Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to a very valued member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. RAHALL. And do I have the right to close?

Mr. RAHALL. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm ready to close if the gentleman is ready to yield back his time or close himself first.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion on this motion to instruct, let me just say that the motion is in support of the Senate Buy American provisions. The Senate-passed Buy American provisions are very similar if not exactly as the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee adopted on a voice vote, which was offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) during committee consideration of what was then called H.R. 7. So the majority has accepted this language in committee deliberation, and yet they appear to be opposing it as it comes to the floor today in the form of a motion to instruct the conferees. I would say also that that Buy American provision that is in the Senate-passed bill that this motion seeks to accept does allow for the Secretary of Transportation to provide for other than U.S. made when that product that is needed cannot be found in the United States of America or when it is truly cost prohibitive to make that product in the United States of America. So there is sufficient waiver authority provided in the Senate Buy American provisions to allow the Secretary of Transportation to do what is in America's best interest. But most importantly, by adopting my motion to instruct--and in conference hopefully adopting the Senate Buy American provision--we're ending the most egregious loophole that is used to export American jobs, and that is the segmentation of contracts that allows companies to circumvent current Buy American provisions. Let me say in addition that I was here for most of the previous debate on the previous motion to instruct on the Keystone pipeline, and I heard a great deal of support from that side of the aisle urging American-made energy. I certainly agree with that principle. I'm an advocate of all-of-the-above--as long as it's domestic--in our energy policy in this country. And, I might add, I'm a supporter of the Keystone pipeline and have so voted in previous votes in this body. But now it comes to this motion to instruct conferees on Buy American, and I hear just the opposite from the majority side by their rather silent opposition, but nevertheless stated opposition, to this motion because while they're for American-made energy, they appear to be against American-made products using American labor and using the Buy American label on U.S. steel and other products used in our highway construction and transit modes in this country. So it seems to me rather contradictory what we're hearing from the majority side in the debate on these two motions this evening. So as I conclude, let me say that this motion has truly wide-ranging support. I recognize that the majority has inserted the United States Chamber of Commerce opposition to this bill, and then at the same time I heard reference to the deals and the contractual relationships and the other alliances that our United States--supposedly--United States Chamber of Commerce has with other countries to build these projects, again shipping jobs overseas. So I wonder if it's truly the ``United States'' Chamber of Commerce that's addressing this issue. But I will list those that are supportive of the motion to instruct. The Alliance for American manufacturing, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the BlueGreen Alliance, the Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports, the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, McWane, Inc., Municipal Castings Association, National Steel Bridge Alliance, Nucor Corporation, Specialty Steel Industry of North America, Steel Manufacturers Association, the Transportation Trades Department, and the United Steelworkers of America are among just a few of the groups that are supporting this motion to instruct. So, again, let me say this is about--and I will conclude now-- American jobs. When it's made in America, Americans can make it, and we have too many Americans today that are not making it. They are near their rope's end. They're frustrated. They do not see Washington or the Congress of the United States as in any way addressing the real problems that exist out there in America and the real problems in their lives. They see us just passing the buck and continuing to argue among ourselves and appear to not agree on anything. But this is something that we do agree on, as evidenced by the bipartisan manner in which this bill passed the other body--and we know how hard it is to get anything through that other body. But this transportation legislation did pass with over 70 votes in the other body--a rarity in this atmosphere today in Washington, but nevertheless something that happened. That's what we ought to be adopting here is looking at that bipartisan bill and following the other body's lead in this provision and in the entire bill itself. So I conclude and urge Members to adopt this motion to instruct conferees. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my attention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4348. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Rahall moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed to agree to sections 1528, 20017 (to the extent that such section amends section 5323 of title 49, United States Code, to provide subsection (k) relating to Buy America), 33007, 33008, and 35210 of the Senate amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the glorious hills of West Virginia fell more silent than usual this past week. A familiar voice was quieted by the passing of an American original. This last weekend, we celebrated the life and legacy of Mr. Everett Lilly, who passed on to his heavenly reward after 87 years on this Earth. Until just recently, Mr. Lilly's voice and mandolin playing were a familiar melodious staple for the ears and musical souls of southern West Virginians and countless ones beyond our borders. Everett and his brother, Bea, who passed in 2005, introduced bluegrass music, Lilly-style, or as Mr. Lilly liked to call it, ``American Mountain Country Folk Music,'' to our country's northeast in the 1950's with Don Stover and Tex Logan. They rose to international fame and toured Japan. Everett played two separate stints with the legendary bluegrass group formed by Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs. Most recently, even though he was well into his 80s, he toured with his own band, The Lilly Mountaineers, and taught classes at Mountain State University--passing on his knowledge and skill with mountain music and its accompanying lore. The Lilly Brothers were inducted into the West Virginia Music Hall of Fame and the International Bluegrass Music Hall of Fame. Everett received the Vandalia Award, West Virginia's highest folk life honor, in 2009. Tributes to Mr. Lilly and his considerable talents continue to be written, West Virginia's Mountain Stage's memorial to him reminds us that country singer, Marty Stuart, called Mr. Lilly, ``God's mandolin player.'' Let me just add that all the words used to describe Mr. Lilly's legacy like entertainment giant, pioneering artist, and musical legend and icon are true I knew Mr. Lilly and know his family. They are friends of mine and the best compliment I can pay him is that what you saw was what you got. I don't think he had a fake bone in his body, and he was more than ready to lend a helping hand whenever, wherever possible. Indeed, as our hometown newspaper, the Register Herald, summed it up succinctly, Everett was genuine. Among the tens of thousands Mr. Lilly enlightened and entertained over the decades was everyone from presidents to just plain good people. Though he achieved international fame and the composition of his audiences would drastically change from venue to venue, he never did. Whether he was on the world stage or staged in front of a family barn here in southern West Virginia, Everett never strayed from his deep roots in Clear Creek, West Virginia. The New York Times ran a warm story on Mr. Lilly's many accomplishments and concluded with perhaps what he considered his greatest, his family. Mr. Lilly's son, Jiles, preceded him in death, but he is survived by his wife of 64 years, JoAnn; three sons, Daniel, Mark and Everett Alan; four daughters, Karen Pierangelino, Diana Tomah, Ann Lilly and Laverne Wheeler; a sister, Flossie Williams; and numerous grandchildren and great-grandchildren. ``He played music right up to the end,'' Daniel Lilly told the Times. ``He was enjoying life and still riding his four-wheeler through the woods at the age of 87. He died at the kitchen table.'' He and his band used to play an old song that seems a fitting epitaph for his long happy career and life. I leave you with the lyrics to, ``Who will sing for me,'' confidant that the praises for Everett Lilly will continue to be sung by all those whose lives he touched. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we all could take a page or two from the songbook of this talented, this beloved son of West Virginia: Often I sing for my friends At death's cold hand I see When I reach my journey's end Who will sing for me Chorus I wonder (I wonder) who Will sing (will sing) for me When I come the cross of that silent sea Who will sing for me When crowds shall gather round And look down on me Will they turn and walk away Or will they sing one song for me So I'll sing 'til the end Contented I will be Assured that some friends Will sing one song for me

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, during this season of renewal, it is fitting that we recognize those who, through their service to the public good, paid the ultimate sacrifice. Today, every 53 hours a law enforcement officer falls in the line of duty in this country. These men and women got up in the mornings, dressed for work, kissed their family goodbye, and went out the door just as we do each morning, but with one tremendous difference. As law enforcement officers, they knew the challenges of a most typical day for them, would amount to unimaginable odds for any of us to face on our best day. What they viewed as just doing their job, the rest of us know goes to the heart of human courage and commitment. They died so the rest of us could live. Their sacrifice allowed us to grow, prosper and, for their families, as scripture tells us, ``to go forth and multiply.'' In this, our Nation's Capital, each year for the past several years on May 15th, a few blocks west of our Capitol Building, our country pauses to reflect on the noble and selfless acts of these officers who represented the law of our great republic. Here, at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial during National Police Week in a solemn and moving memorial candlelit vigil ceremony, Americans gather around our Nation's living tribute to fallen officers throughout the land. Though it is a monument hewn of solid blue gray stone marble to withstand the ages--it is, Mr. Speaker, as alive as you or I. For on its face are forever carved the names of fathers, mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grand paws and grand maws, cousins galore and friends to countless numbers of us. As long as we live, Mr. Speaker, they, nor their memories, will ever die. This year, two names have been added to the face of the monument's more than 19,000 names of law enforcement officers who have been killed in the line of duty. These two sons of the State of West Virginia, two loyal public servants from the heart of the coalfields of Appalachia, and two officers of the law from Boone County, West Virginia, who were simply doing their jobs when the face and forces of evil struck to rob them and their families of any future. All West Virginians owe them a deep debt of gratitude and we are indebted, as well, to the Sheriff of Boone County, The Honorable Rodney A. Miller, whose invaluable assistance helped speed their acknowledgement and inclusion into this fraternity of honor and remembrance. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Coal Valley News, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, and the families for sharing the memories of the fallen with me which I humbly pass on for this Nation's greater edification. Killed in the line of duty were Deputy Sheriff Jesse Rice Browning and Constable Cecil Alvin Ferrell. Constable Ferrell was shot as he attempted to serve an arrest warrant. When Constable Ferrell allowed the suspect to get dressed, the suspect grabbed a shotgun and fired. Constable Ferrell sustained a gunshot wound to the abdomen and died at the scene on October 17, 1937. He was 36 years old. On April 9, 1917, Deputy Sheriff Jesse Browning was shot by an inmate who had attacked him and gained control of his gun before fatally wounding him. Jesse Browning was taken to Charleston, Kanawha Valley Hospital, via train where he clung onto life for several days until he passed from the Earth on April 15, 1917. Deputy Sherriff Browning was 39 years old. He had served Boone County for 15 years. His body lies in a grave on a remote hillside in Barrett, W.Va. At the time of his death, he left behind a wife, Orpha Pauley Browning, and seven children: Glenn Browning, Marie White, Gladys Jarrell, Dennis Browning, Clyde Browning, Dassie (Scootie) Williams and Georgia Workman. He was predeceased by a son, Alvin Browning. At the time of his death, his youngest child was only three months old. All of his children remained life-long residents of West Virginia. His descendants include 36 grandchildren and many great grandchildren. Several of these have been behind the effort to have their grandfather recognized for his service and sacrifice to Boone County, West Virginia. Chaplain Grant Wolf offered these thoughts of comfort and hope, ``It was only a moment, but in that moment of madness our lives and the world changed. Hearts were broken and names previously unknown are now spoken with reverence. The moment passes, but in that moment we mourn for the life that was taken and grieve for the survivors, remembering the sacrifice made to protect and serve. It was only a moment but he is gone, a sacrifice made to give us a future. We pause in our sorrow reflecting what might have been--but then we press on for, by the grace of God, his memory still stands.'' I am deeply honored to represent the good people of southern West Virginia in the Congress. Life does go on for these two loving families, yet preserving the lives of their fallen relatives preserves not only cherished family memories, it fosters a legacy critical to the very foundation our country's future. For if, Mr. Speaker, we are to remain a nation ruled by law and not by men, it is incumbent upon each of us to search our souls and find the strength and solace these brave officers achieved to protect and to serve us. May God bless such men and women as these and may such dedication reign forever in the home of the brave and land of the free.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, to eliminate funding for the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The importance of EDA cannot be overstated. Established in 1965, EDA empowers economically distressed communities, among them communities that I represent, to develop and revitalize their economies based on their needs and resources. These funds allow rural communities to be active participants in today's economy by helping to create and retain jobs. The EDA underwrites basic infrastructure needs, such as water and sewer systems and the expansion of broadband services that help to attract jobs and stimulate economic development. While much of the Nation takes for granted the ability to turn on the faucet and have clean drinking water flow out, countless families in rural America do not. For them, answering such a basic human need is a daily struggle. For them, the EDA is a Godsend. EDA funding has helped to provide the needed infrastructure for development of industrial parks in my State. These up-to-date facilities create modern spaces that enable existing local businesses to grow and entice other businesses to locate to these livable, rural towns that boast ready workforces. Those who would undo EDA surely cannot understand what a huge difference the seed money it provides is making in our tough economic times. They must not have seen how it expands the reach and effectiveness of educational institutions or leads to better employment for working men and women. They must not get how the relatively small investments the EDA makes are helping struggling communities to transform themselves into economic engines. There is nothing frivolous about the EDA. This is an agency that is meat-and-potatoes government at its best. The funds it provides are not handouts. To the contrary, these are investments that are enabling our citizens to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. In addition to anecdotal stories though, EDA's success has been proven by an independent study that found that EDA investment in rural areas generates between 2.2 and 5 jobs per $10,000 in incremental EDA investment, translating to a cost of between $2,001 and $4,611 to produce a single job. As the Nation's economy emerges from the recession, EDA is one of the most efficient ways that the Federal government can assist in economic recovery and prevent another downturn. I have seen firsthand the benefit of a coordinated effort of EDA investments. Between 2006 and 2011, EDA made 25 investments in my district totaling approximately $10 million. These projects are expected to help create approximately 1,125 jobs and help attract approximately $98.5 million in private investment. I urge the House to recognize the value of EDA as a necessary component to revitalizing our economy, ensuring that the United States remains an economic force, and creating new jobs for American workers. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Mr. Pompeo's amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3826, a bill that would prevent a sharp increase in interest rates on Direct Stafford Student loans beginning in July, I am very much opposed to playing politics with this important issue. I do not believe we need to choose between cutting funds that provide much needed preventive health services and making college more affordable. I cannot understand the mentality that flirts with the idea of raising college costs and limiting access to health care for working middle-class families, while instinctively recoiling at the idea of closing tax loopholes for multinational conglomerates and the wealthiest Americans. This is exactly what infuriates the American public and why Congressional approval ratings are at record lows. I understand it's an election year and each side wants to score points at the other side's expense but every time we get into one of these debates with competing proposals we know will split the Congress and lead to gridlock, it chips away at the credibility of the institution. We must find a way to summon the will to get beyond the temptation to take cheap shots at the other side and put the interests of the American people first.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, imagine one million pounds, 500 tons of prescription pills piled high on the National Mall. Those numbers and that image boggle the mind. And yet, in thirteen short months, that's just about the amount of leftover or expired drugs legions of concerned and compassionate Americans have turned in during the last three National Drug Take Back Days sponsored by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. That total may well be only the tip of the iceberg threatening our National ship of state. On this Saturday, April 28, 2012, the American people and every Member of Congress have the opportunity to strike a blow to rid our nation of the prescription drug abuse scourge that is ravaging so many of our families and communities. The DEA, along with almost 4,000 state and local law enforcement partners are, once again, sponsoring a National Drug Take Back Day. This is a national call to action. Everyone can participate; everyone needs to participate, because one of the most insidious contributors to this growing epidemic lurks in every home bathroom. ``Ground Zero'' for Drug Take Back Day is each medicine cabinet in humble homes across the country. Participation is made simple by the vast number of drop-off points made available by our law enforcement professionals--over 5,300 sites in all 50 states of our nation. A resounding and very clear message at the nation's first National Summit on Prescription Drug Abuse was made: one of the most cost effective, long-term measures we can take to turn the tide on prescription drug abuse is prevention. That effort starts in our own cabinets and cupboards. Once described as America's ``Silent Epidemic,'' the abuse of prescription drugs can be openly witnessed any hour--day or night--on countless street comers across the country. Today, prescription drug abuse may be the biggest challenge of our society, and the only way its destructive trend can be reversed is if everyone--I mean, everyone-- gets involved. We are traveling a difficult and challenging path to save an entire generation. But, events and action on a national level, like Drug Take Back Day, provide simple and effective solutions in our quest to conquer the problem of prescription drug abuse. Let us act with dispatch and compassion and with an acute understanding of the enormity of the challenge before us. Working in partnership with law enforcement, not as vigilantes or self appointed marshals Drug Take Back Day is one of the simplest, most effective, prevention measures we have on our side.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I recognize the need to address the threats posed to our Nation and the American economy in cyber space, but I also believe we must be very careful in maintaining the appropriate balance between protecting our national security and preserving our civil liberties. Given the concerns about this measure and the perceived threat to sensitive and personal information of American citizens, I believe that the House should take additional time to deliberate on this measure. The American public deserves an opportunity to gain a fuller understanding of the provisions included in this bill and how their daily lives may be affected by it. For these reasons, I will oppose the bill.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the long-term authorization of surface transportation programs expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, Congress has enacted nine separate Surface Transportation Extension Acts, allowing us to continue limping along, patching together our Nation's surface transportation system. These short-term, start-and-stop Surface Transportation Extension Acts are undermining our surface transportation system. Running these programs through short-term extensions creates tremendous uncertainty among State departments of transportation, public transit agencies, and highway and transit contractors that delay critical highway and transit projects, costing good-paying jobs each step of the way. With more than 2.5 million construction and manufacturing workers still out of work, it is far past time for Congress to enact surface transportation legislation that will remove this uncertainty, create and sustain family-wage jobs, and restore our Nation's economic growth. That's why I offer this motion today. We have an opportunity before us to move quickly to pass legislation that can remove this uncertainty and get America back to work. Over a month ago, the Senate passed S. 1813, known as MAP 21, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74 22. Now, each of us in this body knows how difficult it is for the other body to agree on just about anything. But, unlike the House, the Senate was able to come together to pass bipartisan legislation that will provide States with the certainty that they need to move forward with highway and transit projects and get Americans back to work. It is time for the House, believe it or not, to follow the other body's lead and pass S. 1813. Certainly, S. 1813 is not the exact bill that I would have written. However, the Senate bill is a dramatic improvement over what House Republicans proposed in their now-dead partisan reauthorization bill known as H.R. 7, which was reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but never acted upon by the full House. Last week, in an effort to facilitate a conference with the Senate on MAP 21, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4348, another surface transportation extension bill. I supported the House passage of H.R. 4348 as a vehicle to go to conference on the Senate bill. I said then--taking Republicans at their word that they are serious about moving this process forward--passage of that short-term extension bill would allow us to quickly convene a conference with the Senate on its bipartisan, multiyear surface transportation reauthorization bill, which passed with the support of three-quarters of the other body. A long-term bill will provide the certainty that States need to invest and proceed with their plans 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. That is what surface transportation is all about, putting Americans back to work and sustaining our economic competitiveness. 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. That is not unprecedented. We've done it before. There is nothing to prevent the Congress from enacting S. 1813 and then continuing to work to develop further bicameral, bipartisan changes to further improve surface transportation programs and policies. But American workers should not have to wait any longer as Congress searches for agreement. The time for political games is over. So my motion is simple, very simple. It instructs House conferees to agree to the Senate bill. Enactment of MAP 21 will put in place 18 months worth of funding, provide state DOTs and public transit agencies the certainty they need to advance projects, and provide contractors the certainty they need to hire that one more worker. Out-of-work Americans simply cannot wait any longer. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. In order to respond to the distinguished chairman, that's funny, and I appreciate the history lesson he's just given us on legislation in this body. It's funny, while you were speaking to students from your district, I was just speaking to students from my district outside on the Capitol steps as well. They happened to have been from Webster Junior High School from Webster Springs, West Virginia. I explained to them the process that we're in right now going to conference on the transportation bill, how the other body had passed in a bipartisan fashion, the other body who can rarely agree on anything, including a resolution saying ``I love mother,'' but here they came together and passed a bill with 72 votes in a bipartisan fashion. I had explained to them briefly what the other body's bill did and what our bill did. That's funny. They were all nodding in agreement. They all said we ought to accept the Senate bill; go for the Senate bill. So I guess the point I'm making is that we all know how this place works. We all know the difficulties in getting something through the other body where, like it or not, the Framers of our Constitution set it up so that the minority in that body has the power. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member on our Highways and Transit Subcommittee.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, a valued member of our committee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. RAHALL. Yes, I'll yield.

Mr. RAHALL. I'll grant you 1 minute.

Mr. RAHALL. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. RAHALL. I have the right to close debate?

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

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