James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit in complimenting the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) on his leadership and his hard work in being a very studious, energetic member of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and on this particular subcommittee as well. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his very kind comments. I am grateful for those good words. I also want to express my sincere appreciation to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), for agreeing to move this legislation quickly and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), chair of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for moving this bill, recognizing that there is a deadline upon us that we must close and we must get this legislation enacted so that the programs can be funded. I introduced this bill on Valentine's Day earlier this year to protect our most cherished loved ones, our children. I was an advocate in ISTEA and again in TEA-21 for this legislation for its funding, which has provided $7.5 million in each of the previous fiscal years for the child protection education grant program. But unlike the other programs of TEA-21, this particular program expired this year. So we need to provide authorization for funding in the coming fiscal years 2002 and 2003 so that the excellent work can get under way again and continue programs that the States have so vigorously and effectively initiated. In 1999, there were 1,400 children under the age of 15 killed in vehicle crashes and another 300,000 who were injured. But the startling statistic is six out of the 10 killed in those crashes were unrestrained. That is not acceptable. The previous administration established a goal to increase seatbelt use nationwide and reduce child occupant fatalities, a goal of 15 percent by 2000 and 25 percent by 2005. The grant program has been very effective in achieving those goals. Congress did provide the funds. Forty-eight States and the District of Columbia and the territories have received grants under the program. Since 1997, the number of child fatalities from traffic crashes has declined 17 percent. That exceeded the goal, 15 percent, by the end of last year. Restraint for children, infants has risen to 97 percent from where it was in 1996, 85 percent. For children age one to four, it is up from 60 percent in 1996 to 91 percent for last year. Now, I have a personal witness of how effective this program can be. My late wife and I insisted with our children that they all use their child restraint, seatbelt, car seat. Those children, the oldest two right now are old enough to have their own family and their own children. When I am in Kenosha, Wisconsin, visiting the Tower family, Emma, age 4, and Lilly, age 2, will not allow the ignition in the car to be turned on until they are buckled into their seats and safely strapped in. That is the first thing they do when they get in the car. When I am in Sacramento with son Ted Oberstar and granddaughter Katherine, age 4, and granddaughter Claire, age 2, the same story. Grandpa, we cannot move until we are buckled up. And buckled up comfortably, too, by the way. They want to be just right in that seat. Then they want to make sure that I am buckled in because, once in a while, I am so busy dealing with them and other things and talking that I do not strap myself in before the key is turned on; and they say, make sure that grandpa is buckled in. Education works, and it is passed on from one generation to the next. That is the message. The program that we have instituted has proven itself. It has prevented death. It has prevented injuries. It helps educate the public on all aspects of proper installation of child restraints. Children today of the age when we began teaching them child restraint seats is an important safety issue now are insisting on buying vehicles that are properly equipped with the right kind of seat restraint facilities in the car to accept any kind of child restraint seat or infant carriage device. My oldest daughter will not nurse her now 10-week-old child while the car is moving. Believe me, that is not very pleasant when you have a poor little baby who is very hungry, who wants to nurse. But not until the car is stopped and we are not moving will that child come out of its child restraint seat. So the point is that the message has worked. Education is effective. But not everybody has got the message. That is why we need this legislation, why we need this $7.5 million funding. It is a modest amount. It is peanuts compared to the $218 billion in TEA-21 over the 6 years. It is available to train safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, high school educators, grade school, elementary school educators in safety and in all aspects of child restraint use. Every State that gets a grant submits a report to the Department of Transportation describing the activities they have carried out with the funds made available under the grant, and the Secretary of Transportation will report to Congress within the coming year on the success of this program with a complete description of all the programs carried out, materials developed, and the success stories from the States. I urge the passage of this legislation by this body, promptly by the other body, signature into law by the President, and implementation with the adequate funding that we need to carry it out.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for just a moment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not thanking the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for pinch-hitting on the floor and substituting and helping us move this bill. We are grateful for the gentleman's care and concern, and I thank him for his kind words.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I supported this program as a pilot program in AIR-21 last year. In fact, Chairman Shuster and I worked together to fashion the language. I have long supported service to small communities and to initiatives of this kind. We all know that deregulation has saved billions of dollars for air travelers, but we also know that, in the process, deregulation has cost communities air service. What we have now is a phenomenon of the community in my district and elsewhere around the country where people are traveling by car as much as 100 miles to get adequate air service. With the kind of initiative that we anticipated in this provision, this pilot program, we can both prevent communities from becoming essentially air service towns, where the Federal Government is coming in to support air service with direct dollar payments, and help them to advertise, undertake initiatives locally to encourage air travel from lesser-served communities and boost their air service. Such initiatives have worked in communities in my district to more than double air travel in those towns, saving their air service. I think that this pilot program in the manner in which the chairman has proposed to fund it ought to be approved and will help increase demand in such markets to create adequate service without direct Federal assistance.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Regrettably, I came in the middle of this debate and did not have the advantage of hearing the earlier comments. I did hear the remarks of our committee chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, and those very thoughtful remarks of the gentleman from Maryland. There is incontrovertible scientific evidence that we are experiencing widespread climate change around the globe. The polar ice cap, the Arctic region, has shrunk by 40 percent, releasing enormous amounts of colder water into the great ocean circulating current, the great hyaline circulating current that starts in the Arctic with a volume equal to the discharge of all of the rivers of the world in a second. Mr. Chairman, 2 million cubic meters per second, moving cold water of the ocean from the Arctic all the way down the Atlantic coast of the United States, the south Atlantic, into the Pacific and then circulating back up to the Arctic. That great ocean circulating current from time to time disappears. The world enters an ice age, and it occurs on regular currents of about 100,000 years. It also occurs with a tilt of the earth's axis a half a degree away further from the sun than it does now. That last occurrence made of the disappearance of the circulating current was followed by a warming period that ended with the great Ice Age, which itself ended over 10,000 years ago and was followed by the lesser Ice Age, the period of roughly 1,300 to 1,400 in the modern era. And then about 750 years ago we experienced another lesser ice age known as the Younger Dryas. We are now in a period of extended warming. We are beyond those ice age periods and into a new cycle of climate. As the atmosphere has warmed and as the surface of the waters of the Pacific Ocean have warmed more than a centigrade degree since the beginning of this century, the ocean waters are expanding. As they warm, they expand, and so is it happening with the Atlantic waters. And as those waters expand and as the atmosphere is warmer, it holds for every degree of temperature 6 percent more moisture. And with more moisture in the atmosphere, more of a collision of warm and cold forces, we are seeing these violent storms. Fifteen years ago, we did not pay more than $1 billion a year in disaster assistance programs. Within the last 5 years, we have expended over $5 billion a year, and last year with the private insurance and the public funds, expended over $100 billion responding to natural disasters. It is incontrovertible that serious things are happening in our climate. And what has changed is not the forces of nature, but man's application to them. The gentleman from Maryland said we have contributed the carbon into the atmosphere. There is more carbon in the atmosphere today than at any time in the last 420,000 years. That carbon causes warming. That is the conclusion of 500-plus scientists gathered in the U.N. in the year of the environment in a multi-volume report that was submitted. Mr. Chairman, we cannot stick our heads in the sand and ignore these facts. We cannot ignore the relentless movement of forces in nature, the melting polar ice pack in the Arctic and the ice pack of Antarctica that are increasing the volume of the oceans by warming of the surface temperature of the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. They are causing warming in the atmosphere and more moisture in the atmosphere, more carbon in the atmosphere; and only we can change it, by slowing down the destruction of the tropical forests, increasing sustainable-yield forestry in the United States, and reducing our use of carbon. We ought to have that study, and we ought to have this debate. Five minutes is no serious time in which to do it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to attempt to bring some rationality to this debate and historical perspective. The issue is not, as previous speakers have tried to make it, no Mexican trucks in the U.S. or sinister special interest forces trying to keep Mexican trucks from entering the United States. That is not the issue. The issue is safe trucks, safe U.S. trucks, safe trucks from Canada, and safe trucks from Mexico. In 1982, the then Committee on Public Works and Transportation brought to the House legislation to prohibit trucks from Canada and Mexico entering the United States unless the President of the United States would issue a finding lifting that legislatively imposed moratorium on truck entry into the United States. That was 1982. In 1984, President Reagan lifted the moratorium with respect to trucks from Canada but did not lift it with respect to trucks from Mexico. In 1986, 1988 the President again lifted the moratorium on Canadian trucks but not on Mexican trucks because of a finding by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Office that those trucks did not meet U.S. safety standards. President Bush, the first, in 1990 and again in 1992 lifted the moratorium on Canadian trucks but not on Mexican trucks simply because Canadian trucks met U.S. safety standards and Mexican trucks did not. In fact, as the gentleman from Wisconsin cited a moment ago, the out- of-service rate for Canadian trucks is lower than that of trucks in the United States. Seventeen percent of Canadian trucks are found by their and our inspection service to be out of compliance with safety standards, while 24 percent of U.S. trucks are found to be out of compliance and 36 percent of Mexican trucks. Mexican trucks, therefore, have a 50 percent higher out of service rating than do trucks in the United States, and more than twice as much as Canadians. Well, my colleagues cannot make a rational argument that this is an anti-Mexico provision that we are offering on the floor. It is simply a safety issue, not a cross-border issue. And what we are asking for is not, as one speaker indicated, a lot of paperwork. No, no. I know safety from the aviation standpoint, from the rail standpoint, and I have looked at it for many, many years from the surface transportation standpoint, trucking issues as well. We do not just look for this or that truck that is out of compliance, we are looking for a system of safety, for a system, a structure of compliance. That is why we want to have an overall review of the Mexican safety system. Canada clearly complies; Mexico does not. The dispute resolution mechanism, the arbitration panel that reviewed this issue found ``it may not be unreasonable for a NAFTA party to conclude that to ensure compliance with its own local standards by service providers from another NAFTA country, it may be necessary to implement different procedures with respect to such service providers. Thus, to the extent that the inspection and licensing requirements for Mexican trucks and drivers wishing to operate in the United States may not be like those in place in the United States, different methods of ensuring compliance with U.S. regulatory regime may be justified. In order to justify its own legitimate safety concerns, if the United States decides to impose requirements on Mexican carriers that differ from those imposed on United States or Canadian carriers, then any such decision must be made in good faith with respect to a legitimate safety concern and implement different requirements that fully conform with all relevant NAFTA provisions.'' The Sabo amendment, which would have been offered, had it not been struck, would have met those tests.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, deprived of an opportunity to offer that amendment, we are reduced to this rather stringent approach. As the gentleman from Wisconsin said earlier, it is an issue that can be tapered in conference and resolved perhaps even to meet the original Sabo-Ney language. As for the dire warnings that ipso facto this language will put us in violation of NAFTA, there is a dispute resolution mechanism, an arbitration panel that can resolve such disputes and has shown its ability to do so. We ought to be in the mode of protecting life and addressing the life issues that are at stake. Every year trucks kill 5,000 people in the United States. Our trucks. Trucks that are 50 percent less safe coming in from another country should not be allowed in the United States until a regime is in place to screen them out and to ensure that all those that do enter under the NAFTA will be in compliance with our safety rules. The Sabo amendment provides that opportunity.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I thank my colleague from Minnesota for raising this issue. The Sabo-Ney amendment, bipartisan amendment, is in conformity with the February 6 ruling of the NAFTA arbitration panel on cross-border trucking services. The panel found that ``inadequacies of the Mexican regulatory system provide an insufficient legal basis'' to maintain a blanket moratorium on cross-border trucking. But it made it very clear that the United States could treat applications from Mexican trucking firms in a manner different from U.S. firms as long as they are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. That is what this issue is about. We do not inspect all these trucks coming in from Mexico. Less than 1 percent of all northbound crossings at the Mexican border were subject to inspection last year. One-third of the Mexican-domiciled trucks were found unsafe, so unsafe inspectors removed the trucks or removed the drivers from service, a 50 percent higher out-of-service ratio than we have in the United States. Obvious reason, there are no permanent truck inspection facilities at 25 of 27 southern border crossings that account for 3\1/2\ million northbound trucks every year. There is no systematic method in place to verify registration on Mexican-domiciled trucks. The inspector general of our DOT found 254 Mexican trucks operating illegally beyond the commercial zones in 24 States. Those trucks are in a position to kill our constituents. Five thousand people a year die in truck-car accidents. There are going to be half as many more deaths if we allow these Mexican trucks to come unsafely into the United States. They have a woefully inadequate safety regime in Mexico, no systemic safety rating process, no truck weight enforcement process, no roadside domestic inspection program, no hours of service regulations in Mexico, no credible enforcement of drug and alcohol testing. We ought to defeat the rule, allow the Sabo amendment to be offered.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, there have been eight proposals, as I cited in my opening remarks, in which WMATA rejected renaming proposals, some of them equally as long as this one. Secondly, the naming of National Airport was flawed in its inception. Some years ago when Senator Dole proposed changing the name of Dulles Airport, his legislation left it up to the airport authority to make the decision; did not shove it down their throats. As for the gentleman's comment about get over it, we are not the ones proposing name changes. It is the other side. I say to the gentleman, get over it. Stop acting like a playground bully trying to shove Reagan's name down the throats of every place in this country.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of his unfunded mandate point of order. Section 343 of H.R. 2249 orders the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to change the Metro stop at the airport to read Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station. This is both an unfunded mandate and legislation on an appropriations bill and should not be protected from points of order by the rule that we consider today. The Washington Transit Authority is an interstate compact dating back to 1967. It has a specific written policy in place adopted by the board of directors covering names of its stations. The specific procedure for station name changes says in part that, one, the local jurisdiction in which the station is located shall endorse and formally request a name change to WMATA's board of directors; two, WMATA's Office of Engineering and Architecture will evaluate the proposed name change concerning length of name, other factors and provide cost estimates; three, the local jurisdiction proposing the name change shall obtain community support and bear the cost of the name change; four, the local jurisdiction shall then bring the proposal and supporting data to the WMATA board for action; and, five, the WMATA board of directors must approve the proposal. None of this is being followed in the procedure directed in the appropriation bill. And the proposers themselves, if this Congress tried to do the same thing in their district, would scream to high heaven that we are invading local jurisdiction. Over the last several years, a number of communities have proposed name changes, including local funding for the cost, and have built the necessary community support and received WMATA's approval. However, an equal number of name-change proposals have been rejected by the WMATA board. To cite one example, in 1996 councilman for the District of Columbia Jack Evans proposed that the Foggy Bottom-GWU Station be changed to include the Kennedy Center. The board rejected the proposal, saying in part, quote, ``The board of directors considers name changes when they enhance our patrons' ability to orient themselves and circulate through the system. To rename stations affording special recognition to a specific institution in neighborhoods with many other establishments may challenge our ability to provide clear and concise public information.'' Now, this is a proper exercise of local prerogative. No one has ever suggested that this decision is disrespectful to the memory of President Kennedy. Not at all. But to name a Metro stop for President Ronald Reagan meets none of the five tests outlined in the WMATA policy. The local community, Arlington, has not proposed it. In fact, they do not even support it. And they surely do not want to pay for it. To continue the quote of commentator George Will, one of President Reagan's strongest supporters, about this Metro stop: ``There is something very un-Reaganesque about trying to plaster his name all over the country the way Lenin was plastered over Eastern Europe, Mao over China and Saddam Hussein all over Iraq.'' We ought not to sully the legacy of President Reagan by going against one of his fundamental principles. Leave local control to the States, to the cities. Give them due respect.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 166, recognizing the outstanding and invaluable disaster relief assistance provided by individuals, organizations, and businesses, to the people of Houston, Texas, and surrounding areas during the flooding caused by Tropical Storm Allison. During the month of June, Tropical Storm Allison brought devastating floods and damage from debris to Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and many other states. After the President declared the storm that hit Texas a major disaster, 28 counties became eligible for disaster assistance. Tragically, Tropical Storm Allison is responsible for 21 deaths, countless injuries, and major damage to homes and businesses. Yet, through it all, many individuals and groups selflessly gave of themselves and their resources to help in the disaster efforts. From the Red Cross and Salvation Army, to local churches, to the Harris County Police and Fire Department, to the Texas Medical Center, to the United States Coast Guard, to the dedicated elected officials, to name just a few; they all made special efforts and sacrifices and today, we honor them for their service and dedication to their fellow citizens. The pending resolution calls our attention to our recent failure to ensure that we will be able to aid victims of Allison and future disasters. Just last week, while the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was working diligently to help the victims of Tropical Storm Allison, the House passed H.R. 2216, the FY2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act, containing a provision, which many of us strongly opposed, to rescind $389 million in disaster relief funds from FEMA. Currently, FEMA is assessing the impact of Tropical Storm Allison on Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, and it expects to request additional funds to address these pressing needs. More than 25,000 flood insurance claims are expected from that region of the country, and FEMA is projecting the flood insurance claims for Tropical Storm Allison in Texas and Louisiana alone will exceed $350 million. The proposed rescission could preclude FEMA's ability to pay these claims and it might limit assistance to future victims of disasters and necessitate another supplemental spending bill. The rescission eliminates much of the funding needed by the agency to provide quick and effective assistance to disaster-stricken communities and victims. The most recent disasters highlight the fact that these funds could be needed by FEMA to pay for natural disasters occurring in FY2001. They should not be rescinded. Moreover, with the increases in climate change brought on by global warming, we should begin to expect more natural disasters. According to recent data, in 1999, the United States experienced the warmest January-March period since we began keeping these records 106 years ago. Climate change and these recent warming patterns are costly to the Nation. These temperature changes can lead to more extreme weather events, including droughts, floods, and hurricanes. Over the past decade we have seen a marked increase in natural disasters and this trend is expected to continue. FEMA data show that more frequent and severe weather calamities and other natural phenomena during the past decade required 460 major disasters declarations, nearly double the 237 declarations from the previous ten-year period, and more than any other decade on record. The increased number and severity of natural disasters has huge economic impacts on the United States. Comparing the three-year periods of 1989 through 1991, and 1997 through 1999, the federal cost of severe weather disasters rose a dramatic 337 percent in less than ten years. Of the $35 billion that FEMA has spent in the last 20 years for disaster relief, $28 billion, or 80 percent, has occurred in the last seven years alone (1993-2000). In addition, the insurance industry has paid more than $63 billion in insured losses in these seven years. Fortunately, the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported its Supplemental Appropriations bill and it does not contain the $389 million rescission from FEMA's contingency fund. I am hopeful that the conference report on this bill will not accept the House provision on FEMA's rescission. We are all aware of the critical and fundamental support that FEMA provides for the victims of natural disasters. It is essential that we do not hinder FEMA's mission by allowing unwarranted rescissions or cuts to FEMA's budget. Again, I commend the numerous individuals, government agencies, and groups of people in Texas who heroically gave of themselves and assisted their fellow citizens through a major disaster. They serve as an inspiration to us all and I pledge to work together with FEMA and other agencies on behalf of these victims to help them rebuild their lives and renew their spirits. I urge all Members to support H. Res. 166.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 819 designates the federal building in Medina, Ohio, in honor of former Congressman Donald Pease from the 13th district of Ohio. This simple act honors a man whose life embodies the American ideals of hard work personal sacrifice, and service to others. Congressman Pease rose from a typical American background to do uncommon things for his fellow Americans. Growing up, Congressman Pease attended public schools and worked as a newsboy. While in college, he was the editor of the school newspaper, worked for the Athens messenger as a student reporter, and was President of his class. During the summers, he worked as a laborer at an oil refinery to help support himself and pay for college. He went on to earn a masters degree in government from Ohio University, and was a Fulbright Scholar. At 24, Congressman Pease entered the U.S. Army and served for two years, achieving the rank of first lieutenant. Upon leaving the Army, Mr. Pease became co-editor and publisher of the Oberlin News-Tribune, and he remained editor/publisher of the paper until 1972, and as editor until 1976. During that time, the paper received more than 85 awards in journalism, and was voted the best newspaper in Ohio nine times, and the best newspaper in the Nation in its circulation class four times. Congressman Pease began his career in public service in 1960, first as Chairman of the Oberlin Public Utilities Commission, and then serving on the Oberlin City Council. In the 1960's and 1970's, Congressman Pease served in the Ohio General Assembly and the State Senate, where he focused on education issues and became chairman of the House Education Committee and vice chairman of the Education Review Commission. He also championed tough campaign finance laws long before that issue became the popular mantra of today. In 1976, Congressman Pease was elected to represent the 13th district of Ohio in the 95th Congress. Despite a successful career that now placed him near the pinnacle of American politics, Congressman Pease remained faithful to helping people, and committed to serving those he represented. He took an immediate leadership role in Congress as chairman of the New Members Caucus, and served on the House International Relations Committee, and the House Science and Technology Committee. During his service in Congress, Mr. Pease became a champion of human rights throughout the world. He led the drive to get Congress to ban imports of Ugandan coffee to protest the actions of that oppressive regime. He consistently fought for international labor standards and, as a Member of the International Relations Committee, he led the fight to include human rights protections in international trade agreements. In 1981, Congressman Pease was selected to serve on the House Ways and Means Committee where he continued to focus on human rights and became a key player in trade issues. As an active member of the Trade Subcommittee, Congressman Pease focused on helping Americans who had lost their jobs due to foreign competition, and he fought hard to help the industrial district he represented make it through changing times. Congressman Pease was also one of the architects of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which was the most comprehensive overhaul of U.S. trade laws in twenty years. After he retired from Congress, Mr. Pease has continued his dedication to public service by serving as a visiting professor at Oberlin College, and as a Member of the Amtrak Board of Directors. Throughout his life and service in Congress, Congressman Pease has always demonstrated an uncompromising desire to help others, an unquestioned ability to lead, and an ability to bring people together to get things done to benefit the Nation. This bill is a modest proposal to honor a man who has given so much to this institution and to the American people. It has bipartisan support, and I commend the Gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for sponsoring this bill, together with our distinguished Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. LaTourette, and many other Members of the Ohio delegation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join Subcommittee Chairman LaTourette, Subcommittee Ranking Member Costello, and Chairman Young, in support of this resolution that authorizes use of the Capitol Grounds on Saturday, September 8, for activities associated with the National Book Festival. This is a two-day event hosted jointly by the Library of Congress and First Lady Laura Bush. On Friday, September 7, children in classrooms and libraries across the country will enjoy an interactive reading session with the First Lady at the Library of Congress through satellite communication. On Friday evening, Members of Congress, recognized authors, publishers, and community leaders will gather in the Library's Thomas Jefferson Building for a performance by leading authors and actors bringing to life memorable American stories. On Saturday, September 8, on the Capitol Grounds, distinguished authors and actors and national celebrities will treat the public to special readings and book signings. Performances by well-known artists, drawing on the Library's collection of American music, will close the event. I support the resolution and urge my colleagues to join me in support of the book festival.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a most extraordinary maritime leader, Mr. Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller, a true visionary of the international shipping community and owner of the A.P. Moller Group. Mr. Moller's company, Maersk-Sealand, is a global transportation provider whose fleet of ships make it the world's largest shipping company. I am also very pleased to note that Maersk Moller's ships fly the American flag and generate much needed jobs for U.S. maritime labor. In fact, Maersk-Sealand directly generates employment for approximately 9000 people in its United States shipping business and it also serves more than 30,000 U.S. based companies engaged in international trade. Maersk is truly a remarkable company, Mr. Speaker, and Maersk Mc- Kinney Moller is an exceptional person. Mr. Moller's family history is rooted in the United States. His mother was an American, born in Kansas City. During the time spent in this country during World War II, Mr. Moller developed a keen appreciation of the many sacrifices Americans made during that great struggle. Many of the ships in the A.P. Moller fleet were used by the United States and our allies. Following World War II, Maersk Moller, his father, and many other people worked hard to rebuild their civilian shipping enterprise into the world-class company it is today. I would like to cite a few of the significant Maersk milestones. The company's United States headquarters was founded in 1943. Today Maersk has 10 United States corporate entities dedicated to ship management, terminal operations, trucking, rail transportation, and third party logistics and, as mentioned, it generates employment for approximately 9000 Americans. In 1947, a prominent affiliate, Maersk Line, Limited, was chartered in Delaware. Maersk Line, Limited is the largest U.S.-flag carrier serving the foreign trades of the United States. 53 vessels documented under the U.S.-flag are owned, operated or chartered by Maersk Line, Limited. 29 of these ships are dedicated to service for the U.S. government. Maersk Line, Limited has become a critical partner in the preposition ship program for the Marine Corps and U.S. Army. Maersk Line, Limited ships were the first vessels to arrive in Desert Storm and off-load critically needed Marine Corps supplies and equipment. Space on Maersk commercial ships was provided free of charge to the U.S. government so the government could load much needed supplies for our troops during the sustainment phase of the operation. Mr. Speaker, during a recent discussion with Mr. Maersk Moller, I was impressed with his deep desire to maintain a competitive U.S.-flag presence in the international trade. Mr. Moller is a true believer in United States flag shipping and our maritime interests are the better for his support of a U.S.-flag fleet. I believe that we need new initiatives to stimulate an international U.S.-flag presence. A tax-based methodology, for instance, has been used in other countries to encourage growth in their merchant fleets; we should have similar incentives for American workers to attract talented people to this important industrial base. I am working on legislation to provide such incentives for our U.S.- flag operations, under the Maritime Security Program. Companies like Maersk are very willing to invest in U.S.-flag shipping and make a contribution to the national security interests of the United States. We must give them encouragement to do so. I congratulate Mr. Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller on his many personal accomplishments, his longstanding desire to maintain a U.S.-flag presence, and the numerous contributions he has made to foster trade in the foreign maritime commerce of the United States.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Indiana. He has again demonstrated once more his genuine concern in international affairs and hemispheric affairs, and I greatly appreciate his interest in Cuba and the role that Cuba and the United States together can play in drug interdiction. He has certainly made a valiant effort in this regard. I greatly respect his mission to Havana just recently. The committee has worked for years on this problem, and what we have found is that when the Coast Guard or any of our drug interdiction entities in the Federal Government clamp down in transit zones, say in the Caribbean, drugs pop up on the West Coast. When we move assets to the West Coast, they move back to the Caribbean or elsewhere. It is a very delicate balancing act. The Defense Department is also rethinking their role in the counter- drug mission. The Coast Guard now has law enforcement detachments on U.S. Navy vessels working in the Caribbean and off the west coast, which have been of great value to our war on drugs, and we have come to see the drug interdiction effort as a national security measure for the United States. So the question of where to deploy these assets and how to balance them between the Caribbean, the west coast, the east coast and, frankly, the U.S.-Canadian border, which my district borders on and is becoming an entry point for drugs, is a very delicate matter. We will continue our efforts to provide the Coast Guard with the resources they need in high-endurance aircraft, high-endurance cutters, additional personnel to participate in the already highly successful interdiction effort of the Coast Guard on drug smuggling efforts, and I will certainly bring to the attention of the Coast Guard the gentleman's recommendation for additional personnel in the Havana office. We look forward to working with the gentleman as we proceed not only with this bill but with the regular authorization bill when further policy issues will be addressed, and I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the committee, in bringing this legislation to the floor, had agreed that this is not a policy bill. This is the only policy-type amendment to be accepted on the floor, which I will accept in consultation with the chairman, he will speak for himself on the matter, but because it already is a statement of already existing law in a previous iteration of transportation legislation from this committee in a Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 and the gentleman's language offered here tracks exactly current law in the Federal aid highway program which has served to protect 60 million tons of American steel in the Federal aid highway program over the last 20 years. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and congratulate her on managing on our side the first Coast Guard bill of this session and look forward to her splendid work in the future. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the professional and thorough way that he has conducted the leadership of the subcommittee on this matter. I express also my appreciation for the splendid working relationship with our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). He is as vigorous an advocate for the Coast Guard as I, virtually a cheerleader for this special color blue uniform that makes such an enormous contribution to our safety, the safety of our inland waterways, our coastal waterways and of our Deepwater service. This bill is simply a numbers bill, if I could put it that way. We are trying to make up for failure of the past 2 years in the other body to move a Coast Guard authorization bill. In these past 2 years, this body and this committee has done its job. We have carried out our responsibility to the Coast Guard by bringing to the floor and passing an authorization bill that gives the Coast Guard the full authority to do its work. But when the bill got over to the other body, there were extraneous issues such as death on the high seas that have nothing to do with the mission of the Coast Guard that bogged the bill down, and we then did not get to an authorization. Now I urge the other body to take this bill and just without amendment, without extraneous matters, move the bill on to the President. We are authorizing $5.3 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002. There is $300 million in here for the Coast Guard's operating expenses and for their drug interdiction mission. Because of the failure to enact a full authorization bill over the past 2 years, the Coast Guard has had to reduce its operations because they have had insufficient funds. This bill gives the Coast Guard the sufficient funding, full operations and maintenance to do its mission. The other body ought to move along. We ought to get this job done. This bill also addresses the long plan and carefully thought out Deepwater Replacement Project. This will involve replacing every ship and every aircraft that operates more than 50 miles offshore for the U.S. Coast Guard. It is a unique initiative. We have examined it in hearings over the past 2 years and studied the proposals carefully thought out. It ought to go ahead. Instead of authorizing a specific type of ship built in a specific shipyard, this proposal authorizes a 20-year acquisition program, a performance-based procurement to obtain the very best aircraft and the very best cutters the Coast Guard needs for its mission at the lowest operational cost. While we are here debating this legislation, it is a typical day for the 35,800 men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard: doing 109 search-and- rescue cases, saving 10 lives, rescuing 192 people in distress, saving $3 million in property, seizing 169 pounds of marijuana, 306 pounds of cocaine worth collectively $10 million. In fact, in some years, the Coast Guard seizes drugs, illegal drugs that have a street value greater than the Coast Guard's appropriated budget. The Marine safety personnel are conducting safety checks on 100 large vessels, investigating six Marine casualties, responding to 20 oil or hazardous chemical spills, and servicing 135 aids to navigation. That is a very impressive day's work for the men and women in this special color blue. I stand here in awe of them and in respect of their mission and their contribution to America and urge this body to move quickly on and affirmatively on this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time and for being so generous with his time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very nostalgic moment for me. My late wife, Jo, and I started our family with adoption. We brought Ted into our family in April of 1968; and there followed Noelle and Annie and Monica, and now grandchildren, granddaughters. It would not have been possible without adoption. I started thinking about what we were able to do, how we were able to afford the cost of adoption. But there are many others who could not. And in 1977, I introduced what then was recognized as the very first bill to provide financial assistance for adoption, a modest $1,500 tax deduction. Well, it was rejected by Treasury as costing too much; Treasury could not afford it. There was not really much of a movement across this country for adoption in those days. So I began to work to build a consensus. With the help of Members on both sides of the aisle, it is remarkable how I found support, for example, from our former colleague, Mr. Lightfoot of Iowa, who himself was an adopted child; from Mr. Bliley, the gentleman from Virginia, who was an adoptive parent. Over time, we built a consensus and a bipartisan momentum until in 1996, 20 years later, legislation was enacted to provide, not a tax deduction, but a much more valuable $5,000 tax credit. Never in my wildest dreams did I think we could achieve that goal. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint); the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce); the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus); the gentleman from New York (Mr. King); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), who is currently the floor manager; and the chairman of the committee; and my very, very dear friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for championing this cause within the Committee on Ways and Means, and there are many others. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the committee did not follow my suggestion that we name this the Bliley Adoption Tax Credit, but I understand that the Chair has reservations about naming provisions of tax bills for sponsors. However, we do have the Keogh bill; we do have many other provisions of law that are named after former or, at the time, Members of Congress who were their sponsors. Nonetheless, the time will come, when this provision will be known as the Bliley Tax Credit and perhaps just because of his activism. But the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and I did join forces in crafting this legislation, securing 289 cosponsors; and I know that he is very pleased. It would be nice if his name were attached to it, but the recognition is there. Now, I do feel, as the gentleman from Maryland said so well, that this was an opportunity to go farther, to do more. I feel somewhat ill at ease saying that we should have done more when we already are doing something. But let us never stop. We should never rest in finding homes for children. A modest number, I think, 122,000 already identified special-needs children will benefit, hopefully, from this legislation with loving parents who will take these children into their homes. If we want to look at the cost side of it, think of the enormous cost savings to society. The best insurance policy we have against violence in our society, against crime, is a loving family, a home for these children who are not condemned to a life adrift. But there are further considerations; we do have to think about these: home and vehicle modifications, out-of-pocket medical expenses, lost income, no reimbursement for such lost income for parents who need to take time to deal with their special needs adoptive child. They are not reimbursed by the State; they are not eligible for the current adoption tax credit. There is much to be commended in this legislation. It is a big step forward. I am delighted with it. I urge all those parents, all those would-be parents to take a look when this becomes law and move quickly on it, and show that we have acted in good faith and that there is a response, and that children will be taken out of institutions and into loving families. I will say in closing, that it is not the tax credit by itself that is going to make the difference in whether these children are adopted. Parents will find homes for them. But we should use the Tax Code to make it easier; to show that our government, our tax system, has a heart, and we are opening that heart today a little wider, opening the doors wider to a generous society, a loving society, one that respects life from conception all the way through every stage of human existence.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the oncology nurse may well be as close as mere mortals come to angels on earth. These extraordinary health professionals must win the trust of their cancer patients while injecting toxics into the inflicted body. They must inspire hope of a better life in a patient who often wonders whether the treatment might be worse than the disease, and they must be gentle, comforting and reassuring to an often bewildered, even frightened cancer victim, desperate for someone truly to be their advocate. Jean Lynn, Clinical Coordinator of the Breast Care Center at George Washington University Medical Center, personifies all of those prized qualities of the ideal oncology nurse, an angel to her patients, a role model to her colleagues. One of Jean Lynn's coworkers said it best, ``her patients love her and she was never too busy to love them in return. She truly cares about each and every one and becomes their advocate in the fight against breast cancer.'' I witnessed Jean's love of patients and her enthusiasm for service to society during the years my beloved wife, Jo, was in her care at the GW oncology unit, more than a decade ago. Jean Lynn, a creative health professional, blessed with a restless, pioneering spirit, charted a new frontier in the field of breast health, when she launched the first mobile mammogram program in Washington, D.C., designed to reach women in the under served community. She is founder of the Harvest Moon Classic 10 K Run/5 K Walk, to increase awareness about breast cancer and to raise funds for the breast care center. Jean also puts her boundless energy to work on behalf of innovative programs to improve women's health and advocating for legislation to help women diagnosed with breast cancer, but are unable to afford treatment. From the very beginning of her career as an oncology nurse in the 1970s, Jean Lynn has understood the importance of education, prevention, and early detection of breast cancer. I recall very distinctly during the years when my wife, Jo, was in her care, Jean's ``brainstorming'' the need for a special place where women's concerns for and fears of breast health and breast cancer could be addressed. It would be a monumental task to establish such a facility, but Jean charged forward, developing a business plan, defining the mission of such a center, proposing appropriate staff positions for multi- disciplinary approach to the issue, and secured the funding to establish the Breast Cancer Center. In the process, Jean trained and became certified in 1991 for Mammacare, a comprehensive method of breast self-exam. Later, she became the Associate Director of Training for the Mammatech Corporation, training other Mammacare specialists. The GW Breast Care Center offers diagnoses and treatment for benign and malignant diseases, as well as education and psycho-social support for patients and their families. In addition, Jean Lynn saw the need to establish a resource library specifically dedicated to breast health issues in response to the lack of available information and credible sources--and the need to have such material gathered in one location so that patients and their families can readily access this valuable information. Jean Lynn's vision of the mobile mammography program reached fruition in September 1996 when the Mammovan was launched under the sponsorship of the Cancer Research Foundation of America and the GW University Medical Center. The Mammovan travels to corporate sites, as well as neighborhoods where many women are uninsured. Over 4,000 women have received screening tests since the mobile program was launched; more than half of the women screened are uninsured and had never previously had a mammogram. Tributes of gratitude for Jean's lectures, conferences, mammogram services have poured in from the White House nurse, the World Bank, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the American Bar Association, Marymount University, and countless individual women for whom Jean Lynn has opened a new window on life with access to breast health care and realistic hope for a healthful future. Jean truly believes that families come first and is unfailingly involved in the activities of her children, William and daughter, Kelly, with the loving support of her husband, David Gearin. Mr. Speaker, I know that Jean Lynn's tireless pursuit of the very best in breast health care will continue to post milestones of ever- greater achievements in the years to come. I can only say in the words of my late, dear, Jo: ``God bless you and love you, Jean Lynn.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with on Tuesday, May 15, 2001.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, thirty years ago today, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) took over from the Nation's freight railroads the responsibility for providing intercity passenger train services in the United States. Passenger train services had fallen on hard times. The railroads had a common carrier obligation to provide passenger train service, but virtually all of them were losing money and wanted to rid themselves of what they saw as an unnecessary burden. Prior to the creation of Amtrak, it was the policy of many of the railroads to simply allow the service to deteriorate to the point where ridership was so sparse that the Interstate Commerce Commission would grant the carriers permission to discontinue the operation. Some of the railroads went beyond benign neglect and actively downgraded the service to discourage people from riding the trains. The railroads were private, for-profit firms that saw passenger operations as little more than a drain on their income from carrying freight. After 1920, except for the World War II years, intercity rail passenger travel declined, as people shifted to air and auto to meet their intercity transportation needs. Passenger train travel declined not only relative to other modes, but absolutely as well. From being the dominant mode of intercity transportation in 1920, rail passenger service declined to relative insignificance by 1970. Less than one-half of one percent of intercity passenger transportation was made by rail. Many thought that the day of the passenger train was over, and that outside of a handful of operations in a few densely populated corridors, passenger trains were destined to join the stagecoach and the flatboat as relics of America's transportation history. Fortunately, for America's traveling public, this was not to be the case. Congress passed the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and created the National Railroad Passenger Corporation--popularly known as Amtrak. On May 1, 1971, most of the railroads still operating passenger trains turned over their equipment to Amtrak and the new company took over the responsibility for providing intercity passenger train service. From the outset, it was clear that the task of revitalizing the service would be daunting. Amtrak had to overcome years of railroad neglect and indifference. The first thing that Amtrak had to do was to arrest the long-term decline in intercity rail passenger ridership. Despite being woefully undercapitalized and inheriting a fleet of passenger cars and locomotives that averaged more than 20 years old, Amtrak stemmed the tide of traffic to the other modes and began the long and arduous task of rebuilding passenger train service in America. Over the years, Amtrak has managed to replace and upgrade the car and locomotive fleets, rehabilitate many once dilapidated train stations, and introduce a variety of new services in an effort to keep people riding the rails. Congress has continued to provide both operating, and capital support for Amtrak, although the level of support has varied. Amtrak has never received the kind public investment that the Nation's highways and aviation system's have received. In fact, the Corporation often has been starved for capital. Almost from the outset, Amtrak's opponents have pressured Amtrak to reduce its deficits, while at the same time they tried to cut its budget. From Roger Lewis to George Warrington, a succession of Amtrak's CEOs have pleaded for adequate funding. Rarely have those pleas been answered. Nevertheless, many in the Congress have demanded that subsidies to Amtrak be eliminated, and the Corporation is now scheduled to achieve operating self sufficiency by the end of 2002. Amtrak has made great progress toward reaching that goal. Back in 1971, many believed that Amtrak would be little more than a holding action until passenger trains disappeared forever. Instead, despite the obstacles, Amtrak has survived--survived the inadequate equipment and facilities with which it started life; survived the budget cutters, and survived the competition from low cost airlines. And now, in 2001, we see the wisdom of keeping in place intercity rail passenger service in the United States. Today, our airports and highways are facing gridlock. Delays are rampant and there are real limits to simply pouring more concrete and asphalt for new highways and runways to solve our Nation's congestion problems. Intercity rail passenger service can now be a major part of the solution to our transportation congestion problems. Most recently, Amtrak has inaugurated its Acela train service in the Northeast Corridor, and for the first time Americans can experience high-speed rail travel similar to what the French, Germans, and Japanese have enjoyed for decades. When the Acela trains are fully operational, Amtrak plans to capture 50 percent of the air-rail travel market in the Northeast Corridor, replicating its experience in the southern end of the Corridor between New York and Washington D.C. with its Metroliner service. Already, Amtrak is carrying a record number of passengers--22.5 million in 2000--and, as additional Acela trains come on line, Amtrak's ridership will increase further. Amtrak should be proud of what it has achieved. In the near future, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and I will be introducing a bill that will help develop high-speed rail passenger service throughout the United States. The Secretary of Transportation has designated about a dozen high-speed rail corridors around the Nation that will be eligble for this funding. Amtrak currently serves these corridors, and in most cases its operations will provide the basis for building the high-speed operations. By preserving our Nation's rail passenger service network through difficult times, Amtrak has set the stage for developing a national network of high-speed trains that can play a major role in relieving air and highway traffic congestion. Not only then is Amtrak a vital link to our Nation's transportation history, it is indispensable to our transportation future.