Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in southern West Virginia, ``family'' has a very special and sacred meaning. Its definition goes far beyond the traditional; more than a group of individuals related by blood or marriage. It is an ideal that transcends all West Virginians; an institution protected, trusted and revered by all. It is the core thread woven into and throughout the fabric of the values we treasure most.

Today, I rise to honor a family of West Virginians from the Logan County community of Pine Creek, in the coalfields of southern West Virginia. They are nine brothers, nine of the eleven sons of the late Olive and Oscar Adkins, who collectively served in our Nation's military for more than 100 years. This is truly a ``band of brothers'' for which our Nation owes a debt of gratitude.

Shakespeare outlined the honor and drew distinction for the Band of Brothers in the famous St. Crispin's Day speech, a motivational speech delivered to troops about to enter battle in Act IV of the play, Henry

Mr. Speaker, while I support the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act, I am extremely disappointed that it does not include language from previous years to prevent the Administration from moving forward with increases in TRICARE pharmacy copayments and enrollment fees.

As a cosponsor of the Military Retirees Health Care Protection Act, which would prohibit increases in TRICARE costs for servicemembers, I do not believe our brave soldiers and their families should have to bear the burden of closing our Nation's deficits.

For thirty-five years, I have fought to expand and protect affordable, quality health care for our servicemembers, and I will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present last Thursday, I would have voted for the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, H.R. 1633, as well as the Synthetic Drug Control Act, H.R. 1254.

H.R. 1633 would prevent the EPA from issuing any new rule over the next year to regulate coarse particulate matter, or ``nuisance dust.'' While there is no such regulation currently pending, the concerns of my constituency with respect to the possibility that such a rule could be used to prevent coal mining or may interfere with farming or construction activities prompt my support of this bill.

H.R. 1254 would expand the list of Schedule I narcotics under the Controlled Substances Act to include cannabimimetic agents, the chemicals that are commonly known as synthetic drugs. The bill would prohibit the sale, distribution, or use of those chemicals without a permit issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

Synthetic drugs, sometimes known by their street names as K2, Spice, and bath salts, imitate the hallucinogenic and stimulant effects of illegal drugs. Synthetic drugs can affect the brain in a manner that is similar to Schedule I drugs and are sold to consumers as harmless alternatives to marijuana, cocaine, or methamphetamines. There are numerous instances where the use of these drugs has resulted in agitation, anxiety, seizures, tremors, hallucinations, paranoia, and death.

Drug abuse is a serious health problem in southern West Virginia, one that threatens our communities, our homes, and our children. Too often, there is a misconception that these imitation drugs are not as dangerous as the Schedule I narcotics they seek to simulate. That's a gross distortion that this legislation seeks to correct. I believe we must be unrelenting in getting these designer drugs off the streets and out of the hands of our children. Passing this legislation will help us to send a clear moral message that these synthetic drugs carry with them deadly consequences-- not just for the users, but for their families and communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2845, the ``Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011''.

This legislation will make significant improvements to pipeline safety, and is a prime example of how good public policy is formed when all sides come together and work toward producing a strong package from day one.

Pipelines have a critical place in our nation's infrastructure; more than 2.5 million miles of pipelines deliver energy to homes and businesses across America. From the gasoline that fills the cars we drive to the diesel that fuels the trucks that deliver food to local grocery stores to the natural gas that heats our homes, pipelines make it possible.

Unfortunately, due to the volatile nature of the products that pipelines deliver, incidents involving gas and hazardous liquid pipelines can and have had disastrous consequences.

On July 26, 2010, a 30-inch pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy Partners LLP ruptured and released more than one million gallons of oil into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River just one mile south of Marshall, Michigan. The Kalamazoo River flows into Lake Michigan. The spill devastated the local environment and wildlife, uprooted homeowners that live near the creek and river, and exposed local communities to noxious and toxic substances before Enbridge even raised alarm. Nearly a year and one-half later, Enbridge is still excavating oil-contaminated soil and weathered oil from the river banks; submerged oil recovery work has been suspended for the winter but will resume in 2012.

A little over a month after the Enbridge spill, on September 9, 2010, an intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, ruptured in a residential area in San Bruno, California. The released natural gas ignited, resulting in a fire that destroyed 38 homes and damaged 70 others. Eight people were killed, many were injured, and many more were evacuated from the area.

The bill before us today addresses many of the recommendations that were issued by the National Transportation Safety Board in accident reports that followed these and other pipeline incidents. For example, the bill holds pipeline operators accountable to a maximum of one hour to report a release of hazardous liquid or gas resulting in an incident. As the natural gas disaster in San Bruno, California underscores--every minute that passes following a release of hazardous liquid or gas from a pipeline is one less minute that responders have to protect the community and the surrounding environment. In fact, CNN was reporting the incident six hours before PG&E reported it to the National Response Center and Federal investigators.

Additionally, the bill raises civil penalties for each pipeline safety violation from $100,000 to $200,000 and the maximum civil penalty from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. The maximum penalties for violations of pipeline safety regulations under current law have not been increased in almost a decade. Adequate levels of penalties are necessary to deter unsafe operating practices by the pipeline industry, particularly in serious cases involving injuries, fatalities, and significant environmental damage. The bill further clarifies that civil penalties are applicable to obstruction of an investigation.

The bill also:

Requires pipeline operators to install automatic shut-off valves on all new and replaced pipeline so that the volume of product released as a result of a rupture would be limited;

Requires the Secretary of Transportation to evaluate and then issue regulations to expand integrity management beyond high-consequence areas; establish performance standards for leak detection systems; and require hazardous liquid pipeline operators to install leak detection systems that meet those performance standards;

Requires pipeline operators, in response to the San Bruno incident, to report to the Department of Transportation any time their facilities exceed maximum allowable operating pressure, and to conduct tests to confirm the material strength of previously untested gas transmission pipelines in high-consequence areas;

Prevents States that receive one-call grants from exempting municipalities, State agencies, or their contractors from one-call (damage prevention) notification requirements;

Requires the Secretary to ensure offshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and hazardous liquid gathering lines located within the inlets of the Gulf of Mexico are subject to the same safety standards and regulations as other hazardous liquid gathering lines;

Beginning one year after the date of enactment, prohibits the Secretary from issuing guidance or a regulation that incorporates by reference any documents or portions thereof unless those documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge, on an Internet Web site;

Requires the Department of Transportation, DOT, to develop and implement a protocol for consulting with Indian tribes to provide technical assistance for the regulation of pipelines; and

Increases the level of pipeline safety inspectors at DOT.

In sum, H.R. 2845 is a step in the right direction when it comes to pipeline safety, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chair, in recent weeks, the House of Representatives has taken up three major bills designed to address concerns about executive agency overreach in regulatory proposals.

I supported the first two bills--H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, and H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I believe they would have improved the current regulatory approval scheme. The bills alternatively would have codified the use of critical cost-benefit analyses and the consideration of less costly regulatory alternatives, and helped to ensure the opportunity for additional public participation, especially in regard to small businesses. Both bills contained provisions

that would have helped to address the concerns of my State, which has felt under siege in recent months by a raft of regulatory actions affecting the coal industry and emanating from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Today, the House is considering H.R. 10, the Regulations in Need of Scrutiny Act. This bill would require the Congress to approve all major rules projected to cost $100 million or more. I believe this is, at the very least, an impractical idea, given the number of rules that would have to be considered in the midst of other legislative business. It also raises serious questions about the legal status of rules promulgated by the executive agencies and approved by the Congress, subjecting even the least controversial rules to potential litigation in the courts. In addition, it subjects the Congressional schedule to the whims of the executive agencies and their regulatory agenda.

But worse still, I believe such a requirement could be detrimental to the functions of government, the certainty required by business, and the stability desired for the economy. Considering the inability of the current Congress to pass important and even popular legislation, the requirements of this bill would almost certainly put rules, even rules supported by the business community that endorses this bill and rules that may be promulgated by future Administrations more favorable to business, in complete limbo.

In this Congress, bipartisan efforts like the surface transportation reauthorization have become mired in partisan squabbles; the Federal Aviation Administration suffered a partial shutdown when a mere extension of its authority was tangled in a partisan mess. When matters of such importance to our nation, matters that are clearly necessary to get our country back on the right economic track, are sidelined indefinitely, I question whether it is wise to subject so many rules to the uncertainty of the Congressional approval process. What's more, when one of the most stringent complaints about the current regulatory process centers on concerns that proposed regulations are politically motivated, it makes no sense to further subject them to the whims of an inherently political institution.

So, while I support critical Congressional oversight of executive agency rules, more public input in the rulemaking process, better cost- benefit analyses of the impact on businesses large and small, and the consideration of less costly regulatory alternatives, I must decline to support H.R. 10.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following.

Watching coal-miners at work, you realize momentarily what

different universes people inhabit.--George Orwell.

George Orwell was humbled by coal miners--brave and earnest individuals who work hard hours, often in cramped, damp, lamp-lit corners far below the surface of the Earth. He was shocked by the living and working conditions he witnessed while he boarded in the coal mining communities of Northern England, accompanying the miners underground to see, first-hand, the hot, horrible conditions under which they labored.

``Down there,'' he wrote, ``where coal is dug is a sort of world apart which one can quite easily go through life without ever hearing about. . . . It is so with all types of manual work; it keeps us alive, and we are oblivious of its existence. More than anyone else, perhaps, the miner can stand as the type of the manual worker, not only because his work is so exaggeratedly awful, but also because it is so vitally necessary and yet so remote from our experience, so invisible, as it were, that we are capable of forgetting it as we forget the blood in our veins.''

Even now, in an age of Twitter and reality TV, when every aspect of life can be beamed around the world in an instant, it is too easy to forget about the miner and his daily digging chores, sequestered far from our view, though intimately connected to so many of our daily needs and desires.

Yet, from time to time, something happens to remind us of that separate world. Unfortunately, that something is, too often, a tragedy, like the explosion at Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine in Southern West Virginia, on April 5, 2010, that took the lives, far too soon, of 29 hardworking men.

In the hours following that explosion, reporters from around the Nation flocked to the mine site, nestled in a rural mountain fold not far from my home. Every phase of the attempted rescue effort was captured and broadcast around the globe, and for many tense and worrisome hours, coal miners were very much on the minds of the world, holding its collective breath and hoping for a miracle--a miracle that was not be.

Now, after the passing of many months, it is clear that the loss of those 29 miners was not due to one unpreventable, fateful incident, but, instead, it was the result of a pervasive, long-running, callous corporate culture that put production and profit far above people.

It is no coincidence that, today, the Mine Safety and Health Administration is releasing its final report on the UBB disaster. This day, December 6th--the anniversary of the 1907 Monongah Mine disaster, the worst mining disaster in American history--is also the Congressionally designated ``National Miners Day.''

I am proud to have been the author of the House Resolution that sought to establish this date as a milestone of national recognition and remembrance of America's miners. It is a shameful truth that each advance in our Nation's mine safety system has come only after a mine disaster. But I hope that this day might alter that tradition and serve to bring the miner out from the dark of the mines into the national light for at least one day each year. It seems to me far preferable that our national conscience be kindled not by tragedy, but, instead, by celebration.

And so I urge that, at least on this one day each year, the Congress and all Americans will turn our attention to recognizing the contributions that miners have made to our Nation--its economic vitality and its military strength. And that we will take this annual opportunity to help ensure that these men and women are assured of safe, healthy, humane conditions in which to earn an honest living. America and American miners deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call to my colleagues' attention, during these times of budgetary debate, the significant savings realized by the taxpayers of our country by the vision and work of one of my constituents, Mr. Mike Whitt, the Executive Director of the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority.

In pursuit of sound, forward-thinking economic development initiatives, Mike was light-years ahead of other jurisdictions when he began forging public-private partnerships to save taxpayer dollars, leveraging public funding and above all creating good paying sustainable jobs for families. No slick financing schemes; no hocus pocus accounting tricks here. Mike did his homework and did it well. He still does. Anyone, who has ever had the good fortune to participate in one of his project presentations, knows they have to be on their toes to answer detailed questions about what they can bring to the table.

Mike has travelled the country sharing his valuable time with agencies and associations to spread the word about how some old- fashioned hard work in planning economic development ventures upfront can save millions in the end. He has given freely of his experience and expertise so others can adopt his sensible and thoughtful approach to investing public funds to address citizen's needs for a darn good return on the taxpayer's dime.

As we debate ways to improve our budget in the coming weeks, I hope my colleagues will look to the results sound public investment can yield when that investment is married with private investment and properly managed. I am certain the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority will be happy to share their accomplishments.

In a larger sense, Mike Whitt serves as a bright beacon to all who strive to serve the public, administer public programs, and manage public funds. Our country owes Mike a debt of great gratitude for his work and his years of sacrifice away from family and friends to serve the public good.

Recently, Mike has been battling some health issues. Mike is a man of great faith, a strong fighter, who has the courage of his convictions. We know though he appreciates the power of partnership, so we welcome your thoughts and prayers for Mike and his family as he tackles this personal challenge.

I thank the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Washington, for yielding me the time.

In recognition of the tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to annually move bills to reauthorize the Coast Guard and the indispensable services it provides to the Nation, I am inclined to support this effort if it will improve the condition and readiness of the Coast Guard.

My home State of West Virginia may not be a coastal State; but our many stakeholders who use our inland waterways, such as shippers, tug and barge operators, and recreational boaters, appreciate the services provided by the Coast Guard, our guardians of the sea.

For example, the Coast Guard's National Maritime Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia, handles the processing and approval of all mariner credentials for roughly a quarter million mariners. Additionally, the Coast Guard's Marine Safety Unit Huntington, located in Barboursville, West Virginia, inspects vessels, conducts casualty investigations, and ensures port security along the Ohio River and other navigable waterways.

These and other vital services provided by the Coast Guard directly support our maritime commerce, which is critical to the future economic health of our country. Yet despite widespread acknowledgment of its importance, the Coast Guard has rarely received sufficient resources to accomplish its many complex missions.

I am disappointed that the authorized funding levels in this legislation again fall short of the services' needs.

Just this week, we learned during the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee's hearing concerning the Deepwater Horizon disaster that the Coast Guard's marine environmental response capabilities have dwindled due to a lack of funding.

We cannot expect the men and women of the Coast Guard to put their lives at risk to save the lives of others if they are forced to operate from inadequate facilities and to utilize equipment that has long since passed its expected lifetime. If we expect our ports and waterways to remain safe and secure and if we want our maritime economy to be vibrant and growing, adequate investment in the Coast Guard is not an option but a requirement.

I also wish to express my concern about the ballast water provisions, a separate title--in fact, a wholly separate bill--stitched into this legislation, but not seamlessly and not without consequence.

Numerous State and local economies have had to deal with the immense costs associated with the invasion of plants and animals that hitch a ride into our country through dumped ballast water. Coastal States are spending millions each year to control invading species, and each year, more and more invaders threaten to become established in our waters.

For these reasons, I support the provisions that call for the adoption of stringent national standards for ballast water treatment technologies. These advances would help to prevent the introduction and spread of these invaders and ensure the efficient flow of critical commodities through waterborne transportation. But, unfortunately, tucked within the appealing treatment technology provisions of this added title lies a poison pill that this House would be foolish to swallow.

All this year, this Congress has been advocating an enhanced role for the States in protecting their economies and environment. The mantra has been: Back off the States. Remove the heavy hand of the Federal Government and allow the States the space to oversee their own programs. But now, tucked into the folds of this bill is a complete about-face. Rather than respecting State powers and allowing them the freedom to, in limited circumstances, set higher standards to protect their own waters and their own residents, this bill imposes a down- from-on-high, one-size-fits-all approach.

I find it ironic that, on an issue on which the States have taken a leading role in the absence of Federal action, this legislation would prohibit States from having any role in protecting their local resources. So I say to my colleagues that we have a choice to support the benefits provided by this bill without also swallowing the bitter anti-States' rights pill.

An amendment offered by my colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop) would protect the States. The Bishop amendment represents a surgical fix that enables the States to nominate ``no discharge zones'' to protect important State waters.

Contrary to some claims, the amendment would not allow a State to shut down vital shipping zones or exempt all its waters from ballast discharges. The amendment specifically addresses these concerns, preventing a State

from taking such action. It provides for limited exemptions just like those available to the States in section 312 of the Clean Water Act for sanitary discharges--an exemption, I would point out, that has been used only 26 times. The Bishop amendment would restore the historic balance between the States and the Federal Government intended by the Clean Water Act.

If the Members of this body believe that States' rights must be protected from Federal overreach, this bill begs the question: Are you with the States or against the States?

I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), and I urge its adoption as a critical fix to an otherwise worthy bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to make that critical fix and to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is always hard to say goodbye to a valued staff person, but today is especially difficult in wishing Julie Watkins a fond farewell as she begins her retirement.

Julie has served the people of West Virginia as a staff member in the U.S. Congress since 1989, almost 23 years.

Julie began her Congressional tenure working in the mailroom for West Virginia's beloved Senator Robert C. Byrd. She later moved to Senator Byrd's front office, where she was a Staff Assistant who proved her commitment daily to her job. Rising at 3:15 a.m., each morning, in order to drive from rural Virginia to be in the office by 5 a.m., Julie impressed Senator Byrd and everybody on staff with her diligence and hard work.

Julie later was promoted to Front Office Manager and then Office Manager, training every new Staff Assistant who came to work in Senator Byrd's front office, forty-eight in total, while she was in that position. After fifteen years, in 2005, she left the front office to try her hand at casework. Senator Byrd, who thought so very highly of Julie, was deeply reluctant to let her go--refusing to accept for the longest time that Julie was no longer looking after his front office--a position upon which he placed tremendous value. She had been, for so long, his warm, welcoming, efficient representative to so many West Virginians whenever they called for help or came to visit Capitol Hill.

When Senator Byrd passed away last year, I was fortunate that Julie agreed to come to work on the House Natural Resources Committee, on which I was Chairman. She worked in my Committee office, and later graciously moved to my personal office, once again resuming the vital duties of the front desk.

I cannot help but feel a little boastful in saying that I succeeded where Senator Byrd did not in convincing Julie to move back into the front office. I know, however, that Senator Byrd would be so proud to know that all of Julie's skill and experience were still being employed, at least for a little while longer, in serving the people of West Virginia.

Julie is one of those prized Congressional staffers who master their job. Many times they are not high profile positions, but they are essential to a smooth running office and to ensuring that our constituents are well and effectively served. Julie knows what so many of us forget or fail to understand: filling the copy

paper each morning, checking the fax machine so it works properly, knowing the right contacts in the Superintendent's office when something needs fixing--these sometimes seemingly little things are of big importance. Julie had a keen eye for catching those little things and always looked after them to ensure that everyone else could do their job better. She is ever dependable, ever reliable. When Julie gets an assignment, you know it will get done and get done right.

I know I speak on behalf of the entire Rahall staff, as well as the staffs of the Natural Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees who have had the pleasure of working with her, when I say that Julie will be deeply missed. We wish her a most enjoyable retirement. We won't ever forget her and neither will scores of citizens who have benefited from her service to the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite its consideration of the artificial pancreas, a technology that will benefit those with type 1 diabetes.

Recently, I was visited by Lori and Jay Happala; Gina Frye; and Margaret Hoover at my office in Beckley, West Virginia, as part of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's Promise to Remember Me campaign.

These families and one of their children who is diagnosed with type 1 shared with me personal stories about what life is like for sufferers of type 1 diabetes, and how continued research and breakthroughs in technology can help improve management of this disease.

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and other clinical experts from organizations like the American Diabetes Association have indicated that an artificial pancreas has the potential to transform the lives of those with type 1 diabetes by automatically controlling blood glucose levels around the clock, enabling them to remain healthy until a cure is found. My constituents argue that this technology has the potential to help those with diabetes better manage their type 1 diabetes in a more cost efficient manner, as well as help them to lead more fulfilling, active lives and reduce the risk of further health complications like kidney failure and heart disease.

Before this technology can be made available, the FDA must approve next steps in the regulatory process to continue the development of artificial pancreas systems. Earlier this year, my colleagues and I wrote to the FDA, requesting a clear and reasonable regulatory pathway so that outpatient studies can proceed as soon as possible.

Recently the FDA committed to publishing draft guidance for public comment by December 1. On behalf of the millions of Americans with diabetes, I urge the FDA to issue this draft guidance in a timely manner, so that artificial pancreas technologies can be tested in an outpatient setting and be made available to those who need as expeditiously as possible. Continued delays may slow innovation that has the potential to dramatically improve the lives of those with diabetes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join Indian country in mourning the death of Elouise Cobell, who passed away on Sunday, October 16. Her role as lead plaintiff in the historic Cobell v. Salazar litigation has forever changed the way the federal government views the trust responsibility with Native Americans. Elouise Cobell was a true Indian leader.

She was born Elouise Catherine Pepion, November 5, 1945, on the Blackfeet Nation reservation located on the eastern edge of Glacier National Park in Montana. After graduating from Great Falls Business College, she became an accountant and rancher. Later, Elouise served as Treasurer for the Blackfeet Nation for 13 years and helped found the first all Indian owned national bank.

It was during her time as tribal treasurer that she realized the royalty checks received by tribal members seemed substantially lower than the value of the resources owned. She learned as much as she could about the way the federal government handled the Indian trust fund accounts and found that over decades, others in Indian country had claimed the funds were badly mismanaged.

In the mid 1980s Elouise, already frustrated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, came to Congress looking for assistance and justice for all Individual Indian Money account holders. All she wanted was what all of us expect from our banker--to know how much is in each account and a showing that the balance was correct.

In 1992, the House Government Operations Committee issued a report titled, ``Misplaced Trust: The BIA's Mismanagement of the Indian Trust Fund.'' The report called the BIA's management of Indian trust funds ``grossly inadequate in numerous important respects.'' It further found that the BIA had ``failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties to beneficiaries of the Indian Trust Fund.''

Congress passed the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 to give account holders more control over, and access to, their funds, and to provide a model to reform the system. Unfortunately, little was changed at the BIA. Fed up and frustrated with stonewalling and continued mismanagement, in 1996 Elouise filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 500,000 Indians at a time when no one else would.

In 1999, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed what Indian country had always known--the Department of the Interior had breached its trust obligation to Indians in handling Indian funds. Fourteen years after the case was first filed, 220 days of trial, 80 court decisions, and two contempt citations against Cabinet secretaries later, President Obama signed into law the landmark $3.4 billion settlement for the Indian account holders.

Because of Elouise and the litigation that she initiated, the Department of Interior has made numerous changes to the way it does business with respect to Indian funds and trust resources. Seattle University Law School Indian Law Professor Eric Eberhard said there is ``no doubt that Elouise Cobell changed the legal landscape when it comes to Indian law and the federal government's trust responsibilities.''

Against all odds, Elouise persevered with her commitment to the issue. Since the early 1990s, the Committee on Natural Resources held numerous hearings on the issue associated with the handling of Indian trust funds. It was during my tenure as Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee that I had the privilege and honor of getting to know and work with Elouise. Her dedication to this issue was bar none.

Elouise won so many battles; the only one she lost was to the cancer that took her from us too soon. She will be remembered for her strength, courage, and positive outlook. We can honor her life by continuing the work she started.

I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the life of Elouise Cobell and her many achievements, and in expressing our sincere condolences to her husband Alvin, her son Turk, and all her family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was prevented from casting votes during last Monday night's session due to repeated delays of a flight from Charleston, West Virginia, to Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted in support of all three measures brought before the House--H.R. 686, H.R. 765, and H.R. 670.

The flight, originally scheduled to depart at 4:50 p.m., did not leave Charleston until after 9 p.m., more than four hours late. In that time, the airline offered numerous excuses--maintenance, delayed flights that had backed up the system. Numerous alternative departure times were put forward and then retracted. Within one four-minute span, the airline emailed four different departure and arrival times. At moments, the arrival/departure information was so confused that the airplane would have had to violate the laws of physics in order to abide by the airline schedule. This is an all too often occurrence and often maintenance delay excuses are used to cover crew issues and/or other problems.

Needless to say, all passengers were inconvenienced and the airline's explanations were wholly unsatisfactory. This flight delay prevented me from carrying out my Constitutional duty to represent the people of southern West Virginia: I feel I owe them and this body an explanation about why that was not possible last night.

I recognize that flight delays happen and perhaps at times no one is to blame. But, given how disruptive and costly delays and cancellations can be, travelers ought to be able to depend upon consistent, timely air service to all communities, even in rural areas.

Rural communities depend on air service like any other communities. It connects us to the global economy. Our businesses need to ship their goods. Our families, workers, and students need to travel. We need reliable, dependable air service. According to GAO, airports in rural communities have higher rates of delays and cancellations than airports in larger communities. That's simply not acceptable.

As the Ranking Member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I feel acutely aware of the transportation challenges this nation faces, and as I sat in that airport last evening--like so many other passengers at that airport and others across the nation--I was frustrated by the delay, annoyed at the changing excuses offered by the airline, and angered that I was unable to get to work on time.

During all that time that I sat in the airport, I had plenty of time to think and to boil over that I was sitting there at the mercy of an airline whose veracity continued to come into increasing doubt. But I also had time to ponder our work here.

We are in a great debate in this country about our federal budget, while at the same time we are struggling to get people back to work and get our economic engine humming again. I believe that improving our transportation system has to be one of our top priorities. We need to do more to ensure the efficient transportation of people and goods. We need to stop announcing delay, after delay. We need to stop offering political excuses.

Otherwise, while we hold the future of our citizens captive, forcing them to wait and wait, we will only succeed in making them more and more frustrated and angry.

We had better get off our duffs, come together, and make some real progress on a longterm measure that will ensure improvements to our transportation system and greater safety and reliability to business and the traveling public. And we had better do it soon.

Mr. Speaker, America has voted. The Nation voted for a winning combination of humility, hard work, life-long dream, and finely tuned talent. Today, I join with my friends in Logan County and all throughout West Virginia in congratulating Landau Eugene Murphy, Jr., this year's winner of NBC Television's ``America Got Talent.''

Landau's journey is a true American success story. Coming from humble beginnings, he worked hard, never lost faith in his Lord, and always remained determined to pursue his dream.

I believe what Landau accomplished last night should stand as an example to every young person throughout this great Nation. He has shown them that they should always set their goals high and work until they get there, and indeed, if you should take some blows, just let the record show, you did it your way.

I send my very best to Landau, his lovely wife, Jennifer, and their family as they begin this new and exciting journey in their lives. I know that Landau remains as humble today as he was when he first took the stage at the Logan County Arts and Crafts Fair's annual talent show some years ago.

I would like to commend the Logan County Chamber of Commerce, the Hatfield and McCoy Convention and Visitors' Bureau, and Diana Barnette and all the fine folks at Fountainplace Cinema 8 in Logan for their support of our hometown hero. As we always have in West Virginia, we stand behind and support our own, and the work these organizations and individuals have done is phenomenal. Undoubtedly, their efforts were instrumental in Landau's victory.

Mr. Murphy accepted his victory with the hugs and ``high fives'' of his competitors, the hallmark of good sportsmanship. Throughout the weeks of competition he often spoke of his respect and compassion for, and friendship with, his opponents--a timely lesson for us all.

I hope my colleagues will congratulate all those whose talent carried them to the final weeks of a long competition. And, I thank America for recognizing a true talent in this fine son of West Virginia. Thankfully, we will be hearing a lot more from Landau Eugene Murphy, Jr., for many more years to come.

Mr. Speaker, America has voted. The Nation voted for a winning combination of humility, hard work, a lifelong dream, and finely tuned talent. Today, I join with my friends and colleagues from Logan County, West Virginia, in congratulating Landau Eugene Murphy, Jr., this year's winner of NBC Television's ``America's Got Talent.''

Landau's journey is a true American success story. Coming from humble beginnings, he worked hard, never lost faith in his Lord, and always remained determined to pursue his dream.

I believe what Landau accomplished last night should stand as an example to every young person throughout this great Nation. He has shown them that they should always set their goals high and work until they get there; and indeed, if you should take some blows, just let the record show you did it your way.

I send my very best to Landau, his lovely wife, Jennifer, and their family as they begin this new and exciting journey in their lives. I know that Landau remains as humble today as he was when he first took the stage at the Logan County Arts and Crafts Fair's annual talent show some years ago.

I commend the Logan County Chamber of Commerce, the Hatfield-McCoy Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Diana Barnette, and all the fine folks at Fountain Place Cinema 8 in Logan, West Virginia, for their support of their hometown hero. As we have always done in West Virginia, we stand behind and support our own, and the work these organizations and individuals have done is phenomenal. Undoubtedly, their efforts were instrumental in Landau's victory.

Mr. Murphy accepted his victory with the high fives of his competition--the hallmark of good sportsmanship. Throughout the weeks of competition, he often spoke of his respect, compassion, and friendship with his opponents--a timely lesson for us all.

I hope my colleagues will congratulate all those whose talent carried them to the final weeks of a long competition. I thank America for recognizing a true talent in this fine son of West Virginia. Thankfully, we will be hearing a lot from him in the many years to come.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 2887, the Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011. In this regard, I do commend the Senate and House leadership for arriving at an agreement late Friday afternoon on an extension of our Nation's surface transportation programs through March 31, 2012, and the programs under the FAA through January 31, 2012, at the current funding levels and without any adverse policy riders.

I commend our chairman, Mr. Mica; the subcommittee chair, Mr. Duncan, on Surface; the Air Subcommittee chair, Mr. Petri; and our ranking subcommittee members, Mr. Costello on Aviation and Mr. DeFazio on Surface.

Extending these programs is critical to our economic recovery. And the pending measure does so without any of the poison pills of the past or draconian cuts to investment in our surface transportation programs. Failure to extend the surface transportation programs could shut down more than 134,000 active highway and bridge projects and over 5,000 active transit projects, jeopardizing the jobs of more than 1 million private-sector American jobs over the next year.

The funding levels in the pending measure are far more preferable than what we are seeing proposed by Republicans on the Appropriations Committee. Just last week, they rolled out a fiscal year 2012 Transportation appropriations bill which proposes to slash highway and transit investment, destroying more than 600,000 good paying, private- sector American jobs, jobs that would be lost in every State of the Union.

I cannot support these dangerous and draconian cuts to investments in America's future. To keep pace with India, China, and our other international competitors, we need to invest more, not less in America's future. If we stop investing in the future, there is simply no way we can retire the debt of the past.

It is my hope that with this 6-month extension of highway, highway safety, and transit programs, we can come together and work to develop a long-term, robust Surface Transportation authorization bill that keeps the Nation economically competitive, meets the demands of the 21st century, and creates millions of family-wage American jobs.

The pending measure also provides for a clear extension in the Nation's aviation programs under the FAA. Our aviation system is slightly more than a month into its recovery from the shock, the shock of a Republican-led FAA shutdown for 2 weeks in July and August; and I'm pleased that my Republican friends have chosen not to force another shutdown. I trust they recognize the damage that was caused to our Nation's aviation system and the financial hardship placed on working- class families across the country when they chose to force a policy rider into an otherwise clean extension in July and caused a senseless 2-week shutdown of major parts of the FAA.

Pending the enactment of a long-term bill, and I join our chairman in our desire to see such passed, this short-term extension is the responsible path forward. It will avert more damage to the aviation system and the economy.

With that said, what we should be doing is completing the conference committee on the long-term FAA reauthorization bill. Three months ago, House and Senate negotiators informally narrowed down the list of differences between the two Chambers to just a few. The Senate appointed conferees over 5 months ago, yet the House has not followed suit. So let us finish a long-term reauthorization and show the American people that Congress puts planes and passengers before politics.

I urge support of the pending measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on our Economic Development Subcommittee, the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

May I have a time check, please, Mr. Speaker.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Railroads, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).