James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI, I move that when the House adjourns on this legislative day, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 735, a bill to designate the United States Mission to the United Nations Building located at 799 First Avenue, New York, NY, as the ``Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building.'' Consideration of this bill on the House floor is long overdue. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his steadfastness in supporting this bill. Congressman Rangel introduced similar bills to designate the United States Mission to the United Nations in honor of Ron Brown in the 108th and 109th Congresses. I am pleased that today we will finally pass this bill and pay a fitting tribute to the life and achievements of this extraordinary American. Ron Brown was a man who served his country in many capacities: lawyer, pragmatic bridge builder, statesman, mentor, and trusted friend. He may be best known for his service as the first African-American Secretary of Commerce. In that position, he became a powerful and influential voice for promoting American products and trade abroad. He championed expanding markets for U.S. goods and services, in order to increase job opportunities and foster job creation here at home. He also served on President Clinton's National Economic Council, Domestic Policy Council, and Task Force on National Health Care Reform. He served President Clinton on the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee and was Co- Chair of the U.S.-Russia Business Development Committee. Secretary Brown served on the Board of Trustees for Middlebury College and received his law degree from St. John's University in New York City. Prior to entering public service, he worked as a welfare caseworker in New York City. In addition to his many talents and strengths, Secretary Brown was a passionate civil rights activist with a distinguished record of service to his community. His commitment to this Nation and its citizens provides a model for us all. Secretary Brown's life was tragically ended in April 1996 when he was killed in a place crash in Croatia while on an official Department of Commerce trade mission. The Department of State had requested that Secretary Brown personally undertake the trade mission to highlight and find opportunities for U.S. businesses to boost economic reconstruction of the war torn region of former Yugoslavia. Congress has previously designated Federal buildings that serve as Department of State facilities on four separate occasions. In 2000, Congress designated the Department of State headquarters as the ``Harry S Truman Federal Building'' (P.L. 106-218). In 2004, Congress designated the Foreign Service Institute as the ``George P. Schultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center'' (P.L. 108-136). In 2005, Congress designated the United States Embassy Annex in Rome, Italy, as the ``Mel Sembler Building'' (P.L. 108-447) and designated the Federal building in Kingston, Jamaica, as the ``Colin L. Powell Residential Plaza'' (P.L. 109-89). Secretary Brown died in service to his country on a mission undertaken at the request of the Department of State. It is fitting and proper to honor this Federal building as the ``Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 735.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, today, the House considers H.R. 2722, the ``Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act''. This legislation is the product of the lessons learned from a series of hearings delving into the Coast Guard's Deepwater program. I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Cummings for his diligence in thoroughly examining these problems and for developing a comprehensive bill to get this program back on course. The Committee has held three hearings in the 110th Congress on the Deepwater program--including one that finally adjourned at 11:29 p.m. Committee Members have heard the saga about problems with this program that include inadequate staffing, patrol boats that have been altered in such a way that they are not seaworthy, and construction standards that shorten the fatigue life of cutters below their contracted 30-year life. During these hearings, the Committee heard testimony from the Coast Guard, contractors, the Office of Inspector General (``OIG'') of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Government Accountability Office (``GAO''), and in addition received reports from the Defense Acquisition University (``DAU''), the GAO, and the OIG. Unfortunately, we learned from the testimony to the Committee that the Deepwater program is an example of a total abdication of governmental responsibility for overseeing its contractors, the quality of their work, and the timeline for completion. H.R. 2722 will correct this problem. The bill establishes within the Coast Guard the acquisition management systems, and requires appointment of necessary personnel, to effectively manage the $24 billion Deepwater Acquisition Program. As reported by the Committee, H.R. 2722 prohibits the use of a private sector entity as a lead system integrator beginning at the earlier date of October 1, 2011, or the date on which the Coast Guard certifies to the Committee that the service has the trained personnel and resources to implement the system integration. I understand that the Coast Guard intends to move forward well before the 2011 date and I can assure you that this Committee will monitor their progress on taking over the Deepwater program. H.R. 2722 also requires the use of full and open competition for procurements under Deepwater, and sets forth specific provisions to be included in future contracts including requirements subjecting designs to technical review and development of independent cost estimates. Transient electromagnetic pulse emanation (``TEMPEST'') standards, as used by the Department of the Navy, must be used for procurements requiring TEMPEST certification. The bill further requires that all contracts include provisions allowing the OIG to privately interview contractor personnel working on Deepwater. The bill also requires the appointment of a civilian Chief Acquisition Officer within the Coast Guard, who would report directly to the Commandant, and specifies a number of authorities reserved to the Chief Acquisition Officer. H.R. 2722 sets standards for testing and certification of assets procured under Deepwater. Each cutter--other than a National Security Cutter (NSC)--must be classed by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). The design and construction of NSCs, with the exception of NSC 1 and 2, must be certified as capable of being underway for at least 185 days a year for 30 years and the other performance requirements by an independent third-party such as ABS or the Navy. The bill calls for all aircraft to be certified by an independent third-party such as the FAA or the Navy as well. In addition, the bill requires a number of reports to Congress from the Coast Guard to enhance the Committee's oversight of this important acquisition program. I would like to thank Ranking Member Mica and Subcommittee Ranking Member LaTourette for working with Subcommittee Chairman Cummings and me on this bill. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of H.R. 2722, the ``Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act of 2007''.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I compliment Chairman Thompson on the superb work he has done as Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security. He is the right man at the right time in the right place. He has approached his responsibility with great sincerity and focus of purpose. He has accomplished a great deal, an enormous amount in his first year as chairman. He has defended the House position on the Homeland Security 9/11 Commission Report to the best of his ability against a rather obstructive other body. I had great reservations about creating a Department of Homeland Security at its very outset. I opposed formation of the Department in 2002 on operational grounds. Four years later, I still question the Department's effectiveness in managing the responsibilities we have handed to it. On signing the Homeland Security Act in 2002, the President said, ``Our objective is to spend less on overhead and more on protecting neighborhoods and borders and waters and skies from terrorists.'' In at least one respect, this bill doesn't meet that objective. The conference report authorizes new rail, public transportation, and over- the-road bus security grant programs that will provide historically high levels of funding for those modes of transportation. I am for that. I support those needed investments. But in the House bill, we recognize that the most efficient way to administer these programs and get the money out to the recipients was to have the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security share those responsibilities. The Department of Homeland Security in the House bill was to award grant funds based on risk and select grant recipients and then transfer those funds to DOT, which through the Federal Transit Administration administers $9 billion a year efficiently and effectively on time to transit agencies to disburse those grants with its already effective, award-winning distribution program. Instead, in the conference, we met with nothing but obstruction from the other body. I offered several fair and sensible compromises: have the Government Accountability Office review the existing grant distribution programs of the two Departments and make recommendations; have the Inspectors General of the two Departments jointly certify that DHS was ready to distribute grant funds efficiently; and monitor and enforce the various grant certifications, including labor protections. That was rejected, as the previous was rejected. I offered for DOT to distribute the grant funds in the early years of the program to allow DHS to get up to speed and get an efficient program running. That was summarily rejected. Now we are going to have the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation getting together and signing a memorandum of understanding. That is not going to work. This is a great mistake. It is misguided and works contrary to the best purpose of this Department.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 187) expressing the sense of Congress regarding the dumping of industrial waste into the Great Lakes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we are gathered here to commemorate two extraordinary events. Forty years ago, the Cuyahoga River en route to Lake Erie caught fire and galvanized the attention of a Nation and the action of Congress to strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act resulting in the Clean Water Act of 1972. You would have thought that the Nation had learned its lesson with the Cuyahoga River incident and the other tragedies that befell the Great Lakes over the years; the invasion of lamprey eel and subsequent nonindigenous invasive species, and other tragedies, such as industrial dumping, that nearly resulted in the death of Lake Erie. But here we are gathered, 40 years later, to face a report from the Chicago Tribune that the regulators in the State of Indiana have given permission for BP, one of the world's largest energy companies, to release half more ammonia than they are and one-third more sludge into Lake Michigan each day. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) sprang to the defense of Lake Michigan, as have numerous of our colleagues that are gathered here with us today, and mobilized a resolution that we have under consideration today. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. We're not here reacting to and debating a newspaper story. The report of the planned dumping of highly toxic, highly residual elements into Lake Michigan has been documented. We will have a hearing in the Subcommittee on Water Resources in due course, but this is an emergency that called out and cried out for immediate action to lay a line down in front of the State of Indiana and British Petroleum to let them know that their proposed indifference, slap in the face, to clean water, this precious resource, will not be tolerated by the American public. They will go ahead and build their refinery, but on that property, they have plenty of room for appropriate disposal of these wastes. They ought to know, they ought to understand, water is more precious than oil. The slow flushing action of Lake Michigan, it'll be 300 years before water turns over in that lake. It means that whatever they put in that lake is going to stay there for generations to come. They know that. So does the State of Indiana. Protect that lake. There are alternatives to dumping every colossal waste that industry can sum up into the lake. There are other alternatives. They have to explore those alternatives. General Leave

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill pending before us.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have one speaker remaining on our side. I would ask the gentleman to conclude.

Mr. OBERSTAR. So conclude with your two speakers, and then we'll conclude on our side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, has worked tirelessly on the issue of cross-border trucking in this Congress and I commend his determination in probing the details of the Administration's plans to open the U.S.-Mexico border to truck traffic. While I strongly support this amendment, I am at the same time extremely disappointed that Congress must take yet another step to compel the Administration to do the right thing and protect the safety of the American people. Members of Congress face growing frustration with the Administration's clear desire to open the U.S.-Mexico border at any cost, with minimal regard for the safety of the traveling public, and little attention to the concerns raised by the House and Senate. Today's amendment is the culmination of a mounting effort to ensure safety and to hold the U.S. Department of Transportation (``DOT'') accountable as the Department reveals its plans for opening our nation's southern border. On February 23, 2007, Secretary of Transportation Peters announced the start of a one-year pilot program to grant 100 Mexico-domiciled trucking companies unrestricted access to U.S. roads, beyond the commercial zones at the U.S.-Mexico border. DOT has acknowledged that this pilot program is the first step to full border opening. This announcement had generated a groundswell of opposition. Since February, Congress has tried to shed some light on this pilot program. On March 13, 2007, the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit held an oversight hearing on the pilot program. Chairman DeFazio and I have asked the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation to review the proposed pilot program for compliance with all applicable motor carrier safety and hazardous materials laws and regulations. On March 29, 2007, Representative Boyda introduced H.R. 1773, the Safe American Roads Act of 2007, of which I am a proud sponsor. This legislation limits the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to unilaterally open the United States-Mexico border to truck and bus traffic under the ruse of a hasty pilot program. Instead the bill provides the U.S. with an opportunity to test, evaluate, and learn from the impacts of allowing Mexico-domiciled trucks on our highways, but only once a strict set of prerequisites are met and only under a specific set of conditions. At the beginning of May, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered the bill reported to the House by a vote of 66- 0. The House passed the bill on May 15, 2007, by an overwhelming vote of 411-3. The message to Secretary Peters has been clear: proceed with caution and do not open the border to Mexico-domiciled trucks until sufficient checks are in place to ensure that they meet U.S. motor carrier safety laws. Yet, DOT opposes the safeguards included in H.R 1773. It continues to charge ahead, and intends to start the pilot program as early as next month. The agency seems to have little regard for what findings or shortcomings may come to light in the reviews required to date by Congress. DOT has been unwilling to make changes to its plans to bring the proposed pilot program in line with the strict criteria strongly supported by the House. As a result, we must take this action today to bring this program to a standstill. I continue to question whether DOT is truly ready to open the border, and whether adequate systems are in place to make sure Mexican carriers meet our strict federal safety requirements. It is well-established that Mexican law does not require many fundamental elements of highway safety that are required for U.S. vehicles and drivers, including hours-of-service restrictions, drug and alcohol testing, and commercial driver's licensing requirements. Data collection issues and tracking violations of Mexican drivers while operating in the U.S. also remains a challenge. The United States is bound to live up to its commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement (``NAFTA''). However, nothing in NAFTA suggests that we must allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate throughout the U.S. if they pose a safety hazard to our citizens. Launching a cross-border pilot program represents a major shift in transportation policy. It is the responsibility of DOT to ensure that any program that allows trucks from Mexico to enter the United States must be conducted with the safety of the American people as the highest priority. We must not forget this in a rush to open the border. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeFazio amendment

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. Parking facilities are eligible under a number of our surface transportation programs, funded out of the Highway Trust Fund. In the SAFETEA-LU legislation, we authorize funding for parking facilities to encourage commuters to park their vehicles and use public transportation. Congestion is a growing problem all across this country. It costs us $68 billion a year. The more cars we can get off the roadway and more people use public transportation, the better off citizens are in their drive patterns. And the parking facilities encourage carpooling, vanpooling and use of light rail and commuter rail and local bus transit operations. Furthermore, because they're funded with Highway Trust Fund moneys, no fees can be charged at these parking facilities, so they're not revenue-generating activities. Furthermore, we have imposed very strict standards for highway safety for long-haul truckers. Hours of service have been limited so that roadways will be safer, but those long-haul truckers, working long hours, need safe places where they can rest. The hours of service limitation requires them to stay off the roadway before they become fatigued. That's why we have parking facilities to accommodate over-the-road truck drivers, as well as passenger vehicle drivers. So the parking facilities we provide under the SAFETEA-LU national transportation program is in the best public interest, in the interest of public safety and in the interest of roadway safety, to the best interest of the driving public, reduces congestion, and we ought not to take this broad brush stroke and strike the spending. No, we carefully considered these issues in the course of fashioning the SAFETEA-LU in the House and the Senate and conference and on this House floor. Let's keep existing policy in place and defeat this misguided amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thought we spent most of last night on amendments to kill the operating account of Amtrak and then kill the capital account of Amtrak. The only thing that wasn't offered was burial funds for Amtrak. But now comes the dismemberment amendment. This route is part of a national passenger rail system. It's the only route connecting California to the Southwest, to the gulf, and on to Florida. This route touches one-third of the Nation's population. Many of the people living in those communities along this route have no other passenger transportation, mass transportation alternative than the Sunset Limited. The gentleman from Texas talked about the time it takes to traverse that route. What he didn't say is that most of that time is spent by Amtrak on sidings waiting for freight rail trains to pass. Now, if you give passenger rail priority consideration on those routes, those trains would pass very quickly. We could cut a substantial, maybe a third or more of the time out of their passenger service. What's happening here is, going back to the origins of Amtrak, when freight rail companies started as passenger rail service found they could make more money carrying freight than passengers, they were carrying U.S. mail on the overnight railway post office, they petitioned to the Interstate Commerce Commission to discontinue passenger service when U.S. Postal Service moved to carrying their mail by truck. So one by one, they discontinued passenger rail service, dumped it all in the hands of the Federal Government. We need to keep Amtrak servicing. Defeat this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without a great deal of enthusiasm, I oppose the amendment of the gentleman, although I supported it last year. But this year we have in place in our FAA reauthorization bill a process that will cure the problem the gentleman has brought to the House floor. Frankly, the FAA has not been responsive to the gentleman from Florida. Worse, they have been dismissive. They have not consulted with him or with his airport or with the community that he represents. In the legislation that the gentleman from Illinois, chairman of the subcommittee and I have fashioned with bipartisan support, we have a process in place. Once our authorization bill is enacted, that will require the FAA to consult with communities, with airport authorities, with the Members of Congress on these consolidation proposals and report back to the Congress. We'll get another crack at it. We'll do it in due course and due appropriate process, not the way FAA is proposing to do it, certainly not with a base-closing commission approach that the administration offered to the Congress. Just today the gentleman from Illinois held a hearing on the wretched conditions in a great many of our air traffic control facilities, which the FAA is ignoring under the guise of modernization of air traffic control system. Well, come on. That's not happening for another 5 to 10 years. Meanwhile, people have to sit there and suffer through mold and rain and mildew and, in northern Minnesota, in my district in Duluth, snow coming through the windows, or flies in the air traffic control tower in the winter. Come on. That's not taking care of our facilities.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia metropolitan area has the most complex air space in the United States; that means, the most complex air space in the world. Four of the Nation's five airports reporting the worst on-time performance are Newark, LaGuardia, JFK and Philadelphia. Holding time is five times greater than any place in the country. The percentage of flights that arrive in Newark over an hour late is 15 percent of all the fights. Seventy-five percent of the Nation's domestic and international flights are affected by delays and inefficiencies in the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia air space, no matter where they're going. You have international flights arriving from the transatlantic corridor. You have flights arriving from Canada, flights arriving from South America, flights arriving transcontinental from the United States on the east coast merging into this area. Sure, there are awful noise impacts upon residents, but the redesign will save noise to some 619,000 people, shifting it elsewhere, shifting it away from other people. FAA has held over 120 public meetings since they began the process of the air space redesign. This will save 20 percent of delays and 12 million minutes a year. This is important to the Nation, not just to this region.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3074, the Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, THUD, Appropriations Act of 2008. First and foremost, I am pleased that the bill fully funds the Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs at the levels guaranteed by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU. At the same time, I regret that the bill rescinds $3 billion in highway funds that have been apportioned to the States, but are not available for obligation. However, I understand the significant funding constraints faced by the Committee on Appropriations in crafting the fiscal year 2008 THUD appropriations bill. If the Committee did not rescind this excess contract authority, it would have had to make real cuts in Amtrak funding, Federal Aviation Administration operations, and other critical programs. Given the Committee on Appropriations' limited choices, I have refrained from objecting to this rescission. I appreciate Chairman Obey's and Subcommittee Chairman Oliver's willingness to work with me on this issue. The Committee on Appropriations did agree to my request that this rescission be applied proportionally to all Federal-aid highway programs. I have been very concerned with the way States have been implementing previous rescissions, and language included in H.R. 3074 would ensure that the rescission contained in this legislation will not undermine the priorities established in SAFETEA-LU. I am particularly concerned with the treatment of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, CMAQ, program under previous rescissions. The CMAQ program provides funding for projects and programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in areas that do not meet Clean Air Act air quality standards (i.e., nonattainment and maintenance areas). While representing about 4-5 percent of highway apportionments each year, CMAQ funds have accounted for about 20 percent of total highway funds rescinded in recent years. In FY 2006 alone, States rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds, an amount that is equal to 55 percent of the total amount apportioned to the States for the CMAQ program that year. Comparing the treatment of CMAQ to other highway programs further illustrates the disproportionate effects of these rescissions. In FY 2006, looking at rescissions as a percentage of the amounts apportioned for each program, the rescission of 55 percent of CMAQ funds compares to a rescission of only 12 percent of Interstate Maintenance funds and seven percent of National Highway System funds. The Transportation Enhancements program has also received disproportionate contract authority cuts under the rescissions. The Transportation Enhancements program provides funds for bike paths, pedestrian walkways, historic preservation, and other activities that expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience. In FY 2006, States rescinded $602 million in Transportation Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in that year. Texas alone rescinded $223 million of Transportation Enhancements funding and the Texas Department of Transportation stated that it would not fund any transportation enhancement projects in that fiscal year. Texas' actions are directly contrary to our Federal efforts to develop a balanced, multimodal surface transportation system. The language of H.R. 3074 is consistent with the approach taken in H.R. 2701, the Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and will ensure that the priorities set by Congress in SAFETEA-LU are implemented as intended. I greatly appreciate the Committee on Appropriations' willingness to address my concerns on this issue. Throughout the bill, there are a number of other rescissions of highway, motor carrier safety, highway safety, and transit funds that raise concerns for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In particular, section 124 rescinds $172 million of unobligated balances of contract authority for research programs conducted by the Federal Highway Administration. Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1195, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act, which provides additional resources to ensure that the highway research program receives the funding necessary to continue essential programs. Unfortunately, section 124 of the bill before us today rescinds some of these necessary research funds. The final concern I would like to address today is the earmarking of Airport Improvement Program funds. The report accompanying H.R. 3084 includes a listing of 72 airport projects which the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, is directed to fund. The law governing the Airport Improvement Program requires the FAA to establish a priority system to decide which projects will receive funding. The FAA's National Priority System, which has been in use for many years, gives highest priority to projects that will bring airports into compliance with safety standards. Second priority is given to projects that are necessary to meet security requirements. Third priority is given to reconstruction or rehabilitation projects that are needed to preserve existing airport infrastructure. Fourth priority is given to projects needed to achieve compliance with current FAA standards. Fifth priority is given to capacity enhancement projects. Aviation projects are not like projects in other modes of transportation. For example, an improvement to a highway project in one city does not necessarily benefit highway users in any other city, but in the national system of integrated airports, an improvement in one airport, particularly a major hub airport, could benefit aviation travelers throughout the system. For this reason, the FAA should have, and does have, discretion to fund improvements as it deems necessary to improve the aviation system as a whole. To limit the FAA's discretion in this regard would only worsen the congestion and delays we are already experiencing today. I want to make it clear that the language in a report cannot override a priority system established under the governing law. I would like to quote from the decision of the Comptroller General on a similar situation. The Comptroller General wrote: ``It is our view that when Congress merely appropriates lump sum amounts without statutorily restricting what can be done with those funds, a clear inference arises that it does not intend to impose legally binding restrictions, and indicia in committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should be or are expected to be spent do not establish any legal requirements on Federal agencies.'' Throughout my career, I have steadfastly resisted designating airport improvement projects in authorizing legislation and in report language, and will continue to resist such designations. I urge the Committee on Appropriations to do so as well.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.