Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening comments, the Senate bill, MAP 21, is not the perfect bill. It's not the bill I would have written had I had my druthers. And yet I hear several of my colleagues on the other side saying how stunned they are that I am not for the House bill and that I would be here offering a motion to accept, carte blanche, the other body's bill. I'm sure those Members know how this process works, and before I just give them a brief lesson on that, let me repeat my words again from my opening comments: that the other body's bill is not perfect. If there are issues that we must change, we can address those through a technical corrections bill that will make the necessary policy changes to improve the bill. This is not unprecedented. We have done it before, I would say to my stunned colleagues on the other side of the aisle. So there is nothing to prevent Congress from enacting S. 1813 and then continuing to work to develop further bicameral, bipartisan changes to further improve our surface transportation programs and policies. But the bottom line here, the bottom line here is that our American workers should not have to wait any longer as Congress searches for an agreement. The time for political games, the time for adding stuff to score political points, is over. I would say, in addition, to my distinguished chairman from Florida, he appears to blame part of his problems, headaches, and troubles on his side of the aisle on the fact that we no longer have what are known as earmarks. Now, it seems to me his suggestion is that we reinstate that process known as earmarks whereby we, in this body, if it's so concerned about Members of the House having a say and doing our constitutional jobs, where we would have a legitimate input into the making of transportation policy by deciding those local projects that are best for our people, rather than leaving them to bureaucracies or to Presidents of the United States, regardless of who occupies that office. So, last week, I asked my colleague to join me in a bipartisan manner in writing a letter, which he kindly agreed, to the Speaker urging an expeditious naming of conferees, which we've now done. That was a bipartisan letter signed by the big four in our committee. I would now ask him, again, in the spirit of bipartisanship, and I will yield him time if he's prepared to answer my question yes or no--yes or no--if he will join me in a bipartisan letter to the Speaker asking for the reinstatement of earmarks. Yes or no?

Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate the gentleman's response. Perhaps we ought to start drafting such a letter and see how far we get. But let me conclude my part of the debate here, Madam Speaker, by reiterating what my motion is. It's simple, it's pure, it's clean, and it's straightforward. It instructs our conferees that we are appointing today to agree to the Senate bill. That bill, known as MAP 21, provides a total of $109 billion in funding for fiscal years '12 and '13 for Federal highway, highway safety, and public transportation programs. Among its other features, it continues current funding levels, it sustains approximately 1.9 million jobs on an annual basis, it provides continued dedicated financing for public transit from the highway trust fund--no more ``go fish'' with general appropriators on a yearly basis for our transit agencies. It continues and expands upon provisions developed during the last Surface Transportation Act to expedite project delivery without gutting environmental protections or limiting public participation. I fear if you do either of the last two, you're only going to prolong the process through court battles because there will be court challenges that will go on beyond any approval process of the bureaucracy that may exist today. The Senate bill also strengthens Buy America requirements that apply to Federal highway, transit, and rail capital projects by prohibiting the segmentation of such projects in order to avoid Buy America requirements. It ensures that the Department of Transportation periodically review existing nationwide waivers applicable to highway and rail projects. It requires DOT to justify any proposed waiver of the Buy America requirements, and it ensures that the American public has notice of an opportunity to comment on any proposed waiver prior to taking effect. Finally, MAP 21's bipartisan financing package fully pays for the bill--fully pays for the bill, fully pays for the bill--by providing approximately $9.6 billion in new revenues into the highway trust fund. This amount will fully pay for highway, transit, and highway safety programs authorized by the bill, and it will allow DOT to maintain a positive balance in both the highway and transit accounts of the highway trust fund at the end of the bill. The bipartisan offsets do not add to the deficit because the general fund of the Treasury is also made whole for every dollar that's transferred into the highway trust fund. So as I conclude, let me say that for these reasons I urge adoption of this motion.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. RAHALL. Correct.

Mr. RAHALL. No, I'm not asking you to roll over and play dead. I'm saying that we ought to go to conference, accept the Senate bill. We can come back, as I've said now for the third or fourth time, and enact a technical corrections bill if there is something that we see in there that is drastically bad.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I've said many times during this debate that that's not the position of this gentleman that we roll over and play dead to the other body. I've said the other body is not the perfect bill. I've said that there are technical corrections we can change once we get a conference underway. Once we pass a conference committee bill, we can come back and make technical changes. That's not unprecedented in this body. The important point here to remember is: no longer can we play these political games; no longer can we add extraneous stuff on a jobs bill such as this transportation bill to score political points for a certain wing of our party. What we need to do, and the American people are demanding, this is the time that contracts are let for work-- not 90 days from now, not 180 days from now. This is springtime. This is time when the highway projects are let, and the American worker is waiting to know whether he or she will have a job this summer. That's why I think every move should be made to get to conference expeditiously, to have that conference conclude its work and bring a bill back for both Houses of Congress to enact in order to provide that certainty to the American small businesses, to the American economy, to the American worker that he or she will have a job this summer. And that certainty should not wait around for us to decide whether we're going to roll over and play dead or not. That bill can be corrected, as we've done numerous times in this body, through technical changes once we have given that certainty to the American worker and to the American people. It's for that reason that I urge that the House today approve this motion to instruct conferees as we go to conference on the transportation bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on March 29, I introduced H.R. 4335, the Postal Service Accountability Act. My bill would empower the independent postal regulator, the Postal Regulatory Commission, PRC, to block postal closures where the Postal Service, USPS, does not give sufficient attention to the undue burden a closure would have on a community. Under current law, when the Postal Service is considering closing a post office, the affected public must be notified. The Postal Service opens a 60 day comment period, which includes a public meeting to allow local citizens a chance to voice their concerns. Once the public comment period closes, should the Postal Service decide to close a post office, the public has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission. According to the Congressional Research Service, the PRC may fault the USPS' decision to close a post office only if the PRC finds the decision to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; without observance of procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial evidence on the record. The PRC may require the USPS to reconsider its decision, but the ultimate authority to close a post office rests with the USPS. My bill would give the PRC a binding authority to block a post office closure. It would require the Postal Service to consider the economic impact of a closure on a community, and empower the PRC to set aside a determination that is unsupported by substantial evidence regarding projected savings, mail delivery services, and community and worker impact. In addition, the Postal Service would be required to perform an after-the-fact review one year after a closure and make public its findings to ensure mail delivery services have been maintained. My bill also would apply the revised appeals process to postal sorting facilities. Currently, there is no appeals process for mail processing facilities. As well, my measure would prevent the Postal Service from proceeding with a closure without the written concurrence of three commissioners, halting the dubious practice of affirming closures by tie votes. These are modest and practical changes designed to ensure that the Postal Service approaches these closures with an open mind and listens respectfully and attentively to community opinion. At issue is the basic right of citizens of a community to be heard. It will help to guard against the bureaucratic mentality, which too often takes root in executive agencies, that agency officials know best. We must ensure that the Postal Service's actions are grounded in the best interests of the people it was created to serve. In July 2011, when the Postal Service announced its Retail Access Optimization Initiative and its intention to study nearly 3,700 post offices nationwide for closure, including 85 in southern West Virginia, the Postal Service was already pursuing a host of closure studies for separate post offices, as well as the consolidation of postal sorting facilities, including eighteen post offices and three processing facilities in southern West Virginia. Under the law, the Postal Service is required to consider the impact of a post office closure on a community, on the affected postal workers, and on mail delivery services. Federal law requires the USPS to ``provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining.'' And, yet, there have been serious doubts raised about the Postal Service's adherence to these requirements. In its advisory opinion on the Postal Service's RA0I proposal, the PRC found that the Postal Service was unable to provide the data necessary to confirm its cost savings projections associated with the post offices proposed for closure. The Commission also expressed concerns about ensuring that alternatives are available to meet the needs of affected communities prior to a postal facility closure decision. In a concurring opinion, the PRC chairman strongly rebuked the Postal Service's closure process, noting: ``The Commission has recently heard appeals on more than 60 individual post office closings. The records in these cases reveal a pattern of inaccurate and overly optimistic economic savings calculations and of careless disregard of community concerns. While the facts of those cases were not considered by the Commission in its Advisory Opinion, they nevertheless demonstrate an ongoing institutional bias within the Postal Service that presumes closing small post offices automatically provides cost savings and network efficiencies.'' The PRC's findings echo what I am hearing anecdotally from my constituents--that the public comment process is a perfunctory exercise--just for show--as the Postal Service bulldozes ahead closing valued postal facilities for very little, if any, economic savings. This sentiment has become so frequent that it prompted me to contact the Postmaster General last October to question whether the public comment process is truly accomplishing its purpose, which is to give the public an opportunity to convey its views to the Postal Service and to give the Postal Service the opportunity to adjust its actions accordingly. Within a two-month period last fall, the USPS Appalachian District scheduled more than 40 public meetings in southern West Virginia, raising doubts that the Postal Service can appropriately manage the public feedback received from each meeting and prepare for continued mail delivery should a closure occur. In one case, residents said that their post office was closed before rural delivery was fully established. In other instances, public meetings have been scheduled at inconvenient times, like Halloween night, limiting public participation. In 2009, as part of a separate closure process, the Postal Service issued an emergency suspension of the Hacker Valley Post Office in Webster County, West Virginia. I said at the time that the action was unwarranted and I was later validated in my concerns by the Postal Regulatory Commission. In response, the Postal Service offered to solicit for a Contract Postal Unit, CPU, in Hacker Valley, which would be operated by a supplier under contract with the Postal Service to provide retail postal services. After soliciting bids in March 2011, postal officials abruptly ended the process, requiring me to contact the Postal Service to remedy the matter, which it did. What happened in Hacker Valley underscores the need to keep a close eye on the Postal Service's proposed closures. I am convinced that legitimate safety and convenience concerns of residents and businesses are not being sufficiently addressed--that many post offices' fates are predetermined and that the public comment process, in too many instances, has become a perfunctory step in the closure process, instead of being used to truly assess legitimate safety and convenience issues, and to take steps to minimize the adverse impact on the community. I also question the criteria used to select post offices for a closure study, noting the conflict with the Postal Service's statutory charter that requires the Postal Service to provide ``a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services'' to rural communities where post offices are not self-sustaining, explicitly prohibiting small post offices from being closed solely for operating at a deficit. Despite this requirement, the Postal Service has utilized computer- driven criteria in identifying retail facilities for closure. Three of the four criteria are financially based and clearly target small facilities that are not heavy revenue producers. As such, it is not surprising that there is a concentration of closings in rural areas, where computer-driven criteria cannot fully reflect the importance of a post office. Clearly, the Postal Service has a responsibility to ensure its long- term fiscal solvency, but that must not happen at the expense of its public service obligations in ensuring universal mail services. The Postal Service is not FedEx or UPS, which can pick and choose between profitable and unprofitable markets. Nowhere does the law waive the Postal Service's public service obligations if deficits run high. The Postal Service needs to look at other ways to become more profitable and competitive by improving and modernizing its services rather than cutting off rural customers. Rural customers, more so than their urban counterparts, rely on the Postal Service for basic mail necessities--for sending bills and receiving checks, newspaper deliveries, and small businesses reaching customers--especially in areas where internet access is limited. These closures will disrupt local economies and the lives of residents and businesses--from seniors who depend on the delivery of life-sustaining mail-order drugs, to the communities where the post office is the heart of the neighborhood--and there needs to be a better mechanism in place to ensure not only that public concerns are being addressed, but also that the public feels as though it is being heard. Some may want to view the Postal Service solely as a business, but it is still a public institution and it must remain responsive and accountable to the people. The Congress must take action to reinforce the point, empowering an independent regulator to watch over the Postal Service to guard against overly optimistic savings projections and insufficient attention to community needs in the closure process. I previously urged the Postmaster General to place a moratorium on postal closures until a practical and realistic plan for managing and responding to public concerns is provided to the American public. Subsequently, the Postal Service announced that it would delay any closings or consolidations until May 15, 2012. I recently wrote to the Postmaster General to ask that he extend the May 15 moratorium until the Congress has completed action on postal reform legislation. In the coming weeks, the House is expected to consider such legislation. While I am opposed to the Committee reported bill in its current form, especially with regard to its eliminating six-day delivery and potentially expediting the closure process, I am hopeful that the House will consider and pass legislation that will help ensure that our small, rural postal facilities are not made to bear the brunt of the Postal Service's nationwide budgetary challenges. I urge the House leadership to act expeditiously.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I support tax and regulatory policies that help small businesses attract investment and create jobs, but I also believe that we in the Congress must be responsible stewards of taxpayer funds. I voted against H.R. 9 because it would spend an enormous amount of money without any requirements that the funds be invested in job creation or even invested in the American economy. Any company that receives the tax benefit provided by this bill could use it to bolster profits while laying off workers and shipping American jobs overseas. Half of the tax breaks would go to only 0.3 percent of taxpayers, those with incomes exceeding $1 million, costing $46 billion while the rest of our Nation is forced to endure the impact of painful spending cuts in programs important to working middle-class families. That's hardly fair and certainly not right. This measure is more about scoring political points in an election year--trying to play gotcha--when we should be trying to move forward on measures that would give a real boost to job creation and economic growth.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. RAHALL. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition; although, I am in support of the amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of my final 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Ways and Means committee, Mr. Richard Neal.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the last long-term surface transportation authorization expired on September 30, '09. We continue to limp along, patching together our Nation's transportation system through short-term extensions that cause uncertainty and create chaos for construction crews and local communities across the country and our State transportation departments. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported the House Republican leadership's misguided, 5-year surface transportation bill on February 13 of this year. The Rules Committee approved a rule governing its consideration on the floor on February 15. That was 9 weeks ago this day. During that time, the Republican leadership has failed to find the votes among its Members to pass that bill. Yet, instead of working across party lines as we have traditionally done for decades on transportation policy, the extreme right wing of their party continues to hold the process hostage to their ideological tirade that the Federal Government has no business in supporting a national transportation system. Three weeks ago, I rose to oppose another extension, the ninth extension since these critical job-creating transportation programs expired in '09, because Republicans refused to move the process forward by bringing up the bipartisan Senate-passed bill but, instead, merely wanted to kick the can down the road once again. Mr. Chairman, we are running out of road. I oppose the short-term extension because I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what difference the Republican leadership hopes to achieve over the next 12 weeks that they were unable to achieve over the previous 6 weeks. I fail to understand the perverse notion that if we simply fed their dangerous addiction to serial addictions one more time, the skies would magically part and the Republican leadership would miraculously garner enough votes on their side of the aisle to pass H.R. 7. That was the 5-year bill reported by the T&I Committee, something they have failed to do for months. Last week, we heard the Republican leadership again would be bringing up a short-term extension as a ticket to conference with the Senate. That's the bill that is before us today. When compared with H.R. 7, which is a fatally flawed bill that would mortgage America's future at subprime rates, a clean extension is a vehicle to keep the ball rolling, provided that the Republican leadership will truly allow us to go to conference with the other body. Unlike H.R. 7, a clean extension does not make shortsighted cuts to surface transportation investments that would destroy jobs and economic growth. These cuts are out. We're talking about funding at current levels. Under the scheme advanced by the majority, public transit revenue would have been shifted to highways. Transit would have been bailed out with a one-time transfer of $40 billion from the general fund, robbing middle class Americans to pay for the shuffle. Under the clean extension that we're considering today, this misguided shell game is gone, fortunately. The majority's proposal fails to close all the existing loopholes and Buy America laws. These gaping loopholes are being exploited by foreign competitors, like China, who are stealing American jobs and undermining our ability to create more American jobs and to revive American manufacturing. Under today's bill, locking in these loopholes is out and these provisions can be revisited in a long-term bill. Under a clean extension, the majority's poison pill to needlessly eliminate Occupational Safety and Health Administration protections for hazmat workers, as was originally in H.R. 7, thankfully, is gone today. The majority's efforts to subsidize private transit companies and mandate the use of private engineering firms on Federal-aid highway projects is gone in today's bill. Instead of turning back the clock nearly half a century on America's greatness and the incredible work we have done to grow our Nation, to build a thriving economy, and to lead the global market, we should be working together to develop a bipartisan bill that can pass both bodies and be signed into law. Taking the other side at their word, that they are serious about moving the process forward--I'm beginning to think that may be a likely scenario--passage of this extension of current law through the end of the fiscal year will allow us to go to conference with the other body on their bipartisan multiyear bill which passed with the support of three-quarters of the Senate. That is 74 votes in that other body. How many pieces of legislation do you get that many votes on in the other body? A long-term bill will provide the certainty that States need to invest and proceed with their plans that have been long on the books. It will provide the certainty that highway and transit contractors desperately need to give them the confidence to hire that one more worker. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member on our Transit and Highways Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Railroads, Ms. Corrine Brown.

Mr. RAHALL. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, a valued member of our Committee on Transformation and Infrastructure, Mr. Jerry Nadler.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Steve Cohen.

Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's premiere collection of American culture, the Smithsonian Institution has spoken. My hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, is among the Smithsonian's list of ``The 20 Best Small Towns in America.'' The master curators of our national trends, tastes, tragedies and triumph scoured one of our broad Republic's basic foundations, our small towns, to identify those that best celebrate culture, often those that celebrate their own culture and share it with the world. The forthcoming article in the May 2012 edition of Smithsonian Magazine highlights a few of the Beckley area's many institutions, including the Beckley Exhibition Coal Mine, our Arts center, Tamarack, and the venerable Theater West Virginia. They reflect a hardworking, talented, inspiring, sharing, genuine people who would do anything and everything within their power to help their neighbor. The faith, hope and abundant charity within the hearts of the community is a hallmark we cherish. These cultural icons attract visitors across many cultures as well as our own school kids and families, all who are eager to learn and enjoy. The Smithsonian quest was prompted by the premise that our ``big cities'' and ``grand institutions'' do not have a monopoly on our Nation's creative juices. I wholeheartedly agree. I would only add to the authors' survey, that partnerships as well as individuals--can constitute a virtual wellspring of cultural opportunity. I know, firsthand, that partnerships on all levels of government and from all corners of the private sector have mixed and matched manpower, material and money to share the magic and majesty of our mountain heritage and living to all who pass our way. These public sector commitments to local arts, theater and culture are long term investments of precious taxpayer dollars. They are among the fundamental building blocks of a regional economy. They are among the pillars that support an elevated quality of life for everyone. I know that my hometown is not unique in this respect and hope that my colleagues will keep this in mind as we debate the great needs of our nation. I salute everyone involved in Beckley's, Raleigh County's and the great State of West Virginia's progress and in this most deserved distinction. I say to my colleagues, it's worth a visit real soon. I commend the Smithsonian, affectionately known at the nation's attic, for recognizing the best of our small cities, where the country's front porches have much to offer.