Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

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.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, while Marshall University is the oldest public institution of higher education in West Virginia, tracing its founding to 1837, it took nearly 125 years of sustained growth before the normal school established on a knoll in rural Cabell County would truly come of age. Compared to the news that seems to grab attention nowadays, it is probably difficult for today's students to understand the significance of the granting of university status to the former Marshall College. But 50 years ago, the designation as a state university meant far more than just a name. Video footage and still photographs shot on Marshall's campus the day the news broke that the West Virginia Legislature had passed the university bill depict a student body that celebrated as if the football team had won a national championship. A special edition of The Parthenon hailed, ``We are now Marshall `U'!'' Crowds gathered as ``College'' was symbolically chipped off one of Marshall's state highway historical markers. Students taped over the word ``college'' on the team sweatshirts they proudly wore. Cheering and running across campus, they acted as if a war had just ended. And, in essence, that is exactly what had happened. March 2, 1961, marked the end of a multi- year battle for Marshall's official recognition as an advanced higher learning institution in the state of West Virginia. In his book, ``Marshall University: An Institution Comes of Age, 1837-1980,'' Marshall historian Dr. Charles H. Moffatt noted that in 1961, university status would make Marshall the first university located in the vast stretches of central Appalachia between Lexington, Kentucky, and Lexington, Virginia, and between Athens, Ohio, and Knoxville, Tennessee. At the time, many states had only one state university, as was the case here, with West Virginia University in Morgantown being the sole university among a handful of higher education institutions in the Mountain State. Dr. Stewart H. Smith, president of Marshall from 1946 to 1968 and for whom Smith Hall is named, fought many years for his beloved college to earn university status by engaging legislators, backed by strong local support, and working on a public front to change attitudes about a second university in West Virginia. Many thought the state should support only one large university, fearing another would drain resources from West Virginia University. Smith argued that Marshall had earned university status because of the number of academic programs and advanced degrees offered, as well as the growth in enrollment. Smith, local legislators and area leaders said the change in status would not only help Marshall recruit more students and retain better faculty, it also would result in more federal funding and private donations, and help to bring more businesses to the state. By 1960, following the establishment of Marshall's College of Applied Sciences, a request was made to the state Board of Education to accord the institution university status. The board approved the request in October 1960, and the battle for a change in State Code to make it official began. Smith had strong support from Huntington-area legislators, and he joined them in carrying the fight to lawmakers from across the state and to the governor's office. He unified the Huntington campus and, along with the elected officials and other Marshall supporters, they persevered. The so-called Marshall bill passed the West Virginia Senate on February 16, 1961, and cleared the House of Delegates shortly after. Governor W.W. Barron signed the bill and dedicated a brand-new Gullickson Hall at the same time during a ceremony on Marshall's Huntington campus on March 2, 1961. As he put his pen to the paper, Governor Barron said, ``It is my privilege and pleasure to place my signature on legislation to change the name of this splendid educational institution from Marshall College to Marshall University. It is my sincere wish that Marshall's future will be resplendent with new pride and progress . . . which I am convinced will aid all of West Virginia.'' The university and city celebrated. It was a turning point in the university's history and set the stage for what has indeed been a new generation of pride and progress as Marshall has grown to serve more West Virginians than ever. Dramatic changes have occurred in the 50 years since. Enrollment has more than tripled and the campus infrastructure has been completely transformed. The Marshall community experienced unimaginable devastation with the plane crash in 1970 and witnessed an incredible rebirth through the 1990s, a story that was retold with a star-studded motion picture in 2006. Marshall now offers 159 majors and 105 degrees through its 12 colleges. The university boasts the nation's finest graduate program in forensic science, and a top-ranked School of Medicine and transportation research institute. Marshall has developed a reputation for bioscience research and has in recent years established new programs in engineering, physical therapy and health informatics. Marshall also is launching a new School of Pharmacy, expected to field its first class of students in fall 2012. The state's investment in Marshall has more than paid off, tripling in the past few years under current President Stephen J. Kopp's leadership. The most recent economic impact study, completed in 2010, conservatively estimates that Marshall returns $20 for every state dollar invested in the university, and helps to create more than 6,000 jobs. Kopp has overseen more than $200 million in new capital projects and major building renovation. Since 2005, Marshall has launched 10 new high-demand degree majors or programs and doubled its research grant funding. Marshall's impact will grow even more, as the university expects record enrollment in fall 2011 and more than $50 million in planned infrastructure improvements and new buildings over the next few years. This growth would not have been possible without the vision and leadership more than 50 years ago from Dr. Smith and local legislators who recognized the need for Marshall to become a university. And, while there has been tremendous positive change since 1961, Marshall's mission will always be to serve the people of West Virginia and the entire region. A hundred years ago, Professor Walter Raleigh addressed the meaning of the university. He said, ``We owe an enormous debt to those who went before us; we can pay it, or a part of it, only to those who come after us. We must pass on our inheritance; and if we really can make here and there, as no doubt we can, some additions and improvements, to compensate the irrecoverable depredations of time and mortality, we are happy indeed. Anyhow, here is work enough for a University, and motive enough to urge us on to the work.'' A hundred, indeed, hundreds of years hence, Marshall University will continue passing on our inheritance as long as we give it the support and encouragement it so nobly deserves.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding, and I rise in support of my colleague from West Virginia's amendment, Mr. McKinley. This particular action in regard to the Spruce permit is an insult to the integrity of the mine-permitting process. The particular mine in question is located in my congressional district. The permit was negotiated with the EPA in good faith by the coal company over a space of 10 years. The permit was then granted 3 years ago and just recently was revoked by the EPA. It goes against the grain of what I think should be good-faith efforts by coal companies to negotiate with the EPA, recognizing that they can't get all they want in a permit application and therefore some withdrawal, some compromise is necessary. That was done in this particular case in a painstaking process over 10 years, and the permit was granted. Now to have it revoked is indeed an insult to the integrity of the mine permitting process. The EPA was given authority in the Clean Water Act to weigh in on permitting decisions of the Corps of Engineers to help ensure a balance between environmental protection and activities like energy development. In that regard, the EPA could and should be a positive, constructive force. But its methods over the last two years have reformulated the permitting process in ways never envisioned under the law. It has used its limited legal role to wrest control of the process from the Corps of Engineers where the chief responsibility for 404 permitting legally lies. Nowhere is this more evident than in EPA's veto of the Mingo-Logan Coal Company's Section 404 permit for its Spruce Fork No. 1 mine. In 1998, the operator of that mine applied for a permit to construct what was, at the time, the largest surface mine ever attempted. The mine was immediately the target of a lawsuit, of legislative debate, and federal regulatory action. Over the course of the next several years, the company, the Corps, and the EPA engaged in intensive negotiations. The mine became the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement--the first ever written for a surface mine. In the end, in January of 2007, as a result of much compromise and revision, an Individual 404 permit was awarded by the Army Corps. That was nearly ten years from the date the company first made application. But on September 3, 2009, the EPA reneged. It sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers asking that the Corps suspend, revoke, or modify that 2-year-old permit--a request the Corps flatly refused. Then the EPA took the further, ground-breaking step of issuing its own veto. So, under one EPA Administrator, the 404 permit for this mine was approved. Under another Administrator, it was vetoed. If the EPA can veto this permit--a permit 10 years in the making--not a single, solitary thing stands in the way of this EPA, or some future EPA, should it decide--for whatever reason--to reach back and veto a previously granted permit for coal mining or any other activity. Without some degree of finality, permitting is worthless. I still believe that achieving balance between energy development and environmental protection is a goal we can and must achieve. But the EPA must not be allowed to dwell in the mindset that job losses are an inevitable result of protecting the environment. The coal miners of the Appalachian region deserve a fair, clear, and consistent regulatory process. Toward that end, Mr. Chairman, I join in urging my colleagues to support this amendment to rein in an EPA gone too far.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, one hundred and thirty nine thousand and sixty eight visitors and residents and still counting have cast votes to designate Lewisburg in my home State of West Virginia, as the coolest small town in America. Whether victory in this contest is ultimately ours or not, we have learned a lot, reminded a whole lot of our friends not to be strangers, and have won new interest from around the country. To all those who competed in this year's effort, we salute you. Of course there are many towns across this great country and in West Virginia that are cool, worthy of recognition, and multiple honors. But to be the coolest, you have to heat up a lot of energies, and fire up plenty of old fashioned grit and hard work, and burn untold candles at both ends, and exhaust a multitude of warm hearts. And Lewisburg has done just that. Not just in the last year, either. Lewisburg's charm, its endearing hospitality, historically spans the centuries, back to America's earliest beginnings. Nestled in the peacefully lush valley of the Greenbrier River, Lewisburg has hosted Presidents and Generals, Yankees and rebels, patriots and loyalists. Historic Lewisburg is the county seat of Greenbrier County, and named after Andrew Lewis, a young surveyor, who, in 1751, established a camp near the spring, located behind the present courthouse, and known since that time as the Lewis Spring. In 1782, Lewisburg was formally established by an act of the Virginia General Assembly. The Old Stone Church in Lewisburg, the county seat, was the first Presbyterian Church built west of the Allegheny Mountains and has been in continual use since 1786. The Greenbrier Valley and mineral-rich springs were fertile grounds for prosperous farming and elegant resort hotels and spas for visitors. Today, Lewisburg--with its many 18th and 19th century buildings--is home to families, young professionals, and senior citizens and hosts thousands of visitors from all across America and around the world each year. Its vibrant performing arts community offers live performances by artists from around the world, arts in education programming, classes, workshops, fine art exhibits, an independent film series, and more in its own Carnegie Hall--one of only four Carnegie Halls still in continuous use in the world. But above all its fine attributes, Lewisburg's lasting legacy will be its people, and their close knit neighbors in West Virginia.

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 72. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, Federal agencies can, and do, abuse their regulatory powers. For the last 2 years, in my own district, coal miners in communities that depend on coal have been struggling with the uncertainty created by the Environmental Protection Agency that has pushed its regulatory authority to extremes. As a result of EPA's extensive intervention in Clean Water Act section 404 permitting for service mines, miners in my district and their families are in an untenable limbo, wondering from week to week whether their mines will get a permit and whether their jobs will end. EPA is setting new timelines and new criteria for permits, timelines and criteria that differ from what is in statute and regulation. And they are doing so not through the proper regulatory procedure, but through interim guidance, skirting the rulemaking process that would provide for greater transparency and public comment. The agency is setting a terrible precedent that opens the door for further abuses in future administrations. So I stand here today supporting the contention that Congress ought to check overzealous executive agencies. We ought to be conducting rigorous oversight and siphoning off regulations that hamstring our economy and the wellbeing of Americans. And I fully expect our committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to soon review the EPA's actions with respect to coal mining permits throughout central Appalachia. But I also remind my colleagues that this is not a new responsibility. It is the duty placed on Congress, the people's branch, by the Framers of the Constitution, who knew firsthand the abuses of an all-powerful executive. Nothing in this resolution changes or enhances that responsibility. Rather than expending so much time, energy, and taxpayer dollars in a display on this floor that provides the Members of this body and the American people not a single ounce of new or enhanced benefit, we ought to be concentrating on the real work. We ought to be moving legislation that creates jobs, good family-wage jobs. There is no better way to create family-wage jobs than investing in our Nation's transportation and water resources infrastructure. These investments create and sustain millions of American jobs and generate billions of dollars of economic activity. According to the Federal Highway Administration, for example, each $1 billion of Federal investment creates or sustains 34,799 jobs and $6.2 billion of economic activity. Moreover, these investments strengthen our ability to compete in the global marketplace. It is for these reasons, creating family-wage jobs and strengthening our global competitiveness, that the presidents of the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO have linked arms in support of increased infrastructure investment. Yet, in the first six weeks of this Congress, the only action to date has been to wipe away the legacy of former Republican Chairman Bud Shuster, the budgetary firewalls that ensured that we invest the revenues of the Highway Trust Fund in highway and transit infrastructure. We have abolished the ``trust'' in the Highway Trust Fund. In the last Congress, the House passed a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that significantly increased airport investment, including runway, terminal, and tarmac construction. The bill also authorized and accelerated the FAA's next- generation air transportation system, which will be an engine of economic growth. It will benefit airlines, workers, the traveling public, and the FAA over the long term, providing greater job security and opportunities for the Nation's 567,000 airline workers and the 624,000 employees that work for companies that manufacture aircraft and components. We also passed a bill to help cash-strapped States and communities invest almost $14 billion in wastewater treatment facilities and sewer lines. In addition, the committee, on a bipartisan basis, approved a $500 billion Surface Transportation Authorization Act to significantly increase investment in highway transit and rail infrastructure. The bill would create and sustain an estimated 6 million jobs. Finally, our committee on T&I approved a water resources development bill to invest in our Nation's water resources infrastructure and an Economic Development Administration reauthorization bill that provides grants to economically distressed communities to help them build the necessary infrastructure to foster business investments and create jobs. Mr. Speaker, these are the bills that we should be debating on the floor today. These are the bills that make a difference in people's lives. We cannot wait. The construction season is upon us, and 1.9 million construction workers are still out of work. They need a job, not another feel-good resolution from this Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all time on the resolution be yielded back and that H. Res. 72 be adopted so we can move to consider legislation creating jobs.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to our distinguished leading Democrat on the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise on behalf of all of West Virginia's National Guard and proudly introduce the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011--a bill to elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The National Guard is one of our Nation's longest standing institutions, empowered by Congress and providing to the States a highly trained and well equipped force to protect life and property. Over the course of its nearly four hundred year history, the National Guard has remained a dual State-Federal force, providing security on the home front and fighting threats to our Nation and our freedoms all over the globe. Our National Guardsmen are true American patriots. Theirs is a proud story of tradition, service, sacrifice, and uncommon acts of heroism. They make each of us so very proud. Aristotle said, ``Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way . . . you become just, by performing just actions . . . brave by performing brave actions.'' The American people owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our nearly 500,000 men and women members of the National Guard in service to these great United States. These extraordinary individuals maintain the Guard's multi-mission role--providing nearly 33 percent of America's combat power globally. Yet, simultaneously and with great skill, from approximately 3,400 community-based armories they serve their fellow citizens in defense of our homeland, and in support to States and local civil authorities and emergency response needs. West Virginians volunteer for the National Guard at nearly double the national rate. The West Virginia National Guard has 38 units and activities stationed in 22 counties throughout West Virginia, and currently has units deployed in military operations around the world. Mr. Speaker, for 35 years I have been privileged to represent the people of southern West Virginia, and it is with humble sincerity I say, our West Virginia National Guard is a model example of a commitment to excellence, and professional dedication to America's defense. From the home front to the front lines, we call upon our National Guard to fulfill missions of public safety and security on and between our borders here at home, and send them to foreign lands to combat terrorism abroad. They are among the first called to aid in a domestic disaster and have oftentimes been the last to leave a battlefield. This year the National Guard will mark its 375th birthday. Formed as colonial militias, the new colonies in North America depended upon the Guard to protect fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later to help achieve our independence. Recognizing the militia's role for the newly formed United States, the Framers of the Constitution empowered Congress to provide for training and equipping the militias. Since the Guard's founding and through an historic journey of ``call outs'' and stand out missions--from the bayou communities ravaged by Hurricane Katrina to the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War--our National Guard has seen its Federal mission change. Our National Guard has a duty and commitment to the citizens and communities of the States in which these soldiers call ``family'' and ``home.'' It is a military service tradition that has been challenged by long-term and multiple deployments to front lines in two active theaters, and in support of missions in all corners of the globe as directed by our Nation's Commander in Chief. Therefore, it is not only our duty, it is an absolute necessity, that Congress take action to elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff to serve as an advocate and liaison for the National Guard of each State to inform of all actions that could affect their Federal or State missions. In a nation such as ours, it is a stunning reality that today we ask our brothers and sisters, husbands, and wives to serve around the globe to preserve democracy and promote freedom. But in our country, where every voice counts, our Nation's active duty leadership excludes the voice of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. Congress must ensure the National Guard has appropriate input during the planning and budgetary process within the Department of Defense, and end the challenge to live with ``after-the-fact'' process, as is now the case. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau would have responsibility and authority to advocate and coordinate the Guard's warfighting support and force provider mission with its homeland security and support missions to ensure the Guard has the resources to perform its multiple missions and fulfill its Constitutional role to our States. Mr. Speaker, from the battlefield to the home fields, our National Guard--America's patriots--exemplifies sacrifice and commitment to duty. Now more than ever, this Nation is relying upon the Guard to wage combat on foreign soil, straining our resources here on the home front to respond to domestic disasters and the Guard's traditional duties. The training, equipping, and deployment of the Guard, and their budget, ought to be matters decided with input from the National Guard Chief at the highest levels of the military echelon. Now more than ever, the Guard needs a seat at the head table. I urge my colleagues to support the Guardians for Freedom Act of 2011. We have a responsibility to respectfully and gratefully fulfill our duty to support the original intent of our Constitution for each State to maintain an organized militia with integrity, and effectively support and acknowledge the great sacrifice so many willingly make for all of us.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, West Virginians still smiling? It seems improbable that it could have been fifty years ago, that America's youngest new leader, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, took center stage, here at the U.S. Capitol, to assume the Presidency. He delivered an inaugural address that ignited the hopes and energies of a generation that would, in large measure, take up his call to serve their country. It was, of course, the good people of my home State of West Virginia, who launched the youthful Senator's campaign for the presidency in the 1960 West Virginia Democratic Primary Election. In May of last year, the golden anniversary of the campaign was celebrated with exhibits, readings, talks, films, recording oral histories and other festivities to mark the pivotal turning point in Senator Kennedy's campaign. In Logan, West Virginia, the courthouse square was christened `Kennedy Square.' At Southern West Virginia Community and Technical College, a course on the campaign has been taught for years. Plans have been discussed about pursuing a permanent exhibition in Logan, commemorating the campaign, his Presidency and their impact on our State. Many of my constituents have personal fond and lasting memories of the Kennedys' visits during the campaign and then as President. I, myself, credit President Kennedy's Inaugural Address with my earliest interest in pursuing public service. The Kennedy voice was much more than a call to action, it was a blueprint for the future: the Peace Corps, VISTA, Appalachian Regional Commission, Head Start, Medicare and a slew of other efforts to level the playing field for Americans. Though President Kennedy's address was one of the shortest in history, it earned him lasting respect from untold generations of Americans and our allies around the World. I would suspect the humble, self deprecating President would demur at that comment. But, his ever present humor and wit was in good form at the June 1963 American University Law School graduation of our very own, Senator Robert C. Byrd, when Kennedy, himself, quipped about brevity as he began his remarks: President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school while I am earning mine in the next thirty minutes, ladies and gentlemen. . .'' In 1963, it was a rainy day in Charleston, West Virginia, when President Kennedy attended our State's Centennial celebration. He opened his comments with these remarks, ``While the Sun doesn't always shine in West Virginia, the people always do.'' President Kennedy's words fifty years ago still ring through our hills and manifest themselves through many avenues, enriching our lives with his federal initiatives, calling young and old alike to give of themselves for their fellow citizens, and bringing a smile to all those who remember or are just learning of the West Virginia Kennedy legacy. I hope the Kennedy Inaugural Address will be read in classrooms and community centers and town squares to celebrate this anniversary, and that, we together, work to fulfill the challenges it presents every American Citizen. Let us go forward with his words firmly in our resolve, ``knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in recognition for one of West Virginia's most beloved sons, a genuine and proven leader, an American patriot, and my dear friend, Major General Allen Tackett. Tomorrow, after 48 years of faithful service to our State and our Nation, General Tackett will step down as Commander of more than 6,000 West Virginia citizen soldiers and airmen. He will begin his retirement having earned the outstanding distinction of not only being the longest-serving adjutant general of the West Virginia National Guard, but also of being our Nation's longest-serving adjutant general. In West Virginia, the men and women of our National Guard are held in high regard by their fellow citizens. Since 1995, through the leadership of General Tackett, they annually rank number one in the country for mission readiness. Whether it is a perilous flight mission in the depths of winter to rescue military personnel trapped in our deep, snow-covered mountains, or a mission to provide aid and comfort to fellow West Virginians ravaged by flood waters, or deployed to far corners of the world to protect our democracy and ensure peace around the globe, the West Virginia National Guard has answered the call, time and again. From the Civil War that gave birth to my State, to present-day wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the record of service by so many patriotic West Virginians places our State in the top percentage of all Americans who have donned America's uniform. As Mountaineers, we are incredibly proud of our record and extraordinary military leaders, like Major General Tackett, who rise from the ranks to train, lead, and mentor our soldiers and airmen with great honor, personal pride, commitment, and sacrifice, and an enduring passion for the freedoms in our democracy. The American people owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our 362,192 men and women members of the National Guard, who in service to the United States, maintain the Guard's multi-mission role--providing nearly 33 percent of America's combat power globally--and, simultaneously and with great skill--serving their fellow citizens in defense of our homeland, in support of state and local civil authorities, and fulfilling emergency response needs. For decades, there has been a significant evolution in the missions and capabilities of the National Guard. As General Tackett has so aptly stated, ``Not since World War II has the Guard been so vital to our overseas mission, and not since the founding of our Nation has the Guard been so vital to the defense of our homeland.'' For over 34 years, I have been privileged to represent the people of southern West Virginia, and it is with humbleness and sincerity that I say, from the home front to the front lines, our West Virginia National Guard is a model of the commitment to excellence and professional dedication to America's defense, thanks to the commitment, vision, and leadership of Major General Tackett. Therefore, it is my honor and great privilege to commend Major General Allen E. Tackett, the Adjutant General of the West Virginia National Guard: For his 48 years in service to our country; for his 25 years served in Special Forces units; for his vital contributions--with the force and voice of U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd--working to block the closing of the 130th Airlift Wing by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 2005; for his passion for education and creating hope and opportunity through his support for programs such as, the West Virginia National Guards' Tuition Assistance; and for his work with at- risk youths through the National Youth ChalleNGe program. Mr. Speaker, on occasion, Senator Byrd enjoyed comparing General Tackett's skills to those of the Carthaginian General, Hannibal. I agree with the Senator--when Allen Tackett tackles a problem, it is as if his opponents are facing a thunderous herd of raging bull elephants. Today, I join my fellow West Virginians in recognition and congratulatory acknowledgement of the great achievements of Major General Tackett as he begins this new chapter in his life with his beloved wife, Sallie.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, West Virginians' hearts are heavy for our fellow citizens lost last weekend in Tucson, Arizona. To those recovering, our dear colleague, Gabby Giffords, our thoughts and fervent prayers are offered. Our country's resolve is strengthened each time it is tested. Citizen participation is the democratic bedrock of our more perfect Union. Representative Giffords understands the value of constant constituent conversation, and her example shines as a beacon for public office holders throughout our Republic to follow. May Gabby's dedication to others serve her recovery, as the blessings we celebrate in the Book of Ruth, ``a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentlelady for yielding the time. While I regret I did not hear all of the previous colloquy, I do want to express my strong reservation and opposition to these rule changes because of the effects it would have on transportation-related issues. The Republican rules package eliminates the current rules' direct tie between revenues to the highway trust fund, paid by the users through gas taxes at the pump, and the level of investment for these programs. Currently, House rules provide that appropriators must fund highway and transit programs at levels set forth in surface transportation authorizations. This provision was championed by a Republican, our former colleague Bud Shuster, and was put into place to prevent funds building up in the highway trust fund to be used to mask the true size of the Federal deficit. The provision was intended to stop the same old smoke-and-mirrors game of Federal spending. As their very first act as the majority, I find it incredible that Republicans would want to pursue a job-killing proposal like this, one that not only threatens jobs, but which could lead to dramatic reductions in spending for very necessary and worthy highway projects throughout the Nation. Americans understand and they support paying motor fuel taxes at the pump, so long as they are guaranteed that those funds will be spent on transportation. The Republican rules package smears that guarantee and will have a potentially devastating effect on the level of Federal investment in vital highway and transit programs. After more than a decade of effort by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the House adopted the current rule in 1998. The principle was simple: Gas taxes collected to improve highway and transit systems must be used for that purpose. The previous rule restored trust to the trust fund, and it has served the House and our Nation well for the past 12 years. Today, the House Republican majority breaks that trust. They are returning to the ways of old--no hearings, no public debates, no discussion with any Member on this side of the aisle on the effects of the proposed rule on transportation investment. Regrettably, these issues are steeped in arcane budget rules, so, therefore, many Members, especially new Members, are not aware of what they are voting on and its consequences. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rules change, as do so many highway contractors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 5, the new Republican Majority's proposed rules for the House of Representatives. The Republican Rules package eliminates the current Rule's direct tie between revenues to the Highway Trust Fund--paid by users through gas taxes at the pump--and the level of investment for surface transportation programs. This rules change will have a devastating effect on transportation and infrastructure investment. Currently, House Rules provide that appropriators must fund highway and transit programs at levels set forth in surface transportation authorizations. This provision was championed by a Republican, our former colleague Bud Shuster, and was put into place to prevent funds building up in the Highway Trust Fund to be used to mask the true size of the federal deficit. As their very first act in the Majority, I find it incredible that Republicans would want to pursue a job-killing proposal like this. One that not only threatens jobs but which could lead to dramatic reductions in spending for very necessary and worthy highway projects throughout the Nation. Americans understand, and support, paying motor fuel taxes at the pump so long as they are guaranteed that those funds will be spent on transportation. The Republican Rules package smudges that guarantee and will have a potentially devastating effect on the level of Federal investment in vital highway and transit programs. After more than a decade of effort by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the House adopted the current rule in 1998. The principle was simple: gas taxes collected to improve highway and public transit systems must be used for that purpose. The Rule restored ``trust'' to the Trust Fund, and it has served the House well for the past 12 years. Today, the new Republican Majority breaks that trust. We will soon return to the days where gas taxes are collected and used not to invest in infrastructure, but to hide the size of the deficit. The new Republican Majority also institutes a new ``Cut-Go'' rule to cut spending. However, in the process, the Republicans have obliterated the basic premise of the Highway and Airport and Airway Trust Funds. Under the new Republican rule, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure cannot bring a bill to the Floor that increases highway, public transit, or airport infrastructure investment (contract authority) financed by revenues from the appropriate trust fund, unless the bill makes cuts to other mandatory programs. It does not matter if the Trust Fund has the resources to finance the investment; the Committee still has to provide offsetting cuts. The basic premise of the transportation trust funds--user fees are collected to finance infrastructure improvements--is obliterated. Regrettably, because these issues are steeped in arcane budget rules, I fear that Members are voting on this package without understanding its consequences. I regret that the Republican Leadership, which has talked so much about transparency and openness, begins this Congress, on its first day, with the ways of old: no hearings, no public debate, and no discussion with any Member on this side of the aisle on the effects of the proposed rule on transportation investment. You do not have to take my word for it, listen to the transportation community: State Departments of Transportation, public transit agencies, highway contractors, equipment manufacturers, the trucking industry, moving companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, highway users, and construction workers all vigorously oppose the rules. And you can listen to what Wall Street thinks of the effect on Republican Rules package on highway construction companies: although the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up yesterday, highway contractors and material suppliers took a significant hit throughout the day: Martin Marrietta, down 6.5 percent; Vulcan Materials, down 5.2 percent; Granite Construction, down 4.4 percent; CRH Oldcastle, down 4.4 percent. As one Wall Street analyst who downgraded two of these firms stated in a written investment report specifically citing the Republican's Rules package: ``. . . [T]his is not an encouraging signal from the new [Republican] congressional leadership in terms of its commitment to infrastructure spending. . . .''; and ``. . . a move to allow revenues previously set aside for road spending to be spent elsewhere would not only act to reduce total [highway] spending levels but also limit visibility amid an already constrained outlook by the lack of a multi-year highway bill.'' Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for transportation. The Republican Rules package creates uncertainty in an industry that cannot afford it. The Republican Rules package will hurt highway, transit, and airport construction companies and kill jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me and defeat H. Res. 5. Let us go back to the drawing table and work together to help the American people.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I do want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Utah for his comments. Mr. Speaker, this may very well be the last time that our Committee on Natural Resources will have bills on the floor of the House in this 111th Congress. I wish to take just a moment of personal reflection to thank, not only the gentleman from Utah, but my ranking member--the gentleman from the State of Washington, Doc Hastings, as well. I talked to Mr. Hastings this morning. He is not sleepless in Seattle but is snowed in in Seattle and is unable to be here today, but I did want to acknowledge his position on our committee and wish him the best next year as he assumes the reins of leadership as chairman of our committee. It has been, I think, a good couple of terms under my chairmanship. We have worked in a nonpartisan manner as much as feasible and as much as possible. On not every bill have we seen eye to eye, but we have respectfully agreed to disagree where we have disagreed. I want to thank the members on the majority's side. My colleagues from all over this country and from the American territories have been very helpful in drafting important legislation that has fallen in line with our vital responsibilities as stewards of our public lands. I also want to say a word of commendation to the staffs on both sides. We have brought numerous bills--I don't even have a final tally in front of me--to the floor of this House. Many are still languishing over in that other body. I commend the work of the staffs on both the majority's and the minority's sides and the manner in which they have worked cooperatively and in a bipartisan fashion over these 4 years that I have chaired this committee. In particular, the gentleman sitting to my right, Mr. Jim Zoia, has been with me over three decades. While we will move on to another committee in the next Congress, we will always remember our years on the Natural Resources Committee and our working so well with both sides. So, again, I wish to express my appreciation to my ranking member, Doc Hastings, and to all the members of our committee--both Republican and especially my side, the Democratic side. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1061) to transfer certain land to the United States to be held in trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, to place land into trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1061, as amended, would transfer certain Federal and non-Federal land in the State of Washington to the Hoh Tribe to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the tribe. The Hoh Indian Tribe is located on the coast of Washington. Its coastline is situated such that it is subject to frequent flooding, preventing the sustainable use of this land by the tribe. Due to this situation, the tribe has acquired approximately 420 acres of land from private sources to relocate its government offices and tribal members. The bill would place this newly acquired 420 acres of land into trust for the tribe and as well transfer approximately 37 acres of Federal land into trust for the tribe in order to connect the tribe's newly acquired lands to its current lands. On June 28, 2010, the House passed this legislation under suspension of the rules by a vote of 347-0. The Senate made technical amendments to the bill to clarify that the land would be placed into trust in accordance with the Department of the Interior's regulations for mandatory trust land acquisitions. The Senate then passed the legislation before us today by unanimous consent on September 29, 2010. In closing, I would commend our colleague and my fellow classmate, Representative Norm Dicks of Washington, for his hard work and dedication to this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to support its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.