Bill Shuster

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. I agree with the distinguished ranking member, and I believe that he supported last year in the National Defense Authorization Act section 891, which in fact does what the gentlelady from Texas wants to do. So again, this is a delay tactic to put outsourcing back on the table, back in play, back in part of our toolbox. Again, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentlelady from Texas offering this amendment, and I want to restate what it attempts to do. It will prohibit outsourcing of DOD functions until the Secretary of Defense conducts an outreach program to benefit women- and minority- owned small businesses. Well, in fact, it is a duplication of what is already in the law. It duplicates section 891 of the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act which requires the establishment of an outreach program to firms near DOD installations. This act simply delays allowing for outsourcing to come back in and be part of the benefits that it provides to this Nation, reducing cost, streamlining the process. So again, this is already in law. As I said, this is nothing more than a delay tactic to stop outsourcing. We need to use outsourcing where it makes sense, to utilize the benefits of reducing cost, which has the potential to help our small businesses, which I think we all support. Whether they are women-owned or minority-owned businesses, small businesses are important, and I think outsourcing does that. In fact, in my district, Letterkenny Army Depot has public-private partnerships today through outsourcing with small businesses and large alike. The Heritage Foundation did a study commending what is going on at Letterkenny Army Depot utilizing DOD civilians as well as the private sector, coming together where it makes sense, where we can have a tremendously positive impact on the work that goes there. So there is a model out there, and outsourcing is important. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment because again, it already is established in last year's defense authorization bill exactly what the gentlelady from Texas wants to be established. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Republic of Azerbaijan in celebration of the 93rd anniversary of Republic Day on May 28th. Later this year, Azerbaijan will also celebrate the 20th anniversary of its freedom from the Soviet Union and the start of diplomatic relations with the United States. Located in a geopolitically dynamic region between Europe and Asia and sandwiched between Russia and Iran, Azerbaijan is a secular county with a predominantly Muslim population that has also been home for more than a millennia for vibrant Christian and Jewish communities. Azerbaijan has opened Caspian energy resources to development by U.S. companies and has emerged as a key player for global energy security. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project is the most successful project contributing to the development of the South Caucuses region and has become the main artery delivering Caspian Sea hydrocarbons to the U.S. and our partners in Europe. Notably, in 2009 Azerbaijan provided nearly one quarter of all crude oil supplies to Israel and is considered a leading potential natural gas provider for the U.S. supported Nabucco pipeline. On the security front, immediately after 9/11 Azerbaijan was among the first to offer strong support and assistance to the United States. Azerbaijan participated in operations in Kosovo and Iraq and is actively engaged in Afghanistan, having recently doubled its military presence there. Azerbaijan has extended important over-flight clearances for U.S. and NATO flights to support ISAF and has regularly provided landing and refueling operations at its airports for U.S. and NATO forces. Also, Azerbaijan, as highlighted by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, plays an important role in the Northern Distribution Network, a supply route to Afghanistan by making available its ground and Caspian naval transportation facilities. Moreover, Azerbaijan provides vital support for U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Again, as the Co-Chairman of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, it is my distinct pleasure to honor the Republic of Azerbaijan in celebration of the 93rd anniversary of Republic Day and to recognize the valuable bilateral relationship between the United States and Azerbaijan. I also encourage my colleagues who are interested in supporting Azerbaijan to join me as a member of Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, a bipartisan group of nearly 40 Members of Congress working to help foster the growing partnership between the United States and Azerbaijan and to advance U.S. interests in this pivotal region.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I come to the floor to report the passing of a member of America's Greatest Generation. Michael Cap of Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania passed away on Wednesday afternoon at the Hollidaysburg Veterans Home. He was 101 years old. I met Michael Cap only a few weeks ago, on April 20th, to present him with replacements for medals he was awarded for his service in the Army during World War II. Mr. Cap served in Company F, 306th Infantry, 77th Infantry Division of the United States Army during the campaign in the Philippines. During his tour in the Pacific Theater, Mr. Cap was wounded in action twice including a wound he suffered after receiving shrapnel in his heart during the invasion of Leyte Island. For his bravery and honorable service during the war, Mr. Cap received 10 medals, which had been lost or misplaced over time after the war. It was my honor to have had the opportunity to replace these medals and on April 20, I joined Mr. Cap and members of his family at the Hollidaysburg Veterans Home to present him with the following medal and awards: The Purple Heart with 1 bronze oak leaf cluster; the Bronze Star; the World War II Victory Medal; the American Campaign Medal; the Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal with 3 bronze service stars with arrowhead; the Philippine Liberation Ribbon with 1 bronze service star; the Good Conduct Medal; the Combat Infantryman Badge--1st Award; the Expert Infantryman Badge; and the Honorable Service WWII Lapel Button. Mr. Speaker, with Michael Cap's passing, one more veteran of World War II has left us. It seems with each passing day, we are losing a generation that defined American courage. Michael Cap's generation fought to end the threat of totalitarianism and came home to build the American Dream in peace. Their example set the tone for future generations of soldiers, including the men and women now serving in uniform in the United States armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us not forget Michael Cap and those like him who stood up in the face of evil and totalitarianism and defeated it. America owes him and all our veterans a great debt.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding and thank the gentleman for traveling with us on our codel, which was a bipartisan codel made of up six Members--2 Democrats, 4 Republicans-- and we traveled to, obviously as the gentleman from Louisiana said, to Afghanistan. It was, I think, an eye-opening experience for all of us getting to see and hear firsthand from not only our military leaders but also soldiers who were in the field and traveling out to Herat Province and be able to go to a village and talk to the village elders, the people that 18 months ago in this village it was controlled by the Taliban. Today, with the help of the U.S. Special Forces, the Taliban is gone and the people of this community, the people of this village and region are setting up their own police force. The village elder committed to us that he would never allow the Taliban to come back and how much he appreciated the support of U.S. Special Forces and their training and the fact that they were living with them in the community, 30 of our Special Forces in two different compounds, again offering training and guidance to these folks that live out in a very, very rural part of Afghanistan and actually 50 to 60 miles from the Iranian border. And they're doing good work. So we saw those kinds of positive developments. Of course, we all know what happened at the end of this weekend. Our Special Forces were able to go in and kill Osama bin Laden and bring justice to him, and America's grateful for their efforts. As my colleague said, we were also able to participate in two ceremonies. One was a ramp ceremony of one of our fallen heroes. They actually put the coffin on the plane to bring it back to Dover Air Force Base to meet its final destination, and then also a ceremony to honor the nine fallen Americans that were killed by an Afghan pilot, somebody they had been working with for 9 months, somebody they trusted, who came in during a meeting last week, and brought in a weapon and killed nine people. They were not all military. There were eight people that serve in our military and one civilian, a civilian contractor, A retired lieutenant colonel. So there were also officers and enlisted people, and all of them gave the ultimate sacrifice serving for us in Afghanistan, and it was also the largest loss of life for the U.S. Air Force since the Khobar Towers were bombed by Osama bin Laden some 12 or 13 years ago. Tonight, we are joining here--and I think we are going to be joined by others that were on the trip--to talk about these individuals and honor these individuals. With that, the first person that we want to honor is Major Jeffrey O. Ausborn. He was in the NATO Air Training Command in Afghanistan. Major Ausborn was born in August 1969 in Hokes Bluff, Alabama. His military career began on August 9, 1991, after being commissioned as a second lieutenant from the Troy State University Reserve Officer Training Corps. After completing basic communications officer training at Keesler Air Force Base, he remained as an instructor for nearly 4 years, and in 1996, Major Ausborn was selected for undergraduate pilot training and proceeded to Columbus Air Force Base where, as a pilot trainee, he went on to earn the coveted wings of silver. Major Ausborn went on to fly the C-130, eventually completing two flying tours in the mighty Herk. In 2001, he joined the air education and training command as an instructor pilot. Major Ausborn spent 9 years of that command transitioning through the T-37, the T-6, and T-1 aircraft at Laughlin and Randolph Air Force Bases. In November of 2010, Major Ausborn joined the NATO Air Training Command in Afghanistan as a C-27 evaluator pilot and the chief of current operations with the 538th Air Expeditionary Advisory Squadron. His awards include the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Aerial Achievement Medal. Major Ausborn is survived by his wife, Suzanna; daughters, Emily and Shelby; son, Eric; and stepchildren, Summer and Mitchell. Our hearts and prayers go out to that family, for their loved one who gave the ultimate sacrifice. It is with that tonight that we remember Major Jeffrey O. Ausborn. I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the gentleman talking about the meeting with other parliamentarians in some of the other countries that we visited, from the Czech Republic to Azerbaijan to Georgia. And one of the things all three of those countries have in common is they are really great allies of the United States of America. All of those countries contribute forces not only to Afghanistan but to Iraq. Currently, they either have troops there or have troops just returning. And you look at a country like Azerbaijan, which lies in a rough neighborhood between Iran to the south and Russia to the north; Georgia sits on the Russian border and has had problems with Russia; but when those countries send their troops to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, they have no caveats, which means that their troops are allowed to do whatever the Americans, whatever the NATO forces need them to do, whether it's combat, whether it's Special Forces, whether it's supporting the NATO troops and the American troops in some other way. So it's really important that we, as Americans, know these countries and support what they do for us. When people think and they hear that Georgia was to provide 900 troops to the effort in Afghanistan just recently, a lot of people would say, Well, that's not a very big force. But when you look that it's a country of about 4.5 million people, that would be the equivalent of the United States contributing 80,000 to 90,000 troops to the effort. So it's really a big contribution, and we owe a debt of gratitude to those countries that do that around the world. As my colleagues have been talking about, we're honoring those nine that were killed last week in Afghanistan. And of the nine, as I said earlier, eight were in the U.S. Air Force, but one was a civilian, a contractor. That person was Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) James McLaughlin, or as he was commonly known as ``Jimmy Mac,'' was one of the nine. James Aloysius McLaughlin, Jr. was born on June 16, 1955. He graduated from Drexel University with a bachelor of science degree and earned a master's degree in business administration from the University of Phoenix. Jim retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant colonel in 2007 after service in Iraq. His civilian career included program manager, product marketing manager, and applications engineer manager with LEMO USA. Jim's most recent service was as a contractor with L3 Communications, MPRI Division, supporting the NATO Training Command mission in Kabul, Afghanistan. During that time, he was a senior mentor to both the Ministry of Defense and the Afghan Air Force. Jim held military and civilian ratings in both rotary and fixed wing aircraft. One of his passions was his ham radio, and he held a current amateur radio license. He had a network of fellow ham radio operators throughout the United States and the world. James McLaughlin is survived by his wife, Sandra, and their three children, Adam, Eve and James, all of Santa Rosa, California. All Americans should keep their families in our thoughts and our prayers and we give, again, a thank you not only to James McLaughlin for giving the ultimate sacrifice, but for his family that had to suffer this great, great loss.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for securing this hour for us to be able to talk about our experience in Afghanistan and, most importantly, for us to be able to talk about and honor the nine people who were killed in Afghanistan last week. As I mentioned earlier, it was the largest loss of life in the U.S. Air Force since the Khobar Towers. As my colleague, Mr. Runyan, talked about the somber and powerful experience that we had there at this memorial service, at the ceremony, it was really something to be there. We got there at the last minute, and I think we all were very, very grateful to be able to participate in the ceremony. Again, nine people were slain. We have already talked about the one that was not a military person but a contractor. He served in the military, but then came back to serve in Afghanistan as a contractor and tried to help develop and train the Afghan Air Force. Another one of those members that gave the ultimate sacrifice is Lieutenant Colonel Frank D. Bryant, Jr. Lieutenant Bryant was born on August 13, 1973, from Knoxville, Tennessee. His military career began when he entered the U.S. Air Force Academy in the summer of 1991. After graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1995 with a bachelor's degree in general engineering, Lieutenant Bryant was assigned at the Columbus Air Force Base initially as a student pilot and then as a T-37 instructor pilot. Lieutenant Colonel Bryant's next aircraft was an F-16. In the F-16, he completed tours in Korea, Shaw Air Force Base, an exchange pilot with the UAE, and Luke Air Force Base. His last assignment was a CJCS Afghanistan-Pakistan Hand assigned to the 438th Air Expeditionary Wing in Kabul, Afghanistan. During his career, Lieutenant Bryant earned the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, Air Force Combat Action Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal with one oakleaf cluster, Air Force Commendation Medal with one oakleaf cluster, Air Force Achievement Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Air Force Outstanding Unit with Valor Device and two oakleaf clusters, Combat Readiness Medal, National Defense Medal, Global War of Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Afghan Campaign Medal, NATO Medal, Air Force Overseas Ribbon, Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon with gold border with one oakleaf cluster, and the Air Force Longevity Service with three oakleaf clusters, and, finally, the Air Force Training Ribbon. Somebody who served long and, obviously by all those medals, did a fabulous job serving the United States of America. Lieutenant Bryant is survived by his wife, Janice; his son, Sean; his father, Frank D. Bryant, Sr.; and his mother, Patricia Bryant. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to his family and also to Colonel Bryant, for their service to this country, and of course for the ultimate sacrifice that Colonel Bryant gave for his Nation. I would encourage all Americans to remember Colonel Bryant and his family in their thoughts and their prayers.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yesterday, President Obama had an opportunity to put forth a serious budget proposal, but instead, again, he called for higher taxes and trillions of dollars in spending we just can't afford. The President offered nothing but lip service to serious spending cuts and real reform. We can't tax our way to prosperity or ignore the unsustainable future of Medicare and Medicaid. The President's plan fails to recognize that Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This is a time that demands leadership, and the President answered with a plan to nowhere. Today, the House is debating a serious budget that will address our dangerous debt and deficit while strengthening Medicare and Medicaid. The President missed another opportunity to engage in this debate in a meaningful way. He chose, instead, to deliver a campaign speech, filled with class warfare and scare tactics, hoping the American people wouldn't know any better. He was wrong. Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, for 12 years, I was in business, and there were two things I learned in business: One, if you spend more than you take in, you're headed towards financial ruin. Second, if the government continues to take away more and more from small businesses, they won't create jobs; they will eliminate jobs. This budget deals with those two fundamental issues. The American people are demanding real change and an honest budget with no gimmicks, and that is what Chairman Ryan has produced. This week, the House is going to deliver for future generations by putting our government on a path to fiscal responsibility and prosperity.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Roger Kirwin of Everett for being named Bedford County's Historian of the Year for 2011 by the Bedford County Historical Society. Mr. Kirwin is commended for his efforts in preserving, protecting, and documenting the history and heritage of Bedford County and its people. The Historian of the Year Committee selected Roger in recognition of his contributions to the historical programs at Old Bedford Village. Throughout his term as Executive Director he enhanced many of the already existing programs and added many new programs to the Village's calendar. Roger has helped provide resources for educational programs for use by local schools. He also routinely takes educational materials to schools in the county to make presentations on various topics of interest in the county. Roger has often provided programs for senior citizens, civil groups, and organizations such as the Rotary Club, Lions, churches and Scouts. These events have always been exceptional and well-received by locals and the many tourists who come to participate. Not only did he plan these events, but he has been a part of the many re-enactments and programs. Roger's visits to the schools and youth organizations of Bedford County to educate young people on county history are greatly appreciated. Mr. Kirwin's enthusiasm for the history and heritage of Bedford County is admirable and I commend him for his efforts.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, as you know the EAS program was established to ensure that smaller communities across the country, including those in my congressional district, retain a link to the national air transportation system. I also understand that we have a severely constrained Federal budget, and I agree with the chairman that we must do more with less and we need to ensure that Federal programs actually make sense. As a member of the committee, I look forward to working with the chairman to get this long overdue FAA bill to the President's desk for signature, and I look forward to working with the chairman to make the needed changes to the EAS program. I would now yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. SHUSTER. I agree with the gentleman. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady from South Dakota. I look forward to working with the chairman, the gentlelady from South Dakota, and the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and North Dakota as the bill moves forward on EAS.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I believe we are going to strengthen the rulemaking process and make the skies and aviation travel even safer than it is today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SHUSTER. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman. That is my intent is to strengthen this. Again, I think this does strengthen the law because it will give it judicial review. So at this point I am not willing to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and that is my intent. In fact, the Executive order, which does have some of this already in it, cannot have judicial review. So this will strengthen the position for people who have judicial review to be able to enforce it. Again, currently, the Executive order doesn't have it in it. So I believe this is going to strengthen it. I want safety. Randy Babbitt, who is now the FAA administrator and former president of the ALPA, the Air Line Pilot's Association, has said one size fits all doesn't fit all. So, again, I think this is going to strengthen the position as we move forward with these rulings. So I would urge the gentleman, if there is something we can do to clear this up a little bit, I am happy to listen to him. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment. This amendment is composed of two parts, both of which deal with making improvements to the process of issuing Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The amendment is an effort to improve rulemaking at the FAA by requiring the agency to meet fundamental rulemaking principles. Directing the FAA to meet these standards will ensure that regulations protect the critical importance of aviation safety while also considering issues of economic competitiveness. The first part, the ``one size does not fit all'' part of the amendment, requires the FAA to recognize that the United States aviation industry is composed of a variety of different segments with different operating characteristics. Therefore, before proposing or issuing a regulation, the FAA Administrator must analyze the different industry segments and tailor any regulations to the characteristics of separate segments. The definition of industry segments is left to the administrator. The FAA Administrator, Randy Babbitt, has pointed out that a ``one size fits all'' approach does not work. In 2009, Administrator Babbitt said, ``In rulemaking, not only does one size not fit all, but it's unsafe to think it can.'' This amendment attempts to fulfill that objective. The second part fulfills President Obama's goals of regulatory reform. The second part ensures that the proposed regulations are not overly burdensome or cumbersome by requiring the FAA to conduct rulemakings in accordance with certain principles. First, a reasoned cost and benefit analysis, second, an assessment of the impact on the economy, and third, extremely important that the regulation is based on the best available science and technical information. Let me be clear that my intent is not to single out or gut any particular regulation or proposed regulation. This amendment does not define industry segments. We allow the FAA Administrator to interpret and appropriately define what industry segments are. It does not require that the cost benefits analysis be the reason for a rule, a reasoned analysis. Additionally, the amendment is not retroactive. Finally, I understand that there may be concerns that the language could apply to ongoing rulemakings. That's not my intent for this amendment to apply to ongoing rulemaking, such as those regarding pilot flight and duty time. The Transportation Committee has worked hard to address the important safety concerns in a bipartisan manner. And if there are concerns with the language, we certainly want to make sure we clear that up. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of the City of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. They well deserve recognition for their generous and humane extension of a helping hand to their sister city, Gotemba, Japan. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those in Japan who are coping with the aftermath of a truly tragic disaster. We stand in support of our friends and allies in Japan who are doing everything they can to recover from the devastating earthquake and tsunami. In my district, the Mayor of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, Pete Lagiovane, announced this week that his city will offer assistance to their sister city in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that has devastated Japan. While fortunately the people of Gotemba were not as severely impacted as those in the northeast part of Japan, they are dealing with heavy hearts for their friends, families, and countrymen as well as serious disruptions to their power supply and transportation system. Mayor Lagiovane has offered assistance in a joint effort to assist Gotemba in providing relief to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami. He put forward the idea of starting a local relief fund with the proceeds going to Gotemba to disburse as they see fit. Chambersburg and Gotemba have been sister cities for 50 years. Their relationship started when a Japanese student at Penn Hall and Wilson College returned home after World War II. The student wanted to maintain a bond with Chambersburg, so she and her son came back and conducted several meetings with the city council and established a sister city relationship in 1960. The two cities have exchanged visits every 5 years since then. The spirit of sisterhood and love between these two cities--separated by thousands of miles and a vast ocean--encapsulate the attitude we should all have toward our fellow man. I commend Chambersburg for their selfless attitude and generosity.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank my friend for yielding. Here we are again, a seventh time for an extension. I agree with my friend from Oregon who pointed out that this administration stopped us from passing a transportation bill under Chairman Oberstar. Mr. Mica was the ranking member. So here we are again, a seventh extension on the highway bill. As the chairman pointed out, this freezes the authorizing funds at FY 2010 levels, and it will go until September 30 to give us the time necessary to craft a new transportation bill. I want to point out that this is a clean extension. It is what is in current law. There are no policy or program changes, and this does not continue any stimulus funding. This extension, coupled with the CR, is going to reduce spending by about a billion dollars. We are going to make a reduction in transit new starts by over $400 million, discontinue highway appropriation earmarks by $900 million, eliminate unauthorized transit programs by over $200 million, and unauthorized TIGER grants by $600 million. So there are some significant reductions; and, again, this current extension has to be passed by Friday. If we don't move this forward, we will feel this throughout the economy, throughout this Nation. Today, this week, in the past couple of weeks, State DOTs have been letting contracts, putting bids out to get contractors in place to be able to start the spring, summer, and fall contracting season. If we shut down this program, there will be immediate furloughs and suspension of payments to States. Again, I would like to remind my colleagues, especially on my side of the aisle, this is money that is being reimbursed to the States for work that has already been completed to the tune of about $150 million a day, is going out to States to be able to pay those contractors to keep them working and building bridges and roads around this country. So we are in an extremely difficult time to put these payments in jeopardy. Again, this gives us the time to craft a transportation bill by September 30, to put out there. When we do that, we are going to go through this transportation bill and cut and reform and change. Some of you may have seen the GAO report. I haven't looked at it completely, but I know there are many, many programs in the Department of Transportation across the government that duplicate effort that, quite frankly, we don't know where the money is going. And some of these programs, we are not even sure who is watching the spending of it. They can't account for it. So this transportation bill we'll move in September is going to do all of those types of things to improve what we do here in Washington and be a good partner to the States when it comes to building and maintaining a national transportation system. So I urge all of my colleagues to support this extension.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, as the Co-Chairman of the House Azerbaijan Caucus, I rise today to bring attention to the tragedy that took place in Khojaly, Azerbaijan, a town and townspeople that were destroyed on February 26, 1992. Sadly, today there is little attention or interest paid to the plight of Khojaly outside of Azerbaijan. However, one of our greatest strengths as elected officials is the opportunity to bring to light truths that are little known and command recognition. As a friend of Azerbaijan, I am proud to remind my colleagues that we must never forget the tragedy that took place at Khojaly. At the time, the Khojaly tragedy was widely covered by the international media, including the Boston Globe, Washington Post, New York Times, Financial Times, and many other European and Russian news agencies. Khojaly, a town in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, now under the control of Armenian forces, was the site of the largest killing of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians. With a population of approximately 7,000, Khojaly was one of the largest urban settlements of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. According to Human Rights Watch and other international observers the massacre was committed by the ethnic Armenian armed forces, reportedly with the help of the Russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment. Human Rights Watch described the Khojaly Massacre as ``the largest massacre to date in the conflict'' over Nagorna-Karabakh. In a 1993 report, the watchdog group stated ``there are no exact figures for the number of Azeri civilians killed because Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre'' and ``while it is widely accepted that 200 Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died.'' Newsweek Magazine reported: ``Azerbaijan was a charnel house again last week: a place of mourning refugees and dozens of mangled corpses dragged to a makeshift morgue behind the mosque. They were ordinary Azerbaijani men, women and children of Khojaly, a small village in war- torn Nagorno-Karabakh overrun by Armenian forces on 25-26 February. Many were killed at close range while trying to flee; some had their faces mutilated, others were scalped.'' Time Magazine stated ``While the details are argued, this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly two weeks ago. So far, some 200 dead Azerbaijanis, many of them mutilated, have been transported out of the town tucked inside the Armenian-dominated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh for burial in neighboring Azerbaijan. The total number of deaths--the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians have been slaughtered, most of them women and children--is unknown.'' Azerbaijan has been a strong strategic partner and friend of the United States. The tragedy of Khojaly was a crime against humanity and I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with Azerbaijanis as they commemorate this tragedy.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 72, a resolution directing certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their effect on jobs and economic growth. While it is clear that across government there are tremendous amounts of red tape that we must cut in order to more effectively and efficiently spur job creation, I would like to focus on four specific issues under the jurisdiction of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. FMCSA Hours of Service Proposed changes by the U.S. Department of Transportation to hours of service rules for truck drivers would have a substantially negative impact on productivity and the U.S. economy. The rules currently in place are working well and do not need to be changed. Since the current rules were implemented seven years ago, the trucking industry's safety performance has improved at an unprecedented rate. Both the number and rate of fatal and injury accidents involving large trucks have declined by more than one-third and are now at their lowest levels in recorded history. The remarkable reduction in the number of truck-involved fatal and injury crashes occurred even as truck mileage increased by almost 10 billion miles between 2003 and 2008, the latest year for which data is available. If the proposed changes are implemented, trucking companies will need to put additional trucks and drivers on the road to deliver the same amount of freight, adding to final product costs and increasing congestion on the nation's already clogged highways. Small business truckers would be especially hard hit. On two prior occasions, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) estimated that similar changes would cost the U.S. economy $2.2 billion, inclusive of safety benefits. However, in the new proposed rule FMCSA has changed its methodology for estimating both the benefits and costs of changes to the hours of service rule, effectively decreasing estimated annual costs by $1.5 billion and increasing estimated annual benefits by $1.1 billion in order to produce a positive benefit-cost ratio. Further, the agency's own analysis shows that the net benefits of retaining the current daily driving time limit exceed the net benefits of reducing allowable driving time by one hour, the option favored by FMCSA. Frankly, it is very difficult to understand how FMCSA rationalizes its proposal on this fact alone. In addition to encumbering the industry and a struggling economy, the proposed changes would significantly challenge law enforcement. Because the proposed rules are complex and restrictive, motor carriers could have difficulty understanding them and enforcement officers could have difficulty accurately identifying violations. For instance, in order to determine if a driver can legally claim to have met the conditions of a weekly rest provision, enforcement officials would have to ensure that at least 168 hours had elapsed since the beginning of the most recent weekly rest period, and that the break included two consecutive nighttime periods between midnight and 6 a.m. Such complexity will only serve to hamper both industry compliance and motor carrier enforcement. Now is not the time to impose costly new regulations that would impede the nation's economic recovery and increase the cost of almost every product Americans produce and buy. Along with my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves, I am circulating a letter on this issue to be sent to the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in signing on to this important letter. Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Issues As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous materials, there are three issues under my jurisdiction that I want to draw attention to--two related to railroads and another related to hazardous materials. Put simply, the United States has the greatest freight rail network in the world. Our system is the most efficient and cost-effective in existence, and relies on virtually no subsidies from the federal government. Over a century ago, America's railroads opened the door for economic expansion, literally ushering in the great advancements in industry that sparked America's emergence as an economic power on the world stage. By linking our coasts, rail opened markets for goods and services in parts of our nation before rendered inaccessible. America's railroads revolutionized transportation, gave promise to freedom of movement and made business more efficient. That heritage continues to this day. Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a new era of a freight rail renaissance. With 140,000 miles of track carrying almost two trillion ton-miles annually, freight rail is an immense jobs generator and a major driver of the nation's economy. In fact, the industry supports directly or indirectly over 1 million jobs, and 43 percent of all freight carried each year in the U.S. is moved by train--with demand projected to grow. In order to meet this demand, it is essential that there is continued growth in rail capacity. Surface Transportation Board Yet given their successes and self-reliance, the railroad industry appears to be in the crosshairs of the Surface Transportation Board (STB). The question is this: will America's railroads continue to be given the freedom necessary to grow their industry without direct interference by the federal government or will the STB attempt to move to re-regulate the industry? Re-regulation would be a potentially catastrophic public policy that could erase 30 years of positive growth in rail, and threaten to reduce the railroads to the ruinous decreases in services and disinvestment not seen since the 1970's. I firmly believe that if the Surface Transportation Board attempts to re-regulate this vital industry, it will be only a matter of years before our once self-reliant railroads will be forced to rely on taxpayer dollars to invest in infrastructure, safety and efficiency as federal mandates mount. The Surface Transportation Board has recently announced two hearings. One will review rail traffic exemptions while the other will assess the competitive marketplace in which the railroads operate. In connection with those hearings, we would like to express our collective view about the importance of the freight rail industry as a critical component of our nation's transportation system, and impress upon you the importance of maintaining the existing regulatory balance between the railroads and shippers. The passage of the Staggers Act in 1980 created a balanced regulatory system that has allowed the rail industry to build the world's best freight rail system, while protecting shippers in areas where there is no effective competition. Since its passage, average inflation-adjusted rail rates measured by revenue per ton-mile are down over 50 percent and freight railroads have re-invested more than $480 billion back into their operating networks. That could not have been done--and will not be done in the future--unless the STB maintains the current regulatory balance as contemplated by the Staggers Act. Recently I joined with my senior colleagues on the Transportation Committee, what we call the ``Big 4''--the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Mica, the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Rahall, the Ranking Member of the Railroads Subcommittee, Ms. Brown, and myself, the Chairman of the Railroads Subcommittee--in sending a letter to the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board regarding maintaining the existing regulatory balance between the railroads and shippers. In our letter, we made it clear that any policy change made by the STB which restricts the railroads' abilities to invest, grow their networks and meet the nation's freight transportation demands will be opposed by the Transportation Committee. Positive Train Control Notably, these debates are occurring at a time when the rail industry is at a crossroads dealing with massive new mandates and proposals that threaten to undermine our rail renaissance. Recent unfunded mandates on the freight rail industry to retrofit equipment with Positive Train Control (PTC) equipment are expected to cost in excess of $10 billion, with limited, if any, operational benefit. This mandate will divert scarce capital from critical investments in one of the most capital- intensive businesses in the world. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Final Rule in January 2010 to implement the statutory requirement in the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to implement Positive Train Control (PTC) systems by December 31, 2015 on mainline rail tracks that carry passenger trains or hazardous materials that are toxic by inhalation. Positive Train Control is a technology (or combination of technologies) that is designed to automatically stop or slow a train before accidents caused by human error can occur. The accidents PTC is intended to prevent include: Train-to-train collisions; derailments caused by excessive speed; unauthorized incursions by trains onto sections of track where maintenance is taking place; trains moving through track switches left in the wrong position. A fully functional PTC system must be able to precisely determine the location and speed of trains, warn train operators of potential problems, and take action if the operator does not respond to a warning. The type of accidents that PTC systems are designed to prevent are very rare. Of all train accidents on rail mainlines over the past seven years, only around 4 percent would have been prevented if PTC systems had been in place. According to the FRA, freight railroads will have to spend up to $13.2 billion to install and maintain PTC systems over the next 20 years, but PTC will yield just $608 million in benefits over the same period--a cost-benefit ratio of 20 to 1. An April 2010 study by the consulting firm Oliver Wyman found that the so-called ``business benefits'' of PTC--reducing train delays and being able to move more trains through congested sections of track--are actually very low or nonexistent. In fact, systems very similar to PTC that are currently being implemented in Europe do not support that claim that PTC will yield significant business benefits for U.S. railroads. The manner in which FRA determined which track will be required to have PTC installed has caused a great deal of concern in the railroad industry. Many provisions of the Final Rule go well beyond the statutory requirements of the Railroad Safety Improvement Act. These provisions add hundreds of millions of dollars to costs, but will not improve safety in any meaningful way. In the final rule, the FRA orders railroads to install PTC on rail lines that carried toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials in 2008. Nothing in the law refers to using 2008 as the base year for determining where PTC must be installed. As it currently stands, the Final Rule will require that approximately 70,000-80,000 miles of rail miles have PTC systems installed, about half of the total Class I railroad 160,000-mile national freight network. The decision to use 2008 as a base year for determining which tracks require PTC implementation makes no sense, because hazardous materials routing in 2015 will be vastly different than in 2008, for the following reasons: Significant hazardous materials rail routing changes were recently implemented in response to a Department of Transportation/Department of Homeland Security joint regulation requiring railroads to ensure that toxic-by-inhalation chemicals are transported on routes posing the least overall safety and security risk. Additionally, marketplace dynamics are changing the transportation of hazardous materials. For example, many chemical companies are phasing out production of chlorine, or moving their production sites to where the chemical will be used, thereby dramatically changing the amounts and routes over which these toxic-by-inhalation materials are moved. Finally, the rule does not provide for a ``de minimis'' exception, where a rail line carrying very little of these materials could be exempted from the PTC requirement. Such an exception would significantly reduce costs without compromising safety in a meaningful way. The PTC mandate applies to all passenger railroads on the general railway system, including Amtrak and 26 different commuter railroads. Amtrak's capital needs and operations are fully subsidized by annual appropriations. Commuter railroads also receive capital funds from the Federal Transit Administration for repair and modernization of their systems, but these federal funds represents only about 40 percent of total funds spent on their systems, which are primarily supported by local governments. The cost of installing PTC is a significant burden for these commuter railroads. The American Public Transportation Associations estimates that installation of PTC on commuter railroads will cost more than $2 billion--these agencies are already cutting service levels or raising fares because of the recession's impact on local government budgets. Additionally, most commuter railroads operate over freight rail-owned track. These agencies must ensure that the PTC technology they install on their commuter systems is interoperable with the systems that their host railroads put in place. Because of issues like interoperability, there is real doubt that PTC can be successfully implemented by December 31, 2015. There is also a severe shortage of available broadband spectrum for the wireless communications networks that are central to PTC implementation. The Federal Trade Commission has authority over allocating spectrum, and the FTC decision process is slow and cumbersome. Instead of penalizing the rail industry for its success, Washington should be promoting new investment and expansions in service to keep America's railroads in the driver's seat of the global economy. That's why I support tax credits for the expansion and rehabilitation of the nation's rail infrastructure. Tax credits are a proven and effective policy tool to encourage businesses to invest in worthwhile projects. Because the railroads still pay for their projects under tax credit plans, tax credits ensure that the railroads will only pursue projects that will grow their businesses, and ultimately expanding the economy. Direct grants, on the other hand, could be seen as ``free money'' that would not be subject to the same rigorous business decisions. There are two tax credit bills that I support, including a 25 percent tax credit for rail projects that expand the rail network and ease congestion, and a short line tax credit that expired at the end of last year. America's railroads are at a crossroad. The direction the Administration pushes the rail industry will have a lasting impact on American competitiveness and economic growth. Washington must resist the urge to over-regulate an industry that has proven it to be largely self-sufficient and capable to weather economic stress and improve upon its business model. We cannot go back to the days of stifling over regulation and I will do my part as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to make sure it does not happen. Lithium Batteries Finally, I want to touch on the transportation of lithium batteries. In January 2010, the Department of Transportation issues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to regulate the air transport of lithium batteries. The proposed rule: Regulates and treats as a hazardous material all lithium batteries and most devices shipped with or containing such batteries, such as laptop computers, cell phones, and medical devices. Applies to air shipments within the U.S. and to shipments carried on U.S. registered aircraft traveling anywhere in the world. Proposes to limit stowage of lithium batteries on cargo aircraft to crew-accessible positions or in yet-to-be-approved Federal Aviation Administration fireproof containers. Billions of lithium batteries have been safely transported as air cargo in the last twenty years. This is not one of NTSB's ``Most Wanted'' safety recommendations. In fact, there are no confirmed fatalities associated with the lithium batteries transportation that I am aware of. The proposed rule grossly underestimates the cost of the regulation to American businesses. The Department of Transportation analysis estimates approximately $9 million per year in cost to the U.S. economy. But actual costs to hundreds of businesses--battery manufacturers, consumer goods manufacturers, freight handlers, and air transportation companies--could easily top $1 billion a year. I believe the Department of Transportation analysis did not take into account: Additional annual payroll and internal handling costs, Administrative costs associated with negotiating and executing hazardous materials contracts for customers shipping these newly- regulated goods, Adverse impacts on retail shipping outlets, Potential layoffs associated with the burdensome requirements, and Commercial consequences from potential lithium battery shipment consolidation. The United Parcel Service alone estimates this new regulation would cost the company $264 million in the first year, and more than $185 million in each following year. This proposed rule threatens to stifle job creation and industrial advancement, and affects a wide segment of the economy, including U.S. manufacturing, transportation, and retail sectors. It will also give foreign cargo carriers a competitive advantage over U.S. companies. Transportation regulations for lithium batteries have been extensively considered by international bodies such as the United Nations, International Civil Aviation Organization and International Air Transport Association. In order to protect the competitiveness of the U.S. in the international marketplace, standards for the transport of lithium batteries should be fully harmonized with international rules and regulations. This is the only reasonable focus of any regulatory action on air transportation of lithium batteries. I strongly support efforts to make the transport of lithium batteries as safe as possible, but we must do so in a reasonable, responsible manner. I applaud our House leadership for bringing this important resolution to the floor and thank them for the opportunity to discuss these important issues.