James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member of the committee, is misguided and an inappropriate amendment. As the gentleman has already acknowledged, we discussed this in committee on our climate change legislation. We had a voice vote in which the gentleman's amendment failed. It would strike the provision that is in this appropriation bill to require States to implement their future rescissions on a proportional basis; rescissions, that is cuts of unobligated contract authority, to make those reductions proportional. States have applied previous rescissions in a disproportional way. They have disproportionately cut funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program that helps cities clean their air and move people more expeditiously. They have disproportionately cut funds from the bridge program, from transportation enhancement funds, all of which play critical roles in creating mode choices and options and alternatives for moving people in our major metropolitan areas and in rural areas. Flexibility, States have an enormous amount of flexibility under the current SAFETEA-LU law. They have the ability to transfer up to 50 percent of their programmatic apportionments to other apportioned programs. The National Highway System, States can transfer 100 percent from NHS funds to surface transportation. This language will not in any way restrict States' flexibility in implementing the highway programs to meet their priorities. It will restrict the practice of targeting specific programs for disproportionate cuts to meet their rescission requirements. Now, the Equity Bonus Program, here is an example of the enormous flexibility States have under the current highway law. Funds under Equity Bonus are distributed to eligible States and apportioned to the interstate maintenance, the National Highway System, to the Bridge Program, to the Surface Transportation Program, Highway Safety Program and to CMAQ. States can use those funds to distribute the Equity Bonus account around to the eligibilities of these programs as they see fit to the needs of their specific State. In fiscal year 2007, States got $8.327 billion in Equity Bonus accounts. They have a lot of flexibility with that amount of money. States have significant unobligated balances of contract authority available in all categories of the Federal-aid highway program. As of May 31 of this year, States had a total of $46.5 billion in unobligated funds. That's $3.16 billion in the CMAQ program, 2 years' worth of apportionments. They have got plenty of flexibility. They can use this money where they choose. Yet States have consistently chosen to target specific programs for disproportional cuts. Example, congestion mitigation and air quality improvement. That's only 4 or 5 percent of the total SAFETEA-LU program. But CMAQ funds account for 20 percent of the total rescissions in recent years. States rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds in 2006. That's $1 out of every $4 out of this one little program that metropolitan areas have to reduce congestion and pollution. In 2006, rescissions were distributed this way. They cut 55 percent out of CMAQ. They cut 12 percent out of interstate maintenance. They cut 7 percent out of the national highway system. In 2006, they cut $602 million out of the enhancements program. It was specifically set up to benefit communities that want to provide other transportation opportunities for their people. That's 15 percent of the rescissions just out of enhancements.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, in Texas, for example, of the $305 million assigned to Texas under the 2006 rescission, a total of $241 million of their cuts came from CMAQ and transportation enhancements. That's 79 percent of the amount that Texas alone cut out of these very small proportion programs. Now, we should not allow States to just target certain programs. We have created a structure within the Federal-Aid Highway Program of categories of funding. We all voted for it. It's now law, and if they're going to cut, their cuts ought to be proportional across the board. The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations supports our position, National Association of Counties, regional councils, Rails- to-Trails Conservancy, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. The gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, it should not pass. States have enormous amounts of flexibility. We ought to defeat the amendment.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I support the gentleman's effort here. The Surface Transportation Board has attempted to insert itself into a matter that the gentleman has very well and thoroughly described, but it is sadly mistaken in its effort to preempt State rights in this arena. So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. This is, as the chairman of the subcommittee has said, a shutdown amendment. It would totally eliminate operating grants for Amtrak and guarantee a shutdown. I suppose that is what the gentleman wants as he offers the amendment. He knows what he is doing. He is a very astute Member of this body. But I want to widen the perspective here. The effects would ripple through our economy, through our national transportation system, stranding millions of passengers and force them onto already congested roadways and airways. People in 106 cities served by Amtrak who are without air service would have to find new means of transportation; 19,000 Amtrak workers would lose their jobs. Their local economies, businesses would suffer. The railroad retirement and unemployment programs that cover employees of freight rail as well as passenger rail would eventually be depleted. We would be scrambling around here trying to restore the railroad retirement fund. It would disrupt commuter operations with whom Amtrak has contractual arrangements, stranding millions more passengers. GAO has reported to our committee that an abrupt cessation of Amtrak would result in major disruptions or shutdowns of commuter rail service throughout the country, stranding and straining regional transportation systems as hundreds of thousands of regular commuter rail passengers would have to look for alternative transportation. It would increase costs for our freight rails. If Amtrak were to shut down, the freight rail industry would lose some $5.3 billion over the next 6 years. That would also include the loss of $57 million Amtrak pays each year to the four class I railroads for access to their infrastructure and increase tier II taxes to keep the railroad retirement system solvent. It would shut down operations of freight railroads in the northeast corner. Norfolk Southern relies on Amtrak's dispatch and infrastructure systems throughout that corridor to provide rail service to major mid-Atlantic markets. Without Amtrak, cost of the freight rails to maintain operations on those lines would be very substantial. The real issue with Amtrak is it has been on a starvation diet practically since the time that we created Amtrak in 1970. But little by little, people are seeking alternative operations. They learned in the aftermath, as I said a moment ago, of September 11, that the only option to travel without air was inner-city passenger rail. Amtrak, in 2006, had 24.3 million passengers. President Alex Kummant of Amtrak told us very recently on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that they expect 2007 to far surpass 2006 ridership levels. So far this year, just in the first quarter of this year, Amtrak had 2.17 million passengers. That is nearly a 7 percent increase over the previous year. So keep funding Amtrak, give it an opportunity to breathe, give it this additional investment that it needs. Soon our committee will come to the floor with a substantial increase in funding for Amtrak to put it on course to be a real world-class competitor in inner-city passenger rail service. When I was a student just graduating from college in St. Paul, the College of St. Thomas, I won a scholarship to study at the College of Europe in Belgium. I traveled from my home in Chisolm by bus to the Twin Cities, and there I talk the Milwaukee 400: 400 miles to Chicago in 400 minutes. And in Europe, I took the train from Paris to Brussels and then on to Brugge in Belgium for this program. That was a 6-hour trip. Today, that 6-hour trip is 80 minutes traveling at 185 miles an hour on the TGV. Today you can't get to Chicago in 400 minutes from Minneapolis, not even by air. By the time you travel, drive to the airport, park your car, go through security, wait for the plane, get off the plane, try to get to your destination, you can't do it. We need a restructure, a rebuild, a reinvigorated Amtrak. Don't kill it with this amendment.

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, this same amendment was offered in the last Congress and got 60 votes. It's as misguided now as it was then. The Committee on Appropriations for the first time in a dozen years has provided a net increase in funding for Amtrak. We are not going to be here tonight or tomorrow when we vote on this and cut those funds and reduce Amtrak to the beggar position that it has been in for the last dozen years. For the last 12 years, supporters of Amtrak have been reduced to pleading to just restore the funding; not to increase, not to advance the cause of Amtrak, but simply restore to where it was with the inadequate amounts that this administration has proposed. Most of the time they proposed to cut Amtrak. In fact, when I hear Amtrak reform, I know what it means. It means cut the funds, tie their hands, submit Amtrak to a board that's going to run it into the ground, not run it into the 21st century. As the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, has said, the committee bill provides nearly $120 million increase in funding for the homeless. That's the first time in 4 years. A 23 percent increase, that's substantial. I'm for it. We don't need to take money out of Amtrak to increase funds for the homeless. Amtrak needs help. I hear this old saw time and again. Oh, Amtrak is bleeding money, and we are subsidizing it. What do you do for the airlines? What do you do for highways? We provide funds for the highway program. We provide funds for aviation. Amtrak is the residue of what was left when the railroads abandoned their passenger service in the 1960s and to the eve of 1970 when Amtrak was created. Time and again, they conspired with the Postal Service to take the railway post office off the passenger service so that then they would have a losing proposition, and they could apply for discontinuance to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and they did. They shut down passenger rail service to small towns, and they also lost less-than-carload service, and towns went out of business because they didn't have a small shipping service on freight rail with passengers to move their goods. So what did Amtrak get? When we created Amtrak in 1970, we got the dregs of what was left of intercity passenger rail service, and the Congress for several years was trying to build up Amtrak to provide funds for improved rail, and railbed and rolling stock. But over the last 12 years, we haven't had the funds to do that with Amtrak. Every industrialized Nation in the world has high-speed intercity passenger service. In France you can travel on the TGV a distance from International Falls to Minneapolis-Saint Paul, 185 miles an hour, 220- some miles, in 80 minutes, 80 minutes, in France. They can do that in Spain on the Talgo. They can do it in Germany on the ICE. They can do it in Japan on the Shinkansen. We don't have a high-speed, 185-mile-an- hour passenger rail service anywhere in America. The best Amtrak can do is 150 miles in a few segments of its track. But if we make the investments, if we invest in improving the tracks, if we invest in the catanaries and improve the patographs on the existing locomotives in the Northeast corridor, we can have that high- speed rail service. We should have it. We should have it on the Northern Tier. We should have it from Chicago down to New Orleans. With we ought to have it all through the Southwest and the Southeast. We need Amtrak rail passenger service in this country. We need a high-speed, modern, intercity rail passenger service in this country. We are a proud industrialized Nation. We have the highest mobility of people in the world. In the aftermath of September 11, what did people take? They couldn't fly, and the highways were crowded. They took Amtrak. We need to upgrade Amtrak. We need to invest in Amtrak. We need to invest in its future. This is where America has an opportunity to move from this highway-dependent economy of ours, reduce our dependence on imported oil, move people more efficiently and more effectively with high-speed intercity passenger rail, as every industrialized nation in the world does except the United States. This is a misguided amendment. I regret that my dear friend, the lovely gentlewoman from central Minnesota, has offered this amendment, one of her first offerings in the House, but I have to say, it is misguided, it is the wrong thing to do. We need to defeat this amendment as we did in the last Congress.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. The chairman has said it very well. The gentleman from Arizona first wants to cut the operating account, and then, after Amtrak is unable to operate, then cut their capital and debt service funds, and then, I guess, bury passenger rail service in America. He doesn't provide for a burial service, however, and we're not about to do that. This would cut the $425 million in capital and debt service grants that would go below the level recommended by Amtrak's Board of Directors, who haven't been known to be generously supportive of their own organization. It would undermine the solvency of Amtrak. The capital needs are critical to operating Amtrak, to bring it to a state of good repair and maintain it in a state of decent and good repair. The capital overhead program on rolling stock is critical to keep aging equipment in safe working order and minimize failures. You should go out sometime to the Amtrak repair facility in Indianapolis and see the highly skilled technicians who are working to repair and restore locomotives and passenger cars and the dining service cars. They are meticulous workers who are saving Amtrak hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars a year by restoring old equipment, putting it into a good state of operation. This amendment would cut the guts out from that operation. That doesn't make any sense whatever. Amtrak has been investing in its deferred capital needs since 2003, incrementally, with not enough money, by far too little to reach the goals that they must attain, but they're doing it nonetheless. And the result is that with those very skilled workers, 70 percent of Amtrak's passenger car fleet and 85 percent of its locomotives will be in a state of good repair by the end of fiscal 2007. Now, if you cut this money out, they'll never be able to bridge the gap and go on to make the other improvements that are needed. I heard the gentleman say, well, we need to cut the funding and force change, and subject Amtrak to market forces. Well, in a hospital you don't cut off the blood supply to a patient and say, we're going to push the patient into a state of good health. That idea went out with applying leeches to the body and draining the body's fluids and essential operations. It doesn't make any sense. And the gentleman, as many others have misguidedly said, we need to subject Amtrak to market forces. That implies that there's some other competitive passenger rail service in this country. There isn't. The railroads abandoned it in the 1960s. They didn't want to operate passenger rail service. It was much easier to carry freight than to carry people in this country. And they ran the passenger rail service into the ground, and then they handed it over to the Federal Government and said, here you take it. You do it. You do something good for the country. Well, Congress did. I was here on the staff at the time when Amtrak was created. There was great hope for it. There were going to be capital investments made. The rail was going to help out with all the support that was needed for the infrastructure of intercity passenger rail. None of that happened. Freight rails last year earned $4.5 billion net after-tax profit hauling freight. Amtrak is on a starvation diet made worse over the last 12 years by this previous leadership in Congress refusing to provide funding. But with a few enlightened Members on the other side supporting us over here, we were able to keep Amtrak alive, just keep it moving along, just hand-to-mouth existence. Well, no more. There's a new leadership in this Congress. The gentleman from Massachusetts has seen the need, seen the opportunity to make investments. He has provided the funding in this bill. We need to move ahead. We should not cut the operating funds nor the capital grants. We ought to be doing far more than we are doing already in this bill. But this is at least a start and moves us in the right direction. We have to defeat this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman, the Chair of our Water Resources Subcommittee, for standing in and carrying on while I was actually returning from Appalachia. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri, our ranking member on the subcommittee, for his strong support of all of the issues before our committee, and particularly these matters today. I was in Sunbury and Shamokin Dam in Pennsylvania with our colleague, Congressman Carney, in his portion of the Appalachian Regional Commission looking at the Economic Development Highway Program of ARC. Well, it's a long stretch from Minnesota to Appalachia, but the Appalachian region is an area that I have been associated with legislatively since I started here in the Congress 44 years ago as clerk of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, to the Committee on Public Works, predecessor to our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I was engaged then in the earliest stages of forming what we know today as the Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional Commission. It was close on the heels of the designation by President John F. Kennedy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. to travel throughout the Appalachian region to assess the conditions of distress, to listen to the concerns of the communities throughout the 13-State region, and to provide him with a report and a road map on dealing with the needs of Appalachia. When John F. Kennedy went into the region, he found a region of poverty, a region of desolation. It struck him as worse than anything he had seen; a region he described as exploited by the coal barons, neglected by government and laid bare by ravages of the boom-and-bust cycles of coal mining. In President Kennedy's words: ``This is an area rich in potential. Its people are hardworking, intelligent, resourceful, capable of responding successfully to education and training. They are loyal to their homes, to their families, to their States and to their country.'' ``The Appalachian region,'' he said, ``is well-endowed with potential water, mineral, forest and scenic resources. This region, properly developed and assisted by the Federal Government, can make a contribution to the Nation's well-being.'' That was in 1960. Following the report of Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., President Kennedy shaped what we know today as the legislation that created the Appalachian Regional Commission, engineered into law by then-President Lyndon Johnson, authored in the Senate by Senator Jennings Randolph, and many cosponsors in the House, including my predecessor John Blotnick. At the time that John F. Kennedy made those observations, the way up for most people in Appalachia was a bus ticket north to Detroit or Chicago. The economy of Appalachia could well be described in those days as 80 acres and a mule. When I traveled as a staff member into the region and saw that people were living in the hard pan areas, where there was no ground filtration for the sewage they were discharging into the creeks and streams, and in many places, generations of dysentery, where people were drinking their own sewage. The area needed highways, airports; it needed vocational training centers; it needed education systems; it needed health care centers; it needed the structure of what 150 years of neglect had denied that area. And through the establishment of the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Federal/State partnership that resulted from it, an area that in 1960, whose income amounted to 45 percent of the national average, today is up to 75 percent of the national average. Where homeownership was a luxury, it is now a reality. Where job creation was nonexistent, it has now returned to this area, fulfilling President Kennedy's promise that the region can make a contribution to the Nation's well- being. And so it did exceedingly well. Over many years, there were efforts to kill Appalachia. I remember so vividly during a hearing that I conducted as Chair of the Economic Development Subcommittee many years ago that we held in eastern Kentucky and brought witnesses from throughout the region, including from Tennessee, and I remember Ms. Tilda Kemplan, director of a child resource center, testifying at our field hearing and saying, ``Gentlemen, when you go back to Washington, try not to look at that dollar and see George Washington, but look over the top of the dollar and see a child and see our future.'' And that is what Appalachia has done. The Appalachian Regional Commission has caused us to look over the top of the dollar and to see a child and to see the future of the region. In another community we talked to members of the city council and the chamber of commerce. One of them said, very touchingly, ``Before the ARC, we were so far down we had to look up to see bottom, but now we see a future.'' And in another community in West Virginia, the mayor of the town took us to his small business. Congressman Nick Rahall was along, this was his district. And as the mayor and businessman explaining his operation and the need for road, for airport, for rail transportation, describing the needs and the good things that had been accomplished so far with the ARC, I looked at the wall behind the cash register, and there was a sign that read: ``God never put nobody in a place too small to grow.'' Appalachia has been growing, the counties throughout this region, growing and overcoming 150 years of neglect and decline; making investments, creating opportunities, building for the future. One of the reports about a decade ago by the commission, their annual report on progress, said: ``Halfway home and a long way to go.'' Well, there's still a long way to go, but the march forward has been much improved, vastly improved by the investments we have made in partnership with the States throughout this region. Continuing the investments, as we have done in the SAFETEA-LU Appalachia Backbone Highway Program at $470 million a year, continuing with the more than $400 million over the 4 years of the authorization in this bill, we will continue that partnership with the States, the communities, the neighborhood, the people of the Appalachian region. It is an investment of which all America can be proud, and of which all America has benefited. I thank the gentleman from Missouri, and, heck, my colleagues on the Republican side of the committee. Throughout this whole initiative from the 1960s, this has been a totally bipartisan effort. And I recall, especially during the Reagan years when the Reagan administration was proposing to abolish the ARC and Congressman Hal Rogers, the former chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee of appropriations, said, ``We're not going to let them wear us down. We're going to proceed. We're going to prevail. We have prevailed. Appalachia prevails. And America prevails with it.'' Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 799, a bipartisan bill to improve the programs authorized by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-4) and reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission (``ARC'') for 5 years through FY 2011. The Appalachian Regional Commission was created to address economic issues and social problems of the Appalachian region as a part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society program. Historically, the Appalachian region has faced high levels of poverty and economic distress resulting from geographic isolation and inadequate infrastructure. As a regional economic development agency, ARC supports the development of Appalachia's economy and critical infrastructure to provide a climate for industry growth and job creation. ARC programs affect 406 counties located in 13 states, including all of West Virginia, and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The Appalachian region covers nearly 200,000 square miles and contains approximately 22 million people. Currently, of the 406 counties included in the ARC, 114 are considered to be distressed counties. Since its creation in 1965, ARC has administered a variety of programs to aid in the advancement of the region, including the creation of a highway system, enhancements in education and job training, and the development of water and sewer systems. ARC's funding and projects have contributed significantly to employment, health, and general economic development improvements in the region. Because of its efficiencies in decision-making and service delivery, ARC served as a model for the Delta Regional Authority. ARC is successful because it responds to identified and agreed upon needs, and is extremely flexible in its approach. According to research conducted by Brandow Co. and the Economic Development Research Group, three fourths of ARC infrastructure projects with specific business or job- related goals met or exceeded formal projections. This is a very robust figure. H.R. 799 builds on more than four decades of economic development successes by providing additional, much-needed Federal investment in the region. The bill allows ARC to continue its economic development activities using such tools as the telecommunication and technology initiative, and the entrepreneurship initiation to improve the quality of life for the citizens of Appalachia. Further, the bill provides authority for the Commission to make technical assistance grants for energy efficient projects or projects to increase the use of renewable energy resources. This bill also authorizes the designation of ``at risk'' counties, which are counties in the Appalachian region that are most at risk of becoming economically distressed, and identifies the percentage of funds for which these counties are eligible. ARC's authorization expired at the end of FY 2006. During the 109th Congress, the Committee's bipartisan leadership introduced H.R. 5812, a bill reauthorizing ARC through FY 2011. Although the Senate passed S. 2832 to reauthorize the ARC, the Senate-passed bill did not include the anti-earmarking provision of H.R. 5812. The House did not pass S. 2832 and no further action was taken on H.R. 5812. This bill includes the anti-earmarking provision. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio. He did great service, Madam Speaker, during his chairmanship of the Economic Development Subcommittee in service to the needs of the Appalachian Regional Commission, the ARC, and the Federal Economic Development Administration programs throughout the country. Adding these counties is an appropriate and necessary step to help lift the region further toward the future of continued economic growth. I was very touched by the gentleman's remarks about education and the increase in education rights. He spoke well and rightly. I do want to emphasize for the record, though, that included among all the many beneficial provisions of this bill is an important limitation on earmarking of funds within the ARC. In the past, and it has usually happened in conference, but also occasionally in the House appropriations bill, funds have been earmarked for one or another project which has undercut the effectiveness of the Federal-State partnership and the authenticity of the grass-roots up process of project designation, development and implementation. Using the appropriations process to direct funds has disadvantaged the other regions, of the other States within the region, and has devalued the funding that Congress has appropriated. More importantly, it devalues the Federal, State, and local partnership, the very effective grass- roots up process of project selection within Appalachia. It says your judgment doesn't count. We know better. The authenticity and effectiveness of the ARC program derives exactly from its grass-roots initiative. So I was very insistent in the last Congress on finding a means by which we could thwart the earmarking. We have it in this bill. Our Senate counterparts have concurred that they want to follow this procedure. It will inure to the benefit of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce H.R. 2881, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007'', a bill that provides historic funding levels for the Federal Aviation Administration's (``FAA'') capital Programs. Between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2011, the bill provides $15.8 billion for the Airport Improvement Program (``AIP''), and nearly $13 billion for FAA Facilities & Equipment (``F&E''). These robust funding levels will enable the FAA to modernize our air traffic control (``ATC'') system and make capacity enhancing improvements at our nation's airports. In addition, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 also provides $37.2 billion--one-half billion more than the FAA's recommendation--for FAA Operations over the next four years. ATC Modernization Modernizing our air transportation system is a national priority. The FAA forecasts that airlines are expected to carry more than one billion passengers by 2015, increasing from approximately 740 million in 2006. The Department of Transportation (``DOT'') predicts up to a tripling of passengers, operations and cargo by 2025. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 applies a four-part approach to ATC modernization and the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), including more funding, authority, accountability, and oversight. The historic funding levels authorized for the FAA's F&E account will: accelerate the implementation of NextGen; enable FAA to replace and repair existing facilities and equipment; and provide for the development and implementation of high-priority safety-related systems. To increase the authority and visibility of the Joint Planning and Development Office (``JPDO''), which provides the plan for NextGen, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 elevates the Director of the JPDO to the status of Associate Administrator for NextGen within the FAA. It also mandates that the JPDO develop a work plan that details, on a year-by-year basis, specific NextGen-related deliverables for the FAA and its partner agencies, and requires the Secretary of Transportation to report on the plan's progress each year. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 contains provisions to hold the FAA's vendors accountable for providing safe, quality services to consumers and to protect the Government's interest in major NextGen-related acquisitions. The FAA's ATC modernization program has historically experienced massive cost overruns and delays. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 authorizes Government Accountability Office (``GAO''), Department of Transportation Inspector General (``DOT IG'') and National Research Council audits and reports related to NextGen that will help Congress exercise its oversight responsibilities. Financing Due to the projected growth of Airport and Airway Trust Fund (``Trust Fund'') revenue, I do not believe radical financing reform is necessary. I am recommending to the Committee on Ways and Means that the general aviation jet fuel tax rate be adjusted for inflation from 21.8 cents per gallon to 30.7 cents per gallon, and that the aviation gasoline tax rate be increased from 19.3 cents per gallon to 24.1 cents per gallon. I believe that the forecasted growth of Trust Fund revenues, coupled with additional revenue from the recommended general aviation fuel tax rate increases, will be sufficient to provide for the robust capital funding required to modernize the ATC system, as well as to stabilize and strengthen the Trust Fund. Airport Funding Madam Speaker, in June, DOT reported that only 72.5 percent of domestic flights by the United States' 20 largest airlines arrived on- time in January, February, March, and April--the worst showing for those four months since DOT began reporting on-time performance in 1995. This is unacceptable. Robust investment in airport infrastructure is necessary to enhance capacity and combat delays. According to the FAA, the majority of air traffic delays at the top 35 airports, which account for 73 percent of passenger enplanements, can be traced to inadequate throughput. To quote the FAA: ``The construction of new runways and runway extensions are the most effective method of increasing throughput.'' The FAA's 2007-2011 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (``NPIAS'') states that during the next five years, there will be $41.2 billion of AlP-eligible infrastructure development, an annual average of $8.2 billion. This $41.2 billion includes approximately $18 billion in runway-related needs, including new runway, taxiway and apron construction. However, in March 2007, the FAA testified that the current NPIAS report may understate the true cost of needed capital investment, as sharp increases in construction costs occurring in the last half of 2006 were not fully reflected. The 2007-2011 Airports Council International--North America Capital Needs Survey estimates total airport capital needs--including the cost of non-AIP-eligible projects--to be about $87.4 billion or $17.5 billion per year from 2007 through 2011. In March 2007, the American Association of Airport Executives testified that according to the January 1, 2007 Means Construction Cost Indexes, the average construction costs for 30 major U.S. cities have risen more than 24 percent in the past three years--at an average annual rate of more than 7.5 percent. To combat inflation and to help airports meet increased capital needs, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 would increase the Passenger Facility Charge (``PFC'') cap from $4.50 to $7.00. According to FAA, if every airport currently collecting a $4.00 or $4.50 PFC raised its PFC to $7.00, it would generate approximately $1.1 billion in additional revenue for airport development each year. H.R. 2881 also provides significant increases in AlP funding for smaller airports, which are particularly reliant on AlP for capital financing. Small Communities The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 rejects the Administration's proposal to cut funding for the Essential Air Service (``EAS'') program by more than one-half, to $50 million, and instead increases the total amount authorized for EAS each year from $127 million to $133 million (including $50 million derived from overflight fees). To improve the quality of air service received by EAS communities, the bill authorizes the Secretary to incorporate financial incentives into EAS contracts based on specified performance goals. In addition, to encourage increased air carrier participation in the EAS program, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to enter into long- term EAS contracts that would provide more stability for participating air carriers. In contrast to the Administration's proposal to sunset the Small Community Air Service Development program on September 30, 2008, the bill extends the Small Community program through FY 2011, at the current authorized funding level of $35 million per year. Environment Being ever mindful of the obstacles that the United States still faces in trying to expand our airport capacity through infrastructure improvements, and balancing the needs of airport neighborhoods, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 contains several environmental-related provisions, including a phase out of noisy stage 2 aircraft over the next five years; a pilot program for the development, maturing and certification of continuous lower energy, emissions and noise engine and airframe technology; as well as a program to fund six projects at public-use airports to take promising environmental research concepts into the actual airport environment to demonstrate the reduction or mitigation of aviation impacts on noise, air quality or water quality in the airport environment. In addition, the FAA is directed in this bill to establish a pilot program at five public-use airports to design, develop, and test new air traffic flow management technologies to better manage the flow of aircraft on the ground and reduce ground holds and idling times for aircraft with the goal of reducing emissions and increase fuel savings. Safety As to safety, the bill authorizes $570 million over four years to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors by more than one- third. The bill also provides robust funding to address runway safety issues, including $42 million over four years for runway incursion reduction programs; $74 million over four years for runway status light acquisition and installation, as well as requires FAA to report to Congress on a plan for the installation and deployment of systems to alert controllers or flight crews to potential runway incursions. In addition, the bill would require twice a year inspections of foreign repair stations. The very serious issue of flight crew fatigue is addressed in the bill by requiring the FAA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on pilot fatigue, and then to consider the findings of the academy and update, where appropriate, its regulations with regard to flight time limitations and rest requirements for pilots. Importantly, H.R. 2881 also directs the FAA to initiate long-overdue action to ensure crewmember safety by applying occupational health standards onboard aircraft. Finally, two very important issues will be considered during the Committee markup as amendments to the bill: the first will address the ongoing dispute between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (``NATCA'') and the FAA over failed contract negotiations by establishing a new dispute resolution procedure and requiring the parties to go back to the negotiating table; the second will address the disparate treatment of employees of express delivery companies under our nation's labor laws. Adoption of these amendments will go a long way toward restoring collective bargaining rights to this critical workforce. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that will keep our skies safe and our passengers moving well into the future.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 801, a bill to designate the United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street in Fresno, California, as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''. The bill was introduced by Senator Boxer, Chairwoman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the U.S. Senate. Judge Coyle was born in Fresno, California, in 1930. In 1953, he graduated from Fresno State College and received his law degree from Hastings College of Law in 1956. From 1956 until 1958, Judge Coyle was Deputy District Attorney for Fresno County. From 1958 until 1982, he was a lawyer in a private practice. He was appointed to the Federal bench in 1982, and served as the Chief Judge for the Eastern District of California from 1990 to 1996. In 2006, he retired as a Senior Judge. Judge Coyle is a dedicated jurist and active in many professional organizations, including the Fresno County Legal Services, President of the Fresno Bar Association, Vice President of the California State Bar Association, and a faculty member at the Hastings College of Law. Judge Coyle has a particular connection to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management through his work with the courts on development of the Design Guide for construction of U.S. courthouses. It is fitting and proper that we honor Judge Coyle's prestigious and outstanding career by designating the United States Courthouse in Fresno, California, as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''. I support S. 801 and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 505, which urges the President to proclaim July 1, 2007, as ``National Boating Day''. Recreational boating is enjoyed by millions of Americans and is a major force in the U.S. economy, providing jobs for almost 400,000 citizens and generating more than $39 million in revenue. Recreational boating provides enjoyment, rest and relaxation for families of all ages. In addition, recreational boaters often serve as educators and stewards of our natural resources. Recreational boat-builders--from the large corporation to the individual--build vessels for the enjoyment of millions of people, using both natural and manmade materials from across our great Nation. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein) for introducing this resolution and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 505, which urges the President to proclaim July 1 as ``National Boating Day''.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2011, a bill to designate the Federal building and United States Courthouse in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, as the ``George Howard, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. Judge George Howard, Jr. was born in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on May 13, 1924. He began his service to our Nation at the age of 18 when he was drafted into military service during World War II. Judge Howard served with distinction in the United States Navy with the Construction Battalion--or the ``Seabees''--in the South Pacific. After completing his military service, Judge George Howard, Jr. returned to Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and re-enrolled in high school to complete his high school education. Upon graduating from high school, Judge Howard attended the pre-law program at Lincoln University in Missouri and graduated with honors. Judge Howard subsequently attended the University of Arkansas School of Law. He was the first African- American student to live on campus in the newly desegregated campus dormitories. He earned his law degree in 1954. After graduating from law school, Judge Howard began a long, illustrious, and trailblazing legal career in his home State of Arkansas. In the 1950s, Judge Howard started a private law practice and devoted his energies to representing those whose voices would not otherwise be heard. He subsequently served on the Arkansas State Claims Commission, the Arkansas Court of Appeals, and the Arkansas Supreme Court. In 1980, President Carter appointed Judge Howard to the U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Judge Howard was Arkansas' first African-American Federal judge. Through his pursuit of legal and racial equality, and his exemplary career in public service, Judge Howard helped to pave the way for other African-Americans to pursue careers in law and public service. From his time as a private attorney, to his service as President of the State Council of Branches of the National Association of Colored People, NAACP, Judge Brown's judicial ideals were grounded in the fundamental belief of justice for all. Judge Howard passed away on April 21, 2007, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, at the age of 82. In honor of Judge George Howard, Jr.'s outstanding contributions to the State of Arkansas, the Federal judiciary, and his distinguished legal career, it is both fitting and proper to designate the courthouse located at in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, the ``George Howard, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2011.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, today I introduce H.R. 2775, a bill to authorize funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grant (``EMPG'') program. H.R. 2775 authorizes $1.35 billion for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 for the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (``FEMA'') to continue to implement the EMPG program. The bill codifies the EMPG program under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (``Stafford Act''). EMPG is the Federal Government's principal program to build the capability of State and local governments to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. Administered by FEMA, EMPG is truly a partnership between the Federal Government and State and local governments that has withstood the test of time. This grant program has been in existence, under different names, since the 1950s and derives its authority from the Stafford Act. As recent history has shown, despite the grave potential threat that terrorism poses, our country faces and responds to the threats of natural hazards far more frequency. The terror of Katrina is still fresh in our memories, and our Nation faces smaller-scale natural disasters every day. Just last month, a region of my district was devastated by a threat that started in the U.S., then roared across the Canadian border: not a terrorist attack, but a 75,000 acre forest fire. Despite the risk that our country faces from all hazards, EMPG receives a small fraction of what the Federal Government spends on terrorism-specific programs. In April, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management held a hearing on the Federal Government's programs related to preparedness for all hazards. At that hearing, Members of the Subcommittee learned that in FY 2006, EMPG received only a small fraction--about 10 percent--of the funding allocated to terrorism preparedness programs. EMPG has a long, successful history of fostering true preparedness capabilities at the State and local level. The program requires a non- Federal share of 50 percent, but state and local governments overmatch Federal funds by approximately $96 million each year. This 50-percent cost share is specifically designed to require State and local governments to contribute their resources to building strong emergency management capabilities. This is why, unlike many other Federal grant programs, State and local governments have not sought an increased Federal cost share for this program. Recently, some in Congress and in the Administration have sought to undermine and undo the EMPG program, by proposing changes that stand to gut the core all hazards nature of the program. I introduce this bill today to provide the current EMPG program with statutory reinforcement. The administration proposed in its FY 2008 Budget request that EMPG should be combined with terrorism programs. I am pleased that the FY 2008 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, passed by the House last week, rejected this misguided proposal and funds EMPG as a separate program. The Committee on Appropriations recognized the importance of the EMPG program as ``the one true all-hazard sources of funding for emergency managers,'' as stated in the Committee report. In the same manner that Congress must wall off and protect the appropriation for EMPG, we must act to reinforce this program through an authorization. It has been suggested, in the other body, that the EMPG program be codified as an amendment to an act other than the Stafford Act. In fact, the Senate does exactly that in its version of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill (S. 4). This approach would be a mistake. If EMPG is authorized outside of the Stafford Act, DHS may use its administrative authority to turn EMPG into another terrorism preparedness program. This shift would undercut all-hazards preparedness and place States in danger of not being ready for natural disasters and other non- terrorism hazards, which are significantly, even drastically, more likely to occur. The Stafford Act is the natural and historic home for this program. The authority to prepare for all hazards must be kept together with the authority to respond to, recover from, and mitigate against all hazards, which is found in the Stafford Act. This view is supported by the nation's State and local emergency managers. One of the key lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina is that separating the programs and organizations that prepare for disasters from the rest of the emergency management system leads to sluggish and ineffective response. Recognizing this mistake, Congress reunited preparedness with the rest of emergency management functions in FEMA at the end of the 109th Congress, by passing the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. This reorganization of FEMA became effective less than 3 months ago, on April 1, 2007. Authorizing EMPG as a program separate from the other emergency management programs would begin to undo this much-needed reform, and reinstate the mistakes that led to the Department of Homeland Security's dismal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 354, recognizing the year 2007 as the official 50th anniversary celebration of the beginnings of marinas, power production, recreation, and boating on Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia. Lake Lanier is named after Sidney Clopton Lanier, a poet and musician who was born in Macon, Georgia, in 1842. After participating in battle during the Civil War, and being captured and imprisoned in Point Lookout, Maryland, Mr. Lanier contracted tuberculosis, which would affect him for the rest of his life. Mr. Lanier's life was one of practicality and beauty: while he practiced law to support his wife and four children, he was also the first flutist in the Peabody Orchestra in Baltimore, Maryland, and an accomplished poet. The Lake was named after Mr. Lanier because of the way he positively portrayed the Chattahoochee River in his poetry. In fact, Lake Lanier itself is a symbol of both practicality and beauty. It provides crucial flood control, protecting approximately $2 billion worth of property in the surrounding area. Similarly, on June 16, 1957--50 years ago this week--Buford Dam began producing power for the first time. Hydropower continues to flow from these waters to this day. Although the lake is one of 464 lakes constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it has won the annual award for ``best operated lake'' for three separate years: 1990, 1997, and 2002. While the flood control, water supply, and power production role of Lake Lanier may be critical to the continuing livelihood of the communities in the surrounding area, the lake also provides beautiful scenery and recreational opportunities that local citizens and visiting tourists enjoy. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that more than 7.5 million people visit the 692 miles of lake shoreline each year. I urge my colleagues to join with me in recognizing the 50th anniversary of Lake Lanier.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, last month the House of Representatives voted on important legislation including VA health care bills, lobbying reform legislation, and amendments to the fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriations bill. During the consideration of these bills, I was in Minnesota to attend the funeral Mass for my uncle, Frank Oberstar. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to recommit to H.R. 1100 (rollcall vote 408); I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1100 (rollcall vote 409); I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 67, ``Veterans Outreach Improvement Act'' (rollcall vote 410); I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 612, ``Returning Servicemember VA Healthcare Insurance Act'' (rollcall vote 411); I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1470, ``Chiropractic Care Available to All Veterans Act'' (rollcall vote 412); I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 2199 ``Traumatic Brain Injury Health Enhancement and Long-Term Support Act'' (rollcall vote 413); I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 2239, ``Early Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Benefits Act'' (rollcall vote 414). I would have voted ``aye'' to order the previous question on H. Res. 427 (rollcall vote 415); I would have voted ``aye'' to approve H. Res. 427 (rollcall vote 416). I would have voted ``aye'' to order the previous question on H. Res. 438 (rollcall vote 417), and I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 438 (rollcall vote 418). I would have voted ``nay'' on the Smith motion to recommit with instructions on H.R. 2317 (rollcall vote 419); I would have voted ``aye'' on passage on H.R. 2317 (rollcall vote 420); I would have voted ``aye'' on the Conyers amendment to H.R. 2316 (rollcall vote 421); I would have voted ``aye'' on the Chabot motion to recommit with instructions on H.R. 2318 (rollcall vote 422); I would have voted ``aye'' on passage on H.R. 2316 (rollcall vote 423). Because of my strong support for important and necessary funding for VA health care; necessary assistance for the Gulf region and U.S. farmers, and my support for an increase in the minimum wage, I would have voted ``aye'' on House Amendment 1 to H.R. 2206, the fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriations bill (rollcall vote 424. Because House Amendment 2 to H.R. 2206 failed to provide reasonable accountability provisions to measure the Administration's Iraq policy, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 425.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, 189 years ago, on May 22, 1819, the steamship Savannah departed Savannah, Georgia, on the first transatlantic voyage by a steamship. This voyage demonstrated the commercial viability of steamships and meant that commercial shipping was no longer totally dependent upon the wind. The U.S.-flag merchant marine has continued to promote international transportation and global trade. U.S.-flag shipping companies lead the way in the invention and development of containerized shipping and the double-stacked train system. If it were not for visionaries such as Malcolm McLean, cargo would still be transported in small boxes and loaded on a ship like you see in old movies. Today's modern containership can carry over 12,000 20-foot containers, equivalent to 6,000 semi-trailer trucks on our highways. The merchant marine has also made significant contributions to the freedom and liberty that we enjoy in the United States. Civilian mariners served gallantly during World War II transporting arms and supplies in support of our military forces. More than 700 cargo ships and 6,000 mariners died in that war. U.S. mariners have continued to service during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and now in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Mr. Speaker, President Franklin D. Roosevelt first called on Americans to commemorate National Maritime Day in 1933. Today, it is fitting that the House of Representatives recognize National Maritime Day to honor the men and women that have served our Nation in the U.S. merchant marine. They have transformed our Nation from an island nation into the hub of the world's commerce. They have shown how U.S. technology can revolutionize the world. Yet to many Americans, maritime transportation is the invisible component of our global transportation system. People have no idea how goods manufactured in China suddenly appear on store shelves in their neighborhood. This global logistics system is now vital to the U.S. economy. U.S. manufacturers no longer have large warehouses stocked full of spare parts for their factories. They are dependent on a ``just in time'' delivery system that will supply them with the components they need within days or hours of their being assembled. If this global trade were to be shut down for a few days, store shelves would begin to become empty and factory production lines would be shut down. I hope that in the coming year we can help Americans understand the important contributions that the U.S. merchant marine makes to all of our lives and that we develop legislation to help increase the size of the U.S.-flag fleet competing in the world trade. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 413, recognizing the service of U.S. Merchant Marine veterans today on National Maritime Day.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his splendid leadership of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, this portion of the session holding intensive hearings charting the future course for transportation as we move into the second half of the authorization of the SAFETEA-LU bill, and laying the groundwork for the future transportation of America. The gentleman has done a superb job. I congratulate the Congresswoman, Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, for recognizing the threat of Mexican trucks admitted unabashedly, without restraint, into the United States, or very minimal restraint that the Department proposed. I also express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for participating throughout the shaping of this legislation and working constructively for a reasonable counter to the administration's plan. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) with his ever-judicial manner has helped us shape a very good balance to the allowing of Mexican trucks into the United States. This cross-border pilot program the administration launched is not just a little initiative, something to let pass, it's a major shift in transportation policy. They were intent on opening the border with minimum public notification and at great cost to safety. Despite serious concerns raised by the Congress, by safety advocates in the private sector, by nonprofit organizations, by States who were concerned about Mexican-domiciled trucks coming into the United States, this legislation limits the authority of the Secretary to open the U.S.-Mexican border to trucks coming into the United States. It will not allow a 1-year pilot program as simply a gimmick, a ruse, under which they can allow the border to be opened unilaterally under terms and conditions that the Department or the administration might choose. Instead, we have a strict set of prerequisites, a strict set of conditions. A pilot program of 3 years, 100 motor carriers for Mexico, 1,000 trucks, does not provide blanket authority for 3 years. If the Secretary fails to comply with any provision of the act, the program terminates. We also require the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, concurrently, while the program is under way, to review and report back to the public, to the Congress, to the Department where there are failures and deviations, if there are any, from the program that we have set in place, especially if Mexican carriers do not meet strict Federal safety requirements. This is not a run, operate, and evaluate. It is operate and concurrently evaluate what the Department is doing, what the Mexican trucks are doing. Are they, in Mexico, requiring fundamental elements of highway safety that U.S. drivers are required to submit to? Do they have hours of service requirements comparable to those in the United States? Mexico does not have a single certified lab to test drivers for drug and alcohol compliance, as our drivers are required to be subjected to. The Inspector General has to verify that every requirement of section 350 of Public Law 107-87, the basic authority under which they propose to operate, has sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure safety, to enforce safety. DOT has to also, under this legislation, provide the public with an opportunity to comment on issues of safety and cabotage, that the trucks that come into the United States and deliver goods to a destination point and carry goods back to Mexico aren't moving goods from one U.S. city to another U.S. city in violation of our cabotage laws. We don't allow it in aviation; we are not going to allow it in trucking. We are living up to our commitments under NAFTA, but we have put in place requirements that are vigorous, protections that are important to protect travelers on our U.S. roads from failures in Mexico. Now, the Department of Transportation has sent up their letter, their statement of policy, in which in one place there is a complaint that this legislation gives the agency ``only 5 days to take action necessary to address adverse findings or terminate the program.'' That's a requirement on safety. If you find an unsafe condition, how much longer than 5 days do you want to allow it to go? How much longer do you want to have an unsafe condition existing on our roads? That's just dead wrong. Then, in another provision, they complain that we, their language says, purporting to require the Secretary of Transportation to submit legislative recommendations to Congress. They submit legislative recommendations to Congress, every executive branch agency. Whether we want them or not, they submit legislative recommendations. We are saying the Secretary may submit. If there are some things they want changed, we invite them to submit their recommendations to the Congress. I simply don't buy that. I think they are sort of a half-hearted statement. This is good legislation, good sound policy. It protects U.S. drivers and allows us to keep commitments under NAFTA, and we will protect American roadways.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Jim Leach was a very decent, distinguished and thoughtful Member of Congress. He was a learned Member of the body. He's a personal friend. He served this country in many capacities. He began his service as a staff member for then-Congressman Don Rumsfeld. He went to the State Department in 1968. He served as special assistant to director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. He served in capacities with the United Nations, with the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Education and Cultural Affairs. He served in an advisory capacity with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, rather well-rounded career before being elected to Congress one term after I was elected. He chaired, at one point, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Subcommittee on Asian Pacific Affairs, and the Congressional Executive Commission on China. He, along the way, collected a number of honorary degrees. He's the recipient of the Wayne Morris Integrity in Politics Award, the Woodrow Wilson award from Johns Hopkins University, the Adlai Stevenson Award from the United Nations Association, and an award from the Sierra Club, the Edgar Wayburn award. He's now serving on the faculty of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs as a visiting professor. He's been ably succeeded by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), and I really congratulate him and the entire Iowa delegation for so graciously and thoughtfully introducing and supporting this bill to honor one of Congress's most respected and well-liked Members. There are rare people who pass through this body and leave with good feelings and with good memories by those of us who continue to serve, and Jim Leach is one of those. It is very appropriate to designate the U.S. courthouse at Davenport, Iowa, in his honor, in his name. And, again, I really express my great admiration to the Iowa delegation for so recognizing this distinguished former Member of Congress. His service in no way takes away from the service of Mr. Loebsack who succeeded him, who is, himself, a distinguished professor, has distinguished himself in the arena of public policy during his college teaching career, and brings that same thoughtfulness and constructiveness to the public policy process that his predecessor did, whom we honor today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and respect the memory of Jim Leach.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. It is very important to move this legislation. The former chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress, but for various reasons of logjams, legislative logjams, it just didn't make it to the House floor because of scheduling problems of the House. But it is very important for the Alaska Railroad, which is an entity of the State of Alaska, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has several times talked to me about the need to move this bill. We had it all ready to go in the last Congress, as I said, and I am very happy we are able to bring it up early on in this session of the 110th Congress. If looked at on its face, it would be a very simple matter to do, a 78,000 square foot parcel of real property in Anchorage, Alaska, needed for the Alaska Railroad's operations. But as we got into it, the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office raised some scoring issues. So in further review of the matter, we found a way to subject the transfer and the transfer of funds to the appropriation process. That removes the scoring issue. The Administrator of GSA will require the Administrator of the Railroad Corporation to pay fair market value of the property based on highest and best use by an independent appraisal, and that independent appraisal will be commissioned by the Administrator of GSA and will be paid for by the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Then that money will be deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund and the whole exercise will be subject to the appropriation process. That way the interests of the Federal Government are fully protected and the entire transaction will be totally transparent. It is a very good outcome. It benefits the GSA. It benefits the Public Buildings Fund of the Federal Government, and it benefits the Alaska Railroad and the State of Alaska. I know that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is very pleased with the outcome, and I want to thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management for his participation through this process and bringing it to a successful conclusion and also the Chair of our subcommittee, Chairwoman Norton. With that, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 123, which authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run. Thanks to the tenacity to Eunice Kennedy Shriver and her family, thousands of Special Olympians see their self-confidence, self-esteem, and health increase by participating in the Special Olympics. These games highlight the athletic feats of mentally challenged children and young adults. Confidence and self-esteem are the building blocks for these Olympic Games. Better health, coordination, and lasting friendships are the results of participation. The Law Enforcement Torch Run for the Special Olympics is run nationwide by law enforcement officers, leading up to each state's and the national Special Olympics Summer Games. Each year, nearly 50 local and Federal law enforcement agencies in Washington, DC, participate to show their support of the DC Special Olympics. This torch relay event is a traditional part of the opening ceremonies for the Special Olympics. Law enforcement officers, who are part of the extensive volunteer network that supports the games, carry the Olympic torch across the Capitol Grounds through the District of Columbia to Catholic University. The Capitol Police, along with the DC Special Olympics, will participate in the torch run to be held on June 8, 2007. Each year, approximately 2,500 Special Olympians of all ages compete in the DC Special Olympics in more than a dozen events. The event is supported by thousands of volunteers from the District and the region and is attended by thousands more family and friends of Special Olympians. These games are a wonderful expression of inclusiveness and a confirmation of individual contribution. I enthusiastically support this resolution and the very worthwhile endeavor of the Special Olympics. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 123.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 352, supporting the goals and ideals of National Public Works Week. Our Nation's public works--which consist of transportation systems, water supply infrastructure, sewage and refuse disposal systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities--help our country function in an efficient and effective manner. As our public works support our economy, our public health, and our communities' livelihood, we must support the many public works professionals who design, build, operate, maintain, and protect these systems and structures. National Public Works Week is observed for a full week in May each year. House Resolution 352 pays tribute to public works professionals, celebrating their work the week of May 20 through 26, 2007. Without our vast network of rail, highways, airports, and public transit, our industries would not have the global reach that they currently utilize each working day. Without these transportation systems, many tourists would not have the chance to experience the vastly different climates and cultures our Nation has to offer. Without our water supply systems, or our sewage and waste disposal facilities. our communities would not be able to exist and thrive. Simple conveniences that we may take for granted--running water in our homes for cooking and cleaning, and water systems that feed our backyard gardens, as well as our agriculture, factories, and industry-- would not be possible without the dedicated work of the public works professionals who keep these facilities moving on a daily basis. Indeed, it is often only when our systems and facilities fail to work consistently that we appreciate their contribution to our daily routines. Infrastructure keeps our country working, but in previous legislative sessions, we have not kept working on our infrastructure. In the ``2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance'' report prepared by the Department of Transportation, the Department confirms that investment in the Nation's highway, bridge, and transit infrastructure has not kept pace with demands on the system. This Congress, we are working to reverse this unjustifiable trend. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has taken our public works needs seriously. Since the start of the 110th Congress, the Committee has shepherded four critical water infrastructure bills through the House: H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2007; H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act of 2007; H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007; and H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. It is my hope that this Resolution will reinforce the necessity for our colleagues in the other body to pass similar legislation. It is critical for us to conference these bills without delay, and ask the President to recognize both the needs and the accomplishments of public works and its professionals. I celebrate our country's transportation and infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting House Resolution 352, to honor the professionals who provide the backbone for our transportation and infrastructure systems and facilities.