James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have consulted with the Chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which has jurisdiction over this matter, in deference to my colleague from New York, that we are bringing a proposition to the House floor in full faith, with this language, and we could not come back here without that language.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate the suggestion of the gentleman, but I respectfully observe that the airlines cannot take a resolution of Congress to the bank. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin have a further question?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska for a response.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield further to the chairman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for a brief explanation of the pending legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object. The events of Tuesday, as the chairman has already expressed, have thrown the airline industry, as the first line of target of terrorism, into an absolute tailspin. The industry has been shut down. It has no revenue streaming in, it has costs going out. It has to pay its pilots, its flight attendants, its mechanics, baggage handlers, and other personnel. They are under contract to do so. They have no revenue coming in. When air travel does resume, two revenue streams have already been denied the airlines: mail and cargo aboard passenger aircraft. Airlines are collectively losing some $340 million to $400 million a day. They have already lost over $1 billion, and over this weekend will accumulate losses of up to $5 billion. The industry could be in complete financial liquidation within a week or two. What we have proposed in this legislation is an authorization from, listen to the language, from funds made available in subsequent acts. This is not money coming out of the appropriation we approved earlier in the day. It will have to be approved in subsequent acts, and as the chairman has already said, the airlines will have to submit specific showing of losses to the President of the United States, resulting from events that occurred on the 11th of September, and subsequently, and will have to demonstrate that their losses also resulted from the ground stop on aviation service ordered by the Secretary of Transportation. The reach of this disaster is nationwide, and this is a $600 billion sector of our national economy. It underpins all the rest of the national economy. It gives us the greatest mobility in the world. Two- thirds of all the world's air travel occurs in the United States' airspace. Airlines today cannot get access to the lines of credit that they have lined up at financial institutions because the draw and the demand on those financial institutions is so great that they are reluctant to release the dollars available to them in lines of credit. Secondly, financial institutions have put all the airlines on credit watch. Third, their insurance, their liability insurance, has doubled overnight, and they carry insurance against such tragedies. Fourth, when the terrorists struck, airlines had $35 billion in aircraft and aircraft engine orders, positioned with Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, and GE. They are going to cancel those orders and the effect is going to ripple throughout the whole national economy, with layoffs from the East Coast to the West Coast and from the north and to the south. What we are proposing to do tonight is to get an authorization in place so that when financial markets open on Monday, airline stocks do not tank and airlines do not go under and they shut down forever. That is what this is about. Yes, it is on short notice; no, we did not go through the hearing process. We did not have time. We consulted with all that we could in the very short period of time. We are facing an airline crisis and the airlines need some recognition that Congress will act to prevent a financial liquidation of the airline industry. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just want to make the point that airlines do not have business interruption insurance as a regular course of business. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, all of us in this body together with our constituents are attempting to comprehend and give voice to yesterday's cowardly, merciless, and vicious act of terrorism against America and against humanity. Both anger and prayer welled up in all of us, as the Duluth News Tribune headline put so succinctly. Pastor Randy Williamson opened the doors of First Assembly of God Church in Hibbing to a steady stream of his congregation. Most of them, he said, feel it is a wake-up call for our country. It reminds us that life is fragile and that we are not invincible. I think they are praying that God would have mercy on us as a country and that our leaders have wisdom and courage and that they would think through the situation and not just act on impulse. Mr. Speaker, beyond the anger and the prayer lie some deeper thoughts about aviation security. On December 21, 1988, the world of aviation security was changed forever as a terrorist bomb tore apart Pan-Am Flight 103 killing all 259 passengers and crew and 11 residents of the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland. That terrorist act propelled the families of those victims on a tireless mission, to prevent such future tragedies culminating in the creation of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, which I authored and on which I served. History, astonishingly, repeated itself with yesterday's tragic events. Once again, aviation security was changed forever. We are again challenged to reevaluate the state of security for domestic and international commercial air service. As we set about the task, I urge caution in making snap decisions on drastic changes to the aviation security laws before we have had the opportunity to fully assess what went wrong both in the aviation and intelligence communities. Mr. Speaker, the following is information on aviation security: Over the last ten years, we have made great strides in enhancing aviation security. In the Commission's 1990 Report, we found the nation's civilian aviation security system to be seriously flawed, and made 64 recommendations to correct those flaws, which culminated in the passage of the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990. Six years later, spurred by initial concerns that a terrorist act was responsible for the TWA 800 explosion, President Clinton organized another commission, the 1996 White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, which made 31 recommendations for enhancing aviation security. Again, Congress acted swiftly and, in the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act, included measures to intensify security. The universe to be protected is enormous and growing--666 million passenger enplanements annually, expected to grow to over 1 billion by 2010, with several hundred million pieces of luggage to screen. Likewise, the magnitude of the threat is growing and changing. Between 1961 and 1972, there were over 134 domestic hijackings. In 1972, in response to this rash of hijackings, FAA ordered metal detector searches of passengers and x-rays of carry on bags. In 1974, the Congress imposed these requirements legislatively with the passage of the Anti-Hijacking Act of 1974. As we installed metal detectors to find guns, the threat changed to bombs aboard aircraft. Following Pan Am 103, and based on the Commission's recommendations, significant steps have been taken to invest and deploy new techniques and equipment to detect items that pose an aviation security threat. Since the passage of the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act, Congress has provided more than $350 million for deployment of security equipment, and over $250 million in research funds. To date, the FAA has installed 92 FAA-certified explosives detection machines at 35 airports, 553 explosives trace detection devices at 84 U.S. and foreign airports, and 18 advanced technology bulk explosives detection x-ray machines at 8 airports. In addition, FAA has deployed 38 computer-based training device platforms at 37 airports. The airlines have also invested heavily in security equipment. We have made great strides in aviation security. However, I have long expressed my concern about reports that, although the FAA is deploying this much needed equipment, there is no long-term strategy for integrating that equipment into a seamless security system. It is also of paramount importance to maintain passenger-screening checkpoints and ensure that the screeners who operate them are qualified. Millions of passengers and pieces of baggage pass through our airports each day. However, high turnover, low wages, and lack of adequate training hinder security screener performance. Both the General Accounting Office and the Office of Inspector General have uniformly described security screener performance as the ``weak link'' in aviation system. I believe that the FAA and the airlines share the responsibility to ensure optimal performance of security screeners. We have also received reports from the Office of Inspector General regarding the ineffectiveness of FAA's background investigative procedures, and the vulnerabilities in airport access control. Congress responded to these concerns on two fronts: The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act (AIR 21), P.L. 106-181, authorized $5 million annually for the DOT to carry out at least one project to test and evaluate innovative aviation security systems. The bill also authorizes such sums as may be necessary to develop and improve security screener training programs; and such sums as are necessary to hire additional inspectors to enhance air cargo security programs. Last year, Congress passed the Airport Security Improvement Act, P.L. 106-528, which requires criminal history record checks for those individuals who apply for a security sensitive position as a screener or a screener supervisor and adds several crimes to the list of crimes that would disqualify an individual from holding such a position. In addition, the law requires the expansion of FAA's electronic fingerprint transmission pilot project into an aviation-industry-wide program to allow for quick turnaround on criminal background checks, and includes provisions to strengthen access control requirements. The FAA must take a holistic view toward its security responsibilities to ensure that all areas of vulnerability are addressed. However, the airlines and airports also share in that responsibility--and they should not put costs above passenger safety. We must also be more aggressive in our intelligence gathering, evaluation, and dissemination. This is the most challenging aspect of our aviation security network. It is difficult to penetrate these highly secretive organizations that operate on a war-like footing. Counter-terrorism also requires renewed higher-level coordination through Interpol, with our allies, and with other nations like Russia and China, as the PanAm 103 commission recommended eleven years ago. The skills of terrorists have stepped up several levels since the Commission's 1990 report. We must ensure that our counter-intelligence rises to meet that threat. With the appropriate counter-intelligence efforts and security implemented to the fullest extent, our citizens can forever enjoy the freedom of travel that this great nation provides to the envy of the rest of us world.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 988, to name the U.S. Courthouse at 40 Centre Street in New York City in honor of former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. The naming of the federal courthouse after Justice Marshall is a fitting tribute to one of the most important lawyers and Justices in American history. During his arguments as attorney for the plaintiffs in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, Marshall was asked to define ``equal'' by Justice Frankfurter. Marshall responded that: ``Equal means getting the same thing, at the same time, and in the same place.'' This statement encapsulates Justice Marshall's values and what he tried to achieve during a lifetime of fighting for those who were unable to fight for themselves. Justice Marshall's long journey took him from a humble beginning as the grandson of a slave in a time and place where segregation and racism were strong barriers, and ended with him becoming the first black Justice of the Supreme Court. This great accomplishment was not only easily achieved, and, indeed, was made possible in large part by the changes in society and law that were created by Marshall's own victories against racial inequities. Although he finished near the top of his undergraduate class, Justice Marshall was denied entry to the University of Maryland Law School because of his race. Soon after graduating first in his class from Howard University Law School, Justice Marshall commenced his career as a lawyer for the NAACP. He began the work of creating a more just society by challenging pay gaps between black and white teachers in Maryland. Justice Marshall then went on to open for others the very door that had been closed to him: he won a lawsuit against the University of Maryland Law School that forced it to admit black students. While working for the NAACP, Justice Marshall fought an unending battle against racism and inequality in laws. As a result of fighting for the rights and freedoms of others, Justice Marshall's own freedom-- an even his life--was constantly in danger. On more than one occasion he was harassed and threatened. In Tennessee, he was arrested on false charges; and when he was in Florida to argue a case where a local sheriff set up the defendant, the Governor assigned the state police to protect him, out of concern for his safety. Justice Marshall was not intimidated and continued his crusade, becoming chief counsel for the NAACP. Justice Marshall was behind the successful strategy of using the courts to achieve racial equality. He first attacked school segregation at every level, culminating in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision that ended segregation in public schools in 1954. During his career with the NAACP, Marshall won 29 of the 32 civil rights cases he argued before the Supreme Court. Some of the important, but lesser known, victories that Justice Marshall won were: to stop the government from enforcing property covenants that restricted the sale of land by race; to end discrimination in interstate bus travel; and to end whites-only primary elections. In 1961 President Kennedy nominated Marshall for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and in 1964 President Johnson appointed Marshall as solicitor general. After serving three years as solicitor general, President Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall for a seat on the Supreme Court. Justice Marshall overcame opposition from southern senators to be confirmed by the Senate and went on to serve on the Supreme Court for 24 years, during which time he wrote many of the Court's most important decisions. Throughout his service on the Supreme Court, Justice Marshall continued to be a strong advocate of individual rights, and remained true to his crusade to end discrimination. By fighting and winning as he did for the protection to the rights of minorities, Justice Marshall brought greater protection to the rights of all Americans. The career, character, and contributions of Justice Thurgood Marshall are without equal. His struggles for equality and dignity for all people were of historic proportions. He has given to the American public an enduring symbol of leadership, determination, compassion, and honor. There is no tribute we could bestow upon him that could in any way enhance the record he complied himself as a distinguished advocate of the Constitution and its fair and equal application to all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to support this bill and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has devoted a significant amount of time to reviewing and evaluating the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and its programs. In 1997, the Economic Development Subcommittee held a series of hearings regarding not only the ARC but also the Economic Development Administration, and in 1998, both agencies were reauthorized with broad bipartisan support. The ARC received overwhelming bipartisan support for one self-evident reason--ARC programs WORK. These essential programs have significantly boosted employment, population growth, and income throughout the region. Despite more than 35 years of effort, we are only halfway home--the region has not yet pulled itself up to the national average. Of ARC's 406 counties, 118 counties remain severely economically distressed. One hundred years of decline cannot be overcome in only 35 years. Much work remains to be done, and new initiatives need to be considered, not only to maintain the existing economic foothold in the region, but also to help it prepare for the new economy. H.R. 2501 is certainly another step in the right direction for the people of Appalachia. The bill authorizes the ARC for five years, it establishes a coordinating council to address Federal agency program delivery for the region, and it increases funding consistent with inflation. The bill also establishes a telecommunications program and authorizes $10 million for this new initiative in fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary in succeeding years. The new information highway is just as important in opening up opportunities for people of the Appalachian region as is the Appalachian Development Highway System; the telecommunications program will help put the people of Appalachia on the highway of the future. I thank Subcommittee Chairman LaTourette, Ranking member Costello, and Chairman Young for their diligent work on this bill. For Chairman Young and Ranking Member Costello the problems of Appalachia are very similar to the problems confronting regions in Alaska and the Mississippi Delta. The Denali Commission and the Delta Regional Authority have worked closely with the ARC to the benefit of each of the regions and the Nation as a whole. I strongly support the bill and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. No, I do not.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Railroads.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the gentleman from Connecticut who said, ``I don't get it.'' Well, the reason he does not get it is that he does not understand it. The fact is that only tier 2 benefits are affected by this legislation. You cannot get early retirement under Social Security as a railroad worker. You have got to wait until your time under the Social Security law. You get your retirement early under the tier 2 benefits for railroad workers under that ancient law that predates Social Security. We are just trying to update it. This is not a raid on the taxpayers, for heavens sakes. We are reducing the tax that the railroad companies pay into this system and the workers pay into their tier 2 benefits. So, we are trying to make it a little bit better. But it is not a raid on Social Security. They waited their time to get those benefits. Just read the law. When all else fails and you do not understand it, read the bill. And the bill is very clear, we are only dealing with railroad workers' benefits.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the relatively hostile remarks and misguided comments of our very otherwise thoughtful colleague from Texas, I today brought with me my 83-year-old railroad watch, 15 size Illinois, in memory of the railroad workers who have waited nearly that long for justice in their retirement program. This legislation will bring truly significant benefits to the more than one-quarter million men and women who work on America's railroads, and to the 700,000 retirees and survivors of retired railroad workers. The bill allows for a significant reduction in payroll taxes paid by the U.S. railroads. This is one of those special occasions in the legislative arena when all parties benefit. In this case, railroads, railroad labor, retired railroad workers, and their survivors. All of them come out ahead. This legislation, as our chairman so well expressed, is the result of an historic agreement reached by railroad management and labor over more than 2 years of intense, difficult negotiations. The benefit improvements, as well as tax cuts, are made possible by changing current law that limits the investment of Railroad Retirement Trust Fund assets to government securities. The proposed changes governing the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund will not affect the solvency of the railroad retirement system. The tier 1 program which provides Social Security benefits, will continue to be invested only in government securities. Only tier 2 funds, the original railroad retirement program, will be eligible for investment in assets other than government securities. The projected increases in Trust Fund income from these changes are based on fairly conservative forecasts of the rates of returns that could be earned by a diversified portfolio. That would be about 2 percentage points above the return on government securities. But more importantly, if the investments fail to perform as well as expected, worker's pensions are protected because the legislation requires, as agreed to in the negotiations between management and labor, requires the railroads to absorb any future tax increases that might be necessary to keep the system solvent. Ultimately, the Federal Government continues to be responsible for the security of the railroad retirement system. This is the first really significant benefit in 25 years, although as I said, it seems more like 83. Those benefits are: The age at which employees can retire with full benefits is reduced from 62 to 60 with 30 years of service; the number of years required for vesting is reduced from 10 to 5 years; the benefits of widows and widowers are expanded; and the limits on tier 2 annuities are repealed. The bill calls for automatic future improvements if the retirement plan becomes overfunded. It reduces the payroll taxes paid by railroads. That means that for tier 2 benefits, the railroad's taxes decline from 16.1 percent to 13.1 percent. By the third year after passage of this bill, after enactment of this legislation, the railroads stand to gain nearly $400 million annually from lower payroll taxes, and that will allow them to invest that money into needed rail and track and rolling stock improvements, and it allows them also to improve the wages and working conditions of railroad workers. Mr. Speaker, we passed this bill last year, with former Chairman Shuster and me working together on a bipartisan basis, and I want to reflect again on the splendid working relationship we have had with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) on bringing this legislation through to this point. We passed this bill last year 391 to 25. We ought to do the same this year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago my wife Jo succumbed to breast cancer after an 8-year struggle with that disease. Today in her memory I deliver the eulogy testimonial I offered in St. Bartholomew Church on this day. Marshall Lynam, well known to Hill denizens, tells the story of Lyndon Johnson who, on learning that his secretary of many years had been diagnosed with breast cancer, called the chief executive officer of the Mayo Clinic and said, ``I am sending my secretary out there, and I want you to cure her, hear?'' The awed and startled, to say the least, CEO responded: ``We will be glad to treat her, Mr. President, but you have one of the greatest cancer research and treatment centers in the world, the M.D. Anderson Clinic, in Houston.'' ``You are right,'' said Lyndon. ``I will send her there and make them cure her.'' Jo got the best care there was. But cure was not in the forecast. I want--as she wanted--her doctors to understand that, for the Christian, death is not defeat. The medical community is so focused on heroic efforts to extend life that sometimes we forget that death is a natural consequence of having lived. What matters is the quality of both life and death. From the spiritual perspective, all of us were focused wrong: it wasn't the cancer that needed healing; it was our empty hearts, yearning for meaning, for purpose and love, which needed healing and filling. Jo called us to that vocation of prayer, of love for each other, especially love for the least among us. Countless were those who said: ``I don't pray very often or too well, but I will for you.'' And they did. They felt better for it and were healed where it counts most: in the spirit. Jo had the roomiest heart I ever knew. She made space in it for everyone, concerned always and first for the well-being of others. She found the good in everyone and expanded it, as in: ``That dear sweet John Dingell'' or, ``Bob Roe is such a honey.'' (To which I muttered: ``Yes, but you're not trying to get a bridge out of him.'') Why does a person die at the height of their powers, with seemingly so much life yet to live? Why a long, lingering illness with so much suffering? If you die at 90, there is a sense of life fully lived and people reflect back on ``a job well done.'' But when death comes to one so young and vibrant, there is a sense of promise unfulfilled, of life yet to be lived. Maybe the answer is that we appreciate more fully, more passionately, the contributions of that young life so untimely taken. The other question persists just as stubbornly: what is the purpose of so long a suffering? I believe suffering can only be understood in the spiritual sense. We had the privilege of suffering with Jo; to be spiritually purified by that suffering, and the opportunity to heal ourselves. It also gave us time to say good-bye in real ways. Two years ago, the Speaker appointed me to the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, the Pan Am 103 Commission. Our inquiry took us to Lockerbie, Scotland, where the constable of Dumfries told the commission members of the many long hours he and his staff spent with family members responding patiently to their myriad questions about that senseless tragedy. When I asked why he felt it important to spend so much time with the family members, the constable replied: ``They never got to say good-bye to their loved ones. Talking to us was a way for them to say good-bye.'' Jo personified an inspiring, faith-centered humility. Whether it was a parking space suddenly opening up on a crowded street; or the sun breaking through a gloomy day; or one of her U.S.-Canada legislative change programs working out just right, her instinctive response was: ``You see, God is good; glory be to God.'' She knew more members of the Canadian Parliament than most Canadians and more members of the U.S. Congress than most Americans. Yet she always thought that they needed a two-page letter of invitation to the sessions and a full page thank-you letter afterward. She also remembered to thank the least store clerk for a kindness and the lab technician in the oncology unit for inserting the needle gently to draw blood. As my Grandmother Oberstar said: ``She appreciates.'' Last Thursday, a remarkable event occurred in the hospital room after a communion service with Father Bill George. Jo sat upright in bed, oxygen mask full on, and proceeded to what I can only call a commissioning. To son Ted: ``I want you to clean up the database on my computer, clear out the unnecessary information, and these are the codes . . .'' which she began reeling off rapid fire. ``Ted, you're not writing this down; you won't remember it all.'' And then, ``Ted, I want you to organize the liturgy for the Mass of Resurrection--and remember, Ted, I want it to be a Mass of celebration; I want trumpet music.'' Then, turning to our eldest daughter: ``Noelle, there are a lot of family photographs around the house that I have never been able to organize and to display. Please, see that they are mounted and arranged throughout the house to remember and celebrate our family. Be sure to finish your education, or I'll come back to haunt you--and that goes for Annie and Monica, as well.'' ``Jim, I want you to go through all those boxes of my various programs for the Centre. Send to Ottawa the program documents; throw out the unnecessary papers, and burn my personal notes, those spiral notebooks.'' To which I responded: ``Of course, I'll take care of all that, but I think I'll just take all those papers into the Hill where we have a good disposal system.'' ``Did you hear me? I said, burn the personal note!'' ``Yes, dear!'' Then, turning to nephew Tim Garlick: ``Tim, the most important things in life are faith, family, friends, and love. Your family has given you solid values; live by them, or I'll come back to haunt you, too. Complete your education; get your degree; but remember, at the end of life, when you're dying, degrees won't come and hold your hand.'' The Scripture teaches us--it was St. Paul--``These three remain: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of these is love,'' Jo had all three of those qualities in abundance; and indeed, her greatest quality was love. Her test is now over. St. Paul also said: ``I have run the race; I have fought the good fight.'' Jo taught us the purpose of life and showed us the meaning and dignity of death. The test now is for us, Ted, Noelle, Annie, Monica, the nieces and nephews, and all whom she met and loved--to be better than our talents and good as her God- inspired example.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. The issues of FEMA and Project Impact come under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on which I serve. Throughout the last administration I worked with FEMA and the White House to develop Project Impact. I think it has been a tremendous success. Mitigation is the cornerstone of emergency management. Mitigation simply means efforts to lessen the impact of disasters on people and property. It keeps homes out of floodplains, designs bridges to withstand earthquakes, creates and enforces building codes to protect property from hurricanes, and many such creative initiatives all across the land. It helps communities adapt their public facilities before disaster strikes in order to save lives, buildings and homes. The gentlewoman has so well cited the case of Seattle, Washington. It has been a Project Impact city since 1997. Everyone participated in retrofitting homes, developing mapping projects for landslides and seismic vulnerability. Schools received funds to remove structural hazards and we saw what a success all of that was in the aftermath of the earthquake. I understand that the issue of funding was not created by the chairman of the subcommittee. It is the Office of Management and Budget that chose to strike this funding from the budget in a move I just simply cannot understand. I welcome the suggestion that the chairman made that the Director of FEMA would work with the Congress to develop a plan. He has never approached me with such a proposal. He has not come to my committee to my knowledge to propose such an initiative. I look forward to him doing so, but I want to see something more concrete than just a wish. Meanwhile, vote for the Capps amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, an hour or so ago the U.S. Department of Justice announced that they will file suit to block the proposed merger of United Airlines and U.S. Airways. That announcement is the best news in U.S. aviation since deregulation. The decision by the Justice Department to oppose the merger of United and U.S. Airways will keep airline competition alive. It will spare the flying public the increased costs, reduced competition, and deteriorating service that would have resulted from this merger, which in turn would have precipitated the consolidation of all of the remainder of domestic air service into three globe straddling mega carriers. The Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation must now continue their vigilance to maintain strong and healthy competition in aviation and prohibiting barriers to competition that result from mergers, from biased reservation systems, and from predatory pricing practices. I congratulate the Justice Department for completing a thorough painstaking analysis of this proposed merger, reviewing its effects on hub-to-hub nonstop service in currently competitive markets, on the down-stream effect on remaining mergers, as well as the consequences for international competition.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Menendez- Waxman-Pallone-Tierney amendment to restore funding for EPA's efforts to protect human health and the environment. Without the amendment, this bill will significantly reduce the protection our Nation's environmental laws provide to the daily lives of our constituents. Increasing resources for the states to enforce environmental laws is fine, but it must not come at the expense of Federal efforts. The Nation's advancements in environmental protection are as a direct result of Federal laws put in place where states simply could not or would not do the job. The reason we have Federal environmental laws is because there is a need for Federal action. Taking money away from EPA to give it to the States does not result in a benefit to the environment, but only a benefit to the polluter. States and EPA work best when they work in partnership, not in competition. The Menendez-Waxman-Pallone-Tierney amendment restores this partnership. Proponents of taking money from EPA and giving it to the States argue that the States are better equipped to handle local issues. Pollution is not a uniquely local blight. Pollution discharged from one State into a river affects the residents of other cities within a State or of other States. While many States are the primary enforcer of some portions of environmental laws, the State and Federal programs are not duplicative. For example, States are not the enforcement authority for many environmental laws such as Clean Air Act mobile source standards affecting cars and trucks; right-to-know and emergency planning; the Toxic Substances and Control Act; the wetlands program under the Clean Water Act in 48 States; and the Oil Pollution Act. Even where States have primary implementing responsibilities, in areas such as the Great Lakes, the States have relied on EPA to ensure uniform and effective progress toward water quality improvement. Shifting resources from the Federal Government to the States is not as simple as which entity will spend the money. Besides the diminution in enforcement of Federal laws where States are not coenforcement authorities, the Bush budget indicated that the funds would not be provided to all the States. EPA expects that 15 to 25 States will receive no funding under this new program. Therefore, in those States, EPA enforcement capabilities will be reduced with no additional resources available for the States to make up the shortcoming. There will be no inspections, no enforcement, and public health will suffer, the environment will suffer. While States do conduct the largest amount of inspections and institute the greater number of enforcement actions, the Federal programs are the ones that take on the difficult cases where States are unwilling or unable to act. The Federal Government has the unique role of addressing multistate issues where large corporations operate in several States; dealing with pollution that crosses State boundaries, like acid rain or downstream pollution of rivers or lakes; interstate hazardous waste; and global warming. EPA enforcement is of direct benefit to the taxpayer and the environment. Every $1 spent on Superfund enforcement results on average in about $1.60 in direct cost recovery of government cleanup costs, and it creates another $6 in private party spending for cleanup of the Nation's most dangerous hazardous waste sites. A $5 million cut in Superfund enforcement activity could cost the Federal Government $8 million in recovery of money already spent, and preclude $30 million in additional cleanup. Every $1 spent on enforcement of Federal clean air, clean water, and hazardous waste laws results in an average of $10 to $20 spent directly on pollution control equipment and other improvements. Without these non-Federal investments, continued progress in cleaning up the air, water and land cannot be achieved. Providing additional resources to States to enforce their environmental laws can benefit human health and the environment. However, where these additional resources are provided at the expense of the Federal programs, environmental protection will suffer and human health will be compromised. Support the Menendez-Waxman-Pallone-Tierney amendment to protect human health and the environment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the recent increase in oil prices has focused national attention on the benefits we could achieve by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels by meeting more of our energy needs from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy. Today, I am introducing legislation to promote one of the most promising of these technologies, solar photovoltaics. Quite simple, a photovoltaic, or PV, system converts light energy into electricity. The term ``photo'' is a stem word from the Greek ``phos'' which means light. ``Volt'' is named for Allesandro Volta, a pioneer in the study of electricity. Photovoltaic literally means ``light electricity''. PV generated power offers distinct advantages over diesel generators, primary batteries, and in some instances, over conventional utility power lines. PV systems are highly reliable, and have no moving parts, so the need for maintenance is virtually non-existent. This is one of the main reasons they are used in satellites today, for which maintenance is both costly and time consuming. In addition, PV cells use sunlight to produce electricity--and sunlight is free! The potential for photovoltaics is boundless. By way of illustration, solar panels in 1% of the Mojave Desert would provide enough energy to meet California's expected electric shortfall. The electricity needs of the entire United States could be met by panels in a 100 by 100 mile area in the South-Western United States. PV cells are ideal for supplying power to remote communication stations, such as those in our National Park system, and on navigational buoys. Because they burn no fuel and have no moving parts, PV systems are clean and silent. Compared to the alternative of burning kerosene and diesel fuels that contribute to global warming, this quiet, clean source of power becomes even more attractive. Another important feature of PV systems is their modularity--they can easily be adapted to any size, based on energy consumption. Homeowners can add modules as their needs expand, and ranchers, for example, can use mobile stations to produce electricity for pumps to water cattle as the animals are rotated to different grazing areas. After Hurricane Andrew in 1993 the Florida Solar Energy Center deployed several PV emergency systems right at the disaster locations where the energy was needed. Because a PV system can be placed closer to the user, shorter power lines can be used if power were brought in from a grid. Shorter lines, lower construction costs, and reduced paper work make PV systems especially attractive. Transmission and distribution upgrades are kept to a minimum, which is especially important in urban areas. PV systems can be sized, sited, and installed faster than traditional energy systems. I have had a longstanding interest in promoting the development of this technology. In June 1977 I introduced H.R. 7629, which established a program for the Federal government to encourage the development of PV technology by using it in federal facilities. At that time, photovoltaic technology was in its early developmental stage, and produced energy at a cost of more than $1.00 per kilowatt hour, compared to less than $.10 a hour for energy from fossil fuels. In these circumstances, there is a ``chicken and egg'' problem: because the technology is expensive, consumers will not purchase it, but, unless there are purchases, the produces will not be able to make the investments and engage in the large-scale production needed to being the cost down. The Federal government, which purchases billions of dollars of energy each year, is in a unique position of facilitate a breakthrough for photovoltaics. Under my 1977 bill, the Federal government would have purchased substantial quantities of photovoltaic technology. These purchases would have given industry the resources and incentives to develop the technology and mass production efficiencies necessary to make photovoltaics competitive. My 1977 bill became part of a larger bill to establish a comprehensive national energy policy, PL 95-619. Most unfortunately, the Reagan administration chose not to fund the bill, resulting in not only a lackluster renewable energy program but also a serious deterioration of national focus. The collapse of the oil cartel and the return of low oil and gas prices in the early 1980's had a chilling effect on federal renewable energy programs. Despite Congress' consistent support for a broader, more aggressive renewable energy program than either the Reagan or George H.W. Bush administrations supported, federal spending fell steadily through 1990. Funding for renewable energy R&D grew from less than $1 million on the early 1970's to over $1.3 billion in FY 1997, but then nose-dived during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Funding steadily declined during the 1980's to $136 million in FY 1990. The trend was reversed during the Clinton administration. In June 1997 President Clinton announced the Million Solar Roofs Initiative. The program called for the installation of one million solar energy systems on homes and other buildings by 2010. In October 1997, President Clinton committed to placing 20,000 solar energy systems on Federal Buildings. So far the results have been encouraging--over 2000 solar systems have been installed in federal facilities through the year 2000. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station in San Francisco developed a solar hot water heating project, which qualified as part of the Federal commitment. The project was completed easily and quickly, cost less than $10,000 and has energy savings of $1,100 per year, which means that has a 9-year payback period. Just across the Anacostia River, here in the Nation's Capitol, at the Suitland Federal Center, the General Services Administration has installed a large PV system to supply electricity for the Federal center. From the Presidio in San Francisco to Fort Dix in New Jersey, the Federal government has installed numerous effective PV systems. Solar power is used extensively for diverse purposes in our National Park and National Forests--supplying lighting to the Tonto National Forest in Arizona and drinking water to hikers in the Rocks National Park in Lakeshore Michigan. The isolated research facilities at Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, California are powered by PV systems. During disaster relief activities solar power systems step in quickly to supply efficient, easy to install, mobile power sources. In addition to solar power in federal buildings, national parks, communications, and disaster relief activities, solar power is used extensively in transportation support--bus stop lighting, parking lot lights, railroad signal lights, traffic monitoring and control, Coast Guard lighthouses, beacons and buoys. Furthermore, the government is leading the way with innovative technologies for solar powered vehicles. The Department of Energy is the chief sponsor of the American Solar Challenge, which this year will see solar power cars race from Chicago to Southern California, over the Great Plains, the Rockies and the great American desert. Clearly, solar power offers something for everyone. In October 2000, at the Utility Photovoltaic meeting in Baltimore, Department of Energy officials announced that more than 100,000 solar energy systems had been installed in the U.S. since the beginning of the solar roof initiative. Under the Clinton administration, the Department of Energy had organized 51 partnerships from coast to coast--dedicated to working on Through the efforts of the solar industry, with the support of the federal government, solar technology has made substantial progress in recent years. The cost has been reduced to $.20 per kilowatt hour, and further reductions are expected. As a result, sales are increasing at a dramatic rate. Sales of photovoltaics within the United States has been growing at a rate of 25% a year. The United States photovoltaics industry is a strong exporter, with almost 70% of U.S. production going to export sales. There is room for growth in our exports. Currently, the U.S. has about 20% of the world market and Germany and Japan each has a larger market share than our country. I believe that we need to continue the Federal government's role in promoting the development of this technology. The Federal government should continue to be a major customer, and help the technology reach its full potential. My bill will express Congressional support for the type of program established by the Clinton administration, and provide the necessary funding. My bill establishes a goal for the Federal government during the next five years to acquire photovoltaic systems for Federal buildings which will produce at least 150 megawatts of electricity. This will accomplish the goal of the 20,000 solar roof initiative. The bill authorizes appropriations of $210 million a year for the next five years, the level of funding needed to purchase approximately 18,000 photovoltaic systems. The bill also establishes a program for evaluation of the systems used in Federal facilities to ensure that the government is encouraging development of the most advanced technology. Mr. Speaker, using Federal government procurements to ``jump start'' a technology is not without precedent. In fact, photovoltaic technology itself is a product of space technology, and was advanced by NASA in the Hubble space station program. As a result, photovoltaic systems power nearly every satellite today as they circle the earth. Similarly, in the early days of the computer era the cost of microchips was prohibitive. Large-scale purchases by the government (NASA and DOD) helped bring the costs down to commercially competitive levels. As another example, the General Services Administration, using its FTS 2000 telecommunications contact, was also successful in promoting advancements and enhancements in telecommunications. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the program established by my bill can make a major contribution to energy efficiency, protection of the environment and reduced dependence on foreign energy. I will be working to incorporate this program in any energy legislation passed in this Congress.