Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

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

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

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. I yield an additional 15 seconds.

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

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

Mr. RAHALL

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing this to our attention and for bringing his amendment to the floor. It has our total support as well.

Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Frank Woodruff Buckles, a fellow West Virginian and our Nation's oldest surviving World War I veteran, who was buried today at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors. When asked to explain his long life, Frank Buckles answered, ``Hope.'' All of America's veterans hope that their service will not have been in vain. They hope that their service leads to a better future for our Nation and the world. And they hope that the freedoms secured through their sacrifices will live long past their days with us on this Earth. We honor our veterans and their dedication to duty and selfless sacrifice. Nourishing the memory of their contributions feeds our own generation of hope. Today, our Nation honors the mortal remains of Frank Buckles and memorializes a generation of Americans, whose common purpose, whose lasting hope, was so nobly advanced by their last comrade.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011. As my chairman has said, this legislation extends the Federal-aid highway, public transit, and highway and motor carrier safety programs through the end of the fiscal year September 30, 2011. I commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Mica, for his bringing this bill before us today. I also associate myself with the remarks that he has just said in support thereof. I commend him for the listening tour that he has embarked around the country, as well as a few formal hearings thrown in his listening tour. This gives the country and new Members of this body an opportunity to learn a great deal about what reauthorization of our surface transportation programs really means when it comes to jobs and when it comes to infrastructure, particularly within each Member of Congress' congressional district. Extending these programs is absolutely critical to keep our economy on the road to recovery, and I strongly support this bill--as did my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--when we passed it out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 2 weeks ago by unanimous consent. I also want to support and commend our ranking member on the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio, for his tremendous work in previous years and on bringing the current bill before us as well, and we will hear from him in a moment. While I do strongly support this bill, Madam Speaker, what I cannot support are Republican attempts to gut investments that grow our economy. The Republican spending bill that passed 2 weeks ago will destroy over 300,000 good-paying transportation jobs-- jobs lost in every State of this great country. What I cannot support is dangerous and draconian cuts across the board to investments in America's future. And these cuts are coming just at a time that our economy is turning the corner. And what I cannot support is cutting the job-creating muscle of our budget, which investment in our infrastructure is, when we should be focusing on trimming the fat. In order to keep pace with India, China, and other international competitors, we need to invest more, not less, in America's infrastructure. If we stop investing in the future, there's simply no way we can retire the debt of the past. The bill before us today is identical to legislation that the House passed last fall. Regrettably, at that time, Republicans objected to it, and the Senate Republican leadership insisted that the surface transportation programs expire on March 4, 2011. I'm glad that my Republican colleagues have now come around and recognized the need to extend these vital programs through the fiscal year. I hope all Members will vote for this bipartisan extension to keep America's economy moving. If Congress does not extend the surface transportation programs, the U.S. Department of Transportation will stop reimbursing States for expenditures on approved projects, and thousands of construction projects across the Nation could come to a screeching halt. According to DOT, a delay in enactment of this bill will shut down more than $800 million next week in highway reimbursements and transit grants to States and urban areas, endangering more than 28,000 jobs and multimillion dollar construction projects across the country. This bill provides a certainty that the construction industry needs to continue the slow climb back from the greatest recession since World War II. It also enables Congress the necessary time to work toward passage of a long-term surface transportation authorization bill later this year. Enactment of this extension act will enable us to redirect our focus to developing a long-term bill that begins to address the Nation's enormous infrastructure needs and will create millions of family-wage jobs. I also today call upon the administration to join us in this effort to get behind this reauthorization bill and give it the necessary support from the executive branch that it needs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 662. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a valued member of our committee, the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. The chairman has adequately explained it, and I fully concur and urge its adoption. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Speaker, once again, I do appreciate the work of Chairman Mica in his bringing this extension to the floor of the House--as he has already noted, the sixth extension of SAFETEA-LU. This will take us to the end of the fiscal year. It will give us the spring and the summer to continue to work together in the bipartisan spirit with which Chairman Mica has started his tenure as chairman of our committee, and I do look forward to continuing to work with him. I, once again, call upon the administration to work with us as well under the very capable leadership of Secretary LaHood. I am sure that the administration will work with us if it will just give us some proposals and will put some concrete ideas upon the table with which we can work in a bipartisan and bicameral measure. This is a job-saving piece of legislation. Although a permanent reauthorization would provide a much greater degree of certainty, it helps provide some degree of certainty to our construction industry so that it can plan and invest in what are not short-term jobs but, rather, good, long paying, family wage jobs for our people. That's what we're talking about when we talk about investments in infrastructure. That's what we're talking about in this legislation; so I urge my colleagues, as I conclude, to support this in a bipartisan fashion. I yield back the balance of my time.