Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican's ``Road to Ruin'' Budget Resolution for a variety of reasons, including because it will destroy hundreds of thousands of American transportation jobs--jobs lost in every state--and will severely jeopardize our Nation's economic competitiveness. This Budget slashes investments in our people--from ending Medicare as we know it to destroying the family-wage jobs of highway construction--all the while, providing a double-digit percentage tax break for millionaires that most of them will not even notice. It makes Big Oil smile from ear to ear knowing that they can exploit $40 billion in tax loopholes, yet the Budget completely neglects millions of American potholes. As the Ranking Member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and given that Congress faces major surface transportation reauthorization legislation this year, let me focus for a moment on what this Budget does to highway and transit infrastructure investment. Consider this for a moment. Today, China spends nine percent of its GDP per year on infrastructure. India spends five percent of its GDP per year on infrastructure. Yet, the United States of America only spends 1.9 percent of its GDP per year on infrastructure. Woefully inadequate as it stands. Yet, the Republican Budget cuts highway, highway safety, and transit investment by about one-third: one-third less bridge repair, one-third less safety improvement, and one-third less bus service is where this Budget leads us--destroying family-wage highway and transit construction jobs all along the way. And placing us in an even less competitive position than we already are against countries like China and India. Incredible. Simply incredible. Over the next six years, the current budget baseline investment level for highway, highway safety, and public transit investments is $331 billion, including $316 billion of contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund and $15 billion from the General Fund. Based on the assumptions included in the Republican Budget, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Republican Budget provides only $219 billion of Highway Trust Fund funding over the next six years. In effect, the Republican Budget slashes surface transportation investment by more than $100 billion over the next six years. Let me repeat that, because I want my colleagues to be very aware of what this budget proposes to do in this area. Today is the 100th day that the Republicans have been in control of the House and today they are proposing to cut more than $100 billion from investments in America's future. Investments that keep our economy moving and help to ensure that America remains a good place to do business. One hundred days in control of the House and they want to slash $100 billion from transportation investments. They haven't brought a single jobs bill to the Floor of this House, and yet, today, to mark their 100th day anniversary, here we are debating a Budget that will destroy half a million highway jobs. Amazing. According to a CBO analysis of the Republican Budget assumptions, this Budget will slash current year highway funding from $41.1 billion to approximately $27 billion in fiscal year 2012. A 34 percent cut in year one of the reauthorization bill will destroy more than 490,000 jobs over the coming years. West Virginia cannot afford a $143 million cut in highway investment next year. This investment and its 5,000 good-paying jobs are critical to our mountain economy and ensuring that rural America shares in the great opportunities provided by our country. Put simply, middle class Americans cannot afford the Republican ``Road to Ruin'' budget. Finally, the Republican Budget destroys any pretext that Republicans will restore the highway and transit budget firewalls that they wiped away on the first day of their new majority in the 112th Congress. When Congress enacted those firewalls in 1998 to restore the trust to the Highway Trust Fund and keep faith with the traveling public, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with former Republican Committee Chairman Bud Shuster. We lost that battle on the Budget at 3:00 a.m. in May 1997, but, one year later, won the war with enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century establishing the budget firewalls, which have served the traveling public for the past 14 years. As their very first act in the majority, Republicans broke the ``trust'' of the Highway Trust Fund. There was a time when Republicans were proud of their heritage in leading the way on infrastructure investment. They were the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. To my good friends across the aisle, do not let infrastructure investment become a mere footnote in the legacy of your party. Join with me and let us rebuild America. Let us provide the building blocks to ensure that every community and all of our people have an opportunity to succeed. I urge my colleagues to join with me and defeat H. Con. Res. 34, the Republican Budget Resolution.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the chairman for yielding the time to me, and I appreciate his and his committee's work on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody in this body is for dirty air or dirty water or any of the adjectives that have been used to describe the supporters of this legislation. Certainly the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act and other worthy pieces of legislation that Congress has passed over the decades have worthy goals and have achieved tremendous progress for this country. And there is not a person in this country, I dare say, that would want to renege on a lot of the positive initiatives that have been achieved under these pieces of legislation. No singular government agency, however, is sufficiently positioned to tackle the complex solution required to address carbon emissions. The answer has to be multipronged. It must involve innovation and investment in addition to reductions. It must be crafted taking into account the realities of the effect that emission reductions will have on the economic recovery this country is currently experiencing and on jobs, especially in the heartland of America. These are not matters that the EPA is required to consider or equipped to address. To simply allow the EPA to move ahead on its own in crafting a national strategy on climate change is a recipe for disaster. It assures a lopsided solution to a broad and cumbersome challenge. And, what may be worse, it does not provide for the kind of transparency and the kind of public input that is needed for a viable, long-term solution. It is one of the eternal truths of our form of government, Mr. Chairman, that the public has to be involved, it has to be informed, and the public must be engaged. This legislation is crystal clear in its message that the EPA has gotten ahead of public opinion and that the Congress now has a responsibility to pull it back. I support this legislation, and I urge its passage today.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it has been 1 year since the fatal explosion at Upper Big Branch Mine, 365 days since we lost 29 courageous coal miners--fathers and sons, brothers and friends. We vowed then that some good would come from this terrible tragedy. We can say that criminal investigations are almost complete, enforcement has toughened, the Congress has increased funding to target pattern violators, and yet coal miners are still dying in our coal fields. It's easy to doubt. It's easy to question whether things can be made better. I find inspiration in the Biblical verse from Romans: ``Glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulations worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope.'' Never lose hope that we can improve the health and safety of miners in the coal fields. Never lose hope that we can pass tougher mine safety laws and that we can enforce those laws and save lives. There are plenty of good coal companies in America, companies that put time and effort and money into making their workplaces safe in which they operate. They are forward-thinking coal companies, with strong safety records that have designed programs aimed at protecting the lives and preserving the health of their miners. They want to see those bad actors, those companies that have tarnished the reputation of an important industry, reined in. They do not accept a world in which they must compete against companies that would sacrifice the health and lives of their own employees for competitive advantage and blatant profit. There are plenty of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who recognize that legislation is necessary. Congressman Miller, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and I, along with many others, will continue fighting for reforms to give the agencies the tools they need to target the bad actors. We want to ensure that sound companies that have good records can continue to perform and produce, but we just as surely want to ensure that the worst operators can be reined in and that lives can be saved. We can strike a balance, and we will. Changes and improvements may come slowly, but they will come. As long as coal miners and these brave, courageous families continue to demand that the loss of their loved ones not be in vain, they will come. The April 5 disaster of 1 year ago was a tragedy that never, ever should have occurred. We must provide accountability, and we have a duty to institute changes that will help prevent a repeat of that awful day. Those 29 coal miners should not have perished, and for them and all those miners on the job today, we must keep speaking out. Tonight, I will be at the 1-year anniversary with the families of all of these perished coal miners. I will look in the eyes of their loved ones once again as I did that painful week following their tragedy 24 hours, 7 days a week. We will join and we will commemorate these good men and the people who came together to try to rescue them--to them we say thank you--and to provide comfort and a final closure to these families, which we have yet to do. These families want accountability, they want the truth, and they want to ensure that no other families ever have to suffer the way they have. Chairman Miller, Lynn Woolsey and I remain committed to their cause. I urge my colleagues to join us in this life-saving, important endeavor.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare bring economic security within reach of working American families, regardless of income. Workers deserve the benefits they are owed after a lifetime of paying into these programs. And, yet, there are some, driven by blind ideology and partisanship, who aim to chip away at those guarantees, bit by bit. There are budget proposals--reducing the operating expenses for the Social Security program, and curtailing the ability of Social Security to pay benefits--that hint of a radical restructuring of the program. There are budget proposals that are unabashed in their radicalism toward Medicare. In the name of fixing deficits in other areas of the budget, some will try to point fingers at seniors programs as the culprit, but don't you believe it. We must be extremely cautious and jealous in protecting Social Security and Medicare, or we may find that they will be taken away forever.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, it was just last week two airliners landed at Washington National Airport without landing clearances because apparently the single person in charge of the control tower fell asleep. While investigations are ongoing, we certainly have seen accidents in the past where controller staffing and fatigue were implicated, such as the August 2006 crash of Comair Flight 5191 in Lexington, Kentucky. So I was surprised when some of my Republican colleagues used this most recent incident at Washington National Airport as an opportunity to argue that the FAA should ``do more with less.'' Do more with less: that's how the Republicans think the FAA will operate under this bill. When we're talking about investing in air traffic control modernization or regulating safety or hiring a sufficient number of safety inspectors, there's no such thing as ``doing more with less.'' Under this bill, the FAA will have to do less with less, and you would have to be asleep at the controls not to see that. The FAA is primarily a safety agency, and virtually all of its activities are safety related. As last week's incident should make clear, now is not the time to arbitrarily cut almost $4 billion from the FAA programs and argue that the agency can do more with less on safety. A long-term FAA reauthorization bill must move the aviation system into the 21st century, create jobs, strengthen our economy, and provide the resources necessary to enhance safety. This legislation, unfortunately, does not meet those goals. It will require significant changes before it can be enacted into law, and therefore I cannot support it. One thing we should all be honest about right now: this is not a jobs bill. The bill cuts FAA funding by billions of dollars, back to 2008 levels. You cannot cut funding so dramatically without destroying tens of thousands of jobs: Federal jobs, State jobs, local jobs, public and private sector jobs. In addition to costing jobs, the bill's funding cuts would cause delays to air traffic control modernization, meaning more delayed flights, a reduction of FAA's safety workforce and delays to FAA safety rules. Now, aside from the funding levels, there are two particular issues that preclude my support for this bill. The first is that the bill sunsets the Essential Air Service program for the lower 48 States in 2013, leaving behind about 110 communities across the country. Yet at the same time, the bill extends airport improvements to the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. We do not even own them. They are independent countries. Now, I do understand the reasons for providing airport improvement funds to these island nations. We do have a compact with them. But in seeking to keep faith with our agreements with those countries, the majority is more than willing to break the promise to rural America right here at home that was made under the Airline Deregulation Act and the FAA reauthorization bills that followed. EAS is a vital lifeline between rural communities and the global network of commerce. Small and rural communities have grown up around EAS, which directly supports local jobs. It creates a flow of goods and commerce into and out of small-town America. It brings families together. It links four communities in my home State of West Virginia with other cities and towns around the country and around the world. Essential Air Service is an investment; it's not a handout. It is an investment in jobs and economic growth for small towns. The majority is turning its back on small towns and rural America. I will continue to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to honor the promise that Congress has made to the people in rural America. I recognize the job-protecting benefits of the EAS program and the value of critical Federal investment for rural communities. Now, before I conclude, there's another section that has no business whatsoever being in this bill, and that is a provision that seeks to overturn a rule finalized by the National Mediation Board on fair union representation in elections. The rule did away with an unjust and undemocratic requirement under which a supermajority of airline and railroad workers had to vote in favor of union representation before a union could be certified to represent them at the bargaining table. Non-votes were counted as ``no'' votes, even though there was no reason to conclude workers were against union representation because they were sick or on furlough and did not vote. The new rule, which this bill would overturn, says that the mediation board must count the votes among those employees who voted and must determine the will of the workers according to the ``yes'' and ``no'' votes actually cast. Now, just as congressional elections turn on a majority of those who voted, union representation elections should reflect the will of the voters. This is a poison pill provision. A provision to overturn that rule simply has no business being in this legislation. It has nothing to do with safety. It has nothing to do with improving our air transportation system. And it has absolutely nothing to do with making air service more efficient. Rather, it is a lightning rod of controversy, part of a concerted assault, as we've seen too often this year, on collective bargaining. Republicans and Democrats alike have opposed it. It barely survived in the committee markup by a single vote. This unprovoked and unnecessary provision has no place in such critically needed legislation to keep the FAA moving forward and the flying public safe. When it comes to doing more with less, my friends on the other side of the aisle are correct about a few things, I have to admit, when it comes to the pending legislation: More than 70,000 jobs lost with less funding for the AIP program. More risks to the traveling public with less safety personnel and initiatives. More assaults on collective bargaining rights for American workers. More controversial poison pill provisions with less focus on job creation and safety enhancements. Yep, that's doing more with less. With warning lights flashing and alarm bells ringing, we cannot afford to go to sleep at the controls at such an important time for our aviation system. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. I yield an additional 15 seconds.

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

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the sincere efforts of the chairman of my committee Mr. Mica, the subcommittee chairman Mr. Petri, and our ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Mr. Costello. There have been serious efforts to work in a bipartisan way, but I fully realize that on the majority's side a lot of these decisions, a lot of these funding levels are not necessarily made by the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, but rather by other forces that are out there on the majority's side. I also recognize that a lot of these decisions are made at levels higher than the chairman's, at levels higher than even that at which airplanes fly. So this is not all necessarily the chairman's fault. I think it would be fair to warn the body that the administration has issued their position on this legislation. And they say that if the funding were appropriated at the levels proposed in the bill, the safe and efficient movement of air traffic, on the ground and in the air, would be degraded today and in the future. And, more importantly, the administration has reiterated its opposition to the poison pill labor provisions in this bill, and has said if the President is presented with a bill that would not safeguard the ability of railroad and airline workers to decide whether or not they would be represented by a union based upon a majority of the ballots cast in election, or that would degrade safe and efficient air travel, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge that the House do not accept this bill. We have even further degrading amendments to safety that will come later in the amendment process that I want to reference very quickly at this point, including one that would allow more flyovers at sports events.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to second the comments he's made about the fairness on both sides of the aisle. I think the chairman has been particularly fair and, as stated, is willing to work with so many Members on amendments, whether he has accepted them today or not. I also commend the staffs on both sides for their hard work. Mr. Petri, I commend his leadership, and Mr. Costello as well on my side of the aisle. And let's all hope this is the last time we go through this this year on this bill.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First I want to read through the rules of the House and what I understand is a congressional earmark. Under clause 9 of rule XXI, a congressional earmark is defined as a provision included at the request of a Member authorizing or recommending spending authority for an entity or targeted to a specific locality or congressional district. The amendment before us qualifies as a congressional earmark. The gentleman from New Mexico specifically is requesting the provision. In addition, the amendment authorizes spending authority for Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Subsection (b)(2) states: ``Any amount received by the County for the conveyance,'' which clearly contemplates the county receiving funding pursuant to this provision. Therefore, the amendment qualifies as a congressional earmark under clause 9 of rule XXI. Moreover, under clause 17 of rule XXII of the rules of the House regarding Members' Code of Conduct, a Member requesting a congressional earmark must provide a written statement to the chair and ranking member certifying that neither the Member nor his spouse has a financial interest in the earmark. I don't question that at all here, but I am just saying what the rules are. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the rule waives all points of order against the amendment. However, is there any way to ensure that the gentleman from New Mexico files the appropriate financial disclosure certification with the Committee on T&I required under clause 17 of rule XXII? These disclosure requirements were included in the House rules in the 110th Congress under the Democratic majority. They have served the House well. Merely what I am trying to do is ensure that the sunshine provisions continue to be the standard of the House. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin for yielding. I do rise in support of her amendment, which would allow the FAA to conduct demonstration projects in support of aerotropolis zones around airports. These zones would encourage compatible land uses around airports. They would also facilitate transportation projects that would improve airport access and reduce congestion. These projects would not be required, but this amendment would give the FAA the flexibility to encourage the development of aerotropolises around our Nation's airports, which would be for the benefit of the flying public and local economies. I commend the gentlelady on her amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, it's very clear that the other body would not accept this amendment if the bill goes over to them with this in it. It's clear that the President of the United States would not accept this bill with the current language because he has already said he will veto it if it comes to his desk in this way. So I guess the proponents of this particular provision are just wanting to continue to pass extension after extension, thereby threatening airport improvement, threatening to halt airport construction, just as they're threatening to shut down our government. It's not about unions. It's not about increasing union representation. It's about fairness. It's about what's right for the American worker. That's all we're talking about in this particular amendment. Mr. Chair, this amendment is about what's right for American workers. Section 903 of the bill repeals a rule of the National Mediation Board, which is the law of the land, that was finalized to provide for fair and democratic union elections among airline and railroad workers. The rule has not opened the floodgates to unionization. But it has made union elections fair. Under the prior rule--the rule that would be reinstated by this bill--a majority of all eligible voters had to vote in favor of a union, in order .for that union to be certified by the National Mediation Board as their representative. That was undemocratic and unfair. The current rule requires the mediation board to count ballots according to those who actually voted. The majority rules. That is a precept of our democracy, and it should control in union elections just like it controls in any other election. The National Mediation Board's rule is right, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to keep it the law of the land. I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

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

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