James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a very vigorous advocate for transportation and a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the voice of our Nation's capital in this body.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, a valiant, vigorous member of our committee and advocate for Buy America.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has contributed so vigorously and so many dedicated, devoted hours to the shaping of this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I take this moment to express my deep appreciation to the staff on the Democratic side, David Heymsfeld, Sante Esposito, Ken House, Rosalyn Millman, Ward McCarragher, Jim Zoia, Steve Dubois, and to Jack Schenendorf, staff director on the Republican side, for the splendid cooperation and the many hard hours of work that they have devoted to this legislation. And to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that his 26 years of service in this body have been unfailingly devoted to advancing the cause of transportation, its safety, mobility, its economic growth and its impact on America. Some of our colleagues serving in this body are fortunate enough to get an amendment adopted. A rare few get a bill enacted into law. But a rare trailblazer makes an impact on the Nation that will outlive his service in this body. Yours is that monumental service. The bill we are about to adopt by, I am confident, an overwhelming vote will be an everlasting tribute to the years of professional service you have given to the people of America and to the cause of transportation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to join in the acknowledgment of our colleague, one of the architects of ISTEA that brings us to the floor today, and an extraordinarily distinguished Member of this House and of our committee for so very, very many years. We owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 42 years ago in this Chamber a Democratic Congress, united with a Republican President, launched a new experiment in transportation, one that would prove to be enormously successful in improving America's mobility and expanding its economy and moving transportation from border to border and coast to coast in a way that never had been accomplished before. Today we stand at the beginning of a new century and a new millennium. The legislation we bring to the floor today takes us beyond the vision of the interstate system and beyond the vision that was created in ISTEA in 1991 and to a new century, a new millennium, a new investment with renewed vigor in a future America. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) on the extraordinary job he has accomplished of leading us through the thicket of conflicting issues, values, ideas, demands, interests and pressures to do the right thing for America. He traced the evolution of the transportation system, of this legislation, in a very heartfelt, deeply sensitive and deeply committed way just a moment ago. His words are a measure for all time. What we do in this legislation is not just to continue but to extend beyond where we have been in our transportation mix of the last 42 years. Mr. Chairman, we continue the investment in America that is the fundamental driving force for this transportation sector, which is 10 percent of our gross domestic product. We continue the programs of this country that we initiated in ISTEA that have been so enormously successful. We continue the environmental stewardship. We address safety and, indeed, had we not addressed safety with the interstate highway program in 1956, we would be killing 110,000 people on America's highways today. We provide continued equity in our transportation program for minorities for labor, for construction labor, and for the States through our distribution formula. This is a bill that is good for all America, for all time, to take us into that next century. Not a bridge of fiber optic cable, but a bridge built on concrete, asphalt, steel and goodwill and good vision and a good sense of direction for America. Transportation means economic growth, means mobility, and it means opportunity for America. That is what this legislation is all about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Rules for this time. Listening to all these previous speakers who came up with one or another complaint about this legislation, one would think Chicken Little was right, the sky is falling all around us, or the budget. Or one might think that this bill is some sort of budgetary Pac Man chewing its way through the budget, nibbling up everything else for every other function. To say that we cannot do anything for education or we cannot do anything for veterans because of this bill is absolute hogwash. Look at the budget and the billions of dollars that are in that budget for every other function of government. To say that we are taking $26 billion is wrong. It is $25.4; let us be right, let us get the numbers right. Even if my colleagues figure out that a decimal point does not go over a halfway point they can slip it over to the first. Let us be exact about it, $25.4 billion. That is $4 billion a year over the budget agreement over the period of this bill. Do my colleagues mean they cannot find $4 billion in a $1.7 trillion federal budget? Out of a $7 trillion national economy? That transportation accounts for over 10 percent of our total gross domestic product, approaching $778 billion, the transportation sector alone? It is the engine driving the national economy. For 30 years, my colleagues, for 30 years surpluses have been building up in the Highway Trust Fund, being used to fund other functions of government. Transportation going to come to the floor over the last 30 years and say, ``Oh, my God, you can increase spending for this that or the other function because it means we won't build more roads and bridges.'' No. And over that period of 30 years $29 billion have been built up in the surplus in the Highway Trust Fund, and now that surplus is just going to go poof, off into the ether, to reduce the Federal debt somehow, and we do not even get to spend out the interest on capital into the Highway Trust Fund in the next 6 years of this legislation. As my colleagues know, the Congress, this Congress, this body right here made an agreement with the driving public of America in 1956 and said we will create a trust fund into which taxes on gasoline will be paid, and from that trust fund we will create a guaranteed dedicated revenue stream to build these projects. And bills would come to the House floor every 5 years and pass on a voice vote because the public had confidence that we meant what we said, that we struck a bargain and we are living by that bargain. And now we have got that surplus built up, and that surplus is just going to go away. That is nonsense. Vote for this rule, vote for this bill, vote for the future of America.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, if the Chairman would continue to yield, let me just emphasize once again, never on our side or on the chairman's side of the aisle was any Member told that conclusion of their project was contingent upon or dependent upon their vote. No Member was asked how they intended to vote in advance. Projects were included for Members on the basis of the merits of the project, not on how they would vote. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: Washington, DC, March 7, 1996. Hon. Bud Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Shuster: Recently, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation submitted an authorization request to your Committee to extend the Broken Arrow Expressway from I-44 southeast approximately 8.0 miles to the Tulsa County Line. I am forwarding the enclosed request on to your Committee for its consideration. I am confident that the merit of the project will speak for itself. Sincerely, Steve Largent, Member of Congress.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I join in the gentleman's indignation, to put it mildly, over these attacks that are totally unjustified, unfounded, and inappropriate for Members of this body to make. First of all, the projects in question have gone through a very thorough and careful vetting process according to a 14-point outline that the committee fashioned, which includes a requirement that the project be on the State's priority or State's future project development list. The points that are included in the review of projects are all the points that States use to measure validity of projects that their transportation departments will fund. After reviewing all of these projects and ensuring that they meet standards accepted by States and that these are projects necessary in a Member's district, we accept the Member's judgment as to what is necessary for his or her district, and those projects are included in this package, as was done in 1991 in the previous transportation bill. Mr. Speaker, I could understand Members disagreeing with the process, but I do not approve, I am offended by the use of language and by the accusations made. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been a vigorous advocate for transportation since before he was elected to Congress in 1972 and since taking his place on the then-Committee on Public Works and now-Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Under his chairmanship, he has waged a nationwide campaign for increased investment in the Nation's portfolio of bridges, highways, buses, transit systems, but above all, its safety. He is a champion of safety. The gentleman's drive to increase spending out of the highway trust fund, tax dollars that have been collected at the pump but not paid into projects for which driving America has already been taxed, is clear and well known and widely respected, open and clear for everyone to review. So when the gentleman from Pennsylvania or I, together on a bipartisan basis, present our program to our respective caucuses and to this body and ask for their support, we do so very clearly, very openly, without any hidden agenda. And for Members then to say that they have been somehow browbeaten, whipped into line, or threatened is totally inappropriate and totally untrue. As a strong and vigorous advocate for his viewpoint, I respect the gentleman from Pennsylvania and I respect those who take a differing viewpoint. They are entitled to that viewpoint. They are also entitled to the fair share of funding that we have designated without any questions, without any quid pro quo. We respect and always have respected the Members' right to vote their district and their conscience. We would ask them, and I do not think there is anything inappropriate to ask a Member to support this legislation, but we respect their right not to. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania has conducted himself with the highest dignity, with the appropriate character of a Member of Congress of this distinguished body, in the same manner that he has done for his 26 years in the House of Representatives. I join with him in reproving those who have used such inappropriate language. It is an assault upon the integrity of the chairman of this committee, a Member who has championed the cause for all of America for better transportation, better investment in the future of our economy, and I salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2843, the Aviation Medical Assistance Act, and I urge our colleagues to vote for it today. I commend Chairman Duncan and Congressman Lipinski for working closely together in a nonpartisan fashion to develop a bill that was reported out of the Committee with no dissenting votes. Other speakers have done a good job of explaining the legislation. This bill will move us along the road to an industry standard that will require the carriage of heart defibrillator equipment on airliners. I firmly believe that if there is safety technology available and some in the industry are utilizing it to good benefit, then there is little reason not to require all of the industry to take similar steps. The traveling public expects that when they board an airliner that there will be equivalent levels of safety. I want to strongly commend those airlines, Delta, American, Alaska, and United, for recognizing the need, being forward-thinking enough to recognize new developments in medical technology, and taking the initiative to carry defibrillators without waiting for the government to require them. It is because of these sorts of steps that these particular airlines are widely recognized and appreciated as leaders in aviation safety. This bill, if enacted this year, will likely lead us to a rule about two years from now, requiring defibrillators on airline aircraft. Given the fact that the three largest carriers and Alaska Airlines are already instituting programs for this life-saving equipment, I believe that the rest of the industry and the Federal Aviation Administration need not and should not take all of this time to decide that all aircraft be equipped. In the area of liability, this bill takes a very reasoned and narrow approach in protecting airlines from liability. An airline will not be liable for its selection of a passenger to use the defibrillator equipment, if the airline, in good faith, believed that the person was qualified to use the equipment. Other than that, the airline's liability remains the same as it is today. The bill also provides ``Good Samaritan'' protections for the individual using the equipment, so long as they are not grossly negligent or engaged in willful misconduct. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am obviously very strong in support of the pending resolution, and I thank the Chair of the subcommittee for moving this legislation through so expeditiously, and the Chairman of the Committee on Rules for his very thoughtful words in support of an issue that is very special to me. Mr. Speaker, I bring a personal perspective as well as a legislative perspective to this issue. The nationally established Race for the Cure has done an enormous amount of good in education and in publicizing an issue nationally that until the early 1980s was one that sort of stood in the closet. Until that time, it was difficult for most people to say in a public setting the word breast, and then to associate it with cancer. But along about the early 1980s, this disease came to be of epidemic proportions. The Race for the Cure has brought this issue home to people of all walks of life all across the country, educating women to the need for self-examination, regular visits with a physician, regular mammographies for women of certain age, for women with a family history of breast cancer, for women with a family history of breast cancer and whose first child was born after the age of 30. And as women became better informed, as the terms entered our national lexicon, there have been enormous benefits. The Race for the Cure has raised dollars for cancer research, but more importantly, it has raised consciousness and awareness and the information level and the understanding level. When my wife Jo detected the lump in her breast and it was confirmed as malignant, and she had a mastectomy, followed by chemotherapy. The issue crashed in upon the Oberstar family. I was serving on the Committee on the Budget at the time, and I, for the first time, must shamefully admit, took a look at the number for breast cancer research. It was $35 million in 1983. It is now well over $500 million. I am pleased to say that I have had some role in moving it along in that direction, but there were lots of others who participated and made it happen. In the 8 years that Jo struggled with breast cancer, the ups and downs, the pain of treatment, the pain that our children felt as they lost the participation of their mother to an ever-increasing level of inability to function fully as a human being, but still with a great heart, with enormous love and great support for the children, to the degree that she could, in that period of 8 years, 300,000 women died of breast cancer. Annually, more women died in the 1980s of breast cancer than men and women died in the Vietnam War over 10 years. In the decade since the second round of onset of spread and metastasis of that disease in her body, 420,000 women have died of breast cancer. Research has been effective in opening new avenues of treatment, much earlier detection, much better treatment and care of breast cancer victims, but we are still a long way, we are not even halfway home; we are a long way from even seeing avenues to a cure, let alone truly effective treatments. The work that we do and activities like Race for the Cure does do something of extreme importance, and that is to bring home to women the importance of early detection, regular checkups. The earlier one detects the disease, the better chance one has of surviving. Our three daughters understand this all very well. Their mother had breast cancer; their grandmother had breast cancer. They are at some level of risk. But they have more at their disposal than their mother had. They know how early this disease can strike. They know that they need regular checkups. They know how quickly to act, and we want that kind of information brought home to women all across America. And the Race for the Cure is a way to do that. No longer should generations of mothers, cornerstone of humanity, worry, wonder, live in fear, sometimes terrifying fear, that they, too, may become victims. I applaud those who have organized in State after State across the country the Race for the Cure with the contribution they are making to future generations of women who can live more hopefully than did women of my wife's generation. The race may not be for a cure, but it has that objective in mind, and we must keep hope alive and keep research going and keep early detection and treatment nurtured by the benefits of this initiative.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, from time to time I have raised questions about various events proposed for the Capitol grounds, some of which I have thought were inappropriate or limited to a very narrow interest group. This event, the National Race for the Cure, to be held on April 1, is a broadly-inclusive event, one in which a wide range of people participate. It does not serve a special interest, it serves all interests. It is certainly in the category, in my classification, of those kinds of events that are appropriate for the grounds of our Nation's Capitol. Mr. Speaker, the event that we will authorize by this resolution will, again, contribute to continued public understanding and awareness of breast cancer, I should mention, not only for women but also for men. While some 178,000 cases are expected by the National Cancer Institute to be diagnosed in women this year, also some 1,600 of breast cancer in men will be diagnosed this year. That is about an average number. It is much less a threat to men's health than breast cancer is to women's health, but it should be noted for the Record that men are not immune, either, from this dread disease. While there has been an improvement in the detection rate, about a 4 percent decline in detection of breast cancers or incidents, I should say, of breast cancer, that is minuscule. It is a movement in the right direction, but it is minuscule. It shows how large the task is ahead of us. Let us engage in this event, participate, give it our moral support, give it our physical support, not only here in the Nation's capital but throughout the country in our respective States, so that the greater awareness, the increased research that is undertaken year after year and focused on this disease will mean for future generations of young women that they will not have to wonder and worry about a fate that befell their mothers and grandmothers; that hopefully the day will come when there really is a cure and the race will be over.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the conference report for all the reasons I articulated yesterday, and without recapitulating them, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would argue also that the person who had most to do with National Airport was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was present at the groundbreaking, who was the driving force behind the construction of that airport, who laid the cornerstone for this building; who proposed a big ceremony to dedicate the newly completed airport, but who, on recommendation of his Secretary of Commerce and on his own gut instincts, said, as the darkening clouds of war are gathering, it is not a time, an appropriate time to have a celebration, and chose not to. He was the first President, Franklin Roosevelt, to fly across the Atlantic. He convened the international conference that guides aviation trade agreements today, the Chicago conference in 1944, in which we negotiate trade rights in aviation among all nations of the world. He had more to do with aviation, I submit, than President Reagan did, and more to do with this airport, but never have we suggested, in the words of my good friend, adding a name, which is really changing a name, of an airport to add Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, Franklin Roosevelt wanted for himself only the smallest monument, not larger than the size of a desk, a piece of stone some place in Washington. That is all he ever asked for. He did not ask to have a political billboard greeting people in his name as they came to the Nation's capital. That is what is at stake here. This name change was not fueled by a popular citizen movement, it springs from the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, a movement begun by Americans for Tax Reform. It does not spring from the heart of America. Why do we not designate a piece of ground in the Nation's capital to be a place where an appropriate memorial to the memory and legacy of Ronald Reagan will be erected? I will support that, as we have legacies for other Presidents. We waited 50 years to begin construction of the Washington Monument. We waited 130-some years to begin construction of the Jefferson Memorial. We waited well over 50 years before a memorial was built to Franklin Roosevelt's name. I am not sure that he would have liked that, frankly. As I said already, he wanted something very modest, very, very simple to be remembered by. So this is not the appropriate way to honor the legacy of Ronald Reagan, and I urge defeat of the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.