John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his kind words as well. Now I will yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OLVER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to see the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013 considered on the House floor this year. And I thank Chairman Latham, first, for his kind words, but also for maintaining an inclusive committee process as this bill was prepared. He has been a good partner for the past 4 years, and I value our relationship. I also want to recognize the hard work of the committee staff, specifically, on the majority side: Dena Baron, Doug Disrud, Sara Peters, Mike Friedberg, Brian Barnard, and Doug Bobbitt. And on the minority side: Kate Hallahan, Joe Carlile, and Blair Anderson. Chairman Latham and I are lucky to have such dedicated staff who work amiably and respectfully together. They have spent many late nights putting this bill together, and we would not be here today without their hard work. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership's decision to ignore last summer's Budget Control Act agreement has left this bill with an inadequate allocation to properly fund our transportation and housing investment needs. The resulting artificially low allocation forced Chairman Latham to make unnecessary and destructive trade-offs. Specifically, I have concerns that the Ryan budget forces us to accept the administration's proposal to fund project-based section 8 contracts for less than a full year. This does not shrink the program nor reduce the deficit. It simply pushes the costs down the road and increases uncertainty for private business owners. I'm also disappointed that this bill does not fund the sustainable communities initiative. However, within the constraints forced upon him, I recognize that Chairman Latham has put forward a respectable bill that contains a number of bright spots, including increases for Amtrak, CDBG, the HOME program, and housing for the elderly, for which he should be commended. I hope that as the process moves forward and we receive a real allocation, that these increases will be preserved and that the holes can be addressed. Unfortunately, I am concerned that the House Republican leadership's decision to underfund this bill is not an isolated incident, but is symptomatic of an ideology that does not understand the value of infrastructure investment. This strategy is wrong for America. Last year, the leaders of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL- CIO, not usually bedfellows, agreed that we must have greater investment in our Nation's infrastructure in order to create jobs and to be competitive in the global economy. A modern, well-maintained transportation network is absolutely necessary for our economy to grow and the country to prosper. The breadth of direct and indirect influence of our transportation networks on the economy is staggering. Our auto manufacturing industry, its enormous parts supplier base, the national network of gas stations and its complex distribution system, and the oil industry all thrive because we have an efficient highway system that people need to use. The physical construction of roads and railroads requires aggregate materials processed locally, steel trusses and rebar made by American companies and crews manned by American workers. Our transit system supports the domestic manufacturing of buses, streetcars, and trains, while providing businesses with cost-effective access to labor pools. Furthermore, every good produced or consumed in the U.S. must be transported via our network of roads, rails, and ports. As a result, the efficiency with which our system operates determines whether American goods can compete in the global marketplace. Yet, report after report indicates that we are falling behind. The American Society of Civil Engineers infrastructure report card gave us a ``D'' and estimated that more than a $2 trillion investment is needed. DOT's most recent ``Conditions and Performance Report'' indicates that there is an annual investment gap of $27 billion just to maintain our current system of highways and bridges in a state of good repair, and a much larger gap to expand the system to meet the needs of the growing population. The United States has the largest economy in the world, yet the World Economic Forum's most recent ranking drops America's infrastructure quality to 23rd in the world. The reason for our infrastructure decline is simple. We are not raising enough revenue to fund our infrastructure needs. In 2000, the highway and mass transit accounts raised $35 billion. By 2011, they only raised $37 billion. When you factor in inflation, we are raising 20 percent fewer dollars for our transportation infrastructure than we did 10 years ago. This is unsustainable. During the same period, the U.S. population grew 10 percent to 309 million people; 65 percent of them live in metropolitan areas having populations greater than 500,000 people. Our largest 50 metropolitan areas have more than 1 million in population; 13 of them, all cities in the sunbelt such as Dallas, Houston, Orlando, Phoenix, and Charlotte, grew more than 25 percent in one single decade, the last decade. Such burgeoning communities need a massive, timely expansion of both highway and transit facilities in order to ensure that rapid population growth doesn't choke their economies with congestion. In contrast, 22 of those 50 largest areas, all older mature metropolitan areas, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Los Angeles, are growing slower than the national average; but their built-out highway, transit, and commute rail systems are deteriorating and need a massive, timely program of rehabilitation to simply reach a state of good repair. Our rural areas face an even worse problem. The number of counties in rural America that are losing population is rising rapidly. With that comes disinvestment in education, health care, and public infrastructure of all shades. Yet virtually the entire rural road system must be maintained in a state of good repair or our rural areas will become ever greater pockets of poverty. If we are to meet these changing population demographics and provide a transportation system that functions as a sound foundation and not a hindrance on our economy, Congress must find the means and grow the political courage to raise revenue. The current debate on the surface authorization does not accomplish that. In fact, the present gridlock of debate is only effective at slowing economic growth and keeping America's unemployment high. That cannot be America's goal. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 250th anniversary of the town of Oakham, Massachusetts. Beginning in 1742, Scotch-Irish Presbyterians began to buy land in what was then called ``Rutland West Wing'' in the hopes of incorporating their own town under a Presbyterian form of government. After two failed attempts, Oakham was finally incorporated on June 7, 1762. In early colonial times, the present town of Oakham was a virgin forest occupied by bands of Nipmuk Indians who made seasonal camps in the area for hunting, fishing, and agricultural purposes. During King Philip's War (1675 1676) a 150 square mile area known as Naquag, which includes the land presently known as Oakham, became a stronghold for Native Americans. The Native Americans were on the losing end of the conflict and many of them then left central Massachusetts looking for new homes. Those who remained were forced to live in four ``Indian Towns'' under close supervision by the colonists. This left the entire area of Naquag open for colonial expansion. In 1686, five Nashaway Indians, who claimed ownership of Naquag, sold the territory to a group of land speculators from Lancaster, Massachusetts for ``25 pounds hard cash.'' By 1722, Scotch-Irish immigrants began to buy lots in the area and the town of Rutland was soon incorporated with a Congregational minister. Oakham's founding would be another 40 years in coming. By the beginning of the Revolutionary War, Oakham's population had grown to nearly 600 people. The town was strongly pro-revolution so loyalists in town were forced to leave their property behind and flee to British strongholds in Boston and Canada. The town raised a company of Grenadier to prevent a British attack on Boston during the War of 1812 and also sent nearly 100 volunteers to serve during the Civil War. Nearly one fifth of these soldiers would not live to see Oakham again. The sixth Massachusetts Turnpike was built between Pelham and Shrewsbury in 1799. This 43 miles toll road followed Old Turnpike Road in Oakham and remained in service until 1828, making travel to and from Oakham much easier and faster. In 1877, The Central Massachusetts Railroad opened providing quick transportation for both people and goods throughout the northeast. A depot in town helped Oakham grow and prosper, but by the early 20th century population began to decline as people began to leave farms and move to industrial centers. Today, Oakham has settled into a quiet bedroom community. Recreation has become Oakham's economic focal point with two campgrounds and an 18-hole golf course. An abundance of state land in town provides open space that can be enjoyed by residents and visitors all year long. From ice fishing, cross country skiing, and snowmobiling in the winters to hiking, biking, horseback riding, and hunting in the warmer months, Oakham is a relaxing retreat for many. On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Oakham, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their dedication and perseverance throughout the town's history. It has been an honor to represent this great community and I wish the people of Oakham a healthy and prosperous future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I can think of nothing that would be more effective at slowing economic growth and keeping unemployment high. Mr. Speaker, there is a better option. Bring it to the floor and let us vote on the Senate's multiyear bipartisan bill that was passed by a vote of 74 22, with majority support from both parties.

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, America's whole economy depends upon the efficient movement of people and goods. A modern, well-maintained transportation network is absolutely necessary for our economy to grow and the country to prosper, and its influence on the economy is staggering. Our auto manufacturing industry and its enormous parts-supplier base, the national network of gas stations and its complex distribution system, and the oil industry itself all thrive because we have an efficient highway system that people need to use. The physical construction of roads and railroads requires aggregate materials processed locally, steel trusses and rebar made by American companies and crews manned by American workers. Our transit system supports the domestic manufacturing of buses, streetcars, and trains, while providing businesses with cost-effective access to the labor pool. Furthermore, every good product produced or consumed in the U.S. must be transported via our network of roads, rails, and ports. As a result, the efficiency with which our system operates determines whether American goods can compete in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, the 60-day extension Republicans offer on the floor today keeps our transportation system bogged down in a state of uncertainty. It slows down ongoing projects by only providing partial funding; it jeopardizes a major part of this construction season in northern States by hindering and delaying their ability to determine how many projects can be funded; and it shuts down the planning and design pipeline for future projects because they don't know what resources will be available. Consequently, this being the ninth extension since 2009, State transportation programs are being forced to move forward only with projects that meet the lowest common denominator. Mr. Speaker, if the Republican goal is to slow economic growth and keep unemployment high into the fall, this 60-day extension will accomplish that spectacularly.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life's work of Robert M. O'Neil, a lifelong resident of Pittsfield, Massachusetts who has served his community in many capacities, including service Pittsfield residents as a teacher at Taconic High School since 1996. He and his beloved wife, Betty O'Neil, raised one daughter, Angela, and enjoyed the company of 22 nephews and nieces. Mr. O'Neil started a long career as a girls' basketball coach at the Catholic Youth Center, Pittsfield Boys and Girls Club and with AAU teams. He also refereed countless games since 1987 and was Assistant Girls Basketball Coach at Pittsfield High School from 1995 until 2005. At various times his Pittsfield teams won the City Championship, League Championship, Berkshire County Championship, Western Massachusetts Championship, and appeared in the Massachusetts State Championship Final. He then became Head Girls Basketball Coach at Taconic High School in 2005 and served in that capacity until 2011. During his career, he was named the recipient of the Berkshire County Sportsman of the Year and radio station WBEC's Girls Coach of the Year, and on two different occasions was named Girls Basketball Coach of the Year by his peers. Robert M. O'Neil has unselfishly devoted his life to improving the lives of students and basketball players and their families. On February 21, 2012, his life will be celebrated, and he will be given a Certificate of Recognition and the Key to the City of Pittsfield in deep appreciation for his distinguished service, and that date will be known forever as Robert M. O'Neil Day in Pittsfield. Mr. Speaker, I join my friends, colleagues and neighbors in commemorating his life and wonderful accomplishments.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the invaluable work that Amherst Ballet has done to advance the culture and education of communities in Massachusetts. Amherst Ballet was founded in 1971 by Therese Brady Donohue to give ballet lessons to 30 students in the old Amherst Junior High School building. In 1977 Donohue relocated her dance school to within walking distance of three Amherst public schools, appended two studios to it, gathered a board of directors and incorporated the Amherst Ballet Theatre Company as a non-profit corporation. In the ensuing years hundreds of children have been trained in ballet, modem and jazz dance and thousands of audience members have delighted in their performances. In 2000 the Theatre Company bought the dance school and became a non-profit entity known as Amherst Ballet. 2004 saw the retirement of Donohue and in the following year Amherst Ballet purchased the building in which it had been housed to firmly establish its permanent home. Catherine Fair joined Amherst Ballet's staff as a teacher in 1997, became its director upon Donohue's retirement and has steadily grown the annual enrollment to more than 200 students. The Amherst area is rich in cultural institutions, artists and musicians and Amherst Ballet has enjoyed collaborations with a wide variety of them including performances with Layaali Arabic Music Ensemble, Springfield Symphony Orchestra, Pioneer Valley Symphony Orchestra, Smith College Orchestra, Da Camera Singers, Hampshire Choral Society Young People's Chorus as well as with local authors Jane Yolen and Heidi Stemple. Amherst Ballet has worked with composers Karen Tarlow, Ted Trobaugh and John Cooper, visual artist Rebecca Guay and media artist Carlos Fontes. Director Fair collaborated on the libretto for the original ballet Emily of Amherst with Jane Wald, historian and executive director of the Emily Dickinson Museum. Amherst Ballet participates in ballets created by Picture Book Theatre which performs at the Eric Carle Museum of Picture Book Art. Amherst Ballet has been the recipient of Amherst Cultural Council grants for many years and in 2011 received the Massachusetts Cultural Council's Gold Star Award, one of only 6 in the commonwealth, in recognition of its success integrating arts into the community. Amherst Ballet has given special performances upon invitation including excerpts from The Nutcracker and Chopiniana with the Pioneer Valley Symphony, Peter and the Wolf with the Smith College Orchestra and Bob McGrath from Sesame Street, The Arctic at American International College in Springfield, The Firebird with the Springfield Symphony Orchestra, The Nutcracker with the Moscow Ballet and Emily of Amherst at the New York Botanical Garden. Amherst Ballet has produced dancers who have joined professional companies including Pacific Northwest Ballet, New York City Ballet, Merce Cunningham, Omaha Ballet, Greater Houston Civic Ballet, Charleston Ballet Theatre, Hoechster Ballet (Germany), Ballet Contemporain de Bruxelles, Delia Stewart Jazz Company, Luis Fuente's Ballet Company (Spain), Rachel Lampert Company and Mixed Company (New York City). Amherst Ballet students who audition for residential and summer programs are routinely accepted to them including programs at Alvin Ailey, American Academy of Ballet, American Ballet Theatre Company, Boston Ballet, Joffrey Ballet School, Kaatsbaan International Dance Center, Kirov Academy, North Carolina School for the Arts, Nutmeg Conservatory, Richmond Ballet and Walnut Hill School. On this day it is my honor to recognize their hard work and to present them to this body as an institution that truly serves and benefits our Union.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2767, a bill that would designate the United States Post Office at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, as the William T. Trant Post Office Building. William Trant was an exemplary citizen, a soldier, a father, a public servant, and a pillar of his community. Born and raised in Westfield, he enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1943, and participated in five of the great campaigns of World War II, including the invasion of Normandy. He was decorated with several military honors, including the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with five Bronze Stars, the Good Conduct Medal, and the Purple Heart with an oak leaf cluster for wounds sustained at Normandy and at Rhineland. After being honorably discharged at the end of the war, Mr. Trant returned home and worked for the U.S. Post Office in Westfield, leaving briefly to pitch for a minor league baseball team affiliated with the New York Giants. He served on Westfield's City Council for nearly 20 years, served as acting mayor in 1962 following the death of Westfield's incumbent mayor. Through his service, he became friends with many Massachusetts political figures from both parties, including President John Kennedy, Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressman Silvio Conte, and House Speaker Tip O'Neill. In 1967, Mr. Trant was appointed postmaster at the Westfield Post Office, a title which he proudly held while serving for many years. Mr. Trant was actively involved in sports programs for the young people of Westfield, including the Westfield Little League, Westfield Babe Ruth and Westfield American Legion Baseball. He and his wife, Mary, were devoted parents to nine children. He passed away in 2002, having lived a life that is an example and an inspiration for all who knew him. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 2767 and ask my colleagues to join me in honoring William Trant's service to his country and his community.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the invaluable contributions that the Community Adolescent and Education, Care, Center, Inc. of Holyoke, Massachusetts makes to the community by improving the lives of teen mothers and their children. Among the Care Center's core beliefs is that people living in poverty should be exposed to the same intellectual stimulus as those who are financially well off and that they will thrive if they receive it. The Center, therefore, works extremely hard to provide young mothers with high level programming in education, the arts and humanities, and athletics. These programs have been incredibly effective with up to 85 percent of graduates going on to college and many launching careers in social services, government and medicine. On November 2, 2011, First Lady Michelle Obama presented the Care Center with the prestigious National Arts and Humanities Youth Program Award for its innovative humanities courses. I have been a proud supporter of the Center and its vital work, and I cannot think of a more deserving institution in my district. Over 500 organizations from across the country were nominated for the award which, administered by the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, is considered to be the highest honor for such programs in the nation. The Care Center is one of 12 after-school and out-of-school programs to receive the award and it was, in particular, recognized for its exceptional humanities programming. This included the Clemente Course in the Humanities, a free college course focusing on moral philosophy, art history, literature, writing, and American history; Introduction to Humanities, a college course offered in partnership with Greenfield Community College; and Nautilus II, an annual anthology of poetry and art by Center teen mothers. The Care Center is dedicated to helping young parents with low incomes obtain access to an excellent education. Center Executive Director Anne Teschner and her dedicated staff, through their revolutionary programming, have opened doors leading to successful futures for hundreds of teens and their children. I commend the Care Center on these efforts and am confident that this national recognition can be a catalyst that allows it to help hundreds more in years to come.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the ranking member for yielding time. I rise in support of this conference report. As ranking member on the Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, I first would like to thank Chairman Tom Latham for working openly with me throughout the process, and I congratulate him on bringing his first conference report to the floor. Also, I would like to thank staff--for the majority, the subcommittee clerk, Dena Baron, and her excellent staff; and for the minority, Kate Hallahan, Joe Carlile, and Blair Anderson--all for their diligence and hard work in making this a better bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains elements with which I disagree. In particular, I wish CDBG funding was closer to last year's level, and I am disappointed that the bill does not provide funding for the High- Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Program. Both of these programs are in high demand and would contribute significant value to our communities if funded properly. However, this bill is a reasonable compromise that has improved significantly the Transportation-HUD portion that was marked up in subcommittee. The agreement ensures that funding for our transportation infrastructure programs is kept stable, allowing the Federal Aviation Administration to continue modernization of our air traffic control system, providing the Federal Highway Administration with funds needed to maintain our highway network, and providing the Federal Transit Administration with sufficient funding to continue investments to expand our regional transit systems. I am particularly pleased that the bill provides $1.4 billion for Amtrak and removes destructive language that would have halted service along 26 routes in 19 States. Annual ridership on those routes has increased, and a congressionally authorized process is already under way to reduce the operating costs of these services. In addition, the bill provides $1.66 billion for the Highway Administration's Emergency Relief Program in order to eliminate the of repairs needed as a result of hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters, as well as $400 million for emergency CDBG funds. I believe we have a responsibility to provide assistance to States that have endured unanticipated natural disasters without conditioning that assistance on cuts to other programs. Lastly, I am pleased that this bill reinstates HUD's Housing Counseling Program by providing $45 million. With foreclosure rates remaining high, the counseling services provided by this program continue to be vital for families who are struggling in the current economy. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good product of a bipartisan process, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. This motion would instruct the conferees to provide adequate funding to the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief program in order to eliminate the backlog of repairs needed as a result of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters. Since the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934, Congress has repeatedly recognized the need to provide assistance to States when unanticipated disasters occur without conditioning the support on cuts to other programs. Currently, there is roughly $1.75 billion in emergency relief backlog covering disasters in 37 States. The 2012 year has been an unusually active one for natural disasters, and 33 States have experienced declared disasters totaling $1.4 billion since the beginning of this year alone. This includes $50 million in repairs that are needed in my State, Massachusetts, due to tornadoes in the spring and damage from Hurricane Irene; $42 million needed by Iowa to repair damage from Missouri River spring floods; and $100 million in Ohio due to severe rainfalls in the early spring. Mr. Speaker, as we have done 20 times since 1989 during both Republican and Democratic Congresses, we have a responsibility to our neighbors to provide them funding needed to address their emergency relief needs. Mr. Speaker, the chart I have in my hand references those 20 acts of Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, today we face an unnecessary crisis. The debt limit has never before been held hostage by any political party, because it is in every American's best interest to protect the credit of the United States; but now ideologues in Congress have hijacked this issue, and have pushed our Nation to the brink of default in rejecting all offers of compromise. Calls for massive spending cuts, and spending cuts alone, without raising any revenues whatsoever are irresponsible at least and deliberately destructive at worst. They would default on our debt, causing a global financial crisis, rather than see hedge fund managers, corporate jet owners or phenomenally profitable oil companies pay higher taxes. Their call for fiscal responsibility rings hollow, and the fiscal history of the last three decades shows that. This chart shows the growth of America's national debt since 1980. At the end of the Carter administration, the national debt was less than $1 trillion. Twelve years later, with President Reagan's 8 years and the first President Bush's 4 years, the national debt had grown by more than 300 percent--it had quadrupled--and we were mired in debt. The Reagan-Bush economic policies greatly increased the debt and led to soaring deficits and rising interest rates. It ended in a recession. In 1993, President Clinton was under severe pressure from the very Republicans who had meekly followed the two Republican Presidents as they raised the national debt by over 300 percent. President Clinton championed a balanced austerity program with, roughly, equal spending cuts and revenue increases--the Clinton years. Republicans in both the House and Senate voted unanimously against that program, arguing it would cost jobs and cause a recession, but the exact opposite occurred. More than 20 million jobs were created under the Clinton administration, and each of the last three budgets of the Clinton Presidency produced a surplus. Those three budgets were the only budgets and surplus in the last 40 years, and Clinton's balanced program is considered highly successful by economists. President Clinton raised taxes on those who could afford it and reduced spending to shrink our deficit, and the economy grew by leaps and bounds. The fiscal record of the second President Bush is a record of utter irresponsibility. It began with massive tax cuts, skewed sharply toward the wealthy, and with trillions of dollars spent on two long, unpopular wars--all of that paid for by borrowing. It ended in the Great Recession, caused by the collapse of an unregulated housing market which was fueled by Wall Street greed. President Bush turned President Clinton's surplus into more than 5 trillion additional dollars added to our national debt--all the way up to here--almost doubling the debt again. President Obama was inaugurated during the worst month of job losses in the Great Recession and cannot be blamed for what happened before, but the recovery has stalled, and we're short 12 million jobs. History has shown us what works and what doesn't. The Reagan-Bush economics led to hugely increased debt. The Clinton economics eliminated the deficit and accelerated economic growth, but it required some sacrifice by all Americans to fix the national problem. Now Republicans want to slash social programs, gut Medicare and Social Security benefits, and further reduce taxes for the wealthiest few. The Republicans threaten default on our debt. The only plan they offer would add hundreds of thousands of people to the unemployment lines by eliminating jobs in the public sector. They would protect the wealthiest few at the expense of the entire country. They offer no plan to create jobs and no long-term solution. Yet America needs a long-term solution, and that must include spending reduction and revenue increase in balanced proportion.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 200th anniversary of the designation of the town of Greenfield, Massachusetts as the county seat of Franklin County. The town of Greenfield was incorporated in 1753 and named for the nearby Green River. Hampshire County was divided to create Franklin County in 1811, and Greenfield was designated as the seat of government for Franklin County. After 200 years of development and innovation, Greenfield and Franklin County continue to thrive on the exceptional enthusiasm of their citizenry. Greenfield has long been associated with commercial development and economic diversification. The strategic location at the confluence of the Deerfield and Connecticut Rivers provided advantages to manufacturers in the 18th century. Throughout the 19th century, major transportation routes linking Springfield, Massachusetts to New Hampshire and also Boston to New York began to pass through Greenfield. The town eventually grew to accommodate the influx of manufacturers which lasted until the conclusion of World War I in 1918. The ingenuity and resolve of Greenfield citizens ensured that the Great Depression did not cripple its agricultural and industrial workers, as happened elsewhere in America. The U.S. engagement in World War II then worked to stoke new business opportunities in Greenfield, and these economic openings allowed the town and its residents to quickly rebuild from the Depression and spring forward and economically develop further. In 2003, Greenfield grew to the point of adopting a mayoral form of government--thus, officially becoming a city in Massachusetts--in order to continue and improve upon on its tradition of providing superior recreational, educational and business opportunities for its residents. On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the designation of the town of Greenfield, Massachusetts as the county seat of Franklin County, I congratulate its citizens and praise their dedication and perseverance throughout the town and city's history. I look forward with enthusiastic support as we work together for a prosperous future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the invaluable service of Beverly Armstrong to the United States of America. Like many military spouses, Beverly has devoted her life to the United States Army as the wife of Retired Sergeant First Class John P. Armstrong and as a Department of the Army Civilian. After twenty-one years of loyal and dedicated service to the U.S. Army as a civilian employee, Beverly retired from Fort Devens, Massachusetts on June 30, 2011. Beverly Armstrong was born in Fredericksburg, Virginia on October 11, 1947. Beverly met SFC Armstrong when he returned to Virginia in 1967 from his first tour of duty in Vietnam and they married two months later. Shortly after, SFC Armstrong was deployed to Fort Wainwright, Alaska and Fort Leonardwood, Missouri with Beverly by his side. SFC Armstrong was deployed to a second tour of duty in Vietnam two years later where he was wounded by gunfire. SFC Armstrong returned to active duty in Korea and Germany while Beverly remained in the United States. Their last active duty posting was at Fort Devens, Massachusetts where SFC Armstrong retired in 1986. Beverly and SFC Armstrong both returned to the U.S. Army in 1989 as civilian employees. Beverly continued serving her country and its military as a Military Pay Clerk, Statistician at the U.S. Army Hospital, and a Procurement Clerk and Purchasing Agent, all at Fort Devens. Later, as a Contract Specialist within the Fort Devens Contracting Office, Beverly honored her country by processing contracts for soldiers involved in Operations Desert Storm, Desert Shield, and Enduring Freedom. During her tenure as a federal employee with the U.S. Army, Beverly served with pride and valor just as she has served her country throughout her life. Beverly Armstrong contributed twenty-one years of civilian service in addition to over forty years as a military spouse. Beverly stood by SFC Armstrong through six deployments including three overseas and one in a combat zone. Military families sacrifice much in the support of our troops. It is only fitting that all Americans recognize their considerable service for our country. On the occasion of her retirement, I commend Beverly for an extensive and auspicious civilian career with the U.S. Army and express my sincere gratitude for her distinguished service to the United States of America.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Secondly, in the high-speed corridors that are based on Chicago as their hub, to go to Detroit, to go to St. Louis, to go to Indianapolis, to go to Milwaukee, for equipment that will allow those high-speed corridors to function better. Thirdly, in projects on the west coast as well. All of those projects are jeopardized by this provision in this bill.

Mr. OLVER. I ask unanimous consent to be given 1 additional minute.

Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, title V of the Energy and Water bill that is before us today robs Peter to pay Paul. Title V takes funds which were appropriated 2\1/2\ years ago for transportation purposes and moves part of those funds to the Corps of Engineers in today's Energy and Water appropriations bill. Title V specifically rescinds all awarded but unobligated high-speed rail dollars from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act and moves those dollars to respond to the unprecedented flooding this spring in many States for work to be done as it is designed and executed by the Corps of Engineers. Effectively this is a backhanded increase in allocation to the Energy and Water Subcommittee for this bill at the expense of transportation purposes. I don't contend or even suggest that the Energy and Water bill is well-funded. In fact, the allocations for the Energy and Water Subcommittee and for the Transportation and HUD Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member, are both totally inadequate. But I do object to killing projects in transportation that will create construction jobs in the severely depressed construction industry and provide a valuable transportation alternative in heavily congested corridors among our largest metropolitan areas all over the country. And I do absolutely support making the repairs to flood control systems as quickly as they can be designed and built. That's an obligation. In my 20 years, 10\1/2\ years under Democratic Presidents, 9\1/2\ years under Republican Presidents and under the control in the Congress of either party--because it switched back and forth in those 20 years-- we have dealt with natural disasters on a bipartisan basis, on an emergency basis, every single year. Most famously, that includes, in September '05, the Katrina disaster which resulted in $15 billion for recovery of New Orleans and the gulf coast on an emergency and on a totally bipartisan basis. But this section takes from projects planned, applied for and awarded but not yet obligated and kills those projects. Roughly $6 billion of the $8 billion appropriated for intercity passenger rail and high-speed rail projects in the Recovery Act are already obligated, and half of those are already in construction. The Recovery Act itself allowed until the 30th of September of 2012, the end of the '12 fiscal year, to obligate those dollars. Of the roughly $2 billion unobligated, 80 percent of those dollars arises from the single decision just 3 months ago of the Governor of Florida to refuse the $1.6 billion previously applied for and awarded for a project to build true high-speed rail on a dedicated corridor between Orlando and Tampa. Now, Orlando lies roughly equidistant from Jacksonville, Tampa and Miami. Those four, Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami and Orlando, are four of America's 40 largest metropolitan areas. All have over 1\1/2\ million people, all are growing by between 15 and 30 percent, and they are among our fastest growing metropolitan areas. They represent a prime example of the opportunity that high-speed rail offers in carefully selected high-population corridors around the country to reduce congestion and expedite travel. When that money was refused by Florida, the Federal Rail Administration re-awarded the $1.6 billion to projects in other States, including, as examples, in the Northeast Corridor, which carries half of all intercity rail passengers in America every day, nearly $800 million for work in that Northeast Corridor, and that work would bring the speed up to 160 miles per hour in parts of New Jersey, and the work would be done in New York and New Jersey. So that is $800 million.

Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 250th anniversary of the founding of the town of Great Barrington, Massachusetts, including the village of Housatonic. The town was incorporated by the colonial Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Sir Francis Bernard, on June 30, 1761. Nestled in the Berkshire Hills, Great Barrington features natural resources such as Monument Mountain, Lake Mansfield, and the scenic Housatonic River. It is the town that saw the first open resistance to British rule in 1774, Henry Knox's cannon caravan passing through to Fort Ticonderoga in 1776, and provided a distinguished roster of military personnel to every major conflict in which America has participated. Great Barrington has also been the home of poet and journalist William Cullen Bryant, inventor William Stanley--who first lit the streets of Great Barrington--and inventor Marcus Rogers. Elizabeth Freeman, who successfully sued for her freedom from slavery in 1781, Laura Ingersoll Secord, the Canadian heroine of the War of 1812, Anson Jones, the last president of the Republic of Texas and James Weldon Johnson, the co-writer of the Negro National Anthem all resided in Great Barrington. W.E.B. Dubois, distinguished writer, editor, sociologist and activist, graduated from Searles High School in Great Barrington as valedictorian before embarking upon a lifetime of achievement that included the founding of the Niagara Movement, the precursor to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Persons. The citizens of Great Barrington stand as an example of what hard work and resolve can accomplish. The town of Great Barrington is also the center of many historical, commercial and cultural resources, including the Mason Library in Great Barrington and Ramsdell Library in Housatonic, the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center, the Captain Truman Wheeler House, the Dwight-Henderson House, and the famed Newsboy Statue. With its scenic natural resources, Great Barrington has become the summer vacation destination of thousands and continues to be a vibrant and charming community. On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Great Barrington, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their dedication and perseverance throughout the town's history. I look forward with enthusiastic support as we continue to work together for a prosperous future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 1761, the incorporation of the town of Shutesbury, Massachusetts, was approved by the colonial Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Sir Francis Bernard. Named for former colonial Governor Samuel Shute, the town is an exemplification of the natural beauty of Massachusetts' rolling hills. After 250 years, Shutesbury remains a town largely untouched by the imperfections of modernity. The town traces its history to 1735, when an east-west inland road was built to encourage commerce from Lancaster to Sunderland. Over the next century, residents constructed a meetinghouse and assembled a small town. The incorporation of Shutesbury in 1761 allowed residents to expand their community to include a church and public library. The town has grown to now include over 1,700 people while maintaining the charm and civility that Shutesbury has continually represented. Shutesbury continues to thrive in western Massachusetts as a rural community amidst burgeoning cities. The promise of this town is rooted in its commitment to protecting natural resources and recognizing the capacity of forests, streams and rural communities for future generations to enjoy. On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Shutesbury, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their dedication and perseverence throughout the town's history. I look forward with enthusiastic support as we continue together to work toward a prosperous future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 1761, the town of Belcher's Town, Massachusetts, was incorporated by the colonial Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Sir Francis Bernard. The town is named for Jonathan Belcher, colonial Governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay from 1730 until 1741. After 250 years of development and innovation, Belchertown continues to promote civility and cooperation amongst its citizens. Overlooking the Connecticut and Quaboag Valleys, Belchertown has long been a town connected to the thoroughfares passing through the area. Many of the original buildings were taverns to accommodate travelers; however, the first railroad in 1850 allowed greater diversity in the town's commercial endeavors. In the past century, Belchertown has continued to prosper while maintaining the community-oriented charm familiar to most of western Massachusetts. The commitment to volunteerism and community service is traced throughout Belchertown's history. Its citizens stand as an example of what hard work and resolve can accomplish, as evidenced by the formidable carriage industry in the early 1800s, the town's first library in 1887, the development of Quabbin Reservoir in 1927, and the brave service of numerous citizens in every U.S. war except the War of 1812. On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Belchertown, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their dedication and perseverance throughout the town's history. I look forward with enthusiastic support as we continue to work together for a prosperous future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Paul M. Dowd for his longtime service to the City of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and whose name will hereinafter be associated with the historic baseball field at Wahconah Park in Pittsfield. Mr. Dowd first came to Pittsfield in 1966 as a pitcher for the Pittsfield Red Sox--having been signed by that organization in 1964-- from his home state of Michigan, where he also attended Ferris State College. He has been a full-time resident of Pittsfield for the past 35 years. During that time, he has generously dedicated his time to the community. Thirty years ago, Mr. Dowd founded the Berkshire County Chapter of the Jimmy Fund and remains active as its president. He was elected to the Pittsfield City Council for six years, served in the United States Marine Reserves, coached Little League baseball, and is a member of the Knights of Columbus, Elks Lodge, and American Legion. Mr. Dowd is well known in the community for his selfless and thoughtful commitment to improving the quality of life for children afflicted with cancer. In recognition of his magnanimous service to the community and its children, the Pittsfield City Council and the Pittsfield Park Commission voted unanimously to name the baseball field at Wahconah Park as the Paul M. Dowd Field. Because of his outstanding commitment to the welfare of Pittsfield's citizenry, Mr. Dowd is most deserving of this high honor.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 1761, at the urging of Colonel William Williams, the official incorporation and names of Pittsfield and Berkshire County, Massachusetts were approved by the colonial governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Sir Francis Bernard. The name Berkshire reflected a connection with the English Berkshire, while the naming of Pittsfield reflects an admiration for William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. Pitt, dubbed the ``Great Commoner,'' was a supporter of the colonies in America. For 250 years the people of Pittsfield have been innovative, resourceful and resilient. The first agricultural fair was held in Pittsfield, and the first written reference to our national pastime of baseball is found in a 1791 city ordinance. William Stanley set up the transformer business in Pittsfield that eventually became the General Electric corporation. Today, Pittsfield is once again a city on the rise. Fueled by the creative economic sector, Pittsfield is thriving by embracing diversity, art and culture. I congratulate the citizens of Pittsfield on this occasion of their city's remarkable 250th anniversary, and I wish them the best as we embark together on a bright future.