Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, although not in opposition, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

Mr. RAHALL. Time check, please, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time, actually. We're going to have time during the amendment process to debate the three amendments that have been made in order under the rule. I wish more had been made in order--that's why I voted against the rule--but that decision was the Rules Committee. The three that will be allowed, of course one has to do with environmental gutting--I mean, streamlining; the other has to do with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; and then the third has to do with legislation introduced by my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) dealing with coal waste ash, the latter of which there is support from my side of the aisle for and, indeed, from myself. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is a good amendment. I'm glad the Rules Committee made that in order, and I find myself in position to support that as well as the coal ash amendment. At the proper time, I'll speak further on it. I would like to say that the gentleman from Florida, my chairman, has referred to the inability of our side of the aisle to pass legislation when we were in control of this body. We may have been in control of the other body as well--although, we were not, because the minority over there, as the gentleman knows, has more power than the majority in the other body; and perhaps we did not have the full support of the administration as we would have liked under then-Chairman Jim Oberstar's leadership, and that's unfortunate as well. I don't think any of us would deny that on this side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is, today, with the other body being even more divided than it was in previous leadership regimes, they have passed a bipartisan bill. Half of the Republican Members of the other body supported their bipartisan transportation bill. Both the chairlady and the ranking member of the relevant committee joined together, put their names on a piece of legislation, put some reforms in it that are good reforms, provided a 2-year bill, paid for, and I believe is a bill that we should have been considering today and that I had made the request to the Rules Committee yesterday to consider, but they did not grant my wishes, so we are where we are today. We have an additional 90-day extension that we will be asked to vote on later today. That's a good thing, I guess, if we get to a conference. And this is the final point that I want to make is that conference must be held sooner rather than later. It must be held as soon as possible. We're ready to go to conference later today if the conferees were to be announced. We already have the Senate bill. So from our side of the aisle, we're ready to go to conference today, right now. I would urge the majority in this body to call that conference as soon as possible. Our workers cannot wait any longer. Our small businesses cannot wait any longer. Our road contractors cannot wait any longer. This is the time of the year when road contracts are let, as I'm sure my distinguished chairman and every Member of this body knows full well. This is the time of the year, the springtime of the year when those decisions have to be made, when our small businesses, when our road contractors need to let their employees and prospective employees know--today they need to let them know whether or not they're going to have a job, not 90 days from now, not 90 plus 90 days from now, but today. So that's why I would urge that this conference committee meet as quickly as possible. I call upon the leadership of this body to call a conference committee. Our workers are ready. Our contractors are ready. Contracts are ready to be let. We need those American jobs now, and I would hope that Chairman Mica would join me in a bipartisan plea to assign conferees as expeditiously as possible and to call a conference even quicker, if that's possible. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Is the gentleman from Florida ready to close?

Mr. RAHALL. I know how much time I have left, I think, but just tell me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAHALL. Let me, again, repeat what I said a moment ago. I'm sure the chairman heard me. And I'm asking, once again, that we go to conference as quickly as possible. I gave the reasons in my concluding speech why that is necessary for the sake of jobs for Americans. I would hope that, in one last-ditch effort, one last-ditch effort to plead for bipartisanship in this body, as the other body has already demonstrated and proved, that perhaps the chairman would join me, his ranking member, in a letter to the Speaker urging that we go to conference as quickly as possible. The legislative process has been explained to me, and when you cut through it all, we could go to conference as early as tonight on this legislation. So I would ask the chairman, once again, if he would join me in that last bipartisan plea I make for such a joint pleading with the Speaker to go to conference. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. RAHALL. As we are all anxiously awaiting the chairman to respond with his time, I yield back the balance of my time so that we all can wait with bated breath to hear the distinguished chairman's response to our invitation.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. RAHALL. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) and commend him for all his hard work on this legislation.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, has their time expired?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As a Representative of the great seafaring State of West Virginia, I rise in support of the gentleman's legislation as well. Really, ports are important to my State. We export a great deal of coal out of my district to the Port of Norfolk. The northern part of West Virginia's coal goes to the Port of Baltimore, so harbors and ports are very important to West Virginia and for the movement of our coal from the State to its world customers. I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), as well, for the tremendous work he has done on this legislation. For far too long, we have been collecting far more resources in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund than we have transferred to the Corps of Engineers for their O&M activities, to the point where in the current fiscal year, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is expected to have an unexpended balance of over $8 billion by the end of the year. I support the gentleman's efforts to use these funds for maintenance dredging rather than to cover the general expenditures of the U.S. Treasury. However, in my view, this amendment does not go far enough because it strips out any enforcement mechanism should this language be ignored. In addition, the language also ignores concerns expressed by our committee colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Mr. Bishop of New York, on ensuring an equitable distribution of trust fund dollars between our Nation's large, midsize, and small commercial harbors. I do look forward to working on these critical issues as we continue our discussion on a long-term surface transportation bill in conference, which we call for today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I strongly support the efficient review of projects to ensure timely project delivery, I believe it is possible to balance these needs with adequate opportunity for public input. Unfortunately, the provisions in the Ribble amendment are far beyond balanced and would severely limit public input into surface transportation decisions. In effect, the amendment places a roadblock on public participation in reviewing transportation projects by limiting and, in certain cases, outright waiving NEPA. That goes far beyond streamlining. Locking the public out of the decisionmaking process is steamrolling our constituents and local governments. The most galling aspect of this amendment is that it would completely exempt any and all highway projects where the Federal share of the costs is less than $10 million or 15 percent of project costs from the requirements to provide public participation and an analysis of alternatives in the project decisionmaking process. Proponents of the amendment argue that NEPA and other laws are causing years of project delays. That's simply not true. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the vast majority of projects delivered both by the Federal Highway Administration and the FTA--96 percent, to be exact--already go through minimal NEPA review, meaning that all NEPA compliance is completed within 2\1/4\ months to 6 months. Ironically, this amendment could increase those delays by excluding the public from participation in the project review process and increasing the likelihood of public opposition to a project, leading to greater delays in project delivery. Now, many of us know the public, if they're locked out of a decisionmaking project or review process where they feel they have a legitimate right to participate, where are they going to go? They're going to go to the courts and sue. Does the gentleman think that the judicial process, when you have to face lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, is going to be streamlining the process? I think not. We're looking at a longer process there than any environmental review would ever entail. Again, while I strongly support efficient review and sufficient review of projects to ensure timely project delivery, this amendment goes too far. It undermines public participation in local decisions and could potentially create greater problems of project delivery. And I would urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, back in 1980, former Representative Tom Bevill of Alabama and I inserted an amendment into the Solid Waste Disposal Act requiring EPA to study and then determine how to regulate coal ash. That was in 1980. Today, 32 years later, EPA has not done so in a final manner, so I believe it is completely appropriate to place this authority within the hands of the State as the pending amendment by the gentleman from West Virginia would clearly do. In the wake of the 2008 coal waste disaster at a TVA facility, I introduced legislation to strengthen the regulation of coal ash impoundments. The pending legislation is not perfect in these respects. In fact, there are some flaws which need to be worked out further. I also believe there are more appropriate ways to gain enactment of the provisions of H.R. 2273 which this amendment reflects. In fact, we should all note that the bill has already passed the House and been sent to the other body where Senators are actually working to achieve a bipartisan agreement. I will, however, vote for this amendment because I have long supported many of the concepts embodied in it, including active oversight of coal ash impoundments and the promotion of the beneficial reuse of coal ash for activities like road building, which my colleague from West Virginia has already well demonstrated. So as I conclude, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I join in thanking my colleague from West Virginia for bringing it to us today. And I praise him for his consistency because he came to me early on in our T&I markup process to have this introduced in committee.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes at this time to the distinguished gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the ranking member on our Economic Development and Public Buildings Subcommittee.

Mr. RAHALL. I guess it's not very popular on his side of the aisle. He doesn't seem to have many speakers coming over. I haven't noticed many members of his committee to speak in favor of this extension today. I am prepared to close. I would take some time from the distinguished chairman, if he'd be willing to yield me some of his time.

Mr. RAHALL. That's about all we're getting out of H.R. 7, too. Madam Speaker, if the other side were serious about creating jobs, they would have worked in a bipartisan fashion in this body, as the other body did, to build a bill that could pass both bodies of the Congress and be signed into law. As the distinguished Democratic leader has just said, everybody is on board except the leadership of the House of Representatives on the Republican side. Just as this Congress has done so many times before--and I have been in this body over three decades, involved in every transportation bill we've done over that time--every transportation bill we've done has been in a bipartisan fashion, passing this body by overwhelming margins. Instead, today's leadership in this House has plowed full speed ahead writing a partisan proposal that is aimed at appealing to ideological spectrums of their party. Last month, Teamsters general president James Hoffa wrote in a letter: How do eliminating OSHA protections for hazmat workers improve this Nation's crumbling roads and bridges? How do loopholes in ``Buy America'' protections put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back on the job? Last month in a letter addressed to the Speaker of this body, the general president of the Laborers International Union, Terry O'Sullivan, wrote: The House must return to the principles of sound governance and bipartisanship that has historically characterized consideration of the Surface Transportation Act. He further noted: The offsets used to pay for this bill are also irresponsible. Slashing the pay and retirement security of the hardworking Federal and postal employees is neither honest nor fair. It is an unacceptable attack on the hardworking people who provide essential services for veterans and Native Americans, process our mail, keep our skies safe, our parks clean, and help protect us from threats, both foreign and domestic. As has already been noted, one of our key business groups in this country, the Associated General Contractors, has stated the following: The majority of the work is supposed to go out in spring and get done by the fall. Instead of spending 60 or 70 percent of their budgets, our small businesses are going to cut back to 50 to 40 percent to make sure they have some cash in the fall. That comes from one of the major business groups in this country responsible for putting people to work and responsible for getting our economy moving again. I urge that we take up the bipartisan Senate- passed bill and reject this extension. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. I and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) have tried and tried and tried to bring that up and on the floor of the House. Yet we get turned down at every turn in the road. At every corner in the road, we get turned down in our efforts to bring up the bipartisan Senate transportation bill. It is not very often that you will find such a measure produced by that other body. Yet they've done it this time, and we cannot get it brought up to the floor of this body.

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I asked for this time only because the chairman referred to opening these hearings in my hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, which he did, and I appreciate that very much and the many other hearings he held across the country. Yet the question is, you have to learn from these hearings, and you have to incorporate that which you learn from these hearings into the bill that you end up finally writing, and I'm not sure that was done from what the gentleman heard from my home State. In addition, which the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to, as to the bipartisanship of the other body, we all know in this town and across the country how hard it is to get that other body to agree on anything. Even if it were a resolution saying, ``I love Mother,'' it's hard to get 60 votes over there for anything. Yet they got 72 votes for a bipartisan transportation bill. They got half of the Republican Members of that other body to support a bipartisan transportation bill. We have tried, as the gentleman from Massachusetts knows, to bring that up in the Rules Committee, to make it in order.

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the extension the majority is bringing to the floor this morning is too long, and it will do nothing but continue the uncertainty that States and businesses-- small businesses, I might add--have faced since the expiration in the last long-term bill in August '09, 2\1/2\ years and eight extensions ago. Uncertainty is what we are continuing by the passage of this extension today, uncertainty among the small business community in this country. They need the certainty with which to plan contracts. This happens to be the springtime of the year, the time when contracts are let and when jobs are planned and when people need to know if they're going to be working or not--not 90 days from now. This is the contracting season with the work usually done during the summer and then concluded by the fall, and the bottom lines are added up. We have already heard stories of small businesses that have had to cut back from 80 percent of their budget to 40 percent or less because they don't know what the Congress is going to do in terms of a long- term transportation bill. To elaborate on what my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) had said, the impacts on our State DOTs of endless extensions and the inability to plan for current and future transportation needs are very real, very real. And here are just a few of the examples: North Carolina has delayed projects totaling $1.2 billion, affecting 41,000 jobs; Nevada and Maryland each report 4,000 jobs are at risk due to projects being delayed; Michigan has only let 35 percent of its projects, or $180 million below its normal activity level, and it's delayed several large construction projects; Rhode Island has delayed $80 million worth of projects and planning for needed safety and structural improvements of a major interchange; My home State of West Virginia reports that an extension would result in a 10 percent cut in programs, affecting over 1,200 jobs, and the State of West Virginia may be forced to shut projects down or delay payments to contractors to manage cash flow; New Hampshire, Mr. Speaker, will not award contracts on $60 million in projects that were recently bid, affecting 1,800 job years, and will delay $115 million in bond issuance for the construction of two exits; and Illinois estimates that the uncertainty posed by stopgap funding measures means that 4,500 jobs could be lost and that ongoing uncertainty will increase contractor risk and cause higher bids for construction projects. Without congressional action on the Senate bill, many States in the Northeast and Midwest stand to lose an entire construction season. That would be a devastating blow to many States as they slowly recover from the worst construction downturn since the Great Depression. While millions of construction jobs and much-needed infrastructure projects hang in the balance, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent weeks driving in circles. They have at least been consistent and embraced this theme of uncertainty in their own internal deliberations.