James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what was unique about and continues to be unique about the interstate highway system is the Federal-State partnership that I referenced earlier, not public-private financing, not bond financing, as was proposed by Eisenhower's Secretary of Treasury and rejected by this House of Representatives, but a shared partnership, shared in financing 90 percent Federal, 10 percent State, shared in designing the route structure and the system to connect cities of 50,000 or greater population throughout this country, and to vastly enhance safety. What we are hearing since enactment of SAFETEA-LU that took the Federal highway program to new financing, $286.3 billion, is worry about availability of funds for the future and the surface transportation subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin, has held several very thoughtful, productive, in-depth hearings on how not only the interstate, but how the total national highway system will be financed in the coming years. We also directed a commission to be established in the enactment of SAFETEA-LU to evaluate financing plans and to report back to the Congress on financing. I am not enamored of public-private financing issues. I am not enamored and am very much opposed to toll systems. They will not be a sustained program. Toll roads, toll bridges would not have brought us the interstate highway system that we have, we enjoy today that was a marvel of the industrial world. We need to sustain the highway trust fund, keep it a user-based system, and its inherent genius is that it never has nor can it or ever will it run a deficit. In contrast, the surplus funds in the highway trust fund for many years, from 1968 through 1998, were used to finance, to cover up deficits and finance other activities of the Federal Government. We must not allow that to recur, although it has. There is a surplus built up where the trust fund is being used to overshadow parts of the deficit. We must continue this sustained financing, self-supporting financing mechanism that does not run a deficit, that is user-based, that is broad-based, that is egalitarian in its application. For President Eisenhower, I would say history should and has already judged him very warmly, not only for his military leadership, but for what he has done for infrastructure and his support, not just passing, but from personal experience of the interstate highway system, which we have already discussed. But he signed into law the legislation establishing the St. Lawrence Seaway, providing for the U.S. partnership in Canada in opening the fourth sea coast of the United States, and creation of the FAA from the old Civil Aeronautics Authority, the first-ever construction funding to help build runways to accommodate the Jet Age in 1958, which was just dawning upon America. We didn't know what to do with this new-type civilian aircraft, but we knew and engineers knew that they had to have better runways, better taxiways, better terminals. President Eisenhower understood that and signed into law the legislation not only to create the Federal Aviation Administration and the old CAA, but also funding for the construction of the needed high-quality runways to accommodate the Jet Age. His legacy is really remarkable when we think back in perspective of what was needed to build the base of America, build our economic strength through our transportation infrastructure. What we celebrate in this legislation today is the accomplishment of that interstate highway system. It is a golden anniversary. As my colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, said, I am looking forward to the next 50 years, provided there is enough fuel to get us there. I join with my good friend and colleague from the State of Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). His leadership on the subcommittee of surface transportation has been superb in asking all Members to join in support of this legislation honoring the 50th anniversary of the interstate highway program. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his very thoughtful historical rendition of the evolution of the interstate highway program. This resolution honors the golden anniversary of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. But the original interstate highway, one that linked several States, was charted by George Washington in 1784, a year after the Revolutionary War concluded. Traveling to the Ohio country on horseback, Washington carefully observed the people and the land. He saw that settlers were trapped, that they could fall under the control, as he wrote, of ``the Spaniards on their right or Great Britain on their left.'' He recognized the need to unite our new Nation by opening, as he called it, a smooth way through the Appalachian Mountains to enable the settlers, again as he put it, ``to pass our markets before the trade may get into another channel.'' A quaint way of saying things. Washington determined the best route through the mountains was Nemacolin's Trail, a network of old Indian hunting paths that Washington knew well from his early days as a surveyor. It took almost 50 years to convert the trail into the first federally funded interstate highway that we now know as the National Road. There is little dispute that, as Chairman Petri mentioned earlier, Thomas Harris MacDonald, chief of the Bureau of Public Roads for 34 years, from 1919 to 1953, was the visionary who developed the initial plans for the present day interstate highway system. In fact, Chief MacDonald's stature was such that when I started here on the Hill as a junior staff person on the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors of the Committee on Public Works his name was revered. The people almost bowed in mentioning his name. He really developed the plans for the present interstate highway system. In 1938, the Congress mandated development of a plan for an interstate highway system. MacDonald laid out the plan in a report entitled ``Toll Roads and Free Roads,'' 1939. Based on that report, Congress in 1944, as it could see the end of World War II, directed the Bureau of Public Roads to undertake a study of a nationwide system of interconnected highways, totaling some 44,000 miles. That national system of interstate highways directive by the Congress, was carried out by the Bureau of Public Roads, with a plan to link major cities; that is, those of 50,000 population and more. But it did not provide a funding mechanism. And in the aftermath of World War II, as the Nation rushed to reintegrate the 16 million men and women who served the U.S. in the great war, put aside the development of a highway plan as we rushed to convert to civilian purposes industries that had built machinery of war. But MacDonald continued working tirelessly with State departments of highways, with urban planners, with others, to continue developing this idea of an interstate highway system. He had sustained it through the Great Depression, he had sustained the idea through World War II. He was not dismayed by the rush to civilianize the war-time economy of the United States. He kept working on this until his retirement in 1953. Indeed it was, as Chairman Petri said, President Dwight Eisenhower who exercised the political will and leadership to take this vision to reality. But there was also another force, the increasing congestion on our Nation's highways, and with it, the increasing death rate on our Nation's highways. It was projected in 1951, 1952, that if we did not do something about the congestion on our highways and the rising death toll, we would be killing 100,000 people a year on America's highways. That was the driving force behind moving to the next stage and bringing the vision of an interstate system to reality. I will not repeat the very thoughtful and I think erudite presentation that Mr. Petri cited of President Eisenhower as a lieutenant colonel taking the convoy across the United States. He stated that was an experience that lingered in Colonel Eisenhower, General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower's mind as he confronted this issue. His great thought was to tap General Lucius Clay to head a commission to take the idea of the 1944 Congress report, the MacDonald report, and work with the Governors again, with other interested parties, and develop a plan to finance this system. That is what the Clay Commission report did that was really different. It set forth a plan for a viable funding mechanism to undertake the interstate highway system with an idea that you would have a dedicated revenue stream so that at the beginning of the project planners could see their way to the end of that project. That was what truly launched the interstate highway construction program. My predecessor, John Blatnik, who served in this body for 28 years on the Committee on Public Works and was its chairman for 4 years, was one of the five House co-authors. It was largely the House of Representatives that drove this issue forward. I remember many discussions with Mr. Blatnik talking about the discussions that went late into the evenings and about how to finance the interstate highway system. President Eisenhower's Secretary of the Treasury favored a bonding program, which would have greatly enriched Wall Street investors, but the House held out for an egalitarian tax that everybody would pay, calling it a fee, a fee to build the interstate highway system. And that fee started out to be 3 cents, a fuel excise tax. But after one year of experience with the 3-cent tax, they realized this was not going to be enough and came back the following year, in 1957, and passed 1 additional cent, an increase in that fee. That passed this body, if you can imagine it, on a voice vote. We can hardly pass anything on a voice vote today. But that was done in those days, because there was a need to move ahead. The original authorization was for a system of 42,500 miles and today, as Mr. Petri already said, it is 46,876 miles. You have to keep asking the Highway Administration how many more miles have been added because some continue to creep in as designated segments of the interstate. But the States responded immediately. Eisenhower signed the bill into law June 29, 1956. By September, projects were under construction, because the States were ready. They knew they had to move ahead quickly. They knew we needed this system of divided, access-controlled, interconnecting highways that would theoretically allow you to travel from coast to coast or from border to border without a traffic light. Now, of course today that is not possible, but the principle of coast to coast and border to border travel was realized with the interstate highway system. We now have invested $128.9 billion, the Federal Government in partnership with the States, the Federal share an estimated $114.3 billion. And the marvel is that this system that represents 1 percent, just a little over 1 percent of the Nation's total public road mileage, carries 24 percent of all the highway travel, 40 percent of all travel by single-unit and combination trucks, 721 billion vehicle miles estimated to travel annually on the interstate highway system. It is the marvel of the world. Every year there are delegations from other countries who come here to meet with us on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to ask how did you do it? How did you finance it? How do you keep it going? How do you keep it in good shape? It is an engineering marvel of the world. Washington, President Washington, General Washington's original version of a national road has now been fulfilled. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5449, introduced by the Gentleman from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, which would ensure fair treatment of air traffic controllers, by allowing their contract dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be resolved by the procedures that govern collective bargaining for pay at other federal agencies. While I appreciate that the Gentleman from Ohio has taken these steps to ensure that air traffic controllers are given a fair shake in this contract dispute with the FAA, I am disappointed that the Republican Leadership has forced this vote under Suspension of the Rules, which requires two-thirds of the House to vote for passage--a threshold much higher than the majority vote required under regular order. Members of this Body have co-sponsored legislation similar to Mr. LaTourette's and this substantial, bipartisan majority should be given a chance to work its will. On April 6, the FAA declared an impasse in its negotiations with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and sent the dispute up to Congress under a provision that FAA argues gives it the right to unilaterally impose its contract terms if Congress does not act within 60 days. FAA's interpretation of the law gives it an inherent, unfair advantage to impose its contract terms on its employees. Such a one- sided process has been an impediment to good faith negotiations that could lead to a voluntary contract. Under H.R. 5449, the parties would return to the bargaining table and, if a settlement could not be reached, the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP) would have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, including the power to impose binding arbitration on the parties. Other federal agencies that have collective bargaining for wages must use the FSIP procedures and, as recently as 2002, the NTEU, on behalf of the Security and Exchange Commission employees it represents, went before the FSIP to settle several issues regarding pay. The FAA has gone to great lengths to try to persuade the general public that the highly-skilled air traffic controller workforce is overpaid. I can recall no other instance in which a federal agency has gone so far in disparaging its workforce. Air traffic controllers deserve better. They are responsible for the 24/7 operation of the most robust and complex air traffic control system in the world. In 2005, for example, they moved more than 700 million airline passengers. Each day, the federal controller workforce safely and efficiently manages approximately 130,000 take-offs and landings in a system whose passenger volume is expected to grow to one billion by 2015. Our lives, and those of our constituents are in their hands, and I believe that they deserve their current pay. Under the FAA's proposal, many controllers are being asked to take a reduction in their take home pay. FAA is proposing to limit or eliminate differential pay for controllers at some of the Nation's busiest airports, such as New York's JFK and Chicago's O'Hare airport. The average federal controller at one of these facilities could see a pay reduction of more than $10,000 per year. Moreover, the FAA has misrepresented the facts regarding the controllers' compensation package. First, the FAA states that the current average controller pay is $173,000. This is misleading because approximately 40 percent of the controllers' compensation is in the form of federal health and retirement benefits that all government employees and Members of Congress receive. In addition, the FAA argues that the controllers have received an average 75 percent increase in salaries since 1998. However, this statement blatantly ignores the fact that nearly 60 percent of these increases are attributable to government-wide pay raises. Most of the remainder comes from a reclassification to recognize the responsibility of controlling traffic in busy facilities. I am also concerned that if the FAA is permitted to unilaterally impose this contract there will be a mass exodus of highly-skilled, senior controllers that are eligible to retire. This exodus could cause severe understaffing at our Nation's towers, negatively impacting the safety as well as the efficiency of our air traffic control system. It is therefore imperative that we send the parties back to the negotiating table to hammer out a voluntary agreement to avoid any disruptions to air traffic control operations. Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5449, and restore fairness in the bargaining process between the FAA and its labor unions.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill to direct the administrator of General Services to install a photovoltaic system, known as the ``Sun Wall'' on the headquarters building of the Department of Energy. There is no more appropriate Federal building with which to demonstrate the power and promise of photovoltaics than the Department of Energy headquarters building, known as the Forrestal Building, located in Washington, DC. Photovoltaics reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and offer distinct advantages over diesel generators and primary batteries. Photovoltaics are highly efficient and have no moving parts, so the need for maintenance is virtually nonexistent. Over 25 Federal buildings throughout the country, from Boston, MA, to San Francisco, CA, already use photovoltaics to great effect. Located in our Nation's Capital, the Sun Wall project will serve as a model for the entire country. The design for the Sun Wall project has already been selected after an open competition. It is an attractive and energy efficient design that can generate a maximum of 200 kW of electricity and includes a solar thermal installation for hot water and hot air. The Sun Wall would be the largest building-integrated solar energy system on any Federal building in the country. All that is left to do is to provide the funding needed to purchase and install the proper equipment. Mr. Speaker, an identical provision to this bill was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, last August. While the bill authorized funding for fiscal year 2006, no funding was appropriated for that year. This bill offers the same language as was included in that act, but allows funding to be appropriated in fiscal year 2007.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It's been almost five years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and more than two years since the terrorist train bombing in Madrid, Spain, which killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,800 others, making it the deadliest terrorist attack against European civilians since 1988. We are now fast approaching the first anniversary of the London terrorist attacks. The Madrid and London bombings were just the latest in a series of terrorist attacks on railroads worldwide. Between 1998 and 2003, there were 181 attacks on trains and rail-related targets such as depots, ticket stations, and rail bridges, resulting in an estimated 431 deaths and several thousand injuries. Yet the Federal Government has done little to enhance rail and transit security in the United States. This year, the United States will spend $4.7 billion on aviation security, while spending only $150 million on rail and transit security, even though five times as many people take trains as planes every day. Amtrak alone has requested over $100 million in security upgrades and nearly $600 million for fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on the Northeast Corridor in New York, Maryland, and Washington, DC. The American Public Transit Association, which represents transit agencies and commuter railroads, has well-documented transit security needs that exceed $6 billion (including more than $5.2 billion of capital investment security needs). This bill--for the third year in a row--provides a meager $150 million to be split up among our Nation's passenger railroad, transit agencies, seven Class I railroads, and more than 500 short line and regional railroads. The Lynch amendment will provide an additional $50 million for rail and transit security. While I believe that even more funding should be provided for security improvements, such as interoperable communication systems, cameras, improved lighting, fencing and secured gates, chemical/biological/radiological detection sensors, bomb sniffing dogs, and many other needed rail security improvements, it is more than we have done in the past, and it is at least on par for what we have provided for port security. We have got to act now to protect the safety and security of our Nation's railroads and transit systems. We owe it to the service providers, passengers, workers, and communities. We must pass this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4530 is a bill to designate the Federal building located at 101 Barr Street in Lexington, Kentucky, as the Scott Reed Federal Building and United States Courthouse. The bill was introduced by the Gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) and his Kentucky colleague (Mr. Rogers). Scott Reed was born in Lexington, Kentucky, in 1921. He attended local schools and graduated from the University of Kentucky College of Law in 1945. While at the University, Reed received many awards and honors, including the Algernon Sydney Sullivan Medallion for Excellence. The first years of Judge Reed's career were spent in private practice during which he distinguished himself as a trial lawyer of great integrity. During this time, he also taught at the University of Kentucky College of Law. From 1964 to 1969, Judge Reed was judge of the First Division of the Fayette Circuit Court. From 1969 until 1976, he served on the Court of Appeals, 5th Appellate District. In 1976, Judge Reed became the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, a position which holds equal rank with the Governor. His opinions from the Supreme Court of Kentucky have received national attention for their scholarly content and careful judicial reasoning. In August 1979, Judge Reed was nominated by President Carter to the federal bench. He was confirmed later that year and served until his death in 1994. During his confirmation hearing for the federal bench, Judge Reed was characterized as possessing a great sense of fairness and objectivity, practical legal experience, and great respect for the law and its responsibility to our Nation's citizens. Both Senator Huddleston and Senator Ford participated in Judge Reed's confirmation hearing in October 1979. Judge Reed enjoyed a rich and rewarding career. His contributions to the American judicial system are exceptional. It is fitting that the Lexington courthouse bears his name to honor his distinguished career and enduring legacy. I support H.R. 4530 and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act of 2005. This bill amends the Stafford Act to ensure that state and local emergency preparedness plans account for the needs of individuals with household pets and service animals following a major disaster or emergency. There were many tragedies from Hurricane Katrina that will not soon be forgotten. Some of the most indelible images were the ones of people being forced to choose between leaving their pets behind or being evacuated to safety. In many cases, these loyal animals had stayed with their owners for days on rooftops waiting to be rescued, only to be abandoned because the rescuers refused to carry the pets to safety with their owners. In other cases, people chose not to be rescued--putting themselves in further danger--because they simply could not bear to leave their pets behind. A person should not have to leave their seeing-eye dog behind in order to save her own life--as we saw in Hurricane Katrina. Nor should a child, who has already been traumatized by the devastation of a disaster, have to abandon his beloved pet in order to be transported to safety--as we saw in Hurricane Katrina. As the June 1st start of the next hurricane season approaches, it's important that this bill becomes law and that state and local officials start to plan for the evacuation of pets and service animals. There are, of course, other issues in the wake of Hurricane Katrina that this Congress should address. Last week, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Government Reform Committee favorably ordered reported H.R. 5316, the Restoring Emergency Services to Protect our Nation from Disasters (RESPOND) Act to the House. The RESPOND Act not only restores FEMA as an independent, cabinet-level agency, but it also reforms and strengthens our national emergency preparedness system so that we never again have to witness such a dismal failure by the federal government to respond to its citizens in need as we did with Hurricane Katrina. H.R. 5316 ensures that FEMA's core functions of preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation will once again coexist and work to complement each other in an independent FEMA, and not be separated and dismantled as they have been in the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us is a much-needed first step in a longer process of reforming our emergency management system. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3858.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the chairman of the subcommittee how many speakers he has remaining?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who, along with my predecessor, John Blotnick, was the original inventor of the clean water program. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman has either himself or perhaps one other speaker remaining, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, the previous speakers have missread the issue. The holding by the Supreme Court very clearly stated, this is the exact language, says that the Clean Water Act jurisdiction cannot be asserted based solely on the presence of migratory birds. Previous speakers have alluded to other issues that have nothing to do with the question at hand. So the Corps of Engineers no longer can make decisions based on presence of migratory birds. Now, if we take the interpretation of what the Corps of Engineers and the EPA have done in previous cases and applied it to the district of the gentleman in the chair, presiding at this moment, we would not have been able to put in place very likely, the Rochester Flood Control Project and the Soil and Water Conservation projects investing over $100 million dollars to protect the City of Rochester from flooding. Mr. Chairman, that just does not make sense. Now, all of those who have said the Clean Water Act meant this and meant that, I was on the staff at the time of the Clean Water Act passage in the House. In fact, I was involved in drafting the language that is at stake here. The issues that the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee raised, have to do with nonpoint-source discharges. We have many farms across this country, including some in my district, where cattle, dairy cows go right up to the water's edge and do what cows do in the water, and that pollutes the water for the guy downstream. You do not want that to happen. Well, habitat, increased severity of flooding are issues related to this matter that we are discussing here. What we want to do is to restore to the Corps of Engineers its ability to protect these endangered waters, not to deal with some little puddle that was there once in 50 years and not to have the Corps declare that this is wetlands simply because a migratory bird came over it at one time or another. The Supreme Court said, no, you cannot do that to the Corps of Engineers. We are trying to restore responsibility and authority to the Clean Water Act so it can be implemented to protect the quality of our waters, the fishability of our waters, the swimability of our waters and to protect Americans' clean water future.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and I and others offer today will define where we stand on protecting water quality in America. Will we allow the Federal Water Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, to be a national program, as it was intended by Congress when written and enacted in 1972, to protect the Nation's waters; or will we allow it simply to become a limited program that abandons the national priority for clean water by leaving a rather substantial number of lakes, streams, and wetlands unprotected? This bipartisan amendment we offer would prevent the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing or enforcing the wetlands policy guidance issued in a joint memorandum of EPA and the Corps of Engineers in 2003. That memorandum was drafted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Solid Waste Agency of North Cook County against Army Corps of Engineers, commonly known as the SWANCC case. The EPA's guidance in pursuance of the court's decision goes well beyond what the court directed. The court held that the Clean Water Act jurisdiction did not extend to isolated intrastate waters where jurisdiction is asserted solely on the presence of migratory birds. But the joint memorandum, EPA expanded upon the case and made it more difficult to protect all intrastate waters regardless of impact on water quality or on commerce. Our amendment would prevent EPA from implementing that unsound policy. With our amendment EPA and the Corps of Engineers will once again be able to follow their own regulations and procedures in determining what waters are subject to protection under the Clean Water Act. If the amendment is defeated, streams, ponds, wetlands will continue to endure unregulated wastewater and other damaged water discharges. The result will be loss of habitat for waterfowl, loss of habitat for wildlife, endangered wildlife, increased frequency and increased severity of flooding and increased risk of drinking water and polluted groundwater supplies. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, especially under these time constraints. On July 4, 1999, a powerful storm, 100-mile-an-hour winds, blew through the boundary waters canoe area of the Superior National Forest in my district, blew down 26 million trees over a huge area. The loss was estimated somewhere between $12 million and $18 million in timber value, but the problem was cleanup. The State, the county all were able to get in and clean up their lands within weeks, but I had to take the supervisor of the Superior National Forest out here to Washington, meet with the Council on Environmental Quality, with the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, gentleman from Ohio, and work things out laboriously; took us months to get that salvage operation by the Federal Government under way to protect the homes and residences and resorts outside the wilderness area along the Gunflint Trail to be protected against fire. This legislation will help us move that along. Mr. Chairman, on July 4, 1999, a widespread convective windstorm called a ``derecho'' swept across the arrowhead region of northeastern Minnesota. The straight line winds reached 90 to 100 miles an hour, causing serious damage to nearly 600 square miles of forest in and around Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). The aftermath left 30 million toppled trees on the forest floor; in some areas the downed trees were stacked 10 and 12 feet high. This area approximately 30 miles long and 12 miles wide, or about a quarter million acres, was leveled. The timber loss was estimated at 500,000 to 750,000 million cords, valued between $12 and $18 million. The State of Minnesota estimated the cost of other damage and debris clearance for Lake and Cook counties at nearly $5 million. This powerful storm created near perfect conditions for a major forest fire. Only two questions remain: When will the major forest fire happen, and how destructive will it be? The blowdown quadrupled the amount of fuel per acre that can readily burn and the fire risk is expected to increase in the next several years as the timber continues to dry out. Under H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, an expedited review process will be established to provide our Federal land managers the resources they need to complete a quick, thorough evaluation of forest conditions after catastrophic events. Wayne Brandt, Senior Vice President of Minnesota Forest Industries explained ``after the blowdown, private landowners were cleaning up the next day. County lands were being cleaned up within a couple of weeks and State lands within a month.'' The U.S. Forest Service, even with the expedited procedures granted by the Council on Environmental Quality, was not ready to put timber up for sale until late fall. Nearly all private, county and State lands were salvaged by the winter of 2000/2001. The U.S. Forest Service, despite the extraordinary efforts of supervisor Jim Sanders and the staff of the Superior National Forest, found their hands tied for months. Speed is of the utmost importance, especially with softwoods. Insect infestation begins to take its toll within a couple of weeks, rendering the material unusable for lumber and difficult for paper and Oriented Strand Board (OSB). Hardwoods, such as aspen, can last a bit longer if the trees still have root structure attached to the soil. In a number of instances, the hardwoods leafed out in 2000. However, any trees that were snapped off, were very soon unusable. County and State land management agencies are able to react almost immediately to natural catastrophes because these agencies are allowed to acknowledge the reality that the condition of the forest that they manage has been completely changed. Guidelines normally appealed to mitigate possible negative impacts of land management activities are often not realistic when the forestry resource has been drastically altered. The Forest Service has been kept from doing its job by restrictions that should not apply in the aftermath of a natural catastrophic event. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has documented that downed wood can act as a breeding ground for insect infestations and disease, making the material prime for fire. After a few years, the blowdown will greatly increase the fuel load and potential for fire hazard; worse, left as is, the blowdown timber will hinder regeneration for many years. Access through these areas is impossible without clearing. My good friend, Harry Fisher, owner of Northshore Business Products on the Gunflint Trail, had several active timber sales in the Superior National Forest prior to the 1999 Blowdown. Because of the lengthy NEPA process, Mr. Fisher waited 6 months for these prior timber sales to be approved. Although the NEPA process had been complete on these original sales, Mr. Fisher had to wait an additional 6 months for expanded sales to recover the salvage. Unfortunately, the process to salvage the timber had taken its toll on his crews. It was no longer worth the return. Had H.R. 4200 been in place in 1999, some 30,000-40,000 cords of wood could have been salvaged in the Superior National Forest. Instead, Harry's crew was only able to recover 20,000 cords of wood-- Less than half. The current process makes for bad forest management. It increases the risk for forest fire and insect infestation, and puts homes, businesses and human lives in danger. Immediately after the Blowdown, many people across the State of Minnesota approached me to ask: ``Why aren't we going into the National Forest to recover this timber?'' The environmental community was concerned about insect infestation and forest fire in the boundary Waters Canoe Area. These two often competing interests were coming together for the purpose of best forest management. The answer to their question is: The process of salvaging timber in a National Forest has become too cumbersome. The U.S. Forest Service process has too many steps and is not efficient when confronting a disaster such as the 1999 blowdown in the Superior National Forest. The U.S. Forest Service staff on the Superior National Forest were nearly heroic in responding to the blowdown, putting in 7-day work weeks of creative effort to address both environmental and good forestry practice concerns, invoke every available emergency clause to accelerate the cleanup process, producing an EIS in record time. Unfortunately, they were confronted by a plethora of obstacles. The laws in place prevent Forest Service personnel from being professional foresters, rather, they have become surrogate lawyers making sure that their proposed timber sales are ``bullet proof'' from possible litigation. The Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, H.R. 4200, requires an expedited National Environmental Policy Act procedural review and complies fully with all other environmental laws, including the 1964 Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This law still secures the public's right to appeal and litigate Federal forest recovery projects. H.R. 4200 requires that funds from the removal of trees during recovery projects be used to help repair the catastrophic damage to our Federal forests, in turn, offsetting the cost of critical watershed and wildlife habitat restoration. Federal Foresters can get the job done if they are allowed to assess the condition of the forest immediately after a natural catastrophic event, protect known special resources and salvage affected merchantable timber as soon as possible. Blowdown events are not unusual in Northeastern Minnesota. The 1999 blowdown created the potential for extreme fire danger conditions throughout the affected area with the potential to threaten lives within and life and property outside the BWCAW. So far, Mother Nature has given residents and resorters along the Gunflint Trail a respite with favorable weather. The ability to expedite Forest Service response time will benefit local communities and economies, improve access for recreational users and most importantly, greatly improve forest health which benefits everyone. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, known more commonly as Amtrak, and its workers for achieving 35 years of operation as America's passenger rail service provider. Prior to the creation of Amtrak, passenger rail service had fallen on hard times. Freight railroads had a common carrier obligation to provide passenger train service, but virtually all of them were losing money and wanted to be rid of it. Regrettably, it was the policy of many of the freight railroads to simply allow the service to deteriorate to the point where ridership was so sparse that the Interstate Commerce Commission would grant the carriers permission to discontinue their passenger train operations. Some of the railroads went beyond benign neglect and actively downgraded the service to discourage people from riding the trains. Indeed, passenger rail service had been in decline since 1920. Americans' preferences shifted to air and auto to meet their intercity transportation needs. In 1920, passenger rail was the dominant mode of intercity transportation; by 1970 passenger rail service had declined to relative insignificance. Many thought that the day of the passenger train was over, and that, outside of a few densely populated corridors, passenger trains were destined to join the stagecoach and the flatboat as relics of America's transportation history. Fortunately, that was not the case. Congress understood the long-term value of and public need for intercity passenger rail service and passed the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 to create Amtrak. On May 1, 1971, Amtrak assumed responsibility of the nation's passenger trains from the freight railroads and began service when Clocker No. 235 departed New York Penn Station at 12:05 a.m. bound for Philadelphia. It was clear from the outset that Amtrak would have to face a number of challenges. Years of freight railroad neglect of passenger operations meant that stations and terminals were often old and run down, that passenger cars offered dated amenities, and the equipment was prone to failure. The nation's railroad infrastructure was in a serious state of disrepair. Trains, even some passenger trains, crept along at 10-15 miles-per-hour in some places and derailments were becoming distressingly commonplace. By the time Amtrak commenced operations in 1971, the number of daily intercity passenger trains had been reduced from 11,000 in 1964 to fewer than 300 in 1970. Today, despite chronic under-investment, Amtrak has managed to replace and upgrade many car and locomotive fleets, rehabilitate once dilapidated train stations, and introduce a variety of new services in an effort to keep people riding the rails. Ridership has grown from 4.4 million on 184 trains operated in 1971 to more than 24 million on 100,000 trains operated in 2005, a record level for Amtrak. And just last month, despite increasing freight congestion on the nation's railways, Amtrak's on-time performance on the Northeast Corridor reached 90 percent. In other words, Amtrak survived--survived the inadequate equipment and facilities; survived the budget cutters, and survived the competition from low-cost airlines. And now, as we see gas prices soaring to more than $3 a gallon, we see the wisdom of keeping intercity passenger rail service in place in the United States. This month, Congress will begin its annual debate on funding for Amtrak. The Administration and a minority in Congress will once again argue for inadequate or no funding for Amtrak. In the past 35 years combined, Amtrak has received less federal funding than we will spend on highways in just this fiscal year. The Federal Government has also established robust funding mechanisms for aviation and public transit, and Congress has always properly supported Federal investment in these modes. But not for Amtrak: Amtrak is forced to beg for federal funding year after year, and rarely gets what it needs because of false expectations that it should be profitable. Railroads throughout the world receive some government support to supplement the revenues paid by passengers. China invests $16 to $20 billion annually in passenger rail. Japan and Germany devote 20 percent of their total annual transportation budget to passenger rail, totaling $3 to $4 billion each. A host of other nations also invest heavily in passenger rail--France, for example. When I was a graduate student at the College of Europe in Belgium, part of our work was to travel to various parts of Europe and see different economic systems. I traveled from Paris to Lyon, almost 300 miles. It was a 4\1/2\ hour trip. I went back in 1989, as chair of the Aviation Subcommittee. We were following the trail of Pam Am 103. I just wanted to experience the TGV (Train a Grande Vitesse). The same trip took 2:01 hours. At a certain point, the train passed a small airfield where a twin-engine aircraft had taken off, and the train passed the plane at 180 mph. We can do the same here in the United States. The Federal Government just needs to step up and take charge with a strong program to support passenger rail. Congratulations again to Amtrak and its workers for 35 years of public service. Not only are you a vital link to our nation's past, you are indispensable to our Nation's transportation future.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I concur in the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the full committee of Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska. He has got his eye on the ball, his eye on the mark. We need more cooperation. We need more sharing and mutual understanding than finger- pointing and sloganeering. I think left up to him, the Rules Committee would have made in order an amendment. It seems to me that the Rules Committee, maybe the House leadership, fears more our amendment than a container loaded with a potential bomb. What harm is there in debating an amendment that we did debate, we had discussion with in the Transportation Committee? Why could we not have a debate on it? That does not mean it is going to be accepted. We ought to at least put it in play and have a discussion on it. So now we will put this into the motion to recommit and have a debate there, which is less satisfactory than having a much broader debate. I am concerned about security in our ports in the maritime arena because of the years that I have spent on aviation security. Eighteen years ago, Pan Am 103 was blown out of the sky nearly on Christmas Eve, December 21, 1988. I served on the Pan Am 103 Commission, requested by President Bush I, along with our former colleague John Paul Hammerschmidt, Senators Alfonse D'Amato and Frank Lautenberg, and three public members. As we stood at the abyss in Lockerbie, a trench 14 feet deep, 20 feet wide, 40 feet long, 259 people aboard the aircraft and 11 people on the ground were incinerated in a fire ball that went 10,000 feet into the sky, we vowed we would make aviation safe. And all it took to bring a 747 down was that much Semtec, stored in a cassette tape recorder, in a suitcase that should never have been forwarded on to the 727 in Frankfurt, after it left Malta, and then on to London. It should never have gotten on the 747. But it did. And with a barometric pressure device and a timer, it blew up over land in Lockerbie, Scotland. The threat is, yes, to our ports; but it is also to our inland cities. The bomb that could be similarly contained in a TEU could be timed to go off in Boise, Idaho or St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. I spoke earlier about our experience with Pan Am 103, the report that the Commission issued, the 63 recommendations of the Commission that did not sit on a shelf gathering dust but were enacted into law by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We wanted all checked bags to be screened for explosives, but we did not get it. We did not get it worked out in the operation of the law. So, over the next 13 years, under both Democratic majority in the committee and Republican majority in the committee, we passed bill after bipartisan bill requiring that all checked baggage be screened for explosives, but we did not impose statutory deadlines. FAA tried to move ahead with the requirements we imposed upon them through the law, but the airlines interceded again and again and again to effectively kill implementation: Technology was too expensive, too high a false alarm rate, caused delays in the baggage handling. So on the eve of September 11, 2001, there was only limited screening of checked baggage. There was only limited requirement and prohibition on types of materials permitted to board aircraft, such as box cutters. The red flags were gone. Then came September 11, and no one wanted to get aboard an airplane unless we had better security, and it did not take long for legislation to be passed requiring that all checked luggage be screened. It did not take long for us to get a Federal screener workforce in place. It was a matter of months to get it done. It was not partisan. It was bipartisan. This was American. This was American security that we were all seeking to improve. By December 28, 2004, all checked and carry on baggage was screened going aboard aircraft, tougher standards, higher standards. What we have in this bill, pilot project, studies, exhortations, is a slow road to good security. The lesson of Pan Am 103, of aviation security in general, was to push the borders of protection further out from our shores overseas, to check airplanes, passengers, luggage before it goes on the plane so that does not come into this country to destroy us, harm us here at home. The same principle is included in our port security act that our committee and the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, who was part of shaping that bill, moving it through conference, getting it to signature by the President 3 years ago, well, we did not have in that bill the one element that is missing that we want to include in, and that is mandatory screening. The Democratic motion to recommit will require that all screeners be scanned before loading. Vote for this. This is your only opportunity. Vote for it.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I join Mr. Hoyer and Ms. Norton, together with Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Wynn, in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 349, to authorize use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. I especially want to acknowledge the dedication of Mr. Hoyer, the resolution's annual sponsor, who faithfully introduces this resolution to authorize use of the Capitol Grounds for such a worthwhile event. This annual event encourages all boys and girls, ages nine through 16, to construct and operate their own soap box vehicles. The Washington event, which attracts a great number of spectators and extensive media coverage, has grown in size and has become one of the best-attended events in the country. The winner in each of three divisions wins a trip to the national race in Akron, as well as trophies and prizes. The principles of aerodynamics are combined with fun and excitement for all participants and their families in the Greater Washington area. It is an excellent opportunity for parents to have direct involvement in their children's activities. The derby's mission is to provide children with an activity that promotes technical and social skills that will serve them throughout their lives. The derby organizers will work with the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police to ensure the appropriate rules and regulations are in place for the event. I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 349.