Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it has been 1 year since the fatal explosion at Upper Big Branch Mine, 365 days since we lost 29 courageous coal miners--fathers and sons, brothers and friends. We vowed then that some good would come from this terrible tragedy. We can say that criminal investigations are almost complete, enforcement has toughened, the Congress has increased funding to target pattern violators, and yet coal miners are still dying in our coal fields.

It's easy to doubt. It's easy to question whether things can be made better. I find inspiration in the Biblical verse from Romans: ``Glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulations worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope.'' Never lose hope that we can improve the health and safety of miners in the coal fields. Never lose hope that we can pass tougher mine safety laws and that we can enforce those laws and save lives.

There are plenty of good coal companies in America, companies that put time and effort and money into making their workplaces safe in which they operate. They are forward-thinking coal companies, with strong safety records that have designed programs aimed at protecting the lives and preserving the health of their miners. They want to see those bad actors, those companies that have tarnished the reputation of an important industry, reined in. They do not accept a world in which they must compete against companies that would sacrifice the health and lives of their own employees for competitive advantage and blatant profit.

There are plenty of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who recognize that legislation is necessary. Congressman Miller, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and I, along with many others, will continue fighting for reforms to give the agencies the tools they need to target the bad actors. We want to ensure that sound companies that have good records can continue to perform and produce, but we just as surely want to ensure that the worst operators can be reined in and that lives can be saved. We can strike a balance, and we will.

Changes and improvements may come slowly, but they will come. As long as coal miners and these brave, courageous families continue to demand that the loss of their loved ones not be in vain, they will come.

The April 5 disaster of 1 year ago was a tragedy that never, ever should have occurred. We must provide accountability, and we have a duty to institute changes that will help prevent a repeat of that awful day. Those 29 coal miners should not have perished, and for them and all those miners on the job today, we must keep speaking out.

Tonight, I will be at the 1-year anniversary with the families of all of these perished coal miners. I will look in the eyes of their loved ones once again as I did that painful week following their tragedy 24 hours, 7 days a week. We will join and we will commemorate these good men and the people who came together to try to rescue them--to them we say thank you--and to provide comfort and a final closure to these families, which we have yet to do.

These families want accountability, they want the truth, and they want to ensure that no other families ever have to suffer the way they have. Chairman Miller, Lynn Woolsey and I remain committed to their cause. I urge my colleagues to join us in this life-saving, important endeavor.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, it was just last week two airliners landed at Washington National Airport without landing clearances because apparently the single person in charge of the control tower fell asleep. While investigations are ongoing, we certainly have seen accidents in the past where controller staffing and fatigue were implicated, such as the August 2006 crash of Comair Flight 5191 in Lexington, Kentucky.

So I was surprised when some of my Republican colleagues used this most recent incident at Washington National Airport as an opportunity to argue that the FAA should ``do more with less.'' Do more with less: that's how the Republicans think the FAA will operate under this bill. When we're talking about investing in air traffic control modernization or regulating safety or hiring a sufficient number of safety inspectors, there's no such thing as ``doing more with less.''

Under this bill, the FAA will have to do less with less, and you would have to be asleep at the controls not to see that.

The FAA is primarily a safety agency, and virtually all of its activities are safety related. As last week's incident should make clear, now is not the time to arbitrarily cut almost $4 billion from the FAA programs and argue that the agency can do more with less on safety. A long-term FAA reauthorization bill must move the aviation system into the 21st century, create jobs, strengthen our economy, and provide the resources necessary to enhance safety. This legislation, unfortunately, does not meet those goals. It will require significant changes before it can be enacted into law, and therefore I cannot support it.

One thing we should all be honest about right now: this is not a jobs bill. The bill cuts FAA funding by billions of dollars, back to 2008 levels. You cannot cut funding so dramatically without destroying tens of thousands of jobs: Federal jobs, State jobs, local jobs, public and private sector jobs.

In addition to costing jobs, the bill's funding cuts would cause delays to air traffic control modernization, meaning more delayed flights, a reduction of FAA's safety workforce and delays to FAA safety rules.

Now, aside from the funding levels, there are two particular issues that preclude my support for this bill. The first is that the bill sunsets the Essential Air Service program for the lower 48 States in 2013, leaving behind about 110 communities across the country. Yet at the same time, the bill extends airport improvements to the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. We do not even own them. They are independent countries.

Now, I do understand the reasons for providing airport improvement funds to these island nations. We do have a compact with them. But in seeking to keep faith with our agreements with those countries, the majority is more than willing to break the promise to rural America right here at home that was made under the Airline Deregulation Act and the FAA reauthorization bills that followed.

EAS is a vital lifeline between rural communities and the global network of commerce. Small and rural communities have grown up around EAS, which directly supports local jobs. It creates a flow of goods and commerce into and out of small-town America. It brings families together. It links four communities in my home State of West Virginia with other cities and towns around the country and around the world.

Essential Air Service is an investment; it's not a handout. It is an investment in jobs and economic growth for small towns. The majority is turning its back on small towns and rural America.

I will continue to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to honor the promise that Congress has made to the people in rural America. I recognize the job-protecting benefits of the EAS program and the value of critical Federal investment for rural communities.

Now, before I conclude, there's another section that has no business whatsoever being in this bill, and that is a provision that seeks to overturn a rule finalized by the National Mediation Board on fair union representation in elections. The rule did away

with an unjust and undemocratic requirement under which a supermajority of airline and railroad workers had to vote in favor of union representation before a union could be certified to represent them at the bargaining table. Non-votes were counted as ``no'' votes, even though there was no reason to conclude workers were against union representation because they were sick or on furlough and did not vote.

The new rule, which this bill would overturn, says that the mediation board must count the votes among those employees who voted and must determine the will of the workers according to the ``yes'' and ``no'' votes actually cast. Now, just as congressional elections turn on a majority of those who voted, union representation elections should reflect the will of the voters.

This is a poison pill provision. A provision to overturn that rule simply has no business being in this legislation. It has nothing to do with safety. It has nothing to do with improving our air transportation system. And it has absolutely nothing to do with making air service more efficient. Rather, it is a lightning rod of controversy, part of a concerted assault, as we've seen too often this year, on collective bargaining. Republicans and Democrats alike have opposed it. It barely survived in the committee markup by a single vote. This unprovoked and unnecessary provision has no place in such critically needed legislation to keep the FAA moving forward and the flying public safe.

When it comes to doing more with less, my friends on the other side of the aisle are correct about a few things, I have to admit, when it comes to the pending legislation:

More than 70,000 jobs lost with less funding for the AIP program. More risks to the traveling public with less safety personnel and initiatives. More assaults on collective bargaining rights for American workers. More controversial poison pill provisions with less focus on job creation and safety enhancements.

Yep, that's doing more with less.

With warning lights flashing and alarm bells ringing, we cannot afford to go to sleep at the controls at such an important time for our aviation system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), our leading Democrat on the Aviation Subcommittee who has been in the trenches, on the runways, and in the towers of this legislation for many years. He has been with the takeoffs and the landings of so many extensions.

Madam Chair, I would defer to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the lead Democrat on our Highways and Transit Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield an additional 15 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the sincere efforts of the chairman of my committee Mr. Mica, the subcommittee chairman Mr. Petri, and our ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Mr. Costello.

There have been serious efforts to work in a bipartisan way, but I fully realize that on the majority's side a lot of these decisions, a lot of these funding levels are not necessarily made by

the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, but rather by other forces that are out there on the majority's side. I also recognize that a lot of these decisions are made at levels higher than the chairman's, at levels higher than even that at which airplanes fly. So this is not all necessarily the chairman's fault.

I think it would be fair to warn the body that the administration has issued their position on this legislation. And they say that if the funding were appropriated at the levels proposed in the bill, the safe and efficient movement of air traffic, on the ground and in the air, would be degraded today and in the future.

And, more importantly, the administration has reiterated its opposition to the poison pill labor provisions in this bill, and has said if the President is presented with a bill that would not safeguard the ability of railroad and airline workers to decide whether or not they would be represented by a union based upon a majority of the ballots cast in election, or that would degrade safe and efficient air travel, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that the House do not accept this bill. We have even further degrading amendments to safety that will come later in the amendment process that I want to reference very quickly at this point, including one that would allow more flyovers at sports events.

I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This would go against a ban instituted after 9/11 that prohibited flyovers at sports events for safety reasons. So that comes later on in the amendment process. I think it just shows the threats that we are posing to the safety of the air traveling public if this bill were to pass as it is. I urge its opposition.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I oppose this amendment because, for me, it raises two key concerns.

First is that the amendment would basically create a liability shield for airlines and airports that are negligent and cause airplane crashes.

Last year, Congress directed the FAA to require airlines to implement safety management systems. Using these systems, airlines will use data to identify risk and improve safety. The FAA is likely to require airports to adopt similar systems.

Under this amendment, adoption of a safety management system would give airlines and airports a total ``pass'' on liability for their ordinary negligence. It would deprive passengers and their families of the right to seek compensation for damage caused by airline crashes. The right to go to court and seek compensation for damage caused by the negligence of another person, including an airline or airport, is an intrinsic part of our law. This amendment would take that right away, and I cannot support it.

My last concern is about a provision in the amendment dealing with lithium batteries. The transport of lithium batteries without appropriate safety checks has been proven to present hazards that could bring down an airplane. This amendment would lock the United States into following international standards on transporting lithium batteries that set the floor, not the bar that we should aspire to. It would prevent airlines from conducting acceptance checks of battery shipments and it would derail essential rulemakings by the Department of Transportation to ensure that lithium batteries are transported safely.

For these two reasons, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in vehement opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, here we go again.

The majority is continuing what started out in some of the States this year and has been going on with more vehemency in this body. They are continuing attacks on the collective bargaining rights of workers. They are continuing to blame the workers of this country for the economic ills.

I think it's worth noting that the gentleman from Texas just noted the trouble that people have had complying with Davis-Bacon over the years. It has been around since 1931 when two Republicans by the names of Davis and Bacon instituted the Davis-Bacon law.

Study after study has shown that, despite the opponents' claims, the Davis-Bacon Act has had little or no effect on the total cost of federally assisted construction projects. In fact, there is a study that shows that the high-wage States actually attract more productive, effective, highly skilled, and safe workers, making the cost per mile of highway construction actually cheaper in high-wage States than in low-wage States.

It's important to note as well that here we are in an economic recovery, and these Republican continued attacks on our workers of this country at a time when we are slowly, however slowly, pulling out of a recession and entering a recovery do not make any sense at all.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this continued attack on the workers' rights of this country.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. Chairman, I guess this is part of the mantra of the majority on this particular bill: do more with less, when actually what we're doing is less with less, because there would be less wages paid to our American workers if this amendment were to be adopted, and there would be less safety provided to our American workers. There would be less health care coverage provided, less pension care coverage, less efficient, less highly skilled workers if this gentleman's amendment is adopted.

So I conclude by urging all of our colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it's very clear that the other body would not accept this amendment if the bill goes over to them with this in it. It's clear that the President of the United States would not accept this bill with the current language because he has already said he will veto it if it comes to his desk in this way.

So I guess the proponents of this particular provision are just wanting to continue to pass extension after extension, thereby threatening airport improvement, threatening to halt airport construction, just as they're threatening to shut down our government.

It's not about unions. It's not about increasing union representation. It's about fairness. It's about what's right for the American worker. That's all we're talking about in this particular amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is about what's right for American workers.

Section 903 of the bill repeals a rule of the National Mediation Board, which is the law of the land, that was finalized to provide for fair and democratic union elections among airline and railroad workers.

The rule has not opened the floodgates to unionization. But it has made union elections fair.

Under the prior rule--the rule that would be reinstated by this bill--a majority of all eligible voters had to vote in favor of a union, in order .for that union to be certified by the National Mediation Board as their representative. That was undemocratic and unfair.

The current rule requires the mediation board to count ballots according to those who actually voted. The majority rules. That is a precept of our democracy, and it should control in union elections just like it controls in any other election.

The National Mediation Board's rule is right, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to keep it the law of the land.

I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I am in opposition or not, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Will the gentleman yield?

I'm just wondering if the gentleman has consulted with TSA or Department of Homeland Security or FBI, the various agencies that were concerned about safety at such sports events following 9/11 and for which many of the stadiums and sponsors of these sports events have instituted and spent millions of dollars in safety who have legitimate concerns that one attack may make it all for naught.

Because the gentleman is aware of a letter we've received from the major sports organizations, Major League Baseball and the National Football League, the NCAA, expressing their opposition to your amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think I just heard what I was looking for in the gentleman's concluding comments there, that he's willing to work with anybody that has these legitimate safety concerns in order to make sure that everything is clear on this going forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from California for bringing this to our attention and for bringing his amendment to the floor. It has our total support as well.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I commend her for her diligent work on this issue and for bringing her amendment to the floor of the House. It is all about fairness, and I rise in support as well.

If the gentleman will yield, the chairman and I have finally found something we agree upon. I agree as well.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

First I want to read through the rules of the House and what I understand is a congressional earmark. Under clause 9 of rule XXI, a congressional earmark is defined as a provision included at the request of a Member authorizing or recommending spending authority for an entity or targeted to a specific locality or congressional district.

The amendment before us qualifies as a congressional earmark. The gentleman from New Mexico specifically is requesting the provision.

In addition, the amendment authorizes spending authority for Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Subsection (b)(2) states: ``Any amount received by the County for the conveyance,'' which clearly contemplates the county receiving funding pursuant to this provision. Therefore, the amendment qualifies as a congressional earmark under clause 9 of rule XXI.

Moreover, under clause 17 of rule XXII of the rules of the House regarding Members' Code of Conduct, a Member requesting a congressional earmark must provide a written statement to the chair and ranking member certifying that neither the Member nor his spouse has a financial interest in the earmark. I don't question that at all here, but I am just saying what the rules are.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the rule waives all points of order against the amendment. However, is there any way to ensure that the gentleman from New Mexico files the appropriate financial disclosure certification with the Committee on T&I required under clause 17 of rule XXII?

These disclosure requirements were included in the House rules in the 110th Congress under the Democratic majority. They have served the House well. Merely what I am trying to do is ensure that the sunshine provisions continue to be the standard of the House.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's last sentence of his amendment says: ``Any amount received by the county for the conveyance shall be used by the county for the development, improvement, operation or maintenance of the airport.'' So it does seem there is some transfer of value here or some monetary, or if not monetary, some value of some sort that is being conveyed to the county.

Reclaiming my time, what is the value the Federal Government is getting here?

Except toward the county.

Reclaiming my time, I raise these questions, Mr. Chairman, because what looks like an earmark, walks like an earmark, smells like an earmark, must be an earmark.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin for yielding.

I do rise in support of her amendment, which would allow the FAA to conduct demonstration projects in support of aerotropolis zones around airports. These zones would encourage compatible land uses around airports. They would also facilitate transportation projects that would improve airport access and reduce congestion.

These projects would not be required, but this amendment would give the FAA the flexibility to encourage the development of aerotropolises around our Nation's airports, which would be for the benefit of the flying public and local economies.

I commend the gentlelady on her amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to second the comments he's made about the fairness on both sides of the aisle. I think the chairman has been particularly fair and, as stated, is willing to work with so many Members on amendments, whether he has accepted them today or not.

I also commend the staffs on both sides for their hard work. Mr. Petri, I commend his leadership, and Mr. Costello as well on my side of the aisle. And let's all hope this is the last time we go through this this year on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Frank Woodruff Buckles, a fellow West Virginian and our Nation's oldest surviving World War I veteran, who was buried today at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors.

When asked to explain his long life, Frank Buckles answered, ``Hope.'' All of America's veterans hope that their service will not have been in vain. They hope that their service leads to a better future for our Nation and the world. And they hope that the freedoms secured through their sacrifices will live long past their days with us on this Earth.

We honor our veterans and their dedication to duty and selfless sacrifice. Nourishing the memory of their contributions feeds our own generation of hope.

Today, our Nation honors the mortal remains of Frank Buckles and memorializes a generation of Americans, whose common purpose, whose lasting hope, was so nobly advanced by their last comrade.

Mr. Speaker, while Marshall University is the oldest public institution of higher education in West Virginia, tracing its founding to 1837, it took nearly 125 years of sustained growth before the normal school established on a knoll in rural Cabell County would truly come of age.

Compared to the news that seems to grab attention nowadays, it is probably difficult for today's students to understand the significance of the granting of university status to the former Marshall College. But 50 years ago, the designation as a state university meant far more than just a name.

Video footage and still photographs shot on Marshall's campus the day the news broke that the West Virginia Legislature had passed the university bill depict a student body that celebrated as if the football team had won a national championship. A special edition of The Parthenon hailed, ``We are now Marshall `U'!'' Crowds gathered as ``College'' was symbolically chipped off one of Marshall's state highway historical markers. Students taped over the word ``college'' on the team sweatshirts they proudly wore. Cheering and running across campus, they acted as if a war had just ended. And, in essence, that is exactly what had happened. March 2, 1961, marked the end of a multi- year battle for Marshall's official recognition as an advanced higher learning institution in the state of West Virginia.

In his book, ``Marshall University: An Institution Comes of Age, 1837-1980,'' Marshall historian Dr. Charles H. Moffatt noted that in 1961, university status would make Marshall the first university located in the vast stretches of central Appalachia between Lexington, Kentucky, and Lexington, Virginia, and between

Athens, Ohio, and Knoxville, Tennessee. At the time, many states had only one state university, as was the case here, with West Virginia University in Morgantown being the sole university among a handful of higher education institutions in the Mountain State.

Dr. Stewart H. Smith, president of Marshall from 1946 to 1968 and for whom Smith Hall is named, fought many years for his beloved college to earn university status by engaging legislators, backed by strong local support, and working on a public front to change attitudes about a second university in West Virginia. Many thought the state should support only one large university, fearing another would drain resources from West Virginia University.

Smith argued that Marshall had earned university status because of the number of academic programs and advanced degrees offered, as well as the growth in enrollment. Smith, local legislators and area leaders said the change in status would not only help Marshall recruit more students and retain better faculty, it also would result in more federal funding and private donations, and help to bring more businesses to the state.

By 1960, following the establishment of Marshall's College of Applied Sciences, a request was made to the state Board of Education to accord the institution university status. The board approved the request in October 1960, and the battle for a change in State Code to make it official began.

Smith had strong support from Huntington-area legislators, and he joined them in carrying the fight to lawmakers from across the state and to the governor's office. He unified the Huntington campus and, along with the elected officials and other Marshall supporters, they persevered. The so-called Marshall bill passed the West Virginia Senate on February 16, 1961, and cleared the House of Delegates shortly after. Governor W.W. Barron signed the bill and dedicated a brand-new Gullickson Hall at the same time during a ceremony on Marshall's Huntington campus on March 2, 1961.

As he put his pen to the paper, Governor Barron said, ``It is my privilege and pleasure to place my signature on legislation to change the name of this splendid educational institution from Marshall College to Marshall University. It is my sincere wish that Marshall's future will be resplendent with new pride and progress . . . which I am convinced will aid all of West Virginia.''

The university and city celebrated. It was a turning point in the university's history and set the stage for what has indeed been a new generation of pride and progress as Marshall has grown to serve more West Virginians than ever.

Dramatic changes have occurred in the 50 years since. Enrollment has more than tripled and the campus infrastructure has been completely transformed. The Marshall community experienced unimaginable devastation with the plane crash in 1970 and witnessed an incredible rebirth through the 1990s, a story that was retold with a star-studded motion picture in 2006.

Marshall now offers 159 majors and 105 degrees through its 12 colleges. The university boasts the nation's finest graduate program in forensic science, and a top-ranked School of Medicine and transportation research institute. Marshall has developed a reputation for bioscience research and has in recent years established new programs in engineering, physical therapy and health informatics. Marshall also is launching a new School of Pharmacy, expected to field its first class of students in fall 2012.

The state's investment in Marshall has more than paid off, tripling in the past few years under current President Stephen J. Kopp's leadership. The most recent economic impact study, completed in 2010, conservatively estimates that Marshall returns $20 for every state dollar invested in the university, and helps to create more than 6,000 jobs.

Kopp has overseen more than $200 million in new capital projects and major building renovation. Since 2005, Marshall has launched 10 new high-demand degree majors or programs and doubled its research grant funding.

Marshall's impact will grow even more, as the university expects record enrollment in fall 2011 and more than $50 million in planned infrastructure improvements and new buildings over the next few years.

This growth would not have been possible without the vision and leadership more than 50 years ago from Dr. Smith and local legislators who recognized the need for Marshall to become a university. And, while there has been tremendous positive change since 1961, Marshall's mission will always be to serve the people of West Virginia and the entire region.

A hundred years ago, Professor Walter Raleigh addressed the meaning of the university. He said, ``We owe an enormous debt to those who went before us; we can pay it, or a part of it, only to those who come after us. We must pass on our inheritance; and if we really can make here and there, as no doubt we can, some additions and improvements, to compensate the irrecoverable depredations of time and mortality, we are happy indeed. Anyhow, here is work enough for a University, and motive enough to urge us on to the work.''

A hundred, indeed, hundreds of years hence, Marshall University will continue passing on our inheritance as long as we give it the support and encouragement it so nobly deserves.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011. As my chairman has said, this legislation extends the Federal-aid highway, public transit, and highway and motor carrier safety programs through the end of the fiscal year September 30, 2011.

I commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Mica, for his bringing this bill before us today. I also associate myself with the remarks that he has just said in support thereof. I commend him for the listening tour that he has embarked around the country, as well as a few formal hearings thrown in his listening tour. This gives the country and new Members of this body an opportunity to learn a great deal about what reauthorization of our surface transportation programs really means when it comes to jobs and when it comes to infrastructure, particularly within each Member of Congress' congressional district.

Extending these programs is absolutely critical to keep our economy on the road to recovery, and I strongly support this bill--as did my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--when we passed it out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 2 weeks ago by unanimous consent. I also want to support and commend our ranking member on the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio, for his tremendous work in previous years and on bringing the current bill before us as well, and we will hear from him in a moment.

While I do strongly support this bill, Madam Speaker, what I cannot support are Republican attempts to gut investments that grow our economy. The Republican spending bill that passed 2

weeks ago will destroy over 300,000 good-paying transportation jobs-- jobs lost in every State of this great country. What I cannot support is dangerous and draconian cuts across the board to investments in America's future. And these cuts are coming just at a time that our economy is turning the corner. And what I cannot support is cutting the job-creating muscle of our budget, which investment in our infrastructure is, when we should be focusing on trimming the fat. In order to keep pace with India, China, and other international competitors, we need to invest more, not less, in America's infrastructure. If we stop investing in the future, there's simply no way we can retire the debt of the past.

The bill before us today is identical to legislation that the House passed last fall. Regrettably, at that time, Republicans objected to it, and the Senate Republican leadership insisted that the surface transportation programs expire on March 4, 2011. I'm glad that my Republican colleagues have now come around and recognized the need to extend these vital programs through the fiscal year. I hope all Members will vote for this bipartisan extension to keep America's economy moving.

If Congress does not extend the surface transportation programs, the U.S. Department of Transportation will stop reimbursing States for expenditures on approved projects, and thousands of construction projects across the Nation could come to a screeching halt. According to DOT, a delay in enactment of this bill will shut down more than $800 million next week in highway reimbursements and transit grants to States and urban areas, endangering more than 28,000 jobs and multimillion dollar construction projects across the country.

This bill provides a certainty that the construction industry needs to continue the slow climb back from the greatest recession since World War II. It also enables Congress the necessary time to work toward passage of a long-term surface transportation authorization bill later this year. Enactment of this extension act will enable us to redirect our focus to developing a long-term bill that begins to address the Nation's enormous infrastructure needs and will create millions of family-wage jobs.

I also today call upon the administration to join us in this effort to get behind this reauthorization bill and give it the necessary support from the executive branch that it needs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 662.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a valued member of our committee, the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson).

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, once again, I do appreciate the work of Chairman Mica in his bringing this extension to the floor of the House--as he has already noted, the sixth extension of SAFETEA-LU. This will take us to the end of the fiscal year. It will give us the spring and the summer to continue to work together in the bipartisan spirit with which Chairman Mica has started his tenure as chairman of our committee, and I do look forward to continuing to work with him.

I, once again, call upon the administration to work with us as well under the very capable leadership of Secretary LaHood. I am sure that the administration will work with us if it will just give us some proposals and will put some concrete ideas upon the table with which we can work in a bipartisan and bicameral measure.

This is a job-saving piece of legislation. Although a permanent reauthorization would provide a much greater degree of certainty, it helps provide some degree of certainty to our construction industry so that it can plan and invest in what are not short-term jobs but, rather, good, long paying, family wage jobs for our people. That's what we're talking about when we talk about investments in infrastructure. That's what we're talking about in this legislation; so I urge my colleagues, as I conclude, to support this in a bipartisan fashion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. The chairman has adequately explained it, and I fully concur and urge its adoption.

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

I thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding, and I rise in support of my colleague from West Virginia's amendment, Mr. McKinley. This particular action in regard to the Spruce permit is an insult to the integrity of the mine-permitting process.

The particular mine in question is located in my congressional district. The permit was negotiated with the EPA in good faith by the coal company over a space of 10 years. The permit was then granted 3 years ago and just recently was revoked by the EPA. It goes against the grain of what I think should be good-faith efforts by coal companies to negotiate with the EPA, recognizing that they can't get all they want in a permit application and therefore some withdrawal, some compromise is necessary. That was done in this particular case in a painstaking process over 10 years, and the permit was granted. Now to have it revoked is indeed an insult to the integrity of the mine permitting process.

The EPA was given authority in the Clean Water Act to weigh in on permitting decisions of the Corps of Engineers to help ensure a balance between environmental protection and activities like energy development.

In that regard, the EPA could and should be a positive, constructive force. But its methods over the last two years have reformulated the permitting process in ways never envisioned under the law.

It has used its limited legal role to wrest control of the process from the Corps of Engineers where the chief responsibility for 404 permitting legally lies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in EPA's veto of the Mingo-Logan Coal Company's Section 404 permit for its Spruce Fork No. 1 mine.

In 1998, the operator of that mine applied for a permit to construct what was, at the time, the largest surface mine ever attempted. The mine was immediately the target of a lawsuit, of legislative debate, and federal regulatory action.

Over the course of the next several years, the company, the Corps, and the EPA engaged in intensive negotiations. The mine became the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement--the first ever written for a surface mine.

In the end, in January of 2007, as a result of much compromise and revision, an Individual 404 permit was awarded by the Army Corps. That was nearly ten years from the date the company first made application.

But on September 3, 2009, the EPA reneged. It sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers asking that the Corps suspend, revoke, or modify that 2-year-old permit--a request the Corps flatly refused. Then the EPA took the further, ground-breaking step of issuing its own veto.

So, under one EPA Administrator, the 404 permit for this mine was approved. Under another Administrator, it was vetoed.

If the EPA can veto this permit--a permit 10 years in the making--not a single, solitary thing stands in the way of this EPA, or some future EPA, should it decide--for whatever reason--to reach back and veto a previously granted permit for coal mining or any other activity. Without some degree of finality, permitting is worthless.

I still believe that achieving balance between energy development and environmental protection is a goal we can and must achieve.

But the EPA must not be allowed to dwell in the mindset that job losses are an inevitable result of protecting the environment. The coal miners of the Appalachian region deserve a fair, clear, and consistent regulatory process.

Toward that end, Mr. Chairman, I join in urging my colleagues to support this amendment to rein in an EPA gone too far.

Mr. Speaker, one hundred and thirty nine thousand and sixty eight visitors and residents and still counting have cast votes to designate Lewisburg in my home State of West Virginia, as the coolest small town in America. Whether victory in this contest is ultimately ours or not, we have learned a lot, reminded a whole lot of our friends not to be strangers, and have won new interest from around the country. To all those who competed in this year's effort, we salute you. Of course there are many towns across this great country and in West Virginia that are cool, worthy of recognition, and multiple honors. But to be the coolest, you have to heat up a lot of energies, and fire up plenty of old fashioned grit and hard work, and burn untold candles at both ends, and exhaust a multitude of warm hearts.

And Lewisburg has done just that. Not just in the last year, either. Lewisburg's charm, its endearing hospitality, historically spans the centuries, back to America's earliest beginnings. Nestled in the peacefully lush valley of the Greenbrier River, Lewisburg has hosted Presidents and Generals, Yankees and rebels, patriots and loyalists.

Historic Lewisburg is the county seat of Greenbrier County, and named after Andrew Lewis, a young surveyor, who, in 1751, established a camp near the spring, located behind the present courthouse, and known since that time as the Lewis Spring. In 1782, Lewisburg was formally established by an act of the Virginia General Assembly. The Old Stone Church in Lewisburg, the county seat, was the first Presbyterian Church built west of the Allegheny Mountains and has been in continual use since 1786.

The Greenbrier Valley and mineral-rich springs were fertile grounds for prosperous farming and elegant resort hotels and spas for visitors.

Today, Lewisburg--with its many 18th and 19th century buildings--is home to families, young professionals, and senior citizens and hosts thousands of visitors from all across America and around the world each year. Its vibrant performing arts community offers live performances by artists from around the world, arts in education programming, classes, workshops, fine art exhibits, an independent film series, and more in its own Carnegie Hall--one of only four Carnegie Halls still in continuous use in the world.

But above all its fine attributes, Lewisburg's lasting legacy will be its people, and their close knit neighbors in West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise on behalf of all of West Virginia's National Guard and proudly introduce 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 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.

Our National Guardsmen are true American patriots. Theirs is a proud story of tradition, service, sacrifice, and uncommon acts of heroism. They make each of us so very proud.

Aristotle said, ``Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way . . . you become just, by performing just actions . . . brave by performing brave actions.''

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, 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, we call upon our National Guard 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 called to aid in a domestic disaster and have oftentimes been the last to leave a battlefield.

This year the National Guard will mark its 375th birthday. Formed as colonial militias, the new colonies in North America depended upon the Guard to protect fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later to help achieve our independence. Recognizing the militia's role for the newly formed United States, the Framers of the Constitution empowered Congress to provide for training and equipping the militias.

Since the Guard's founding and through an historic journey of ``call outs'' and stand out missions--from the bayou communities ravaged by Hurricane Katrina to the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War--our National Guard has seen its Federal mission change.

Our National Guard has a duty and commitment to the citizens and communities of the States in which these soldiers call ``family'' and ``home.'' It is a military service tradition that has been challenged by long-term and multiple deployments to front lines in two active theaters, and in support of missions in all corners of the globe as directed by our Nation's Commander in Chief.

Therefore, it is not only our duty, it is an absolute necessity, that Congress take action to elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff to serve as an advocate and liaison for the National Guard of each State to inform of all actions that could affect their Federal or State missions.

In a nation such as ours, it is a stunning reality that today we ask our brothers and sisters, husbands, and wives to serve around the globe to preserve democracy and promote freedom. But in our country, where every voice counts, our Nation's active duty leadership excludes the voice of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.

Congress must ensure the National Guard has appropriate input during the planning and budgetary process within the Department of Defense, and end the challenge to live with ``after-the-fact'' process, as is now the case.

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 warfighting 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.

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

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.

I urge my colleagues to support the Guardians for Freedom Act of 2011. We have a responsibility to respectfully and gratefully fulfill our duty to support the original intent of our Constitution for each State to maintain an organized militia with integrity, and effectively support and acknowledge the great sacrifice so many willingly make for all of us.

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

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 72. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, Federal agencies can, and do, abuse their regulatory powers.

For the last 2 years, in my own district, coal miners in communities that depend on coal have been struggling with the uncertainty created by the Environmental Protection Agency that has pushed its regulatory authority to extremes.

As a result of EPA's extensive intervention in Clean Water Act section 404 permitting for service mines, miners in my district and their families are in an untenable limbo, wondering from week to week whether their mines will get a permit and whether their jobs will end.

EPA is setting new timelines and new criteria for permits, timelines and criteria that differ from what is in statute and regulation. And they are doing so not through the proper regulatory procedure, but through interim guidance, skirting the rulemaking process that would provide for greater transparency and public comment.

The agency is setting a terrible precedent that opens the door for further abuses in future administrations. So I stand here today supporting the contention that Congress ought to check overzealous executive agencies. We ought to be conducting rigorous oversight and siphoning off regulations that hamstring our economy and the wellbeing of Americans. And I fully expect our committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to soon review the EPA's actions with respect to coal mining permits throughout central Appalachia.

But I also remind my colleagues that this is not a new responsibility. It is the duty placed on Congress, the people's branch, by the Framers of the Constitution, who knew firsthand the abuses of an all-powerful executive.

Nothing in this resolution changes or enhances that responsibility. Rather than expending so much time, energy, and taxpayer dollars in a display on this floor that provides the Members of this body and the American people not a single ounce of new or enhanced benefit, we ought to be concentrating on the real work. We ought to be moving legislation that creates jobs, good family-wage jobs.

There is no better way to create family-wage jobs than investing in our Nation's transportation and water resources infrastructure. These investments create and sustain millions of American jobs and generate billions of dollars of economic activity.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, for example, each $1 billion of Federal investment creates or sustains 34,799 jobs and $6.2 billion of economic activity. Moreover, these investments strengthen our ability to compete in the global marketplace.

It is for these reasons, creating family-wage jobs and strengthening our global competitiveness, that the presidents of the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO have linked arms in support of increased infrastructure investment. Yet, in the first six weeks of this Congress, the only action to date has been to wipe away the legacy of former Republican Chairman Bud Shuster, the budgetary firewalls that ensured that we invest the revenues of the Highway Trust Fund in highway and transit infrastructure. We have abolished the ``trust'' in the Highway Trust Fund.

In the last Congress, the House passed a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that significantly increased airport investment, including runway, terminal, and tarmac construction. The bill also authorized and accelerated the FAA's next- generation air transportation system, which will be an engine of economic growth. It will benefit airlines, workers, the traveling public, and the FAA over the long term, providing greater job security and opportunities for the Nation's 567,000 airline workers and the 624,000 employees that work for companies that manufacture aircraft and components.

We also passed a bill to help cash-strapped States and communities invest almost $14 billion in wastewater treatment facilities and sewer lines.

In addition, the committee, on a bipartisan basis, approved a $500 billion Surface Transportation Authorization Act to significantly increase investment in highway transit and rail infrastructure. The bill would create and sustain an estimated 6 million jobs.

Finally, our committee on T&I approved a water resources development bill to invest in our Nation's water resources infrastructure and an Economic Development Administration reauthorization bill that provides grants to economically distressed communities to help them build the necessary infrastructure to foster business investments and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, these are the bills that we should be debating on the floor today. These are the bills that make a difference in people's lives.

We cannot wait. The construction season is upon us, and 1.9 million construction workers are still out of work.

They need a job, not another feel-good resolution from this Republican majority.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all time on the resolution be yielded back and that H. Res. 72 be adopted so we can move to consider legislation creating jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to our distinguished leading Democrat on the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in recognition for one of West Virginia's most beloved sons, a genuine and proven leader, an American patriot, and my dear friend, Major General Allen Tackett.

Tomorrow, after 48 years of faithful service to our State and our Nation, General Tackett will step down as Commander of more than 6,000 West Virginia citizen soldiers and airmen. He will begin his retirement having earned the outstanding distinction of not only being the longest-serving adjutant general of the West Virginia National Guard, but also of being our Nation's longest-serving adjutant general.

In West Virginia, the men and women of our National Guard are held in high regard by their fellow citizens. Since 1995, through the leadership of General Tackett, they annually rank number one in the country for mission readiness. Whether it is a perilous flight mission in the depths of winter to rescue military personnel trapped in our deep, snow-covered mountains, or a mission to provide aid and comfort to fellow West Virginians ravaged by flood waters, or deployed to far corners of the world to protect our democracy and ensure peace around the globe, the West Virginia National Guard has answered the call, time and again.

From the Civil War that gave birth to my State, to present-day wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the record of service by so many patriotic West Virginians places our State in the top percentage of all Americans who have

donned America's uniform. As Mountaineers, we are incredibly proud of our record and extraordinary military leaders, like Major General Tackett, who rise from the ranks to train, lead, and mentor our soldiers and airmen with great honor, personal pride, commitment, and sacrifice, and an enduring passion for the freedoms in our democracy.

The American people owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our 362,192 men and women members of the National Guard, who in service to the United States, maintain the Guard's multi-mission role--providing nearly 33 percent of America's combat power globally--and, simultaneously and with great skill--serving their fellow citizens in defense of our homeland, in support of state and local civil authorities, and fulfilling emergency response needs.

For decades, there has been a significant evolution in the missions and capabilities of the National Guard. As General Tackett has so aptly stated, ``Not since World War II has the Guard been so vital to our overseas mission, and not since the founding of our Nation has the Guard been so vital to the defense of our homeland.''

For over 34 years, I have been privileged to represent the people of southern West Virginia, and it is with humbleness and sincerity that I say, from the home front to the front lines, our West Virginia National Guard is a model of the commitment to excellence and professional dedication to America's defense, thanks to the commitment, vision, and leadership of Major General Tackett.

Therefore, it is my honor and great privilege to commend Major General Allen E. Tackett, the Adjutant General of the West Virginia National Guard: For his 48 years in service to our country; for his 25 years served in Special Forces units; for his vital contributions--with the force and voice of U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd--working to block the closing of the 130th Airlift Wing by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 2005; for his passion for education and creating hope and opportunity through his support for programs such as, the West Virginia National Guards' Tuition Assistance; and for his work with at- risk youths through the National Youth ChalleNGe program.

Mr. Speaker, on occasion, Senator Byrd enjoyed comparing General Tackett's skills to those of the Carthaginian General, Hannibal. I agree with the Senator--when Allen Tackett tackles a problem, it is as if his opponents are facing a thunderous herd of raging bull elephants. Today, I join my fellow West Virginians in recognition and congratulatory acknowledgement of the great achievements of Major General Tackett as he begins this new chapter in his life with his beloved wife, Sallie.

Mr. Speaker, West Virginians still smiling?

It seems improbable that it could have been fifty years ago, that America's youngest new leader, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, took center stage, here at the U.S. Capitol, to assume the Presidency. He delivered an inaugural address that ignited the hopes and energies of a generation that would, in large measure, take up his call to serve their country.

It was, of course, the good people of my home State of West Virginia, who launched the youthful Senator's campaign for the presidency in the 1960 West Virginia Democratic Primary Election. In May of last year, the golden anniversary of the campaign was celebrated with exhibits, readings, talks, films, recording oral histories and other festivities to mark the pivotal turning point in Senator Kennedy's campaign. In Logan, West Virginia, the courthouse square was christened `Kennedy Square.' At Southern West Virginia Community and Technical College, a course on the campaign has been taught for years. Plans have been discussed about pursuing a permanent exhibition in Logan, commemorating the campaign, his Presidency and their impact on our State.

Many of my constituents have personal fond and lasting memories of the Kennedys' visits during the campaign and then as President. I, myself, credit President Kennedy's Inaugural Address with my earliest interest in pursuing public service.

The Kennedy voice was much more than a call to action, it was a blueprint for the future: the Peace Corps, VISTA, Appalachian Regional Commission, Head Start, Medicare and a slew of other efforts to level the playing field for Americans.

Though President Kennedy's address was one of the shortest in history, it earned him lasting respect from untold generations of Americans and our allies around the World. I would suspect the humble, self deprecating President would demur at that comment. But, his ever present humor and wit was in good form at the June 1963 American University Law School graduation of our very own, Senator Robert C. Byrd, when Kennedy, himself, quipped about brevity as he began his remarks: President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school while I am earning mine in the next thirty minutes, ladies and gentlemen. . .''

In 1963, it was a rainy day in Charleston, West Virginia, when President Kennedy attended our State's Centennial celebration. He opened his comments with these remarks, ``While the Sun doesn't always shine in West Virginia, the people always do.'' President Kennedy's words fifty years ago still ring through our hills and manifest themselves through many avenues, enriching our lives with his federal initiatives, calling young and old alike to give of themselves for their fellow citizens, and bringing a smile to all those who remember or are just learning of the West Virginia Kennedy legacy.

I hope the Kennedy Inaugural Address will be read in classrooms and community centers and town squares to celebrate this anniversary, and that, we together, work to fulfill the challenges it presents every American Citizen. Let us go forward with his words firmly in our resolve, ``knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.''

Madam Speaker, West Virginians' hearts are heavy for our fellow citizens lost last weekend in Tucson, Arizona. To those recovering, our dear colleague, Gabby Giffords, our thoughts and fervent prayers are offered.

Our country's resolve is strengthened each time it is tested. Citizen participation is the democratic bedrock of our more perfect Union.

Representative Giffords understands the value of constant constituent conversation, and her example shines as a beacon for public office holders throughout our Republic to follow.

May Gabby's dedication to others serve her recovery, as the blessings we celebrate in the Book of Ruth, ``a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age.''

I thank the distinguished gentlelady for yielding the time.

While I regret I did not hear all of the previous colloquy, I do want to express my strong reservation and opposition to these rule changes because of the effects it would have on transportation-related issues.

The Republican rules package eliminates the current rules' direct tie between revenues to the highway trust fund, paid by the users through gas taxes at the pump, and the level of investment for these programs.

Currently, House rules provide that appropriators must fund highway and transit programs at levels set forth in surface transportation authorizations. This provision was championed by a Republican, our former colleague Bud Shuster, and was put into place to prevent funds building up in the highway trust fund to be used to mask the true size of the Federal deficit. The provision was intended to stop the same old smoke-and-mirrors game of Federal spending.

As their very first act as the majority, I find it incredible that Republicans would want to pursue a job-killing proposal like this, one that not only threatens jobs, but which could lead to dramatic reductions in spending for very necessary and worthy highway projects throughout the Nation.

Americans understand and they support paying motor fuel taxes at the pump, so long as they are guaranteed that those funds will be spent on transportation. The Republican rules package smears that guarantee and will have a potentially devastating effect on the level of Federal investment in vital highway and transit programs.

After more than a decade of effort by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the House adopted the current rule in 1998. The principle was simple: Gas taxes collected to improve highway and transit systems must be used for that purpose. The previous rule restored trust to the trust fund, and it has served the House and our Nation well for the past 12 years.

Today, the House Republican majority breaks that trust. They are returning to the ways of old--no hearings, no public debates, no discussion with any Member on this side of the aisle on the effects of the proposed rule on transportation investment.

Regrettably, these issues are steeped in arcane budget rules, so, therefore, many Members, especially new Members, are not aware of what they are voting on and its consequences.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rules change, as do so many highway contractors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 5, the new Republican Majority's proposed rules for the House of Representatives.

The Republican Rules package eliminates the current Rule's direct tie between revenues to the Highway Trust Fund--paid by users through gas taxes at the pump--and the level of investment for surface transportation programs. This rules change will have a devastating effect on transportation and infrastructure investment.

Currently, House Rules provide that appropriators must fund highway and transit programs at levels set forth in surface transportation authorizations. This provision was championed by a Republican, our former colleague Bud Shuster, and was put into place to prevent funds building up in the Highway Trust Fund to be used to mask the true size of the federal deficit.

As their very first act in the Majority, I find it incredible that Republicans would want to pursue a job-killing proposal like this. One that not only threatens jobs but which could lead to dramatic reductions in spending for very necessary and worthy highway projects throughout the Nation.

Americans understand, and support, paying motor fuel taxes at the pump so long as they are guaranteed that those funds will be spent on transportation. The Republican Rules package smudges that guarantee and will have a potentially devastating effect on the level of Federal investment in vital highway and transit programs.

After more than a decade of effort by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the House adopted the current rule in 1998. The principle was simple: gas taxes collected to improve highway and public transit systems must be used for that purpose. The Rule restored ``trust'' to the Trust Fund, and it has served the House well for the past 12 years.

Today, the new Republican Majority breaks that trust. We will soon return to the days where gas taxes are collected and used not to invest in infrastructure, but to hide the size of the deficit.

The new Republican Majority also institutes a new ``Cut-Go'' rule to cut spending. However, in the process, the Republicans have obliterated the basic premise of the Highway and Airport and Airway Trust Funds. Under the new Republican rule, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure cannot bring a bill to the Floor that increases highway, public transit, or airport infrastructure investment (contract authority) financed by revenues from the appropriate trust fund, unless the bill makes cuts to other mandatory programs. It does not matter if the Trust Fund has the resources to finance the investment; the Committee still has to provide offsetting cuts. The basic premise of the transportation trust funds--user fees are collected to finance infrastructure improvements--is obliterated.

Regrettably, because these issues are steeped in arcane budget rules, I fear that Members are voting on this package without understanding its consequences. I regret that the Republican Leadership, which has talked so much about transparency and openness, begins this Congress, on its first day, with the ways of old: no hearings, no public debate, and no discussion with any Member on this side of the aisle on the effects of the proposed rule on transportation investment.

You do not have to take my word for it, listen to the transportation community: State Departments of Transportation, public transit agencies, highway contractors, equipment manufacturers, the trucking industry, moving companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, highway users, and construction workers all vigorously oppose the rules.

And you can listen to what Wall Street thinks of the effect on Republican Rules package on highway construction companies: although the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up yesterday, highway contractors and material suppliers took a significant hit throughout the day: Martin Marrietta, down 6.5 percent; Vulcan Materials, down 5.2 percent; Granite Construction, down 4.4 percent; CRH Oldcastle, down 4.4 percent.

As one Wall Street analyst who downgraded two of these firms stated in a written investment report specifically citing the Republican's Rules package:

``. . . [T]his is not an encouraging signal from the new

[Republican] congressional leadership in terms of its

commitment to infrastructure spending. . . .''; and

``. . . a move to allow revenues previously set aside for

road spending to be spent elsewhere would not only act to

reduce total [highway] spending levels but also limit

visibility amid an already constrained outlook by the lack of

a multi-year highway bill.''

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for transportation. The Republican Rules package creates uncertainty in an industry that cannot afford it. The Republican Rules package will hurt highway, transit, and airport construction companies and kill jobs.

I urge my colleagues to join me and defeat H. Res. 5. Let us go back to the drawing table and work together to help the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Rhoda Virginia Hofstetter on her 100th birthday. This birthday of birthdays, we honor an entire century of dedication to family, friends, colleagues and students.

Rhoda made a tremendous difference and improved so many young lives because of her life-long career as an educator. In 1933, she graduated from Marshall College--now known as Marshall University--and went on to teach mathematics at Lenore and Williamson High Schools in Mingo County, and at Lookout High School in Fayette County. From 1965 to 1973, Rhoda served as Supervisor of Mathematics for Fayette County. In 1973, she retired after 40 years as an educator and supervisor. Her beloved husband, Martin Hofstetter, passed away the same year.

Rhoda endlessly worked for the betterment of southern West Virginia, not only through her career as a teacher, but also through her active involvement--which continues to this day--as a Charter Member of the Ansted Garden Club.

Rhoda is a pillar of strength in her community of Ansted, where she has resided since 1946. Her devotion to education, family, friends and community is an example for us all.

I offer my personal congratulations to Rhoda, and wish her continued good health and happiness in the future.