on this great cultural legacy.

Also it is important to highlight the Festival Society's efforts to promote a young artist's competition that ensures great talent and fosters music appreciation in our future generations.

Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives join me in praising and saluting the special accomplishments and anniversary of the Winter Park Bach Festival and its society members.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Petri, our ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, for yielding me this time. I am pleased also to recognize the fine work of the current chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Costello and our chair of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar.

I am here today, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, and folks, you haven't tuned in here to the comedy hour. In fact, it is almost sort of a sad time. It almost seems like a bit of a sad comedy that we are back here for the 15th time extending FAA authorization, authorization for all of the policy, Federal programs that deal with aviation, the 15th time, and this is the 13th extension.

Mr. Petri is the ranking member of aviation, Mr. Costello the current chair. When I came to Congress, Mr. Oberstar was the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee and I was in the minority but a member of the committee. From 2001 to 2008, I was the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. In fact, in 2003, I wrote the current FAA authorization that has been extended some 13 times with the passage of this today. I know I did a great job and a thorough job, but I never intended it to last on and on. And it wasn't intended to last on and on. At that time we did a 4-year bill. We set the policies, the projects. We set all of the safety criteria for aviation in the country.

But what particularly burns me right now is we have a commuter aviation safety piece of legislation that we intend to incorporate in this extension. We have had it done for some time. We worked in a bipartisan fashion; and that sits idle. We sat down in a bipartisan fashion after we had a number of disastrous commuter flights, one up in New York, and our heart aches for those families who have suffered the loss of a loved one. We had a responsibility to pass that legislation; and that legislation, which is part of the extension, is still sitting today undone. But again, 15 times we have been here. This is the 13th extension. This goes on to July of a bill that I authored back in 2003 that expired in 2007.

And it couldn't come at a worse time for the economy. We need in place that policy. We need the funding formula in place. We need the ability to move and expand our airports which are our main transportation hub of today and the future.

The modernization of the air traffic control system and the provisions that we put in this to move that forward are also stalled, it's called NextGen, next-generation air traffic control. This is very sad. When you stop and think about it, 11 percent of the economy of the United States of America deals around the aviation industry. This is big business, it's big jobs, and, unfortunately it's stalled. And that's sad.

I'm not here to point fingers. The House has done due diligence. The other body continues to work on the measure. They've made some progress of late. There are some issues in here, one that's called the FedEx provision, which does expand some unionization provisions if it is passed. Quite frankly, the Senate has said that provision is not going to be accepted. Many on the House oppose this on both sides of the aisle. Let's take the controversial things, put them aside, and move forward with the bill.

Foreign repair stations. We cannot abrogate our obligations under international treaties. We can't leave planes in some foreign location without the ability to repair them. So we have to have a reasonable standard and an internationally coherent and internationally compliant way to proceed for repair stations. Those controversial provisions need to be put aside.

Move forward. People are crying out for jobs in this country, and one of the best employers that we have in this Nation is the aviation industry. It pays some of the highest salaries, and we have the potential for expanding that. When you expand aviation, you enter global markets with such ease today, but we are leaving that behind. So I am, indeed, deeply saddened that we are not at a point where we are passing this.

Now, I ask Members to support this extension, the 13th extension. This is a very embarrassing moment for the Congress, and I'm sad that our work is not done.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I think we've reached a bipartisan accord. I support the gentlewoman from Maine and also the gentleman from Texas who have offered this amendment.

I did not have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to speak during the general debate. I was delayed.

After saying that our side does support this pending amendment, which, in the absence of the sponsors is being offered by the chair of the committee, I do want to take this opportunity to, first of all, thank Mr. Oberstar, our chair, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Arkansas, who has conceded time and is doing an incredible job in heading up our side of the aisle on a very important issue, which is water resources for the Nation.

So, Mr. Boozman, thank you for your cooperation, and thank you to the chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Johnson from Texas.

A lot of times when I go back home and people say, Well, Congress doesn't work well, and Congress does this and Congress does that or they are always fighting and bickering, it's good to be a part of the committee, of the largest committee in Congress, I might add-- Transportation and Infrastructure--which has six subcommittees and a very important one here, Water Resources. Water Resources controls all of the major water projects in the country--dams, levees. In this case, we are the stewards for the Nation and, really, for what the good Lord gave us, which is our estuaries.

Most people don't know much about estuaries, but we do have that responsibility to make certain that they are preserved, that they are protected, and that we do the best with the money that is given to us on behalf of the taxpayers to protect that part of nature and our ecological system that, again, is so vital.

I do want to thank Mr. Boozman and the chairs of the full committee and subcommittee for their work because we are here together to pass this in a bipartisan manner. So, on a day when many people are coming here to protest some of the things that do go on in Washington--big spending and taxation on the day we just are all paying out to the Federal Government--this is an example of a cooperative effort.

Let me also say, too, as the Republican leader of the Transportation Committee, many people have been coming to me in the last hours and have been saying, Mr. Mica, how are you going to vote on this bill? This bill does represent an increase in funding.

Now, you are probably looking at one of the most conservative Members of Congress. They listed 435 Members, and I was listed as No. 58 in the last week or so as far as fiscal conservative voting, and I take great pride in that because I worked hard for my money. I know people out there have worked hard to make a living and have struggled to feed their families and to just make ends meet. At this time, we have got to be particularly mindful of taxpayer dollars.

From time to time, there are areas in which we need to spend a few more dollars, and we are talking about a few dollars. We're not talking about billions. I do know millions add up to billions, but in this instance we have invested very little, and in this instance this is a very clear Federal responsibility. This is where seawater and freshwater meet. And certainly if there is an area of responsibility, that is a Federal responsibility. The States cannot nationally be responsible for waters that flow through many jurisdictional boundaries.

So here is an arch fiscal conservative coming before Congress on a day in which we are all concerned about government spending and saying, yes, we should invest a few dollars more in something that, again, is God given, the fragile ecosystem that has been handed to us and we have to be good stewards of.

So I am going to vote ``yes'' for this amendment; and when the bill comes up you are going to see me vote ``yes'' for the bill, even though it does increase spending from $35 million to $50 million.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have been married for 38 years. I have a wonderful wife. I fell in love with her almost at first sight. We have been together for three, almost four decades. Probably the one I spend the most time with other than my wife is Mr. Oberstar in my work on the committee. We have been together on the committee for my 18 years. He has been there for 32, a lot longer. Now, with my wife from time to time I do have disagreements, like just about every day on some issue. This happens to also be with Mr. Oberstar sort of like that marital relation, that I would disagree both with my good friend and colleague Mr. Oberstar and also my colleague from Michigan.

I think that on this, this isn't worth burning the house over, and I think the gentleman is offering an amendment that is well intended, and he has a sincere interest in protecting freshwater estuaries. A definition was cited about freshwater estuaries. And yes, there are probably thousands, maybe millions of freshwater estuaries. That is the whole point here is we are expanding a limited definition of marine estuaries that have saltwater. And one of the justifications for this whole program at the Federal level is the sea does encompass the entire perimeter of our coastal areas, particularly Florida, which we have some of the biggest coastline. We have many places where fresh and saltwater mix. And that is the importance of this particularly important but very small Federal program.

The argument here isn't increasing this billions, we are going from $35 to $50 million in a program. And it is important that the additional money not be so diluted. So while I support the gentleman in what he would like to do with freshwater estuaries, I don't think that this expansion is appropriate when we are looking at including the body of freshwater estuaries. We do have a disagreement on this. And I do support the bill in general. I do take deference with this particular amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule to consider FAA reauthorization legislation. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted with this whole process at a time when millions of Americans are without employment, people are having their homes foreclosed, people seeking jobs for more than a year now finding no opportunities, people cutting back across the land in tough economic times.

I am really saddened that we continue to play games with one of our most important responsibilities, and that is providing Federal authorization for all of our aviation programs.

The FAA bill sets the blueprint for our policy, Federal policy, for projects, for funding, for every activity dealing with aviation in this Nation. I am actually sickened by the games that have been played with this.

As chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, in May of 2003--now listen to this--in 2003, I introduced the current and longstanding last Federal Aviation Authorization bill. Now, I didn't get it done immediately; but by December, in 6 months I had that on the President's desk, and in December of 2007 the President signed that.

Now, the other side of the aisle has had complete control of the Congress, 258 votes in the House of Representatives, 60, until just about a month ago, to do anything they wanted to do to move this country forward, to move our policy forward as far as transportation, infrastructure, job creation, investment in this country, and we are here on the eve of an Easter recess playing games with a major piece of infrastructure legislation. This is sickening.

Yesterday, we passed the 13th extension. The bill expired in 2007. The 13th extension. And, again, the other body had 60 votes to do anything they wanted to. They could have put any terms in there. So we finally get a bill from them, and they play games with that bill and send it over to us, not to consider our legislation, but putting it on a Ways and Means bill.

Now, I went before the Rules Committee yesterday, and I again emphasized the importance of passing this legislation.

I just came from a meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers who talked about a $2.2 trillion deficit in infrastructure in this country, and one of the major glaring areas that we haven't paid attention to is aviation. Aviation is the pathway, the very means, of conducting business in this country. Whether it's for passengers, who fly two-thirds of all the flights on the planet in this country, it is our doorway to success in economic activity; and still this bill languishes. This is obscene.

We had the opportunity yesterday, if they would have provided an open rule,

to send over to the Senate, the other body, a measure that would have moved this forward and we could have a bill on its way to the President of the United States and moved the policy and the projects and the jobs forward.

Instead, what they are doing--and listen to what they are doing--they are adding on a House bill that we passed last May with job- threatening, job-killing provisions.

What is wrong with this place?

This is serious. People in this country are crying out for economic opportunities, for jobs, for the dreams of Americans. Instead, what are we doing? We are playing games. Now we are sending it back.

If they would have provided us with an open rule--the Senate bill wasn't that bad; the other body's bill wasn't that bad--we could have amended it today and got on with the business of this country, got on with advancing aviation. So, instead, we are going to put provisions in here.

The first provision we put in there is absolutely ridiculous, that is, to get NATCA, the air traffic controllers, to do away with their contracts. Well, folks, they have already done away with the contract. Of course, nobody knows it; but they have already done away with the contract. The air traffic controllers, who now get $166,000 on average, that is their average pay, behind closed doors they cut a deal to give everyone a $9,000 pay increase. Well, you know, you win the election, you pay off your friends. They helped them win the election, so they get a $9,000 pay increase; 15,000 of them, they give a $30,000 pay increase, $45,000 on average, to new hires in air traffic control.

Now, air traffic controllers do a good job. Do they deserve $166,000 on average? I don't think so. They are well compensated. That is 15,500 employees.

Well, I have 22,000 employees that we left behind in FAA in that sweetheart deal, engineers, people with Ph.D.s, people who have technical expertise in safety that I need in that agency. We left them behind so we could play political games. And they put the provision in here that is almost an insult, because they already cut that deal. They have got a provision in here on repair stations. It threatens to kill 130,000 jobs in this legislation--130,000 jobs. They invalidate an antitrust provision. This is what we are tacking on to the Senate bill that came over here, 15,000 jobs.

When we debated the bill on the floor, I stood up, and almost every speaker who spoke I cited how many jobs would be lost in their district or their State or threatened to be lost because of the provisions. Now we are tacking those job-killing provisions back on this bill and sending it to the other body.

It gets worse. You heard some of the things that are in here that do not belong in here that will harm aviation, that will set us behind, that will kill additional jobs; and yet we are playing that game.

So it's a lot of fun, folks, to be here when people are hurting, when people are looking to us for leadership. And what do we provide them? A little Ping-Pong game: Here comes the bill again. There goes the bill again.

Well, I am going to vote ``no'' on this rule. I am going to vote ``no'' on the legislation that follows. Not because I don't want to proceed; I want to proceed. But we need to do it in a responsible fashion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Petri has done a great job as our Republican leader of the Aviation Subcommittee. I admire his work. Mr. Costello, who chairs that committee, Mr. Oberstar, the former Chair of that subcommittee, myself, as a former Chair of that subcommittee, a tremendous amount of expertise out here today.

Our committee is pretty bipartisan, and we try to get things done, not just in the interest of our committee, not in the interest of a partisan position, but in the interest of the country. I am particularly frustrated today, and I expressed some of that frustration when the rule came up. And the rule, as Members know, Mr. Speaker, is the

manner in which we consider a bill and amendments.

Most Members may not be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the little quandary that we are in right now or how we got in this position. This, in fact, is an FAA reauthorization. It would be for a number of years. This is the full bill. The bill that I worked on in 2003 that expired in 2007, we have done 13 extensions as of, I think, this past week.

We have heard that, you know, it may be Bush's fault that we didn't pass something during the first 2 years that the Democrats controlled in overwhelming majority numbers both the House and 60 votes, until about a month ago, in the other body.

But you can't tell me, of all people, that we couldn't deal with President Bush on an issue that affects 11 percent of our economy. This is 11 percent of our economy.

I stood on the floor and led the fight to override a Bush veto. I think it was the 107th veto in the entire history of the Congress.

Mr. Oberstar happened to be in the hospital at the time, but they were in the majority, and we did the right thing on a water resources bill. I took on my administration--and I would do the same thing then on Federal aviation authorization because it is in the interest of the people that we move this forward. When we don't have policy relating to how we operate the Federal Aviation Administration or aviation safety, legislation up to date, there is something wrong.

So please don't tell me it's Bush's fault. The Bush that I know of didn't have a vote here. We had the vote. We had the responsibility to get this done years ago.

Now, what really frustrates me even more is the position that we find ourselves in. We are engaged in, I said during the Rules debate, a huge ping-pong ballgame with this bill and with this legislation. The 13th expiration of the legislation and extension we had to do is now sitting over in the other body, I am told.

Now, listen to this, it may expire next week, the 31st. We offered an extension through the beginning of July. It has a provision in there that Mr. Oberstar got, an agreement; we agreed together that we should correct a formula for distribution of highway funds for major infrastructure projects, projects of national significance, so that four States wouldn't hog the money, get 58 percent of it. We put that provision in there, and now it's being held hostage. What the other body did, they sent another bill over here, not our bill, they sent on a Ways and Means measure, their bill, so that basically it wouldn't be conferenced.

Now Mr. Oberstar is putting his bill that we passed last May for an extension, a full extension, on this measure. The sad part about that is that's not going to pass right away, so we need the measure, and we could have an expiration of our authorization for FAA next week.

This is absolutely unbelievable, inexcusable.

Now I said in the Rules Committee, and that's water over the dam, but I would rather have taken the Senate bill, made the corrections. I can tell you now that when we pass an FAA bill that some provisions are not going to be in it. You have heard opposition to the antitrust immunity sunset. That has the potential for killing 15,000 American jobs, 15,000 American jobs at a time when unemployment is at its highest rate in the United States in decades.

The foreign repair station provision that we are adding back in, we are adding these things back in today to go back over there to ping- pong back and forth, and they aren't going to pass. They aren't going to pass. The foreign repair station provision, which just happens to violate international treaties, would also threaten 130,000 good-paying jobs in the United States of America. How sad today that we are playing games when people need good-paying jobs and with the potential of passing this. Now, people are going to vote for this in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit for the Record the list of certified repair stations in House Aviation Subcommittee members' districts.

Will the gentleman yield?

To that point, I did say I would be willing to cast, if it came to one vote, a vote to move this process forward, because I have always tried to work in a bipartisan manner, and I appreciate the manner in which, Mr. Speaker, both Mr. Costello and Mr. Oberstar work on this.

One of the things that does concern me--and it's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that this came over on a Ways and Means measure. We are sending it back. We won't necessarily get a chance to even conference this in the normal manner. So I am concerned about also the process.

I am concerned, too, that we aren't passing a final bill today. This has many good provisions in it. There are some differences that need to be resolved.

In fact, what really irritates me, too, is the safety provision. The safety bill that is added on by the other body, we agreed in a bipartisan manner, and it is sinful that that is not enacted on the President's desk almost immediately. That's in this measure and I support that strongly, and we worked together to get that on there. But we do have differences and we do have to face reality, and we need to get the job done.