Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 699, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, as someone who has the privilege of representing an ``American-made energy'' producing State, I understand the economic benefits of producing energy here at home, and I believe my record on this subject in this body is well-documented.

I want to begin, of course, by complimenting the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for his leadership on this legislation, as well as Chairman Mica of my Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member Corrine Brown.

I do rise today to express serious concerns regarding the process, or rather lack thereof, that was taken to bring this legislation to the House floor for consideration today.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has primary jurisdiction over pipeline construction and safety legislation. Following this longstanding precedent, on May 23, the Speaker designated the Committee on T&I as the committee of primary jurisdiction of the pending legislation. Yet instead of considering the legislation under regular order, as the committee has always done in the past, Chairman Mica chose to discharge the committee from consideration of the bill.

Now, I have served on the Committee on T&I for 34 years--my entire tenure in this body. I cannot think of one instance when this committee, acting as the committee of primary jurisdiction, has discharged its consideration of major legislation in this manner--not one single instance.

The fact is, in the aftermath of several devastating pipeline incidents, there are some legitimate concerns about the potential safety, environmental and health impacts of transporting heavy crude oil by pipeline. I would have liked to have explored those concerns in an open and transparent manner had the committee considered this legislation. With that said, I am optimistic that this is an issue that we can delve into further as we work with Chairman Mica to craft a bill that reauthorizes the Nation's pipeline safety program. In the interim, I believe we need to move forward with a decision on a Presidential permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Current plans are for construction activities to begin in the first quarter of 2012 and commercial operation to commence in 2013.

The fact is that this pipeline will create thousands of new jobs at a time when unemployment in the construction sector is double the national average. Construction was hard-hit by the recession, with the construction industry having lost nearly 2 million jobs since December 2007. We need to put these people back to work.

Unfortunately, last week, the House Republican leadership piled on the already devastated construction industry by shutting down major parts of the Federal Aviation Administration, which will jeopardize $2.5 billion in construction projects, 87,000 American construction jobs, furlough 3,600 FAA aviation engineers, safety analysts, and other career professionals in 35 States, and will cost $200 million per week in lost revenue.

If the chairman can discharge consideration of this bill and fast track it to the House floor for a vote, I hope he will do the same with the legislation that Representative Costello and I introduced earlier today to end the Republican-led FAA shutdown in order to get aviation experts and construction crews back on the clock. While pink slips already went out to construction companies from coast to coast yesterday, Republicans seem to have reversed gears and now seem to want to support construction jobs--union jobs, in fact. I congratulate them on the latter.

In September 2010, TransCanada announced that it had entered into a project and labor agreement for a significant portion of U.S. construction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The agreement, made with five labor organizations--the Laborers' International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the U.S. Pipeline Contractors Association--will provide TransCanada with a capable, well-trained and ready workforce in the U.S. to construct the pipeline.

During construction, the project is expected to create over 13,000 highways union jobs for American workers. Despite the procedural concerns that I've raised, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, the ranking member, Corrine Brown.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and his anger. It is, indeed, frustrating. I, again, invite him to fast-track without consideration of process, as he has done on this pipeline bill, in order to free us from reliance upon foreign sources of energy. I would hope he would just as quickly fast-track our clean extension of the FAA bill we introduced today in order to fast-track jobs, getting people back to work here in America. There are people that are already sitting at home for the second, going on the third day without jobs.

As I noted during my previous remarks, these are good-paying jobs. They are union jobs. A project labor agreement has been entered into that will ensure the protection of these union workers and their families.

So I would urge my colleagues to support the pending legislation at the same time that I would urge, again, my chairman to expedite consideration of a clean FAA reauthorization bill that has been introduced today by Representative Costello and myself.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, June 30, 2011.

Hon. John L. Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica:I write to express my serious concerns

regarding your decision to discharge the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure from consideration of H.R.

1938, the ``North American-Made Energy Security Act''. I urge

you to reconsider your decision to abandon ``regular order''.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is the

committee of primary jurisdiction over pipeline construction

and

safety legislation. Following these long-standing precedents,

on May 23, 2011, the Speaker designated the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure as the committee of primary

jurisdiction of H.R. 1938.

Nevertheless, in your June 24, 2011, letter to Committee on

Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, you indicated your

intent to discharge the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure--the committee of primary jurisdiction--from

consideration of the bill.

Although jurisdictional letters between committees are

commonplace, I cannot recall an instance where the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure, as the committee of

primary jurisdiction, has discharged its consideration of

major legislation in this manner. I urge the Committee to

hold hearings and Subcommittee and Full Committee markups of

the legislation prior to its Floor consideration.

Thank you for your consideration.

With warm regards, I am

Sincerely,

Nick J. Rahall II,

Ranking Democratic Member.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Yes. I made that clear in both of my speeches.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the dog days of summer, exacerbated by the hot air sometimes generated in this city, are contributing to our current budget morass. Rather than throwing our hands up, and saying everything is going to the dogs, I want to share with our colleagues, that man's best friend, and maybe our only friend in this city, Mr. Speaker, can be a rallying cry for unity and a lesson on how to get things done.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the good people of Huntington, West Virginia, are rallying support for their city in a nationwide contest that has a grand prize of $100,000 to construct the town's first off-leash dog park.

Huntington is a town devoted to beautiful, peaceful and useful parks, and has a long and proud history of maintaining a grand system of parks. Moreover, Huntington has a tradition of coming together, when it seems the world as they know it, is coming apart. I refer of course to the tragic loss of Marshall University's football team in 1970. Ultimately, and with sheer determination as their only ally at times, the University and the City produced National Championship teams. Herein, I do believe, lie lessons for our fellow Americans, for the members of this body, and the entire Congress.

At last count, Huntington was in first place in the contest that will be decided by Internet voting and ends next week. Local businesses and media are all supporting this community driven effort. This past weekend, Hillbilly Hot Dogs in downtown Huntington sponsored a hot dog eating contest to draw attention to the campaign. As the winning contestant Ron Clark said, the proposed park can be a ``good place to make great friends.'' Maybe members of this body ought to take a few minutes each morning to walk their pooches and pass some pleasantries with their colleagues.

My little dog, Billie Sue, will enjoy romping with Huntington's proud pets in their newest park and I look forward to chatting with my constituents old and new. Whatever the final outcome however, Huntington will have fiercely and fairly campaigned to the final second. But I know I join Huntingtonians in saluting every community taking part in this contest that has reawakened pride, stirred spirit and strengthened ties across the country. Huntington will always be in first place with that commitment. I ask my colleagues to reflect

upon Huntington's example in the coming days.

I commend our ranking member, Mr. Costello, Chairman Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Petri, my senior Senator, Jay Rockefeller, in the other body and his ranking member, Kay Bailey Hutchison, for the tremendous efforts they have put in this legislation and so much other legislation important for our infrastructure in this country. I recognize that those on the majority, their heart is in the right place. Perhaps those whose pay grade is above them have different opinions and different agendas on this legislation. And perhaps that's the reason why we need to appoint conferees, as the other body has done, and move forward and let the normal process work its will in this legislation.

But instead, we're here to consider the 21st short-term extension of FAA programs and authority and the fourth short-term extension this Congress, as our chairman has just stated. Twenty-one extensions. It's now old enough to drink. Instead of celebrating, however, this should give all cause for concern. This past Saturday marked the 100th day since the Senate appointed conferees on long-term reauthorization. The sun has risen and set over the Capitol more than 200 times since then. House and Senate negotiators have boiled down the remaining issues to just a few.

But the House Republican leadership still has not appointed conferees to move this process forward, despite the fact that, as Chairman Mica has acknowledged to the press late last week and even in his comments here today, the remaining differences are so few they could be resolved by conferees in 20 minutes. So I ask: What is the Republican leadership waiting for?

We find ourselves now faced with the need for a 21st extension. Unlike the three other extensions this Chamber has passed this year, this extension contains a policy rider that would cut 13 small and rural communities from the Essential Air Service program.

There have been no hearings on proposals, as Ranking Member Costello has stated, to reduce EAS and no hearings on this proposal in particular. That said, I would note for the record that the provision of this extension dealing with EAS is an improvement over the proposal in the House-passed reauthorization bill that would have cut the EAS program altogether for the lower 48 States.

There's no question that a sunset of the program would not pass the Senate and be enacted, and at least my Republican colleagues have stepped back from the brink on that particular proposal. However, I am disappointed that instead of appointing conferees to address the future of the EAS program and other outstanding issues in this long-term reauthorization, my Republican colleagues have instead chosen to force a major policy provision into an otherwise clean FAA extension bill at the last minute.

Holding hostage the negotiations is not the way to move the reauthorization process forward. In fact, it is almost guaranteed to set us back in our efforts to work with the other body and reach agreement on a long-term reauthorization.

I object to the tactics used by my Republican friends and colleagues, and I implore them to act in good faith, appoint conferees, and work toward enactment of a long-term reauthorization bill that will put Americans to work and improve the safety of our skies.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed to the bill.

Madam Speaker, in June, the American public learned that a major U.S. airline greeted a group of Army soldiers who were returning home from the front lines in Afghanistan with a bill for almost $3,000, or $200 apiece for each soldier to check four bags on a scheduled domestic flight. Americans were rightly outraged by the incident, which was explained in a YouTube video posted by one of our troops. In the video, one soldier notes that his fourth bag, for which he was charged $200, contained an M-4 carbine rifle, a grenade launcher and a 9-millimeter pistol, ``the tools I used to protect myself and Afghan citizens while I was deployed.''

A spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars told the Associated Press the fees were ``the worst welcome home any soldier could receive. The shock of even being charged is enough to make most service men and women simply shake their heads and wonder who or what it is they are protecting.''

Members of the Armed Forces who are serving our country on the front lines should not endure personal financial hardship when they are traveling to or returning from war zones. Yet, the media's reporting of the incident last month showed that major U.S. carriers were applying the same or similar policies across the board. Airlines were charging soldiers to check four reasonably sized bags and were profiting at the expense of the brave men and women of the Armed Forces who were going to or coming home from war.

This amendment, this motion to recommit, prohibits U.S. air carriers from charging soldiers for up to four bags of checked baggage. It applies to bags that weigh 80 pounds or less and is consistent with many airlines' published policies.

I urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, as they should, to support this amendment. If the amendment is adopted, it will not kill the bill. The House will vote on the bill immediately after this amendment is adopted.

This motion recognizes a tremendous debt of our gratitude owed by the United States to the men and women of our Armed Forces. Members of the Armed Forces who are going to the front lines or coming home from a war zone should not be given a bill with their boarding passes.

I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that our Nation's airlines treat our warriors with the respect they deserve for defending our country. This should be a bipartisan, overwhelming ``yes.''

And I close by saying, vote for our veterans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield on his question?

In response to the gentleman's question asked a few seconds ago, it was a closed rule. There was no way we could have brought this up in the amendment process. The gentleman's party controls the rules of this body and controls the legislative debate.

If the gentleman would continue to yield, the incident did not occur until after the markup of this bill, by the way.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 2018. For far too many years now, my State and others throughout the Appalachian region that produce coal to power our Nation have been struggling under the weight of an uncertain Federal permitting process. That uncertainty has left coal miners and mining communities living in an untenable limbo. The result has been a creation of an atmosphere of worry, of distrust, and of bitterness.

I had hoped that under this administration, we would finally find our way to some clarity and common ground. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Rather than bringing sides together and fostering balance, the EPA's actions in recent months have widened the division. They have spurred the tension of divided opinion over surface coal mining to fracture what should be a cooperative relationship among the Federal and State agencies with permitting responsibility.

Not only is the EPA reaching into the Clean Water Act authorities under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers; it is also reaching into the States and attempting to control their water protection programs. Opponents of this legislation will argue that the EPA does not have statutory authority to limit or otherwise supersede the authority of the States to issue water quality permits under the Clean Water Act, section 401. But that lack of statutory authority has not prevented them from trying to do so. In its very first official step to change the rules of surface mine permitting, on June 11, 2009, the EPA entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department. It states: ``EPA will improve and strengthen oversight and review of water pollution permits for discharges from valley fills under CWA section 402, and of State water quality certifications under CWA section 401, by taking appropriate steps to assist States to strengthen State regulation, enforcement, and permitting of surface mining operations under these programs.''

The agency may claim that it is only following the law and ``assisting'' the State, but the reality is that agency is strong- arming the States, just as it is muscling in on the jurisdiction of other agencies. By creating wholly new criteria and new timeliness for Clean Water Act permits and stubbornly insisting, from on high, that the States adhere to them, the EPA is imposing its own will and its own interpretations of water quality standards on the States. It has drawn a line in the sand, and it is daring the States to cross over it.

To my mind, the most logical solution would be for all sides to come together. The Federal agencies ought to work together in cooperative partnership with the States. That was the vision of the CWA, and that's the goal of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.

Mr. Chairman, I think we would all prefer not to have to craft this kind of legislation. Certainly it would be preferable that agencies work with each other, with the States, and within the confines of their statutory authority. It would be better if they followed the rules and did not try to change the law through guidance and MOUs. But when they do so, when they abuse their powers, Congress has the constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on them. This is clearly such a time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from New York (Mr. Bishop), the ranking subcommittee member on our Water Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

I am honored to yield 1 minute to another distinguished member of our T&I Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to a former member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, now a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close. As we have no further requests on my side under general debate, I will give my closing comments now.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

This is about the process, as I described in my opening comments, not the policy. This bill is not about whether the Members of this body support clean, safe water. We all support clean, safe water. I do not know a single Member in this House that wants to turn back the clock on the gains that this Nation has made in the last 40 years to clean up our rivers and streams. This bill is about process and precedent. It is about whether we should be allowing one Federal agency to run roughshod over the law, over the States, and over other Federal agencies to set policy according to political ideology. Now, I do not think we should be allowing any agency of our Federal Government to be run in that manner.

If this Congress allows the EPA to push the envelope in circumventing the law, in circumventing public comment and public participation, it lays the legal groundwork for the next administration to do the exact same thing--maybe under the guise of cleaner air and cleaner water, maybe under the guise of lowering those standards. But the precedent that would be set could be devastating. By not taking action, the Congress is tacitly giving the EPA the authority to do what it deems politically necessary, and that is something that this and every Congress has the responsibility to resist.

So this bill, Mr. Chairman, is not about whether any Member in this institution supports the ends that the EPA is trying to reach. It is about whether or not we believe that we should be allowed to use any-- any--means to reach those ends. And I do not believe they should.

There are plenty of Members on this floor today who believe that the intentions of the EPA with respect to its mission to ensure clean water are noble. I put myself in that category. But we all have to worry when an agency goes to such lengths to circumvent the Congress and the rulemaking process so as to impose its own agenda, because after the next election or the election after that or the election after that, some future EPA may not have such noble intentions. And if we fail to stand up today, we will suffer the consequences of our inaction later.

This bill is about transparency. It does not tell the EPA they cannot effect improvements in water quality. It says that they cannot do it without letting the people--the people--have a voice in the process. That's the way the rulemaking process is intended to work. But this EPA has effectively thwarted that process and thumbed its nose at the people by issuing guidance and treating it like regulation.

As I said in my opening comments, I wish we were not here on this bill today. I wish it would not be necessary. I would much rather see a cooperative Federal relationship among the agencies and the Federal agencies with the States and with the industries involved, but that has not occurred. And, therefore, it has created an era of mistrust, distrust, and bitterness, an outright scared attitude among our coal miners whether or not they will have a job next year or even tomorrow and for how long their current job will last.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I do conclude by speaking in support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

I rise in support of the gentlelady from West Virginia's amendment; let me state that at the very beginning. My only concerns here were attaching an economic analysis amendment to the pending legislation which is directed at the Clean Water Act interpretations.

The pending amendment by the gentlelady from West Virginia--which as I say, I support--would appear to me to more broaden the direction in which this bill goes, which I think detracts from the original intent of the legislation to zero in on clean water issues.

The gentlelady's amendment should be properly--I believe it is--the subject of another stand-alone bill that's been introduced in this body to judge the economic analysis. That legislation I support as well. I might add, in addition, that I brought this issue up with Cass Sunstein, who is the head of the White House Office of Regulatory Review, whose job it is to determine and to examine the economic analysis of regulations that come out of the Federal agencies. That is the White House Office of Regulatory Review's jurisdiction, not EPA's jurisdiction, as the gentlelady has paraphrased the EPA administrator; and as we've all heard her say, job repercussions is not necessarily part of her job description.

The unfortunate fact is that the Office of Regulatory Review under the White House jurisdiction has very limited staff and does not have the staff availability to examine the economic analysis of every regulation that comes out of every agency of our Federal Government, which they are tasked to do,

but certainly don't have the resources to fully do their job.

So the bottom line, I do support the gentlelady's amendment. I do worry that it overly broadens this particular piece of legislation and should be properly, as it is, the subject of a separate stand-alone legislation on its own.

Madam Chair, today, I rise on behalf of all of West Virginia's National Guard and proudly support the Miller/Rahall amendment based on my legislation, the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011--a bill to elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The body politic of the National Guard--nearly a half-million strong supports this amendment, as does the National Guard Coalition, composed of Adjutants General Association, the National Guard Association, and Enlisted Association of the National Guard.

The National Guard is one of our Nation's longest-standing institutions, empowered by Congress and providing to the States a highly trained and well-equipped force to protect life and property. Over the course of its nearly four-hundred year history, the National Guard has remained a dual State-Federal force, providing security on the home front and fighting threats to our Nation and our freedoms all over the globe.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 brought about historic empowerment changes for the National Guard, elevating the Chief of the National Guard to the rank of four-star general and providing the Chief a stronger voice inside the Pentagon. This year, the 2012 Defense Authorization bill also adds a vice-chief to assist with the increasing responsibilities of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. But we must do more in giving the Chief a seat at the negotiating table.

As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau would have responsibility and authority to advocate and coordinate the Guard's war fighting support and force provider mission with its homeland security and support missions to ensure the Guard has the resources to perform its multiple missions and fulfill its Constitutional role to our States.

Madam Chair, from the battlefield to the home fields, our National Guard--America's patriots--exemplifies sacrifice and commitment to duty.

West Virginians volunteer for the National Guard at nearly double the national rate. The West Virginia National Guard has 38 units and activities stationed in 22 counties throughout West Virginia, and currently has units deployed in military operations around the world.

The American people owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our nearly 500,000 men and women members of the National Guard in

service to these great United States. These extraordinary individuals maintain the Guard's multi-mission role--providing nearly 33 percent of America's combat power globally. Yet, simultaneously and with great skill, from approximately 3,400 community-based armories they serve their fellow citizens in defense of our homeland, and in support to States and local civil authorities and emergency response needs.

Now more than ever, this Nation is relying upon the Guard to wage combat on foreign soil, straining our resources here on the home front to respond to domestic disasters and the Guard's traditional duties. The training, equipping, and deployment of the Guard, and their budget, ought to be matters decided with input from the National Guard Chief at the highest levels of the military echelon. Now more than ever, the Guard needs a seat at the head table.

Mr. Chair, as we approach this Memorial Day holiday, I am humbly reminded of the distinguished service and sacrifice of so many of our fellow Americans, who are proudly serving our country in the armed forces around the world. Many of those men and women are members of the National Guard and Reserve Components. Many are from my home state of West Virginia.

For 35 years, I have been privileged to represent the people of southern West Virginia, and it is with humble sincerity I say, our West Virginia National Guard is a model example of a commitment to excellence, and professional dedication to America's defense. From the home front to the front lines, they are a well-trained, highly dedicated force empowered by Congress to protect life and property.

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11th nearly a decade ago, we have called upon our National Guard and Reserve Components to assume more mission responsibility with far more complexity, not only here at home, but in theaters around the globe.

Our Guardsmen and Reservists are true American patriots. We have asked them time and again to mobilize and deploy with more frequency than any other time in our history.

We call upon our men and women to fulfill missions of public safety and security on and between our borders here at home, and send them to foreign lands to combat terrorism abroad. They are among the first to be called in a domestic disaster and often the last to leave a battlefield. Maintaining this ability--their capability to ``turn on a dime''--does not come easy and quite frankly, it comes with much sacrifice.

Mr. Chair, the amendment I offer with my colleagues, Mr. McNerney and Mr. Young, would restore $10 million of critical funding to the Integrated Readiness Training Program and protect what has been proven to be a very effective and very successful training and readiness initiative of the National Guard and Reserves.

This Department of Defense program was established by Congress in 1998 to assist the National Guard in building facilities to train guardsmen, but also to provide an ancillary benefits to the communities where facilities are constructed and available for other purposes. Integrated Readiness Training projects are initiated by nonprofits, community organizations, and state and local governments.

The results are significant and have been above expectation. The cross-purpose projects have honed skills and capabilities of the Army Guard and created excellent partnerships between military branches and local community organizations, without significantly increasing training costs.

The Army National Guard supplemental federal funding requests have consistently surpassed $10 million annually. Cutting funding by 50 percent, as the underlying bill proposes to do, would drastically jeopardize current IRT commitments to organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America. It would reduce current and future training abilities, and diminish opportunities for our soldiers to interact directly with civilian agencies to provide a service or accomplish a mission.

Changing the process for budgeting for IRT projects at this point would disrupt projects already being negotiated and penalize our National Guard and Reserve Components.

I urge my colleagues to support Amendment 133. We have a responsibility to respectfully and gratefully fulfill our duty to support the integrity and intent of our Guard and Reserve forces, and effectively support and acknowledge the great sacrifice so many willingly make for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize Indian tribes to directly request the President for a major disaster or emergency declaration. This has been a priority for Indian country for over a decade and upon enactment, will treat Indian tribes as the sovereign governments that they are.

Currently, Indian tribes experiencing a disaster or emergency situation must rely upon a State governor to request the President for a declaration. Not only is this contrary to tribal sovereignty but it also requires the President to consider the State's, not the tribe's, ability to pay for the damages. The State's authority or willingness to provide assistance to the tribe is not considered in the determination process.

Under this legislation, tribes may still request the State to make the declaration on their behalf but it provides another avenue for those tribes who want to exercise their sovereignty or where a State may be unable or unwilling to make a request on a tribe's behalf.

I am pleased that the Republican co-chairman of the Native American Caucus, Mr. Tom Cole, and the Ranking Member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, Ms. Norton, agreed to cosponsor this important legislation with me. Letters of support have also been received from the National Congress of American Indians as well as other tribal organizations and individual Indians involved in emergency management.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1893, the ``Airport and Airway Extension Act, Part II.'' This bill gives Congress another month to complete work on a long-term reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration programs. I said this of the most recent extension almost two months ago, and I will say it again: I hope this bill will be the last FAA extension bill for a long time.

As my colleagues know, the House and Senate each passed long-term reauthorization bills earlier this year. Staffs have made good progress in negotiations to resolve a number of differences between the two bills; there are just a few open issues remaining.

The long-term bill's success, however, will depend on how those open issues are resolved. They are important issues. Many of them, I regret to say, have been controversial issues from day one. House Republicans have proposed to renege on our commitment to small communities and to end essential air service everywhere but Alaska; the Senate bill does not. House Republicans have proposed to repeal a National Mediation Board rule that guarantees fundamental fairness for airline and railroad workers deciding whether to join a union; the Senate bill does not. The House bill slashes funding for airports and FAA programs, with the mandate for the agency to somehow ``do more with less,'' when all available evidence clearly shows the agency will do less with less. The Senate bill does not.

These are differences that must be worked out, and I believe they can be worked out if both sides come together in good faith, put partisanship aside, and resolve to keep America's aviation system the world's best and finest. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this chamber and with our Senate counterparts to enact a lasting, long-term reauthorization that creates jobs, improves safety, and serves the interests of the flying public.

For the meantime, however, this one-month extension is necessary. Without its enactment, the FAA's funding, programs, and expenditure authority would lapse on May 31. H.R. 1893 will keep the FAA operating for another month, through June 30. It will give Congress one more month to complete work on a long-term reauthorization, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a fellow West Virginian, William Dotson, who is the honored inductee of the West Virginia Affordable Housing Hall of Fame.

It is fitting that the community of housing professionals honor Bill because of his sterling

record of commitment to our communities. He has earned the right to take pride in his holistic view of building a team in the office, and his successful planning gives us equal license to be proud of the many neighborhoods enhanced and communities strengthened by his vision.

Much more than an excellent public administrator, Bill pushed budgets and programs to fruition on little more than compassion and hope, and in the end, the course of people's lives were forever changed. His resume of experience and professional participation exhausts the reader, but it pales in comparison to the individuals and families to whom he provided dignity and proved the worth of the human endeavor.

Too often words like ``commitment'' and ``dedication'' and expressions such as ``long hours of hard work'' are bantered about, and then we meet someone with Bill's achievements. Words seem hardly enough.

Yet, what the public sector lacks in volume--namely money--it easily makes up for in heartfelt thanks. While Bill cannot cash it in any earthly banks, he can invest it here on a nice-sized spread that awaits him through the Pearly Gates.

And, while the poet could easily honor Bill as ``the friend of man,'' our great honor is to call him our friend, and offer him sincere congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, being honored this Sunday, by her hometown church, the Heart of God Ministries in Beckley, West Virginia, Madrith Chambers remains a woman of distinguished character, who early on dedicated her life to the betterment of her community. She knew that to make such service her destiny, she needed proper tools.

She enrolled in school and became a successful model. Then she became an assistant buyer for a major department store. Mrs. Chambers developed the poetry of style, which she still exudes to this very day.

In Washington, D.C., she served our troops and their families from Bolling Air Force Base to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to become an Air Force liaison to military families.

She came home to West Virginia, and did work as a legal secretary and cared for her growing family. She also took a job as a taxi cab driver.

An active citizen, Mrs. Chambers was appointed to the Beckley Human Rights Commission, where she served as Chairwoman for 9 years.

While working for the Social Security Administration, and knowing the value of a good education, Mrs. Chambers again pursued her educational goals while attending night classes at Bluefield State College. She obtained her long desired Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice Administration and Law Enforcement in 1985.

Upon Mrs. Chamber's retirement after 25 years at the Social Security Administration, she was elected in 1991, to the City of Beckley's Common Council, where she served for 12 years.

During Councilwoman Chambers' tenure on the Common Council, she was instrumental in accomplishing major improvements for Ward 5, and in the Beckley Community. In her first two years as Councilwoman, she was instrumental in getting the City of Beckley to annex the Red Brush community of East Beckley, providing families with fire and police protection, water and sewage, and door to door mail delivery, by getting the City of Beckley to pave the ``red dog'' dirt roads, throughout the Red Brush community of East Beckley. This project is one that she is most proud of accomplishing.

She possesses ``no fear'' in her determination to overcome obstacles to make life better for others. Councilwoman Chambers was also the first African-American City Council member in West Virginia to request and receive funding for projects through the Budget Digest of the West Virginia Legislature and was recognized for her efforts by former West Virginia House of Delegates Speaker, Bob Kiss.

Being a mother, and seeing the need for children to have fun and educational activities during the summer months, she was first to organize the now annual ``Kid's Classic'' in the City of Beckley. The ``Kid's Classic'' is a weeklong celebration that allows all children who live throughout Beckley and Raleigh County, an opportunity to come together during the summer, in a safe environment for educational and fun activities in downtown Beckley.

Throughout Councilwoman Chambers' public service career she has been a driving force in the Beckley community. She was instrumental in the recruitment and training of minorities to serve as Beckley City police officers and increased the total number of African-Americans serving as police officers from two to seven officers during her tenure on the Common Council, a major accomplishment. Councilwoman Chambers brought Community Policing to the East Park, East Beckley, and the Maxwell Hill communities with satellite police stations.

Councilwoman Chambers, under the ``Undoing Racism Project,'' facilitated training in the City of Beckley for various city personnel to develop sensitivity awareness in promoting fair housing and lending for minorities, health care, jobs and criminal justice. When entering the City of Beckley from the 1-77/64 interchange at Harper Road, travelers will be greeted with the words on an erected sign which states, ``We Respect Diversity.'' The sign was posted by the City of Beckley at the request of Councilwoman Chambers.

While serving as Mayor Emmett Pugh's representative on the Mountain State Centers for Independent Living, she advised the Mayor on how to help bring the City of Beckley into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, in meeting the mobility needs for individuals with disabilities. A short time after her tenure as Councilwoman, she secured donated land for the City of Beckley for the establishment of the Family Dollar Store, a national chain store built on the site of the former Pack's Supermarket in East Beckley. The opening of the Family Dollar Store in East Beckley provided employment opportunities for many of East Beckley's residents and is a source of great pride in the community.

Councilwoman Chambers' accomplishments are many. She has served as 1st Vice President of the Beckley-Raleigh County NAACP and was the first to run an African-American Girl Scout Troop in Beckley, under the Black Diamond Girl Scouts of West Virginia.

There were many firsts for Mrs. Chambers, she was the first African- American woman to become President of the Beckley Business and Professional Women's Club, the first African-American President of the Board of Directors for the Raleigh County Hospice Association, first African-American member of the Beckley Kiwanis Club, first African- American Woman inducted into the Women of the Moose in Beckley and continues to be active in that organization.

Councilwoman Chambers has been recognized for her many civic achievements in life. She was recognized by former West Virginia Governor Bob Wise for her leadership in the City of Beckley. Councilwoman Chambers received the ``Seat for Social Justice'' award from the Citizens Conservation Corps of West Virginia. The ``Seat for Justice Award,'' a uniquely designed artwork depicting a bus seat, is now on permanent display at the Beckley-Raleigh County Public Library.

Councilwoman Chambers is among two living employees who worked at the old Conley High School in Mullens, West Virginia, and was recognized for her professional achievements by the West Virginia Black Hall of Fame in 2010.

Councilwoman Chambers, a woman of deep abiding faith in God is a member of the Heart of God Ministries in Beckley, West Virginia. She is an accomplished pianist and over the years has served as pianist for several churches. Being the mother of three girls and two boys, she has a passion for life and endeavors to bring all brethren together for the good of the community.

In the old gospel hymn that she loves dearly, ``Let My Works Speak for Me,'' Councilwoman Chambers desires that her life be a living testimony of what God has allowed her to do and achieve in her public service throughout Beckley and the State of West Virginia. Her favorite scripture is from Psalm 133:1 ``Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.'' With God, all things are possible is her motto.

I hope all West Virginians will join me in recognizing the Honorable Madrith Chambers.

Mr. Speaker, on April 15, 2011, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 273. Had I voted I would have voted ``no'' on the Cleaver/Scott (VA) Amendment in the nature of a Substitute, rollcall 273.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican's ``Road to Ruin'' Budget Resolution for a variety of reasons, including because it will destroy hundreds of thousands of American transportation jobs--jobs lost in every state--and will severely jeopardize our Nation's economic competitiveness.

This Budget slashes investments in our people--from ending Medicare as we know it to destroying the family-wage jobs of highway construction--all the while, providing a double-digit percentage tax break for millionaires that most of them will not even notice. It makes Big Oil smile from ear to ear knowing that they can exploit $40 billion in tax loopholes, yet the Budget completely neglects millions of American potholes.

As the Ranking Member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and given that Congress faces major surface transportation reauthorization legislation this year, let me focus for a moment on what this Budget does to highway and transit infrastructure investment.

Consider this for a moment. Today, China spends nine percent of its GDP per year on infrastructure. India spends five percent of its GDP per year on infrastructure. Yet, the United States of America only spends 1.9 percent of its GDP per year on infrastructure. Woefully inadequate as it stands.

Yet, the Republican Budget cuts highway, highway safety, and transit investment by about one-third: one-third less bridge repair, one-third less safety improvement, and one-third less bus service is where this Budget leads us--destroying family-wage highway and transit construction jobs all along the way. And placing us in an even less competitive position than we already are against countries like China and India. Incredible. Simply incredible.

Over the next six years, the current budget baseline investment level for highway, highway safety, and public transit investments is $331 billion, including $316 billion of contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund and $15 billion from the General Fund.

Based on the assumptions included in the Republican Budget, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Republican Budget provides only $219 billion of Highway Trust Fund funding over the next six years. In effect, the Republican Budget slashes surface transportation investment by more than $100 billion over the next six years.

Let me repeat that, because I want my colleagues to be very aware of what this budget proposes to do in this area. Today is the 100th day that the Republicans have been in control of the House and today they are proposing to cut more than $100 billion from investments in America's future. Investments that keep our economy moving and help to ensure that America remains a good place to do business. One hundred days in control of the House and they want to slash $100 billion from transportation investments. They haven't brought a single jobs bill to the Floor of this House, and yet, today, to mark their 100th day anniversary, here we are debating a Budget that will destroy half a million highway jobs. Amazing.

According to a CBO analysis of the Republican Budget assumptions, this Budget will slash current year highway funding from $41.1 billion to approximately $27 billion in fiscal year 2012. A 34 percent cut in year one of the reauthorization bill will destroy more than 490,000 jobs over the coming years. West Virginia cannot afford a $143 million cut in highway investment next year. This investment and its 5,000 good-paying jobs are critical to our mountain economy and ensuring that rural America shares in the great opportunities provided by our country. Put simply, middle class Americans cannot afford the Republican ``Road to Ruin'' budget.

Finally, the Republican Budget destroys any pretext that Republicans will restore the highway and transit budget firewalls that they wiped away on the first day of their new majority in the 112th Congress. When Congress enacted those firewalls in 1998 to restore the trust to the Highway Trust Fund and keep faith with the traveling public, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with former Republican Committee Chairman Bud Shuster. We lost that battle on the Budget at 3:00 a.m. in May 1997, but, one year later, won the war with enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century establishing the budget firewalls, which have served the traveling public for the past 14 years. As their very first act in the majority, Republicans broke the ``trust'' of the Highway Trust Fund.

There was a time when Republicans were proud of their heritage in leading the way on infrastructure investment. They were the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower.

To my good friends across the aisle, do not let infrastructure investment become a mere footnote in the legacy of your party.

Join with me and let us rebuild America.

Let us provide the building blocks to ensure that every community and all of our people have an opportunity to succeed.

I urge my colleagues to join with me and defeat H. Con. Res. 34, the Republican Budget Resolution.

I thank the chairman for yielding the time to me, and I appreciate his and his committee's work on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody in this body is for dirty air or dirty

water or any of the adjectives that have been used to describe the supporters of this legislation. Certainly the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act and other worthy pieces of legislation that Congress has passed over the decades have worthy goals and have achieved tremendous progress for this country. And there is not a person in this country, I dare say, that would want to renege on a lot of the positive initiatives that have been achieved under these pieces of legislation.

No singular government agency, however, is sufficiently positioned to tackle the complex solution required to address carbon emissions. The answer has to be multipronged. It must involve innovation and investment in addition to reductions. It must be crafted taking into account the realities of the effect that emission reductions will have on the economic recovery this country is currently experiencing and on jobs, especially in the heartland of America. These are not matters that the EPA is required to consider or equipped to address.

To simply allow the EPA to move ahead on its own in crafting a national strategy on climate change is a recipe for disaster. It assures a lopsided solution to a broad and cumbersome challenge. And, what may be worse, it does not provide for the kind of transparency and the kind of public input that is needed for a viable, long-term solution.

It is one of the eternal truths of our form of government, Mr. Chairman, that the public has to be involved, it has to be informed, and the public must be engaged. This legislation is crystal clear in its message that the EPA has gotten ahead of public opinion and that the Congress now has a responsibility to pull it back.

I support this legislation, and I urge its passage today.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare bring economic security within reach of working American families, regardless of income. Workers deserve the benefits they are owed after a lifetime of paying into these programs.

And, yet, there are some, driven by blind ideology and partisanship, who aim to chip away at those guarantees, bit by bit. There are budget proposals--reducing the operating expenses for the Social Security program, and curtailing the ability of Social Security to pay benefits--that hint of a radical restructuring of the program. There are budget proposals that are unabashed in their radicalism toward Medicare.

In the name of fixing deficits in other areas of the budget, some will try to point fingers at seniors programs as the culprit, but don't you believe it. We must be extremely cautious and jealous in protecting Social Security and Medicare, or we may find that they will be taken away forever.