Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce the birth of Emilia Hayward Deck on May 2, 2007 at St. Vincent's Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida.

Emilia is the daughter of Wiley and Elizabeth Deck who are both part of our Florida 7th District Congressional Staff. The former Elizabeth Buckles and Wiley Deck met as staff members in our Washington office. Both moved to our Florida District Office in St. Augustine, in 2003. They married and have now expanded our Congressional Family with the arrival of Emilia Hayward Deck. Emilia's proud grandfather is Tony Buckles, Chief of Staff for Representative Bob Filner of California.

To the Deck and Buckles families we extend our warmest congratulations.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to take a minute to compliment Mr. Miller and also Mr. McKeon. This is one of the most important bills that this Congress will take up in this session because it deals with, as Mr. Miller said, as I listened to his opening statement, with our disadvantaged youth. And, unfortunately, we have many in this country. But it gives those youth the opportunity for the future and the opportunity that we have all shared that are here on this floor and many of us listening Members.

I think the bill is a step in the right direction in requiring that at least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide have a bachelor's or advanced degree in childhood education or related field by September 30, 2013. My amendment is a simple amendment. It would move up that date 2 years, to 2011.

I am not a newcomer to this debate. I could go back to 1993, when I came here, and give statements from the floor and back over the years. My degree is in education. I am usually here on transportation and enjoy my service on that committee. But as someone educated as an educator, nothing is more important than the quality of education and those professionals that we have.

The Mica amendment moves up the date to have professionals in place to 2011. We can do that. We have done it before. We have actually required qualifications, and now we have more than a majority having an associate degree. So we have done this in the past. Currently, 38 percent of all of our Head Start teachers already meet this goal, so we are only talking about 12 percent in 4 years as opposed to 6 years.

Does it really take 6 years to get an additional 12 percent of the teachers to be in our most important educational program with these qualifications?

Now, we've moved this program from what I called it 14 years ago, from a glorified babysitting program, to a program that is giving our students the opportunity for quality educational opportunity. And these young people, at this age, deserve the very best. They are coming from the very worst, the worst as far as disadvantage in our society, the worst as far as opportunity, as far as family setting, as far as their readiness for school.

Mr. Miller talked about making them ready for school. Well, do you want them ready with someone who is unqualified or someone with the best qualifications?

Better prepared, Mr. Miller talked about. We need the most skilled professionals to give them the preparation. And these are our toughest students, the very toughest students. Do you want someone with or without qualifications?

I posed a question, and probably the reason I got this amendment out here to the Rules Committee, which is mostly composed of Democrat Members listening, there are more Head Start programs in Democrat districts than there are in Republican districts, just by the sheer economics of it, the demographics. I said, what if I came with a proposal that said, in kindergarten I'm going to recommend that we only have 50 percent of the teachers having a bachelor's degree in Democrat districts; how would you like that?

Well, this is what's happening here as you're mandating that we have a poorer quality of teachers with quality for another additional 2 years. So I think we can do better.

You heard the $24,000 average pay. That's right. We're going to increase on average a half a billion dollars, from $6.9 billion to $7.4 billion.

In my schools, in closing, there are choices. I won't name the counties, but I have seven teachers in one program with $23,000 average salary. I have nine administrators with salaries from $32,000 to $41,600; another county, 21 teachers, $20,100 average salary, eight administrators with salaries from 31- to $42,000. So it's not always how much we spend, it's how we spend it. And we need to spend it on quality education for these, our most disadvantaged students. So I urge you to consider and pass my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to urge all Members of the House on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 1495, which is known as the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

As we have heard from the chairman, this bill authorizes and directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out various studies, projects and programs relating to navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, shoreline protection and recreation and environmental restoration and protection.

Our subcommittee, led by Mr. Baker of Louisiana, held two days of hearings on projects, programs and policies during the development of this legislation. After a careful review, the committee was able to approve the authorization of more than 50 projects with the chiefs' reports relating to flood damage reduction, navigation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration.

We also have in this legislation, navigation and ecosystem restoration projects for the upper Mississippi River. Illinois waterway system, and Everglades restoration project, which I would like to talk about in just a moment, and conserving and restoring the Louisiana coastal area.

We have in the bill a provision for streamlining and expediting the Corps of Engineers' project delivery and permits system. We have provisions for improvement of the Corps of Engineers' planning and project development process, including independent peer review of larger and more controversial studies. We also have authorization of a number of smaller project modifications, investigations, related to our civil works programs of the Corps of Engineers. I think all in all we have a good piece of legislation that we have worked on in a bipartisan fashion, and you see the product before us today.

Now, I know the administration has issued a position opposing this legislation. However, I want to talk to a couple of points that they have raised. They do have a responsibility to be good trustees of the public monies and

the difficult situation we find ourselves in financially.

But in this legislation between 3 and $4 billion would be typically spent during a WRDA cycle or authorization process on this type of legislation. We have not had a bill since the year 2000. So actually if you do simple math on that, you can see that the total cost of this bill in Federal dollars, $13.1 billion, is reasonable. The total cost with the State participation is $17.8 billion. But we do, indeed, have a backlog of projects over what would amount to at least three cycles. So this WRDA bill, this authorization legislation, in fact, combines the equivalent of all of those years of backlog of projects. The price tag, in fact, is consistent with that assumption.

While this bill is considered costly by some, the 2005 WRDA legislation contained almost 900 projects. That is another complaint of the administration, too many projects. This bill contains 682 project provisions. Not that Mr. Oberstar, myself, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Baker haven't had Members throughout the Congress come to us and beg and plead to have additional projects that are critical to their district included in this legislation. I think we, too, have been good custodians and responsible in crafting this legislation.

Let me say that the administration also raised some questions about cost benefits. We have gone through this. Mr. Oberstar, myself, Mr. Baker, Ms. Johnson, we have looked at cost benefits. We have done our very best to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars again are well spent and there is a good return for the investment that is being made here by the Federal taxpayer.

So those are the reasons that I disagree with my administration on this. I actively support this. I think we have done this in a very good fashion.

Finally, I want to talk to some of the measures that are in the bill. You have heard the chairman talk about some of the measures that are in this bill. This bill is important to me, not only as a Member of Congress, and I don't represent the Everglades, but I do represent the State of Florida. It is interesting how it takes time to undo some of the damage that mankind has done to our natural resources and national treasures.

I have a copy of the Palm Beach Post, which I kept in a file, from Sunday, April 11, 1993, irony, same month a number of years ago, talking about the Everglades, reversing man's mistakes. I started working on that along with the Clinton administration, Secretary Babbitt. Hear is an article from July 4, 1994, about a $465 million government industry agreement to start cleaning up the Everglades, which had been damaged by man's abuse.

Here is another article I pulled from the news journal Daytona Beach News-Journal that says: ``Representative John Mica and the other Members of central Florida's House delegation are in a fortunate position to finish the work the Senate started.'' This is the year 2000. Here we are in 2007.

Now, in 2000 we authorized a study. What is important about this bill is we authorize for the first time projects that actually do construction and work in restoring our precious national treasure, and Florida's national environmental treasure, the Everglades.

So that is one reason why I am excited about this piece of legislation. It does take a long time and a lot of money.

Finally, I do want to also cite that I just inherited the responsibility of the Transportation leader on the Republican side, and I never realized how important these projects are to individual Members. For example, not on our side of the aisle, but Ms. Matsui, a Democrat Member, she has a project in here that would provide a 100- year level of flood protection for the city of Sacramento. Almost a million Americans live in the capital of California, more than twice the population of the pre-Katrina New Orleans that today has only an 80-year level of flood protection. No other community in America of this size has this little flood protection. This is a project important to Ms. Matsui.

There are not Republican projects, there are not Democrat projects; there are projects for the people that are important to their survival. And we have seen the mistakes and the errors of our ways in Katrina. Mr. Baker can speak to what he has gone through in Louisiana. We need not repeat those errors.

So here we have in this legislation an opportunity to help her and 299 other districts. I wish it was 435. So it has been put together in a bipartisan way.

And finally, on my effort, I tried to do it in a transparent way. All of the Republican projects have been on file, open to the public, and any of the earmarks, open to public and press scrutiny. So I have tried to do it in a manner that restores public faith, because I would rather have elected Members of Congress make those decisions, fight for them, and have it done and conducted in a transparent fashion rather than have some bureaucrat down there decide where the taxpayer money, which they just paid in in huge amounts over the past week to Washington, get expended. That is our responsibility, it is elected officials' responsibility, not appointed bureaucrats who don't have the responsibility we have under the Constitution.

So, again, I recognize my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Baker. I also want to thank Mr. Costello, who is no longer the Chair or the ranking member, and Mr. Duncan, who was the Chair because this is an inherited work. Again, several bills are combined that are long overdue. So I urge their passage.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

First of all, I know, Mrs. Bono, that you have worked tirelessly on behalf of restoration of the Salton Sea project. Only through a technicality in our agreement for moving forward with this legislation has your Bono Salton Sea restoration provision been left from this bill. But you have my assurance that you will have top priority for consideration for the conference on something you have worked year after year and so hard for. So before this gets to the President's desk, you have my assurance that it will be part of the President's bill, if we have a bill.

Might I inquire of the Chair as to how much time is remaining.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment. Mr. Oberstar, after the election, became the Chair, I became the ranking member of the Transportation Committee. And we inherited, indeed, a huge backlog of projects. We also inherited a bill that required earmarking because they are Members' projects, and everyone knows the problems that we have had with earmarks in the past. So I can assure the Members that on both sides of the aisle we have done everything possible to vet these projects. I am also sorry that we can't put even more projects in.

We just had Mrs. Bono here, and her heart and soul in her work in Congress, which is something she inherited, actually the work, too, of her late husband, Sonny Bono, a good friend and colleague.

She wanted that so badly in this, and it is so important, the restoration of the Salton Sea, for her district. You can see how important these projects are to Members and their districts. So we have a good work product.

Let me make one point I did not make in opposition to the administration's position on this piece of legislation in that it cost too much. If you look at 2000 when we started these projects, maybe they did cost $5 million. I can tell you that just with inflation and the cost of doing construction projects, having been in the development business, that every day we delay will cost us more; and that is why these projects cost us more, and that is why I am in opposition to the administration's point there.

We have evenly divided the projects. I don't think we could have had a fairer distribution. They are Republican, they are not Democrat, but they are of national and district importance, and I think we have done as good a job as you can. I am sure you can find something wrong or questionable, if anyone seeks to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the manager's amendment, and I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to move and urge the passage of this bill, not only through the House but through the other body and conference, so that we can do a better job for the people that we represent in these important environmental and water resources projects.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do rise in opposition to this rule.

I have been here for 15 years, and this is probably one of the most egregious efforts to deny committees of jurisdiction input into this very important legislation.

We just heard from Mr. Lungren, a very distinguished Member and ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. He stated again the partisan nature of the Rules decision. The Chair on the Republican side, the ranking member of that committee, Mr. King, indicated that there were zero amendments. Unprecedented. On the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, there were zero amendments accepted.

So I must strongly encourage that we vote against this rule. Again, in my experience, I have never heard of such an egregious abuse of minority rights or participation in the process.

Most importantly, I think that one of the amendments that we offered from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, while the manager's amendment does have some improvements in taking these important security grants from DHS, which has had difficulty in managing all their responsibilities, and we have the money going through DHS and the grants administered by the Department of Transportation, which is an improvement, it has been my experience that it is not how much money you spend, it is how you spend it. We had an amendment that offered a vast improvement, which was to conduct a needs and risk assessment on security risks relating to transit and rail, which has never been conducted.

So we are going to take $6 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money and put it through this system that I just described and not really address that money to the real threats and risks that we face. I don't think that is wise.

This weekend I spent some time in Pennsylvania. I went through a couple of towns and I saw a lot of people. I saw some tough towns in some of the rural areas traveling up there. But I saw a lot of people going to work and working hard, sending their money to Washington. They are counting on us to be good stewards of that money and to spend that money.

Our number one responsibility is the safety and security of those people, and here we are abandoning that responsibility. So they work very hard out there to send that money here and now see it not properly applied.

That is wrong, and I will oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule, H. Res. 270, for the consideration of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.

I strongly support effective security measures for America's railroads, transit systems, and intercity buses.

But the funding authorization levels in the bill that will be brought up today are based on a phony estimate of the surface transportation security needs.

The $6 billion authorized in H.R. 1401 is based on a 2003 member survey conducted by the American Public Transportation Association.

There was no discipline to the APTA survey--anyone could ask for anything they thought they might need at any time.

Yesterday, I offered two amendments to the Rules Committee, both of which were rejected on a straight party-line vote.

The first amendment was simply a requirement that DHS and DOT determine what the security needs of the Nation's transit systems and railroads are before authorizing $6 billion in grants.

This amendment was supported by the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Yet the Rules Committee refused to allow the amendment to be considered.

I also proposed an amendment to expand the current whistleblower protection law for both the safety and security of railroad employees under the Railway Labor Act.

This effective whistleblower protection law in title 49 of the U.S. Code has been in place since 1970. This law covers the reporting of all hazardous conditions, whether related to safety or security.

Under the Railway Labor Act whistleblower protection, railroad employees are fully protected against termination, harassment or discrimination.

There is absolutely no good reason to replace this functional and effective law with new whistleblower protection requirements under the Department of Labor. Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

But this amendment, despite support from both the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, was also rejected by the Rules Committee on a party- line vote.

I strongly oppose this Rule.

The bill development was not bipartisan, and it is obvious that the development of the Rule was completely partisan.

The Democrat-led Congress's unwillingness to work with Republicans on this bill flies in the face of Speaker Pelosi's commitment to work in an open and bipartisan manner.

It's a shame that this Congress has put politics ahead of effective security for the traveling public.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to have come to the floor and supported this bill. However, the more I learn

about some of the provisions of the manager's amendment that will be offered, the more I learn about some of the special interest provisions that have been put in this bill in the name of some special interest, as opposed to national security, I find myself inclined to vote against the measure and final passage, if it continues as it is now crafted.

First of all, I truly believe that the security grants that are provided for under the provisions of this legislation will not prevent terrorist attacks. This isn't always a question, as I said earlier on the rule, of how much money we spend. I have no problem as a Member of Congress spending money on rail and transit security. It is how we effectively spend that money.

This bill is not going to prevent a Madrid, where cell phones and backpacks were used. This is not going to prevent a London, where clean, unknown suicide bombers exercised their will and slaughtered many people, both aboveground and underground.

I was there just weeks before and saw some of the measures that they put in place. Now they were nice surveillance measures, but we can't make the same mistakes. If we want to stop terrorism, we are going to have to penetrate the organizations, the finances and the communications of individuals that are willing to take their own lives and others. This bill is not going to, as it is crafted, provide that.

The other thing that was prohibited from both the Homeland Security Committee and the T&I Committee was the ability to amend this. As we saw this product developing, we did not put in a needs assessment or risk assessment, which has never been done for rail or transit security, so we don't know where to spend the money.

We heard some of the Members saying we are going to have 600 inspectors. Do we need those 600 inspectors? Someone else said we are going to make these grants available to unions. Is that the best interest or is that serving some special interest?

So I have grown to have some very serious concerns about the provisions of this legislation. And the American Association of Railroads has said that, in fact, this is going to dismantle safety and security as we know it under existing law with the preemption clause that has been provided here.

So from State to State under the provisions of the way this manager's amendment is crafted, the regulations will vary. Can you imagine a train going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction under those circumstances?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the Republican leader on the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield at this time 3 minutes to the previous Chair of the Rail Subcommittee and current ranking Republican leader of the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I wish I could have come to the floor today and supported this measure, because rail and transit security are extremely important and it is one of our most important responsibilities as representatives of the people. People are working hard, trying to make a living, raise their families. They send us here to know the facts. And I can tell you, the facts are that this bill was done in haste, particularly the manager's amendment. It is a great example for the House of Representatives and the majority, the new majority and the minority. Because when you subvert and do not conduct yourself in the process that the Founding Fathers had envisioned, a bipartisan approach to crafting legislation, you get yourself tied up in these little knots. Now they are finding flaws in this legislation left and right, deregulating State traffic and railroads. They are scurrying around trying to figure out how are we going to fix this.

This is not the way to do the people's business, particularly on an important issue like security. So I will go home and tell people why I voted against this. Many others can go home and say, I voted $7 billion or $8 billion of your money for rail and transit security. But what did it do? Unfortunately, it didn't do the job we need to do in the situation we find ourselves in with terrorist threats and what we have seen in the rest of the world. We are abdicating our responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the provisions of the offering that have been made by the gentleman. I was wondering if I could inquire as to the content of his modification.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for further inquiry?

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that in fact the way that the amendment is now drawn, the original Thompson amendment offered as amendment No. 1 was in fact flawed and that this would correct that flaw; and the intent that is in the Thompson amendment that would be of a negative impact would be removed by the correction that you are now offering.

I do have a reservation. I will have to object.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, again, I wish that this bill could truly have been crafted in a bipartisan manner.

I have to speak against the manager's amendment because the sponsor of the manager's amendment just stood and admitted to a flaw that is in the bill. Again, this is a lesson to all of us that if we craft these pieces of important legislation, we put partisan politics aside. This isn't the place for partisan politics. This is a national security issue critical to the survival of our people. If we put those aside and we work together on this, we wouldn't find ourselves tied in this little legislative knot that they are trying to figure out: Should we pass this flawed manager's amendment?

The bad news is that the flawed provision in section 3 of the manager's amendment allows every State to effectively override safety rules. That is the great part of this system, that the minority and the majority work together and craft legislation and we find some flaws and make some improvements, and we were denied that. The T&I side was denied even one amendment.

That is why I opposed the rule, and that is why I am going to oppose the manager's amendment, and that is why I am going to oppose this bill.

I will go back and tell folks in my district, I did not vote for this, and it was $7 billion, not because I didn't want to provide security, but I wanted to make sure that their hard-earned

money was well spent and we didn't pass in an arbitrary fashion, ignore the rights of the majority and the minority, legislation that would benefit this country, especially in the situation we find ourselves with the terrorist threats we have seen.

We don't want a Madrid or a London, but I don't want politics to override what should be good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1195 makes technical corrections to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU.

This is the third time we have worked to finalize these technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU. During the 109th Congress, the House passed H.R. 5689, a bill to make technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU in June 2006.

During the summer and fall of 2006, we worked with the Senate to create H.R. 6233, which is a very similar product to the bill we are considering today. Now, we are trying again.

As my colleagues have just said, H.R. 1195 makes numerous technical corrections to Federal surface transportation programs authorized by SAFETEA-LU. The technical corrections included in this bill have been identified by the Department of Transportation and are mostly of a conforming nature, or to correct drafting errors. The most important correction we are making is to strengthen the Federal Highway research program by ensuring the continuation of the legacy research programs carried out by the Department of Transportation.

The majority of this bill is section 105, which makes changes to over 200 of the high priority projects in sec. 1702 of SAFETEA-LU. These changes address ``broken'' surface transportation projects, clarifying recipients and increasing certain project funding levels and decreasing others to achieve budget neutrality.

There is one purely technical correction that is not included in this package. SAFETEA-LU inadvertently changed certain regulations for trucks with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds.

One of the implications of this error is that operators of these trucks no longer have to register or file insurance with DOT. Consequently, DOT can not regulate them for safety purposes.

When Congress passed SAFETEA-LU, this change was not a policy change Congress knew about or intended to make. If Congress wanted to make this change, we would have debated and discussed it. Rather, this was something we were not aware of and has had very serious unintended consequences--especially for small businesses.

I hope the Chairman, along with our colleagues in the Senate, will work with me to correct this technical problem.

Despite the omission of this important correction, I still support this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the House, normally I would be supportive of this legislation. I have tried to work in a bipartisan manner with Mr. Oberstar and other members of the committee on both sides of the aisle.

The underlying bill is basically a good bill. It does provide funding assistance to State revolving funds. However, the bill as reported out of the committee, I voted against it. I will vote against it again if it contains a Davis-Bacon provision. We will have an opportunity with an amendment offered by Mr. Baker and Mr. King that would repeal the provision that is put in the bill as it came from the committee.

Currently, 18 States have no prevailing wage law. My State, Florida, and 17 other States will be dramatically impacted. And, actually, what will happen is the opposite of what we will want to have happen: instead of having more money, we will have less money for these important projects.

This is an unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon requirements as they relate to the Clean Water Act. In fact, this is a mandate, and I call it ``The Mother of All Unfunded Mandates,'' which is in fact sort of an earmark to Big Labor interests and a payback to Big Labor. It is unfortunate that, again, those that will suffer are the States and local governments and the intent of this legislation, which is to provide wastewater funds.

And, finally, I hate to say it, but I have a statement from the administration. The President will veto the legislation if it contains the Davis-Bacon provisions.

So I urge Members to support an amendment by Mr. Baker and Mr. King to strike that language from this legislation, and let's pass legislation without this onerous provision.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me that time.

I just wanted to clear up a couple of statements that have been made and misconceptions that have been made.

First of all, from the other side, we did hear that this in fact is a Federal mandate, and I did refer in my opening remarks that this is in fact the mother of all unfunded mandates, because it does in an unprecedented fashion with the Davis-Bacon provision that is included in this bill expand the provisions of Davis-Bacon in, again, a fashion that has never been done before in this program. Mr. King spoke a little bit about this.

I think we all ought to clean up our water and have the best wastewater treatment possible. We do want to fund this program, but we want to do it in a responsible fashion.

But, again, what is unprecedented here, and the Members of the House of Representatives from some 18 States, let me read those States, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, the Representatives from those States will have to go back over this weekend and next week and tell their constituents that they voted for this unfunded mandate, this unprecedented mandate on the use of their State revolving funds.

Now, if we are just talking about imposing this on Federal money, that is one thing. But the unprecedented part about this is they are imposing this, first of all, on repayments. It has never been done before. On interest into the State revolving loan fund, they are going to impose this, and also on the State match.

So what happens here is we put money in with good intention, you put more money in, and you get less in return, and we impose this mandate. We have tried not to impose mandates on our local governments.

So that is our objection to this, and that is the administration's objection to this.

We have no objection to providing assistance and a partnership with our local governments and State revolving wastewater treatment activities. That is a good thing. But what we are doing here is a bad thing. It is setting a precedent and imposing an unfunded mandate on our local governments, which we shouldn't be doing even with their money, their repayments, their interest and their match. It is setting a horrible precedent.

So I would like to be for this bill. I would like to vote for this legislation. But I can't support it if we don't adopt the Baker-King amendment that takes this provision out.

To those of you who come from those States, and I am from one of them, Florida, I can't go back and say I have done this to you when I am trying to do something for you.

With those comments, I do want to clarify the unprecedented mandate that this is imposing. It is a big earmark for big union bosses. Our folks at the State and local levels are going to have to pay the price. I don't want them to have to pay that price.

Mr. Chairman, due to my attendance at the Arlington National Cemetery funeral of U.S. Army SGT John D. Rode, my constituent from Lake Mary who died from injuries inflicted by a terrorist IED in Iraq on February 14, 2007, I was unable to cast votes on rollcalls 106, 107, and 108. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these measures.

Madam Speaker, first let me say to those who question our going into Iraq, I voted to go into Iraq and I would vote the same way again. We have found 300,000 mass graves to date, and standing right at this podium, the Iraqi leader told us that Saddam Hussein slaughtered 1 million of his fellow citizens.

The question before us tonight, and what Congress is now considering, is a nonbinding resolution that makes two points. The first point is it praises our troops. The second point is it speaks against the President's decision to increase or surge our U.S. troop numbers in our current attempt to end the civil and terrorist conflict in Iraq.

Let me say at this point that I do not fault individual Members and their choice made tonight or tomorrow to support or oppose the arbitrary nonbinding resolution that is before us. I do, however, fault the failed Democrat leaders who crafted this resolution behind closed doors, written in the dark of night.

The people should know that this is not a true debate. In fact, this exercise is a 3-day politically hatched farce. In fact, this exercise is absent of any legitimate legislative process. It is also, in fact, vacant of the two options provided Congress under our Constitution: first, to declare war or, second, to appropriate funds for the conduct of war. In fact, this is a stealth resolution brought to the floor absolutely void of the democratic process; that our men and women are fighting, as we are here tonight, to preserve our freedoms at home and the rights at home and extend those rights to oppressed people abroad.

This is not Cuba. This isn't Venezuela. This is not North Korea or some Third World country. This is the Congress of the United States.

But let me congratulate the authors of what history will surely record as a very dark chapter in the conduct of the House leadership and the House of Representatives, leadership, in fact, entrusted to them by the American people.

Let me congratulate the authors on the clever wording of a resolution to praise our Armed Forces and at the same time undermine our Commander in Chief. Very clever.

I also want to congratulate the very clever timing of the floor discussion of this worthless measure that disregards the fact that American troops have already been deployed for this mission.

Congratulations are also in order for duping the public and the media into creating the illusion that Congress is really doing something about the conflict in Iraq.

And again congratulations on making people think that this is bipartisan support, that this is going to be bipartisan support for a resolution that, in fact, achieves nothing but the discrediting of a President of the United States in a time of war. So I also want to extend congratulations to the crafters of this illegitimately drafted nonbinding resolution. Your accomplishments will be lauded by Hamas, al Qaeda, touted by Al Jazeera, and highly praised by America and Bush haters throughout the world.

Ironically, I pulled this up. Google it yourself. This is tomorrow, 8:17 Mecca time, Al Jazeera: ``Democrats Attack Bush War Policy,'' and the lead quote is from Speaker Pelosi.

Again, congratulations on your achievement.

Fortunately, though, folks, throughout history great Presidents have ignored Congress and have not wavered. George Washington was nearly recalled by Congress in the darkest hours of the American Revolution. He fought on for nearly 8 years to gain our independence and freedom. Abraham Lincoln endured untold criticism in Congress in his fight to ensure freedom for those once enslaved. Ronald Reagan never flinched in his quest to bring down the Iron Curtain and free millions. And George Bush will be remembered for freeing Iraq, giving women and the oppressed the right to vote, for conducting free elections, helping Iraq adopt a constitution, and combating terrorism and extremists.

The 110th Congress, however, will go down in history for adopting a nonbinding resolution. Think about it.

Yes, we all want our troops home. We all want our children to live in a world of peace. And this resolution will not help us achieve either of those goals.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tonight to come to the floor for a special order presentation. Let me start out by reading some names. Dr. William Thornton, Benjamin Henry Latrobe, Charles Bulfinch, Thomas U. Walter, Edward Clark, Elliott Woods, David Lynn, J. George Stewart, George M. White, and Alan M. Hantman.

My colleagues, I read these names. They are the names of the 10 architects of the United States Capitol.

This week will mark the last days in service to the United States Congress, and this historic structure, of the Architect of the United States Capitol, Alan M. Hantman. And I am pleased to rise this evening to recognize his service.

Of course, we have had many presidents, we have had many Speakers of the House. We have only had 10 architects who have been in charge of this incredible structure that we call our United States Capitol.

Alan Hantman will leave his service, leaving a legacy untold by almost any of his predecessors. And it has been my honor and pleasure to work with him on a project that will dramatically change the nature of the United States Capitol, that is, the United States Capitol Visitors Center.

Let me reminisce for just a minute, as I thank him for his 10 years of dedicated and sometimes difficult and trying service to Congress. But let me reminisce, if I may, about Alan Hantman coming to serve as our United States Capitol architect.

I have been involved in the Capitol Visitors Center for some 14 years, since I came to Congress, committed that the people who visit this institution should have the opportunity to have an enjoyable, informative and memorable visit to the United States Capitol. Instead, in the past, they have stood in the rain, snow, sleet, cold, ice, without even common comforts or courtesy in front of our most historic structure, and sometimes denied access to the structure or again common conveniences.

I was a little bit afraid because I know the way this place runs, when they were selecting an architect, some 10 years ago, that they might find someone in this process that would deep six the project, so I spent a particular amount of time as author of two authorization measures for the project, talking to Alan Hantman, and I was convinced he was the right person at the right time in the history of the United States Capitol.

He undertook that expansion of the United States Capitol Building, the largest in history. It will increase the volume, the sheer volume of the Capitol by some 70 percent. And he has done an incredible job.

At the same time, he has had to make this Capitol run. I often joked when I first came here that the U.S. Capitol was run like a southern plantation with bad management.

Alan Hantman changed that. He brought professionalism to his position and to service and to, again, to the most monumental project, not on behalf of those who serve here. The Capitol Visitor Center, in fact, is the first structure and expansion to the Capitol in the history of the Capitol for the public, for those who own the place and to make, again, their visit an enjoyable, informative and educational experience.

Alan brought with him great experience from the private sector with more than 10 years heading up the Rockefeller Center Management Corporation

in New York City, overseeing that great project, and then coming here.

Now, I know he has had 535 bosses, a smaller group of Capitol preservation on which I serve, and then the leaders of the House and Senate and some of the appropriators and other authorizers. I call him working for 19 prima donnas. But he has completed the structure, planning, and under the most difficult circumstances you can imagine.

When people see the Visitor Center, the name of Alan Hantman will live forever in the history of the United States Congress and our country.

Thank you, Mr. Price, for yielding to me. Also, I want to thank you for the nights that you have spent on the floor during this session of Congress, the 110th, trying to bring the truth and also facts to the American people that are so important.

You said that I would talk tonight a little bit about my perspective, and I have an interesting family history. I have a brother who served as a Democratic Member of Congress from 1978 to 1988 here in the House of Representatives, Dan Mica; another brother, a Democrat, who served as an aid to Laughton Childs and to former Congressman Brademas. We are the first two Members and brothers to be from different political parties since 1889.

Almost everybody else is from the same party.

I say that because I truly am from a bipartisan family. When I came here some 14 years ago, we were in the minority, Mr. Speaker. And I served 2 years in the minority, and I want to tell you that I was treated very fairly by some of the Members of the majority. I will even cite Mr. Ed Towns of New York, who took me in as a freshman new Member, gave me every opportunity to participate, recognized me. I was a full participant as a minority Member.

There were others who I will not name who did not allow me not to speak, who actually told me to be quiet, and who actually adjourned meetings, so I didn't have the opportunity to speak or participate. So I saw how bipartisanship and I saw how dictatorial rule works. And for some 12 years, the good Lord gave me the opportunity to be chairman of three subcommittees over 12 years. So I always employed the golden rule, the Ed Towns rule, of treating everybody fairly.

I say that in context because today is January 31 and this month, the beginning of this Congress, is one of the saddest hours in the history of the Congress of the United States, at least that I am familiar with or that I have read about.

Now, we started here with the swearing in of Nancy Pelosi. I am an Italian American. I was proud of Nancy Pelosi's being the first Italian American and woman to take that position, and I think we were all very pleased for her on both sides of the aisle and congratulated her.

But then began, unfortunately, the saddest chapter in the history of Congress with the passage of six major pieces of legislation without the Congress even being organized, without the committees being organized, without one of those pieces of legislation going through the committee process.

What an incredible insult to the people of America who just finished an election. They elected us as representatives, 435. We, in turn, elected a new Speaker of the House, and the entire democratic process was obliterated. It has been the saddest month in the history of the United States Congress. Six major measures.

And the irony, I sat here in the week of celebrating and honoring Martin Luther King, one of the great civil rights leaders of our time, whose sole goal was to give rights to the minority that they had been denied. And the new majority completely obliterated in that week the rights of the minority. It was one of the saddest chapters I have seen. So all of their measures, all of them, are just floating out there. The other body hasn't taken them up. They were passed while trampling on the rights of the minority.

There are men and women fighting today, tonight, tomorrow for those rights to protect the minority. This is not Bolivia. This is not Venezuela. This is not Cuba, where someone takes power and tramples on the rights of the minority. This is the United States of America, and every representative should have the opportunity to participate in that democratic process. Again, I am just offended.

And then the final offense today, the 31st, to pass the largest spending measure in the history of Congress in one sole bill without consultation, without participation, without the democratic process is the ultimate insult to the citizens of the United States, who expect a representative form of government, and to the Congress, to the rights of the minority.

This was a $463 billion earmark. And we just got through an election in which the Republicans were chided for passing earmarks in the stealth of the night, for which the Democrats also were offenders. We paid a penalty. We lost the majority.

But you do not pass a bill of that size without the ability of even to participate in this bill, this $463 billion earmark, the most costly in the history.

Now they think they pulled one over on everybody. But I guarantee you. I guarantee in that bill, since no one had a chance to see it or participate in it, they will find day after day embarrassing provisions that we did not have an opportunity to take out, to adjust, to correct.

So they will pay the price. When you do things in the stealth of the night, when you illegitimately conduct the process of Government, you will pay the penalty. We paid the penalty. They will pay the penalty. Marital law is not the way this Congress was intended to run.

This should be, in fact, bipartisan. Bipartisan means two working together. I am committed to that. I will continue to be committed to working that way. I come from, as I said, a bipartisan family; and we have got to work together.

So I hope today, January 31, 2007, a very sad day, ending of a sad chapter in the history, mark my words. This will go down in the history of this Congress as one of the darkest hours ever.

I thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to Members' attention a number of concerns have with the aviation security, emergency preparedness, and port security provisions contained in H.R. 1, the ``Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.''

Madam Speaker, with the passing of President Gerald Ford our Nation, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Ford Family have lost a leader, a respected colleague and a loved one who was very special to their lives.

Few American leaders of our time have gained the admiration and appreciation so well deserved and earned by our 38th President. While our country has lost a distinguished leader and the Congress has lost a distinguished Member, Gerald Ford's life and public service will always remain a model for future generations.

In October of 1999, I had the pleasure to quietly sit and speak with President Ford at the conclusion of a Capitol Hill reception that was held after he was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal in the Capitol Rotunda. While I had met him before, what struck me on this special occasion was how such a great man receiving the highest honor from our Nation and Congress could be so humble, so gracious and so genuine.

How memorable it was for me to spend that special time with that gentle man and great American. How fitting it was that Gerald Ford returned this week to the Capitol and the Congress he loved. While this gentle man belongs to the ages, he will always share a special place in our hearts and fond memories.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5076) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 5076.

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

I am pleased to rise this afternoon in very strong support of this timely and certainly needed legislation. This legislation is the NTSB's, the National Transportation Safety Board's, authorization legislation, and it is currently provided for under a continuing resolution. The NTSB is a small but very important part of the Federal Government, and it makes some very critical contributions to our Nation's safety each year. The NTSB is charged with investigating civil aviation accidents and significant transportation accidents in other surface modes, including railroad, highway, marine, and pipeline accidents.

In addition, the NTSB assists the victims of aviation accidents, and where resources allow, Mr. Speaker, the NTSB also provides family assistance for accidents in other transportation modes.

As a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I can tell Members that the NTSB has provided tremendous service to this Nation and also to the traveling public in all modes of transportation for many years.

In the United States the 3-year average commercial aviation accident rate is .017 accidents per 100,000 departures, which means that the accident rate is the equivalent of one fatal accident for every 15 million passenger-carrying flights, which is an absolutely amazing record by any standard. I believe this unprecedented aviation safety record is in part due to the outstanding work over the years by hundreds and hundreds of NTSB professionals as well as the Federal Aviation Administration and also our aviation industry. But even with this outstanding safety record in commercial air transportation, we must continue to work towards making the system even safer, especially as we see increases in demand and also increases in congestion and passengers.

Since its creation in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 124,000 aviation accidents and at least 10,000 accidents in other modes of transportation. As a result of these investigations, the board has issued almost 12,000 safety recommendations, and over 82 percent of those recommendations have been adopted. The NTSB also serves as the ``court of appeals'' for any airman, mechanic, or mariner who has a problem with certificate action when it is taken by either the FAA administrator or the U.S. Coast Guard commandant.

I would also like to point out that last year marked the board's 15th anniversary of its ``Most Wanted'' list of transportation safety improvements. I believe this is a tool that has served the public very well. In fact, over the past 15 years, 85 percent of more than 260 recommendations that have been placed on the list have been accepted and also have been implemented.

H.R. 5076 provides for a 2-year reauthorization for both the fiscal years 2007 and 2008. This legislation would also provide for the hiring of critically needed transportation accident investigations positions. The board has determined through a human capital forecast which was conducted earlier this year that additional full-time employees are needed to effectively and efficiently meet the mission and support efforts that are expected of the board, and understanding our current

budget constraints, H.R. 5076 allows for slight increases in personnel to help address this important need.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5076 provides for changes such as consolidating reporting requirements, clarifying that the board has jurisdiction to investigate major marine accidents occurring on bodies of water located entirely within the boundaries of a State. And also it directs the NTSB to develop and implement a plan to achieve the self- sufficient operation of the NTSB Academy.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may wish to consume to the chairman of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

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

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

No other speakers, but I would like to reserve the opportunity to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also add, for the record, that beyond the NTSB, this particular piece of legislation also includes a provision requiring the Department of Transportation Inspector General to provide an independent oversight of the project-wide safety review of the central artery tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts, otherwise known as the Big Dig. This safety review was initiated as a result of the July 10, 2006 accident that resulted in the tragic loss of life by a motorist there.

The bill also requires the Inspector General to investigate criminal or fraudulent acts committed in the design and construction of the project and report to Congress on its oversight of this project.

Because of the NTSB's broad jurisdiction over all modes of transportation, this bill required the coordinated efforts of many people. So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Chairman Young, who has done an incredible job leading the T&I Committee, I have had the honor to be one of his subcommittee chairs for the past 6 years; Ranking Member Oberstar, Aviation Subcommittee Ranking Member Mr. Costello, and for all of his staff and their efforts on behalf of this legislation.

Then I also want to thank, this is probably our last piece of legislation, my last piece as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, a difficult task over some difficult 6 years now in America's history and the history of aviation in this country. But I want to personally thank our staff director Jim Coon, who has helped lead that effort; professional staffer Sharon Barkeloo; Holly Woodruff Lyons; Chris Brown; and our clerk, Jason Rosa; and two people who aren't with us, Mr. David Schaeffer, who was the staff director during 9/11 and some of the very trying times we experienced; and also Sharon Pinkerton, my chief legislative transportation counsel. They are no longer with us. So I want to thank everyone for their work on this important piece of legislation.

This version of the bill currently before the House has been negotiated with our counterparts in the Senate to expedite its consideration in the other body in the hope that this important legislation can and will be enacted before the 109th Congress adjourns sine die later this week. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5076, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Marilyn Mennello of Winter Park, Florida, a wonderful friend, tireless advocate for the arts and community leader in Central Florida. She was a philanthropist who rose to national prominence as an arts patron who inspired all whom she met.

From humble beginnings in Pasadena, California, Marilyn moved to the Orlando area in 1962. Raising two daughters, she was a successful business woman and community activist.

She devoted her time and energy to charity work, especially in the arts. In 1964, she was appointed to the Cultural Affairs Committee and later founded a volunteer group of 101 women to raise funding for the Loch Haven Arts Center, now the Orlando Museum of Art. This group became one of the most successful fundraising organizations in Central Florida benefiting the Orlando Science Center, the Orlando Museum of Art, the American Heart Association of Central Florida and the Florida Hospital. In 1998 she and her husband, Michael Mennello cofounded the Orlando Mennello Museum.

She is credited for discovering the work of Earl Cunningham, a self- taught artist and shop owner from Maine. He displayed his paintings in his St. Augustine shop that included an array of vivid harbor scenes and Americana. Over 15 years, the Mennellos worked to promote him as an important folk artist. The Mennellos presented one of his pieces to President George W. Bush for the White House Collection. Cunningham's art now hangs proudly in the Mennello Museum. An exhibition featuring Cunningham's work will open in the Smithsonian in Washington, DC next year.

Not only was Marilyn Mennello special to art appreciation in America, she was a patriot who dearly loved our country. She was also a loving mother and grandmother to her daughters, Lynda and Sylvia, and her grandsons, Alec and Andrew.

To her devoted husband, Michael, we extend our deepest sympathy.

To Marilyn's entire family, we extend our condolences.

Mr. Speaker, because of Marilyn Mennello's dedication to our Nation and to art in America, I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing and remembering her life.