Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Can you give us the time remaining, please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice the concerns raised by my constituents regarding the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Though I voted against H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare Act, I, too, have concerns about an unelected, unaccountable board tasked with creating cost-cutting plans if Medicare spending exceeds certain levels. Though the Board is prohibited by law from cutting beneficiary policies, and the Congressional Budget Office predicts that a cost-cutting plan will not be triggered during this budget cycle, I urge my House colleagues to revisit this issue. We, as elected representatives of the people, have a Constitutional responsibility to ensure the voices of our constituencies are heard when it comes to the future of Medicare. Walling off those decisions, in order to expedite cost cutting efforts that lack sufficient popular support, is the surest way to a budgetary debacle. We must preserve access to quality care, while containing costs, but we also must ensure an opportunity for the voice of the people to be heard and their needs to be taken into consideration.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I didn't quite know from which side to request time on this issue. You see, I am for legitimate, well-scrutinized, scrubbed, and screened earmarks. Now, unless the GOP leadership can convince me that this is not an earmark, then I will vote ``no'' on the bill. We should be here today debating a long-term, robust surface transportation bill that would create jobs and keep our economy moving forward by rebuilding America and by putting Americans to work. Rather, we are considering a bill that authorizes the construction of a specific bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin with an estimated total project cost of $574 million to $690 million--an earmark. Instead of openly acknowledging that this bill is a blatant earmark, the Republican leadership pretends that it is not one. It was quietly added to the schedule less than 48 hours ago, scheduled for this post-sundown debate. Do not get me wrong. I am not against earmarks, but let's be open, transparent, and honest with the American people. That's why ``earmark'' got the bad name it did, because we were not open and transparent and honest with the American people. So if there is any doubt whether the bill that the House is now considering today is an earmark, all you have to do is read the bill: . . . may authorize and assist in the construction of a new extradosed bridge crossing the St. Croix River approximately 6 miles north of the I 94 crossing. Then the bill goes on on lines 21 through 23, page 2, section 3. It provides an offset. Guess where that offset comes from? Earmarks under the SAFETEA LU, under the previous transportation bill. It's how the majority is funding this bill. That was our last transportation bill, which took so much grief. It all sounds pretty specific to me. In fact, the bill even tells the States what kind of bridge to build. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, by golly, it's probably a duck. This is an earmark, and I sincerely hope that the some-90 new Members on the majority side are learning just what an earmark is. Now, I recognize the need for this new bridge crossing the St. Croix to replace the deficient 80-year-old Stillwater Lift Bridge, but I also recognize the need to move similar transportation projects forward across this great country, including in my own home State of West Virginia. What we ought to be doing is passing a long-term, robust surface transportation bill so that we can address the backlog of deficient bridges, roads, and transit systems in every State across the Nation. Instead, we're voting on one earmark, and we are doing nothing today to strengthen our Nation's economic competitiveness and quality of life. We are doing nothing to alleviate the congestion that continues to cripple the economy in California. We are doing nothing to fix the bridges that are in disrepair in my home State. We are doing nothing to solve the fact that trains are traveling on outdated tracks across this country. We are doing nothing to address the commerce that is being trapped on turnpikes because these arteries of commerce are being choked by a transportation system ill fit for the country that is leading the global economy. Last November, the Speaker announced that the House would take up the surface transportation bill by the end of the year. We all know what subsequently transpired, which is that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee produced a bill which slashes $15.8 billion in highway funding to the States, destroying 550,000 American family-wage jobs. The bill then proceeded to the Rules Committee, which is where it was divided up into I don't know how many different pieces because there weren't the votes to pass the whole package. Who knows what kind of mishmash we got that time. I'm still trying to figure it out. Then who knows what type of mishmash we'll get the next time before we finally pass, if we are going to, a transportation bill that puts Americans to work, that gets our economy moving, and that helps long-term deficit reduction.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). Once again, I cannot say how much we're going to miss his knowledge and his expertise on this and many other issues on our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but I yield him the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown, who is our ranking member on the Railroads Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), our ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. He is a true friend and leader of the interests of all working men and women in this country, especially our coal miners.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Maxine Waters, ranking member on our House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, at this point I am very honored, in a nostalgic way, to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, the former chairman of our subcommittee on aviation, the current ranking member, who is taking his expertise--and hopefully not his friendship--and going elsewhere after this year. He has been a very valued member of our committee, and his treasure chest of knowledge on this issue is boundless. I am just so happy and thankful that we've had Jerry Costello to represent us on this issue for so many years. I recognize him for as much time as he wants.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), who is not only a member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but also our ranking Democrat on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I had hoped for legislation today that would be laser-focused on creating jobs, on creating jobs and making our aviation system safer, more efficient and more accessible for our flying public. Instead, much of the drama over the FAA reauthorization, for the last year--and there's been plenty of that drama--erupted over a provision of the House-passed bill that would have changed how the National Mediation Board, the NMB, counts votes in representation elections at airlines and railroads. Now, let me be clear. As I stated in our perfunctory one single, only conference meeting on this issue, that provision had no place and these labor provisions before the National Mediation Board have no place in FAA reauthorization because it has nothing to do with improving safety or creating jobs. Instead, it was a salvo aimed by the majority in this House at our American workers. Today, we have a conference report with a so-called compromise, but that compromise still changes how airline and railroad workers join unions. Now, some will say that this compromise is several degrees better than the original provision in the House bill. Nevertheless, I strongly oppose the inclusion of this NMB provision in the pending legislation. On the other hand, I am pleased that the conference committee flat- out rejected the proposal of the original House-passed bill to sunset the Essential Air Service program. I was beginning to suspect that my Republican colleagues were confusing the EAS title of this bill with the ESA, which, in my mind, refers to the Endangered Species Act. The gentleman in the chair will know to which I refer. But this conference report will not make EAS an endangered species, fortunately, and the program will be continued with modest reforms to ensure that it remains a worthy investment. For communities in my home State of West Virginia, these airports are a vital lifeline and engine of economic growth that will be preserved, and this is what I reference when I refer to creating jobs. This legislation will improve safety, and it will improve efficiency. It will create some jobs, though not enough, in my view. While it does not slash FAA funding to 2008 levels, it could have authorized more investment in our Nation's aviation infrastructure. On the journey to a 100 percent sustainable, efficient, accessible, and safe aviation system, this bill is just a way-point. Much more work is still ahead, but at least this legislation will set a course for the Federal Aviation Administration to follow in investing for the future and in keeping the skies safe in the coming years. I do not want to see the FAA countinue to limp along in the no-man's land of serial extensions, to which the chairman has already referred-- 23 or 24 to this date--and I certainly do not want to see another shutdown of this agency, as we saw last August, with innocent individuals being laid off work. But I will watch closely how the NMB provision affects workers' bargaining rights, and will be ready to act to correct any unfair imbalance if that becomes necessary. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the conference committee as well.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, today, I voted in favor of extending the pay freeze on Members of Congress. While Members of Congress should not be getting raises during a recession, our federal employees who provide services to our military members and ensure senior citizens receive their checks on time do not deserve to bear the brunt of cost-cutting efforts. The federal employees who daily show up for work in a spirit of service to our country deserve our respect and support. Federal employees deserve thanks for the work they do, often at lower pay than they could command in the private sector, out of a spirit of service to our country. These federal workers don't deserve to be the pawns in cynical political showdowns. Shared sacrifice is necessary from all Americans as we continue finding ways to balance budget and to preserve critical programs, targeting one group over another out of political spite is not the answer. Federal workers are hard working American and I thank them for their efforts on behalf of the American people.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in southern West Virginia, ``family'' has a very special and sacred meaning. Its definition goes far beyond the traditional; more than a group of individuals related by blood or marriage. It is an ideal that transcends all West Virginians; an institution protected, trusted and revered by all. It is the core thread woven into and throughout the fabric of the values we treasure most. Today, I rise to honor a family of West Virginians from the Logan County community of Pine Creek, in the coalfields of southern West Virginia. They are nine brothers, nine of the eleven sons of the late Olive and Oscar Adkins, who collectively served in our Nation's military for more than 100 years. This is truly a ``band of brothers'' for which our Nation owes a debt of gratitude. Shakespeare outlined the honor and drew distinction for the Band of Brothers in the famous St. Crispin's Day speech, a motivational speech delivered to troops about to enter battle in Act IV of the play, Henry V: Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, but he'll remember with advantages what feats he did that day. Then shall our names, familiar . . . as household words . . . be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red. This story shall the good man teach his son . . . from this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered--we few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me; shall be my brother . . . Fate was kind to the nine Adkins brothers. None were seriously injured, and all returned home safely, although many who served with them were not so lucky. All the Adkins brothers were honorably discharged, and all were proud to serve their country. The pride in this remarkable record of military service is shared by their parents, two other brothers, Hobart and Robert, and four sisters, Madeline, Ruth, Lyndell, and Iris. The nine who served include Harvey, who was in the U.S. Army during World War II from 1943 to 1946; Jason, who was in the U.S. Army at the end of World War II in 1945 and 1946, then again from 1952 to 1955 during the Korean Conflict; Leon, who served in the Air Force from 1948 to 1952 in the Korean Conflict; Billy, who served in both the Army and Air Force from 1948 to 1954; Lowell, who served in the U.S. Air Force from 1954 to 1974 in both Thailand and Vietnam; Franklin, who served in both U.S. Air Force and Army from 1956 to 1976; Vernon, who joined the Army and served from 1958 to 1979; Linden, who served in the Army from 1965 to 1967; and Clifton, who served in the Army from 1959 to 1981. Selfless service and sacrifice are the twin pillars supporting our Republic. Surely, these values, so important to the future vigor of our democratic principles, were instilled in the Adkins Brothers by devoted and dedicated parents. Such a record of service is not happenstance or coincidence; rather, it is a record built with an abiding faith in the Almighty's continued blessings on this land of liberty. Mr. Speaker, in sum, the Adkins brothers share 104 years of U.S. military service, a milestone record of service, that I hope the U.S. Department of Defense will soon formally recognize. I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging my fellow West Virginians as true American patriots and to thank them for their distinguished service to our great Nation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, while I support the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act, I am extremely disappointed that it does not include language from previous years to prevent the Administration from moving forward with increases in TRICARE pharmacy copayments and enrollment fees. As a cosponsor of the Military Retirees Health Care Protection Act, which would prohibit increases in TRICARE costs for servicemembers, I do not believe our brave soldiers and their families should have to bear the burden of closing our Nation's deficits. For thirty-five years, I have fought to expand and protect affordable, quality health care for our servicemembers, and I will continue to do so.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, had I been present last Thursday, I would have voted for the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, H.R. 1633, as well as the Synthetic Drug Control Act, H.R. 1254. H.R. 1633 would prevent the EPA from issuing any new rule over the next year to regulate coarse particulate matter, or ``nuisance dust.'' While there is no such regulation currently pending, the concerns of my constituency with respect to the possibility that such a rule could be used to prevent coal mining or may interfere with farming or construction activities prompt my support of this bill. H.R. 1254 would expand the list of Schedule I narcotics under the Controlled Substances Act to include cannabimimetic agents, the chemicals that are commonly known as synthetic drugs. The bill would prohibit the sale, distribution, or use of those chemicals without a permit issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Synthetic drugs, sometimes known by their street names as K2, Spice, and bath salts, imitate the hallucinogenic and stimulant effects of illegal drugs. Synthetic drugs can affect the brain in a manner that is similar to Schedule I drugs and are sold to consumers as harmless alternatives to marijuana, cocaine, or methamphetamines. There are numerous instances where the use of these drugs has resulted in agitation, anxiety, seizures, tremors, hallucinations, paranoia, and death. Drug abuse is a serious health problem in southern West Virginia, one that threatens our communities, our homes, and our children. Too often, there is a misconception that these imitation drugs are not as dangerous as the Schedule I narcotics they seek to simulate. That's a gross distortion that this legislation seeks to correct. I believe we must be unrelenting in getting these designer drugs off the streets and out of the hands of our children. Passing this legislation will help us to send a clear moral message that these synthetic drugs carry with them deadly consequences-- not just for the users, but for their families and communities.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2845, the ``Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011''. This legislation will make significant improvements to pipeline safety, and is a prime example of how good public policy is formed when all sides come together and work toward producing a strong package from day one. Pipelines have a critical place in our nation's infrastructure; more than 2.5 million miles of pipelines deliver energy to homes and businesses across America. From the gasoline that fills the cars we drive to the diesel that fuels the trucks that deliver food to local grocery stores to the natural gas that heats our homes, pipelines make it possible. Unfortunately, due to the volatile nature of the products that pipelines deliver, incidents involving gas and hazardous liquid pipelines can and have had disastrous consequences. On July 26, 2010, a 30-inch pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy Partners LLP ruptured and released more than one million gallons of oil into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River just one mile south of Marshall, Michigan. The Kalamazoo River flows into Lake Michigan. The spill devastated the local environment and wildlife, uprooted homeowners that live near the creek and river, and exposed local communities to noxious and toxic substances before Enbridge even raised alarm. Nearly a year and one-half later, Enbridge is still excavating oil-contaminated soil and weathered oil from the river banks; submerged oil recovery work has been suspended for the winter but will resume in 2012. A little over a month after the Enbridge spill, on September 9, 2010, an intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, ruptured in a residential area in San Bruno, California. The released natural gas ignited, resulting in a fire that destroyed 38 homes and damaged 70 others. Eight people were killed, many were injured, and many more were evacuated from the area. The bill before us today addresses many of the recommendations that were issued by the National Transportation Safety Board in accident reports that followed these and other pipeline incidents. For example, the bill holds pipeline operators accountable to a maximum of one hour to report a release of hazardous liquid or gas resulting in an incident. As the natural gas disaster in San Bruno, California underscores--every minute that passes following a release of hazardous liquid or gas from a pipeline is one less minute that responders have to protect the community and the surrounding environment. In fact, CNN was reporting the incident six hours before PG&E reported it to the National Response Center and Federal investigators. Additionally, the bill raises civil penalties for each pipeline safety violation from $100,000 to $200,000 and the maximum civil penalty from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. The maximum penalties for violations of pipeline safety regulations under current law have not been increased in almost a decade. Adequate levels of penalties are necessary to deter unsafe operating practices by the pipeline industry, particularly in serious cases involving injuries, fatalities, and significant environmental damage. The bill further clarifies that civil penalties are applicable to obstruction of an investigation. The bill also: Requires pipeline operators to install automatic shut-off valves on all new and replaced pipeline so that the volume of product released as a result of a rupture would be limited; Requires the Secretary of Transportation to evaluate and then issue regulations to expand integrity management beyond high-consequence areas; establish performance standards for leak detection systems; and require hazardous liquid pipeline operators to install leak detection systems that meet those performance standards; Requires pipeline operators, in response to the San Bruno incident, to report to the Department of Transportation any time their facilities exceed maximum allowable operating pressure, and to conduct tests to confirm the material strength of previously untested gas transmission pipelines in high-consequence areas; Prevents States that receive one-call grants from exempting municipalities, State agencies, or their contractors from one-call (damage prevention) notification requirements; Requires the Secretary to ensure offshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and hazardous liquid gathering lines located within the inlets of the Gulf of Mexico are subject to the same safety standards and regulations as other hazardous liquid gathering lines; Beginning one year after the date of enactment, prohibits the Secretary from issuing guidance or a regulation that incorporates by reference any documents or portions thereof unless those documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge, on an Internet Web site; Requires the Department of Transportation, DOT, to develop and implement a protocol for consulting with Indian tribes to provide technical assistance for the regulation of pipelines; and Increases the level of pipeline safety inspectors at DOT. In sum, H.R. 2845 is a step in the right direction when it comes to pipeline safety, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, in recent weeks, the House of Representatives has taken up three major bills designed to address concerns about executive agency overreach in regulatory proposals. I supported the first two bills--H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, and H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I believe they would have improved the current regulatory approval scheme. The bills alternatively would have codified the use of critical cost-benefit analyses and the consideration of less costly regulatory alternatives, and helped to ensure the opportunity for additional public participation, especially in regard to small businesses. Both bills contained provisions that would have helped to address the concerns of my State, which has felt under siege in recent months by a raft of regulatory actions affecting the coal industry and emanating from the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, the House is considering H.R. 10, the Regulations in Need of Scrutiny Act. This bill would require the Congress to approve all major rules projected to cost $100 million or more. I believe this is, at the very least, an impractical idea, given the number of rules that would have to be considered in the midst of other legislative business. It also raises serious questions about the legal status of rules promulgated by the executive agencies and approved by the Congress, subjecting even the least controversial rules to potential litigation in the courts. In addition, it subjects the Congressional schedule to the whims of the executive agencies and their regulatory agenda. But worse still, I believe such a requirement could be detrimental to the functions of government, the certainty required by business, and the stability desired for the economy. Considering the inability of the current Congress to pass important and even popular legislation, the requirements of this bill would almost certainly put rules, even rules supported by the business community that endorses this bill and rules that may be promulgated by future Administrations more favorable to business, in complete limbo. In this Congress, bipartisan efforts like the surface transportation reauthorization have become mired in partisan squabbles; the Federal Aviation Administration suffered a partial shutdown when a mere extension of its authority was tangled in a partisan mess. When matters of such importance to our nation, matters that are clearly necessary to get our country back on the right economic track, are sidelined indefinitely, I question whether it is wise to subject so many rules to the uncertainty of the Congressional approval process. What's more, when one of the most stringent complaints about the current regulatory process centers on concerns that proposed regulations are politically motivated, it makes no sense to further subject them to the whims of an inherently political institution. So, while I support critical Congressional oversight of executive agency rules, more public input in the rulemaking process, better cost- benefit analyses of the impact on businesses large and small, and the consideration of less costly regulatory alternatives, I must decline to support H.R. 10.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following. Watching coal-miners at work, you realize momentarily what different universes people inhabit.--George Orwell. George Orwell was humbled by coal miners--brave and earnest individuals who work hard hours, often in cramped, damp, lamp-lit corners far below the surface of the Earth. He was shocked by the living and working conditions he witnessed while he boarded in the coal mining communities of Northern England, accompanying the miners underground to see, first-hand, the hot, horrible conditions under which they labored. ``Down there,'' he wrote, ``where coal is dug is a sort of world apart which one can quite easily go through life without ever hearing about. . . . It is so with all types of manual work; it keeps us alive, and we are oblivious of its existence. More than anyone else, perhaps, the miner can stand as the type of the manual worker, not only because his work is so exaggeratedly awful, but also because it is so vitally necessary and yet so remote from our experience, so invisible, as it were, that we are capable of forgetting it as we forget the blood in our veins.'' Even now, in an age of Twitter and reality TV, when every aspect of life can be beamed around the world in an instant, it is too easy to forget about the miner and his daily digging chores, sequestered far from our view, though intimately connected to so many of our daily needs and desires. Yet, from time to time, something happens to remind us of that separate world. Unfortunately, that something is, too often, a tragedy, like the explosion at Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine in Southern West Virginia, on April 5, 2010, that took the lives, far too soon, of 29 hardworking men. In the hours following that explosion, reporters from around the Nation flocked to the mine site, nestled in a rural mountain fold not far from my home. Every phase of the attempted rescue effort was captured and broadcast around the globe, and for many tense and worrisome hours, coal miners were very much on the minds of the world, holding its collective breath and hoping for a miracle--a miracle that was not be. Now, after the passing of many months, it is clear that the loss of those 29 miners was not due to one unpreventable, fateful incident, but, instead, it was the result of a pervasive, long-running, callous corporate culture that put production and profit far above people. It is no coincidence that, today, the Mine Safety and Health Administration is releasing its final report on the UBB disaster. This day, December 6th--the anniversary of the 1907 Monongah Mine disaster, the worst mining disaster in American history--is also the Congressionally designated ``National Miners Day.'' I am proud to have been the author of the House Resolution that sought to establish this date as a milestone of national recognition and remembrance of America's miners. It is a shameful truth that each advance in our Nation's mine safety system has come only after a mine disaster. But I hope that this day might alter that tradition and serve to bring the miner out from the dark of the mines into the national light for at least one day each year. It seems to me far preferable that our national conscience be kindled not by tragedy, but, instead, by celebration. And so I urge that, at least on this one day each year, the Congress and all Americans will turn our attention to recognizing the contributions that miners have made to our Nation--its economic vitality and its military strength. And that we will take this annual opportunity to help ensure that these men and women are assured of safe, healthy, humane conditions in which to earn an honest living. America and American miners deserve no less.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to my colleagues' attention, during these times of budgetary debate, the significant savings realized by the taxpayers of our country by the vision and work of one of my constituents, Mr. Mike Whitt, the Executive Director of the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority. In pursuit of sound, forward-thinking economic development initiatives, Mike was light-years ahead of other jurisdictions when he began forging public-private partnerships to save taxpayer dollars, leveraging public funding and above all creating good paying sustainable jobs for families. No slick financing schemes; no hocus pocus accounting tricks here. Mike did his homework and did it well. He still does. Anyone, who has ever had the good fortune to participate in one of his project presentations, knows they have to be on their toes to answer detailed questions about what they can bring to the table. Mike has travelled the country sharing his valuable time with agencies and associations to spread the word about how some old- fashioned hard work in planning economic development ventures upfront can save millions in the end. He has given freely of his experience and expertise so others can adopt his sensible and thoughtful approach to investing public funds to address citizen's needs for a darn good return on the taxpayer's dime. As we debate ways to improve our budget in the coming weeks, I hope my colleagues will look to the results sound public investment can yield when that investment is married with private investment and properly managed. I am certain the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority will be happy to share their accomplishments. In a larger sense, Mike Whitt serves as a bright beacon to all who strive to serve the public, administer public programs, and manage public funds. Our country owes Mike a debt of great gratitude for his work and his years of sacrifice away from family and friends to serve the public good. Recently, Mike has been battling some health issues. Mike is a man of great faith, a strong fighter, who has the courage of his convictions. We know though he appreciates the power of partnership, so we welcome your thoughts and prayers for Mike and his family as he tackles this personal challenge.