James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I join my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating our Minnesota National Guard on its 150th anniversary. As my colleagues from Minnesota and our floor manager on the Democratic side have mentioned, this Minnesota National Guard has had a great and distinguished career of service to the Nation. There is no greater public service than that of military duty. There is no longer a tradition than that of the citizen soldier. It goes back to the very beginnings and foundation of our Nation and of our fight in the Revolutionary War for independence. Our National Guardsmen served in the Civil War, Gettysburg. They served in the Spanish-American War and World War I, World War II, at Wood Lake, Philippines, Meuse-Argonne in France, and Bataan, North Africa, Sicily, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Kuwait, in Iraq. They have served in Bosnia and Kosovo. And after September 11 it was our Minnesota Air National Guard that flew cover for months over our Nation's capital. Our Guard unit from my district, from Duluth, put in endless and wearying hours. We could hear those aircraft in the wee hours of the morning, protecting us against the foe unknown or terrorist attack that we could not imagine, and they did it without complaint but with enormous professionalism. This coming Saturday Cloquet E Battery, the 216th Air Defense Artillery Unit, will return safely from their duty in Saudi Arabia and in Iraq. Over 11,000 of our Minnesota Guardsmen have served some two and three tours of duty in the gulf. We salute them, congratulate them for their extraordinary service. I have been, as many of my colleagues have already attested in their own experience, to both send-off and return ceremonies. The most impressive is the open arms, the love with which our citizen soldiers are received on their return, the grateful hearts, the admiration of friends and family for the service that they have performed so selflessly, the tears that are shed, the joy of relief at coming home, but also the anxiety about returning to their job, their place of employment. After two or three displacements, some have had concerns. Fortunately, employers in most cases have been responsive to their duty to our National Guard, and as they return home and continue their citizen soldier service to America, as we provide for those in the field the necessary body armor, equipment, support services to carry out their duties in the field, we must provide for them as they eventually become veterans and assure that they are treated with the respect of our World War II vets, our Korea vets. And we have learned a great deal from the Vietnam veterans. They too have taught us great lessons, and those lessons must not be lost upon this body nor upon the American public as we welcome home the Iraqi veterans and incorporate them again into society and accord them the support services that they will need and that they deserve and have truly earned. I join my colleagues in the delegation in saluting our Minnesota National Guard on its 150th anniversary, and I join my colleague, Ms. McCollum, in congratulating our colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, manager of the bill on the floor, for his service to our country in the Marine Corps.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 556, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a National Methamphetamine Prevention Week should be established to increase awareness about methamphetamine and to educate the public on ways to help prevent the use of this damaging narcotic. Methamphetamine, or meth, has become the most dangerous drug problem of small-town America. Meth is a highly-addictive and treatment-resistant drug produced from readily-accessible materials found in every local hardware or drug store in America. The explosion of this very destructive synthetic drug has already taken a brutal toll on children, families and the environment in my district in Minnesota and across the Nation. Dealing with the enormous economic and social effects of meth--whether it is diverting tax dollars from already-strapped county budgets, or devoting manpower hours to locate and clean up remote meth labs, or treating meth addicts at the local hospitals and clinics--consumes our society's resources at an astounding rate. A daunting challenge of the meth epidemic lies in the very nature of this drug; it is a highly addictive substance that is considered to be the most treatment-resistant of all illegal drugs. Many people get hooked after only one use, and some recent studies have demonstrated that meth causes more damage to the brain than heroin, alcohol, or cocaine. Meth use not only modifies behavior in an acute state, but after taking it repeatedly, the drug also literally changes the brain in fundamental and long-lasting ways. Helping meth addicts is a very difficult and expensive proposition, because 30 days of treatment is often not enough. This all-consuming addiction is harmful not only to the user, but to that user's children, who are robbed of nurturing parents and a secure home; nationwide, approximately 3,200 children were present during the seizure of meth labs last year alone. Our health care and social services systems need more funding for prevention and treatment, because only by breaking that cycle of demand can we bring lasting change to the entire community. Parents and educators play a vital role in encouraging young people to make the right decisions, because many children do not understand the inherent risks associated with experimenting with the drug. Preventing drug use is the first step to avoiding drug addiction, and H. Res. 556 will provide the opportunity to dedicate one week out of the year to engage students and children in discussions and activities that will underscore the importance of living a meth free life. Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am very concerned about the threat that the meth epidemic poses to local communities in my Congressional district and across the Nation. Earlier this year, I introduced the Methamphetamine Eradication Act (H.R. 4763), which is a balanced, comprehensive federal approach to addressing problems related to meth abuse. As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Rural Caucus' Meth Task Force, I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to increase public awareness and to find a bipartisan solution to the meth epidemic. The Federal Government must be a more effective partner in the fight to eliminate the threat posed by meth. By establishing a National Methamphetamine Prevention Week, we can give our local communities the opportunity to highlight their meth-related activities and take pride in their response to the scourge of this drug.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 360, a resolution to authorize use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service on May 15, 2006. In October 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed May 15th as National Peace Officers' Memorial Day. Each year on this date we, as a Nation, have an opportunity to honor the devotion with which peace officers perform their daily task of protecting our families, co-workers, friends, and ourselves. The 2006 event marks the 25th anniversary of the Capitol Hill event. In the post September 11 environment, the work of selfless police and firemen has become our model of courage and moral strength. There are approximately 700,000 sworn law enforcement officers serving the American public today. Ten percent of the police force officers are women. Law enforcement officers include those that work not only for states, counties and the federal government, but also military police, correction officers, and peace officers in the U.S. territories. In 2005, 155 officers were killed on the job; 5 of these officers were women. The leading cause of death was gunshot wound. It is most fitting and proper to honor the lives, sacrifices, and public service of our brave peace officers. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 360.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the U.S. Olympic Curling Team for its outstanding success at the XX Winter Olympic Games in Turin, Italy. By defeating Great Britain 8-6, the men's team, which consists of Shawn Rojeski and John Shuster of Chisholm, Minnesota, Joe Polo of Cass Lake, as well as fellow Minnesotans Pete Fenson, Scott Baird and Coach Bob Fenson, won the first Olympic medal of any kind for a curling team from the United States. The women's team members, Courtney George of Duluth, along with Cassie Johnson, Jamie Johnson, Jessica Schultz, Maureen Brunt, and Coach Neil Doese, also demonstrated great skill, determination and mental toughness during the competition in Turin. Scottish immigrants introduced the sport of curling in North America, first to Canada in 1759 and then to America around 1832. Today, there are approximately 16,000 curlers who belong to 135 clubs in 32 states. Curling debuted as a medal sport at the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. I know that the pursuit of excellence demonstrated by Team USA at the 2006 Olympic Games will inspire many people across the country to take up the sport. Through hard work and outstanding dedication, the team succeeded on the sports world's most prestigious stage. Above all, the sportsmanship the team members demonstrated during the competition embraced the true Olympic spirit. The curling team's bronze medal victory was truly a golden moment for the State of Minnesota and the entire nation. I know my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in congratulating the U.S. Curling Team and in wishing them continued success.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker. The legislation in its amended form before us this afternoon is the result of the finest of legislative action in which a substantive goal has been achieved through discussion and understanding of one another, understanding the underlying law and its application, and in this case, an administrative action that has produced a right result. The objective in the Gulf States devastated by hurricanes, not just Katrina but Rita and Wilma and the ones preceding and the ones yet to come, is local recovery. That means not just restoring the physical needs of the communities, the homes, the businesses, the streets, the levees, the lighting, but also the businesses. The objective of the Robert T. Stafford Act, which I must say I have had a very large role in shaping over the past 21 years with my then- colleague on the committee, Mr. Clinger, is to affirm that the administering agencies, that is, those administering the law and the funding, would give preference to local businesses to restore those businesses, to expedite completion of recovery work, and to achieve lower costs, because businesses locally know how to do the job better than out-of-State companies. In this particular case, in the aftermath of Katrina, the Corps of Engineers responded by taking the action that law allows them. They issued a contract for debris removal in Mississippi that originally was given to a Florida company, Ash Britt. They decided not to renew that contract, because it was evident that the work was not going to be done principally by local companies and, instead, chose to issue three separate debris removal contracts to Mississippi firms to guarantee that local Mississippi companies would be selected for the contracts and to do so by limiting the bidding to Mississippi companies. The Florida company protested that bid to the Government Accountability Office. Last week, the GAO issued its ruling, its decision in the matter of Ash Britt, Inc., with reference to the file number, dated March 20, and in the most important part said: ``We think Ash Britt misses the point when it argues that some form of preference short of a set-aside also implements the Stafford Act's preference for using local businesses to clean up disaster-related debris. The question here is not whether some lesser form of preference might have satisfied the act's intent, but whether the preference chosen was an abuse of agency discretion. Since the language in the statute does not specifically restrict the application of the preference, and since the use of a set-aside is consistent with the statutory goal of assisting firms in the affected area, we do not view the Corps' decision to implement the Stafford Act preference with a set-aside as an abuse of the agency's discretion to implement this statutory scheme.'' And then they conclude with referring to previous GAO decisions in the matter. That settles it. The Corps has the authority; that authority has been affirmed by the Government Accountability Office, and the contracting should proceed. The GAO decision, so clear, so precise, so unequivocal in my judgment and in previous experience with the Corps and with GAO, should ward off any lawsuit or further appeal by Ash Britt. I think they will be very wise to accept the judgment of GAO and allow the procedure to go forward. The bill before us is a revised version of the legislation the gentleman from Mississippi introduced just before our recess and which we discussed at some length. I had some reservations about it, some concerns, especially the prohibition of judicial review. That has wisely been removed, as the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, has expressed. So I want to make it very clear that we have had a very thoughtful, very constructive discussion with the gentleman from Mississippi, with the subcommittee staff, with GAO, and with the Corps of Engineers. And the language in this sense of Congress portion of the bill pending before us this afternoon, ``It is the sense of Congress that the Corps of Engineers should promptly implement the decision of the Government Accountability Office in solicitation,'' and I don't need to repeat the reference, dated March 20, 2006, that should be very clear direction to the Corps of Engineers to proceed forthwith, get these debris removal contracts under way, and move ahead without concern or fear of further appeal by the contractor in this case. I think it is a good legislative outcome. It is a good direction to the Corps. It will be good for people of Mississippi. It will be a good lesson for workers and smaller contractors in other hurricane-affected Gulf States. It will set a good precedent for the future. I think that we have had a very fine result this afternoon, and I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle and all Members to support this legislation. I would further observe, Mr. Speaker, that my wife is from New Orleans. Her family was affected by the hurricane. We have just recently, just 2 weeks ago, spent time in New Orleans; went with family and friends to the 17th Street Canal, saw the levee break, saw the work of the Corps, the cofferdam set up to rebuild that portion of the levee, traveled to Saint Bernard Parish, saw the absolute utterly horrifying destruction of an entire 38,000-home area inundated, over the rooftops, homes floated away from their mooring, and debris still in the streets. That debris needs to be removed. Those people need relief. They want to get back in their homes, they want to rebuild, and they are frustrated that companies that know how to do the work aren't being called on to do it. This legislation will set the course, chart the future, give an opportunity for those who know how to do the job to get in there and do it and do it expeditiously. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to express my appreciation to Mr. Pickering for those kind remarks. We have spent a very productive time together. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express appreciation for the cooperation we have had this afternoon in working out this matter that should have been considered appropriately in committee process. In the subcommittee, full committee we could have resolved these matters in an expeditious manner in a very expedited way. But failing the committee process, we have reached, I think, a very sound, very progressive and forward-looking outcome. I want to restate section 2 of the pending bill, line 8: ``In carrying out this section, a contract or agreement may by set aside for award based on a specific geographic area.'' This is unmistakable language. It reaffirms the original intent of the Stafford Act, reaffirms historical precedent, and states it very clearly in legislative language. We intend to get this bill passed this afternoon, and I hope the other body will act expeditiously as well so we can make this very, very clear and proceed on the awards of these contracts and reestablish businesses in Mississippi, as the gentleman from Mississippi has so well and firmly and forcefully stated as a very strong and effective advocate for the people of his district. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your cooperation. It always seems to me that the gentleman from Minnesota and a gentleman from Pennsylvania are working on the FEMA program, Mr. Klinger, Mr. Ridge, and the gentleman's father, the first Mr. Shuster. Every time we do, we come up with a good result. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4826, a bill to extend authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept funds from non-Federal public entities for the consideration of permits under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899. This language is modeled after language which the House approved last July as a part of H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. While I remain optimistic that the Senate will soon act on its version of the Water Resources Development Act, the authority of the Secretary that this bill would extend expires on March 31. This bill will continue the program through the end of December, 2006. Mr. Speaker, I have been carefully monitoring the implementation of this authority. While it is very popular for those that have used it, I remain concerned that allowing a regulated entity to pay the costs of its regulator could affect the objectivity of that regulator. As a track record of implementation develops, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will have an opportunity to review the implementation of this authority and ensure a fair and equitable process. I support the passage and quick enactment of this 9 month extension.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1777, as amended. The bill provides much needed aid for individuals left unemployed after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by extending the period of disaster unemployment assistance from 26 weeks to 39 weeks from the date of the disaster declarations. Without this extension, disaster unemployment assistance for those left unemployed by Hurricane Katrina would expire this Saturday, March 4, and unemployment assistance for those left unemployed by Hurricane Rita would expire by the end of this month. There is no doubt that the people of the Gulf Coast need this assistance, and I strongly support this bill, and thank the Democratic Leader, Ms. Pelosi, for joining me in urging its consideration in the House today. Let's be clear about what this bill does. It extends unemployment benefits for those 165,000 workers left unemployed as a result of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita for an additional 13 weeks. People in the Gulf Region are still struggling to reclaim their lives. It is the right thing to do to extend these benefits--just as we did after September 11--so that people can put food on their table. It is simply shocking to me that some Members on the other side of the aisle have stood up to oppose this bill. Where is the compassion for those who have suffered most dearly over the past several months? Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. Nevertheless, I believe that Congress can do more, and should. Last December, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 4438, the Gulf Coast Recovery Act, a bill that would have extended the period of eligibility of disaster unemployment assistance for those left unemployed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to 52 weeks from the date of the disasters. Further, the bill provided a much-needed increase to the minimum amount of assistance available to an individual. Right now, assistance provided to individuals in the Gulf Coast is among the lowest in the Nation. H.R. 4438 would have provided an increase in the amount of assistance to 50 percent of the national average ($135 per week). Currently, the minimum is set at one-half the state average (approximately $100 per week in Louisiana). Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4438 also addresses other pressing needs of the Gulf Region. It allows the President to provide assistance to financially distressed state and local governments to cover base pay and overtime expenses for essential response and recovery personnel for six months--from January 2006 through June 2006. At Committee hearings, and on a tour of the region, I have heard from Gulf Coast representatives, including Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans, that without help from the Federal government they would have to continue to layoff workers that are essential to the recovery, thereby adding to the scores of unemployed in the region and substantially hindering the recovery. In addition, to help communities with limited resources, the bill amends the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 to allow local governments to receive loans up to 50 percent (an increase from the current 25 percent limit) of the local government's budget. Further, there is considerable confusion among local governments regarding the cost of debris removal. H.R. 4438 provides clarity on this issue by establishing a 100 percent Federal cost share of debris removal for disaster declarations resulting from Hurricane Katrina or Rita. The bill also provides an increase in the Federal cost share of the Hazard Mitigation Grant program (HMGP) to at least 75 percent for one year. Many of the Gulf Coast communities simply do not have the ability to meet the Federal cost share and that will severely limit their ability to utilize cost-effective mitigation measures during the recovery. Mitigation saves lives, reduces property damage, and saves limited government funds. Congress should ensure that we have strong mitigation programs that will help encourage communities to rebuild safer and smarter. H.R. 4438 also makes a permanent change to the Stafford Act and restores the percentage used to calculate the availability of HMGP funds following a disaster from 7.5 percent to 15 percent. This House has previously approved this change in H.R. 3181, the Predisaster Mitigation Program Reauthorization Act of 2003, in the 108th Congress. This change will help improve the use of HMGP for any future disasters in every part of the country. Finally, the bill establishes a national program by which FEMA can provide grants to state and local governments to purchase or improve emergency interoperable communications equipment (including satellite phone and satellite communications equipment); mobile equipment to generate emergency power; and to train first responders and emergency personnel on how to best use such equipment. The bill authorizes $200 million for each of fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 for this program. It is a sad fact that this Nation still does not have sufficient interoperable and emergency communications equipment that can be relied on in the event of a disaster. Since the Transportation Committee reported H.R. 4438 in December, many of the recent government investigations into what went wrong with the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina have concluded that having operational, emergency communications equipment is essential to respond to any disaster. The program authorized in H.R. 4438 will go a long way to ensuring that emergency responders have this vital equipment by providing states and localities much needed resources to purchase and improve their equipment and also train emergency personnel on how to use the equipment. H.R. 4438 is an important component to rebuilding the Gulf region. It should be scheduled for an up or down vote on the House Floor. The people of the Gulf Coast deserve at least that much. Given that the Republican Leadership has been unwilling to schedule H.R. 4438 since the Committee reported the bill in December of last year, we are faced with passing a simple extension of the unemployment benefits for Hurricane Katrina and Rita survivors or facing the prospect of 165,000 survivors losing their benefits. Although Congress can and should do more, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to extend the hurricane survivors' unemployment benefits, and I commit that I will continue to work to ensure that the people of the Gulf Coast are not forgotten.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4500, a bill to designate the Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center building of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``Rosa Parks Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center Building''. The bill also honors Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, also known as Mother Teresa of Calcutta, by designating the CDC's Global Communications Center building as the ``Mother Teresa Global Communications Center Building''. Mother Teresa devoted her life to helping the poor and sick throughout the world. Her compassion and humanity, in the face of abject poverty, war, and starvation serves as a reminder to us all that when our hearts are focused on helping those who can not help themselves, our potential for greatness is unlimited. Although, at first sight, she appeared to have been a tiny woman, Mother Teresa was strong enough to carry the weight of the world's suffering on her narrow shoulders and to bring love and dignity to those facing the greatest challenges that life can offer. Mother Teresa was born in Skopje in modern day Macedonia on August 27, 1910. She recalled being pulled to the work of God at the age of 12 and, by age 18, she left her family to join the Sisters of Loreto, an Irish community of nuns with missions in India. After teaching at St. Mary's High School in Calcutta for 17 years she found that she could no longer simply hear the stories of dismal poverty and despair that existed outside the convent walls. In 1948, Mother Teresa left the convent school to devote her time to working among the poorest of the poor in the slums of Calcutta. There she opened a school for poor children though she had no money herself. On October 7, 1950, Mother Teresa received permission to start her own order, ``The Missionaries of Charity''. Since its inception in 1950, the Missionaries of Charity has spread to all corners of the world, tending to the most desperately needy in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. They also assist in relief work in the wake of natural disasters such as floods, epidemics, famine, and earthquakes, and care for the homeless and those suffering with the AIDS virus. Mother Teresa's work was not limited to the developing world. In the United States, the Missionaries of Charity have established many soup kitchens, emergency shelters for women, shelters for unwed mothers, homes for the dying, prison ministries, service to hospitals, and nursing homes. In 1985, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom; in 1997, she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed Public Law 104-218, proclaiming Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu--Mother Teresa--to be an honorary citizen of the United States of America. At the time she was only the fifth person to ever receive this honor. Mother Teresa died on September 5, 1997, in Calcutta. She continued to work with the poor right up until her death. Mr. Speaker, the bill also designates the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the ``Rosa Parks Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center Building''. As I noted during debate on H.R. 2967, which designates a Federal building in Detroit, Michigan, in honor of Rosa Parks, she is known as the ``mother of the civil rights movement.'' With one single act of defiance--when she refused to give up her seat on the Cleveland Avenue bus in Montgomery, Alabama--she galvanized a Nation and changed the course of history. On December 1, 1955, Mrs. Parks was sitting in the middle rows of the bus with three other black riders. The bus driver demanded that all four give up their seats so that one white man could sit. Three of the riders complied. Mrs. Parks remained seated. As Mrs. Parks herself has said in the years following that pivotal moment, she hadn't planned on taking a stand that day. She hadn't planned on becoming the face of the injustices of segregation. She had simply had enough. She was tired of being treated like a second-class citizen. She had had enough. Rosa Parks' act of courage sparked the civil rights movement. The strength and presence of a Federal building perfectly captures the character and personality of this icon of the civil rights movement. It is fitting and just that the lives and accomplishments of Mother Teresa and Rosa Parks are acknowledged with these designations. I strongly support H.R. 4500 and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, for all the meritorious provisions of this bill dealing with national defense, there is one that has nothing to do with national defense, and that is the provision on Peotone Airport, Illinois. The language would make it a requirement of Federal law that the governing body of South Suburban Airport in Will County, Peotone Airport, Illinois, be comprised of a majority of local residents of the county. There was an effort to stick this language in our surface transportation, SAFETEA-LU, last summer. I vigorously objected. It has nothing to do with surface transportation. It has nothing to do with the substance of that bill. So now here it reappears. And this is a total contradiction to the often professed Republican stance that the Federal Government should not tell local governments how to run their business. It is an unprecedented change in the longstanding policy of the Department of Transportation and the FAA that State and local governments determine the structure of airport organization and management and the Federal Government regulates airport safety. This is objectionable. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the provision on Peotone Airport, which was inserted into this conference report at the last minute. The amendment would make it a federal requirement that the governing body of the South Suburban (Peotone) airport in Will County, Illinois be comprised of a majority of local residents of the county. Insertion of this provision in the Conference Report is but the latest example of the abuse of the conference process to enact a legislative provision, which couldn't be passed on its merits, as a separate bill. The provision was never considered by the Committee of jurisdiction, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Last summer, there was an unsuccessful, last minute effort to add this provision to the Transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU. Now the provision appears again in a Conference Report that has nothing to do with aviation, or transportation. The provision was not in either of the defense bills that went to conference. It is now protected against points of order. Regrettably, this type of abuse of the process seems to happen every time a major conference report comes before the House. In addition to the abuse of process, the provision is bad policy. It is an unprecedented change in the longstanding policy that state and local governments determine the structure of airport organization and management, while the federal government regulates airport safety. The FAA is a safety organization, and its highest priority is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the airport and airway system, not to arbitrate disputes between local authorities. The State of Illinois should determine what body will govern and develop the Peotone airport and how that body should be structured. Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the conference process has been abused to pass this undesirable provision. At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the majority brings to the House floor today a resolution wrapped in a process that is offensive to the very essence of democracy. This resolution provides a dictated take-it-or- leave-it vote without the opportunity for our side to offer amendments expressing differing views of the elections in Iraq and the U.S. presence there. The substance of this resolution has all the appearance and wording of a campaign slogan. While applauding the beginnings of democracy in Iraq, the majority has stifled democracy at home by denying Democrats the opportunity to offer our own resolution for consideration and an up-or-down vote on it. Certainly, Democrats and Republicans congratulate the Iraqi people who drafted and by vote ratified their own constitution, and who voted this week in defiance of radical elements who sought to deter the Iraqi people from voting. It is appropriate for the House to congratulate the Iraqi people on this step toward democratic governance, and we share the view that this election and the continued training of Iraq's security forces will make it possible for the United States to redeploy our troops and leave Iraqis in charge of their own destiny. That is as far as this House should go in expressing support for the Iraqi democratic process. However, this resolution goes further. It raises the strawman of ``achieving victory in Iraq'' and it is critical of ``setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq,'' policies that House Democrats have not proposed. Nor does this resolution define what is meant by ``victory in Iraq.'' I want to express my support for the Iraqi people and this further step toward democracy, but I will oppose this resolution because I find it offensive that the majority has advanced a resolution that pretends to celebrate democracy by adding divisive and partisan language that is clearly designed for use in a domestic political campaign.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gordon (Gordy) Newstrom, who was a true pioneer and visionary in commercial aviation. A long-time resident of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, Gordy Newstrom passed away yesterday, December 12, 2005, at the age of 93. After training Naval Air Cadets during World War II, Gordy Newstrom returned to Coleraine, Minnesota to establish a flight school in 1944. That same year, Gordy Newstrom founded a charter airline service which he named Mesaba Airlines, to reflect its Minnesota roots. ``Mesaba'' is a Chippewa Indian word meaning ``soaring eagle.'' For several years, Gordy Newstrom operated Mesaba Airlines as a Fixed Base Operator, while sharing his love of aviation by teaching aspiring pilots to fly. In 1950, Gordy Newstrom moved Mesaba's operations from Coleraine to Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Gordy Newstrom owned the company for its first 26 years of operation; in 1970 he sold it to the Halverson family of Duluth, who began the airline's first scheduled service in 1973. Over the years, Mesaba Airlines has evolved into the eighth largest regional airline in the United States, with the distinction of being the nation's oldest regional airline. Although many operators in the aviation industry have come and gone, the airline founded by Gordy Newstrom celebrated 61 years of continuous service earlier this year. Today, Mesaba Airlines flies to 100 destinations throughout the United States and Canada, through a cooperative agreement with Northwest Airlines. To honor the many remarkable contributions Gordy Newstrom made to aviation and Northern Minnesota, the region's airport was renamed the Grand Rapids/Itasca County Airport-Gordon Newstrom Field. It was a well-deserved tribute to the founding father of Mesaba Airlines to honor his vision, dedication and determination. An avid pilot throughout his life, Gordon Newstrom logged more than 40,000 hours in the cockpit, until piloting his last flight five years ago at the age of 87. I am proud and honored to share with my colleagues this brief, but deserved tribute to Gordy Newstrom, who gave so much of himself to enrich the lives of others and to serve his community and his country.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I, together with Subcommittee Ranking Democratic Member Norton, and 30 other Democratic Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (the Committee), have introduced the ``Federal Emergency Management Agency Restoration Act of 2005''. This bill will reestablish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an independent, cabinet-level agency. It will further strengthen the agency by ensuring that the FEMA Director is chosen from among qualified candidates who have extensive experience in the areas of emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation for all hazards. This bill will begin the process of restoring FEMA to a level of competence that the American people expect and deserve. Moving FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was the wrong thing to do. It trapped the agency--an agency that needs to be nimble and be able to marshal resources quickly--in a bureaucratic morass. During its time in DHS, FEMA has been partially dismantled, been bled of necessary resources, been unable to fill key management positions on a permanent basis, been unable to make timely decisions to deal with emergencies, and has been forced to focus on terrorism at the expense of natural disasters. FEMA's response to the natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina was itself a disaster. Although I am saddened by FEMA's current troubles, I am not surprised. Three years ago, during consideration of H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, I offered an amendment to keep FEMA independent from the Department of Homeland Security. I, along with many other Democrats, feared that including FEMA in the new Department would undermine its effectiveness by diverting resources away from its traditional mission of preparing for and responding to natural disasters, thereby leaving the federal government unprepared to respond to a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. Further in testimony before the Select Committee on Homeland Security in July 2002, in response to a question by Select Committee Member Congresswoman DeLauro, I set forth what I believed to be the dangers of moving FEMA to the newly-created Department. Congressman DeLauro: Let me ask a question with regard to FEMA. You've recommended keeping FEMA as a separate agency but would coordinate with a DHS in the event of a terrorist attack. How do you think that moving FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security would affect our ability to respond to hurricanes, other natural disasters, and how do you envision the FEMA-DHS coordination being carried out? Congressman Oberstar: FEMA started out as the civil defense agency. . . . And then moved into, as the Cold War wound down, assuming broader responsibilities as our nation's premier disasters assistance and response agency. To move it into this new Department of Homeland Security without a clearly defined homeland security role is, my judgment, a mistake. We have not seen a delineation of what is homeland security compared to response to floods, hurricanes, blizzards, earthquakes, tornadoes. You know, when your home is underwater up to the eaves are you going to wonder, where is FEMA? Are they on some mission lookingfor terrorists or are they going to be on a mission looking for your lost children and rescuing you from the rooftop of your home? [emphasis added]. The bill I introduce today will help FEMA get back on track. By establishing FEMA as a cabinet-level independent agency in the executive branch, the bill ensures that FEMA is not trapped in a massive department in which the Director of FEMA must work through levels of bureaucracy before taking appropriate action. In Committee hearings held in October 2005, emergency management officials from across the Nation testified that they believed FEMA needs to be moved out of DHS in order for it to function effectively. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee plans additional hearings early next year to discuss the direction of FEMA and how to improve our preparedness and response to major disasters. I hope that Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, will respond favorably to the Committee's request to testify at one of these hearings. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill will begin the process of restoring FEMA as a first-class agency able to prepare for, respond to, and recover from both natural and man-made disasters. On September 6, 2005, when Congress returned from the August recess, Congresswoman Norton, the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, and I introduced H.R. 3659, a bill to move FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security and reestablish its independence. This bill builds upon H.R. 3659 by strengthening the qualifications for the FEMA Director and establishing the position of Deputy Director, who is to serve as a liaison to the Department of Homeland Security in the event of an act of terrorism, and act for the Director when the Director is absent, unable to serve, or when the position of the Director is vacant. The bill also includes those provisions to provide for the transfer of personnel and appropriations which are necessary to establish a separate, independent agency. A section by section explanation of the bill is set forth below. I urge Congress to consider this legislation early in the coming year. Section-by-Section of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Restoration Act Section 1. Short Title. This section establishes the short title for the Federal Emergency Management Agency Restoration Act. Section 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency. This section establishes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a cabinet-level independent agency in the executive branch. The section sets forth that FEMA is responsible for emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation for all hazards, including major disasters, acts of terrorism, and other emergencies. For purposes of the Act, ``emergency preparedness'' does not include law enforcement efforts to prevent or deter terrorism, protect critical infrastructure, and conduct intelligence activities. The section establishes qualifications for the FEMA Director. It states that the Director of FEMA shall be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among persons who have extensive experience in emergency preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation for all hazards, including major disasters, acts of terrorism, and other emergencies. The section also prescribes a five-year term of office for the Director. The section establishes a Deputy Director, appointed from the competitive service, and sets for the criteria for the Deputy Director. The section also sets forth the duties of the Deputy Director and authorizes the Deputy Director to serve as a liaison to the Department of Homeland Security in the event of an act of terrorism, and to act for the Director when the Director is absent, unable to serve, or when the position of the Director is vacant. Section 3. Transfer of Functions. This section sets forth the functions and personnel to be transferred to an independent FEMA. The section also provides for the transfer of FEMA within 120 days of the date of enactment. Section 4. Savings Provisions. This section sets forth various technical provisions to establish an independent FEMA with the authorities necessary to function as an independent agency and provides for the transfer of personnel and appropriations.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3963, a bill to extend the authorization of appropriations for the Long Island Sound Program until 2010. A healthy Sound is critical to the communities surrounding the urban watershed as well as to the wildlife within it. I offer my congratulations to my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Simmons, for working so diligently on this imperative bill. Long Island Sound stretches 110 miles, from New York City to southern New England. One in ten Americans lives within an hour's drive of the Sound, which provides over $5 billion for the local economy. Over 120 species of finfish currently inhabit its waters, supplying a diverse population for sport fishing and the seafood industry. The Sound supports its neighboring industries with not only products for sale but also an important means of transportation. It provides aquatic recreation activities, sightseeing, and beautiful views for homes along its shores. Indeed, the Sound is the foundation of livelihood for many. However, many pressures from residential, industrial, and agricultural activities have caused the natural conditions of this region to be altered. Economic advances in the watershed have changed land surfaces, reduced open spaces, and restricted access to the Sound, while increasing several types of pollution in the waters. These harmful effects are not a hopeless ending to the Sound. In the early 1900s, the Sound's population of terrapins was near the point of extinction due to overfarming to feed the nation's appetite for turtle soup. During Prohibition, however, sherry--a key ingredient in turtle soup--was forbidden to be sold. The farming for the terrapins waned and the population was able to rebound to its natural state, even after sherry became legal once more. Similar progress to restore and protect the populations and quality of the Sound are still necessary, this time in a more direct manner. The Long Island Program contributes this support that is so direly needed. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to take swift action for its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have not been a supporter of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program because I believe it creates safety problems which outweigh any security benefits. Without any disrespect for the individuals participating in the program, I rise to remind my colleagues that there is still a lot of work left to do to improve aviation security. On Monday, the 9/11 Commission released its Final Report on Commission Recommendations. The Commission gave aviation security low to failing grades ranging from ``C'' to ``F''. Three priority issues we must work expeditiously to address in the coming months include: suicide bombers at the checkpoint, checked baggage screening and screener staffing. suicide bombers Probably the greatest threat facing aviation is the threat of a suicide bomber getting past airport checkpoint security. We know that we have vulnerabilities at passenger checkpoints, and we need to give our screeners the tools to get the job done. Earlier this year Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (DHS IG) released a report indicating that our airport screening system still needs improvement. Regarding the causes of poor screener performance, the DHS IG stated ``that significant improvement in performance may not be possible without greater use of technology.'' While we have made some progress in recent months deploying checkpoint explosive detection machines like trace portals, the 9/11 Commission report gives checkpoint explosive detection a grade of ``C''. We can and must do better. checked baggage security As to checked baggage screening, it is important to install in-line screening systems at large airports given both the increased security such systems provide as well as the cost benefits. In-line EDS systems promote greater security because they are not exposed to the public; screeners are able to focus on screening bags rather than moving them; and fewer people are congregated around machines in the public area. In addition to these benefits, in-line baggage screening systems have a much higher throughput than stand-alone systems. If we install in- line systems, more bags will be screened by explosive detection systems instead of less reliable, alternative methods. TSA and airport operators rely on commitments in letters of intent (LOIs) for Federal assistance as their principal method for funding the modification of airport facilities to incorporate in-line baggage screening systems. To date, TSA has issued only 8 LOIs to cover the costs of installing systems at 9 airports. Earlier this year GAO reported that TSA has estimated that in-line baggage screening systems at the 9 airports that received LOI funding could save the Federal government $1.3 billion over 7 years. TSA further estimated that it could recover its initial investment of in- line systems at these airports in just over 1 year. Moreover, TSA officials stated without in-line EDS technology, 27 airports will not comply with the congressional mandate to screen all checked baggage using EDS or ETD. Yet despite the security benefits and savings that we would clearly gain from installing in-line EDS systems, this Congress has failed to provide sufficient funding to install in-line EDS at more than a few airports. We must fund the installation of in-line EDS systems. screener staffing TSA's main mission is security. But the agency also has the responsibility to move passengers efficiently, so long as security is not compromised. In both of these missions, TSA has been handicapped by the ill-advised cap of 45,000 full time screeners imposed by the House Appropriations Committee over three years ago, and which is continued in the FY06 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-90). This cap was imposed without any basis for determining that 45,000 was the right number, and is both arbitrary and counterintuitive. Moreover, this cap does not provide TSA with flexibility that it needs to schedule screeners for training and other skill improvement activities, while continuing to adequately staff security checkpoints. To add insult to injury, the FY06 Appropriations provides only $2.4 billion for Federal passenger and baggage screeners, which I am told is tantamount to 43,000 full time equivalent screeners--a decrease of 2,000 screeners below the cap! Passenger enplanements in 2006 are expected to reach upwards of 750 million. Surely this anticipated increase in passenger traffic justifies fully funding TSA up to the 45,000 cap! I urge my colleagues to support these needed improvements in aviation security.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1721, a vital measure to reauthorize appropriations for coastal recreation water quality monitoring and notification grants through 2011. Originally passed in the BEACH bill in 2000, this program was added to the Clean Water Act to require states with coastal areas, including those in the Great Lakes region, to adopt minimum standards for water quality, test recreational beach waters, and notify the public when test levels prove unsafe. In 1999, before the BEACH bill became law, only eleven states tested their waters and reported to the public when there was a presence of bacteria and viruses. Human contact with such waters, especially in the elderly and very young, can result in gastrointestinal disorders, respiratory diseases, and ear, nose, or throat infections. These bacteria and viruses are typically the result of polluted stormwater and runoff, overburdened sewage treatment facilities, and malfunctioning septic systems. Ignorance was not bliss, ignorance was a serious health hazard. While we must certainly do more to eliminate these pollution sources, until they are eliminated, we must test recreational waters and adequately inform those who might be at risk from them. Poor health conditions from contaminated waters adversely affect those who live by coastal waters and those who travel to the shore. According to the latest reports from the Travel Industry Association of America, 109.5 million travelers visit the beach per year. Over 36 percent of those tourists stayed for a week or longer, and 41 percent of the travelers were children--those who could most be adversely affected by contaminated waters. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of our Committee colleague, Mr. Bishop, in proposing this important legislation. As the representative of the northern part of the Long Island Sound, the gentleman is well aware of the importance of clean beaches and public notification of potential health exceedances for residents and visitors to the Sound. I commend the gentleman's hard work in reauthorizing funding for this program. I support this reauthorization and I urge my colleagues to let ``a day at the beach'' continue to be a pseudonym for recreational relaxation and enjoyment, not a risk of pollution and ill health.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Act. This Conference Report, and the process by which this Body considers it, are another disappointing chapter in the Republican's Leadership's management of this House. At 5:30 a.m. this morning, the House Appropriations Committee filed this Conference Report. At 8:00 a.m., the Rules Committee met in emergency session to report a rule waiving all points of order against a bill that no one, other than Members of the Appropriations Committee and the Republican Leadership, had seen or read. The Rules Committee waived all points of order against the Conference Report and its consideration. Within hours, the House is now forced to vote on the bill. This process, requiring Members to vote on bills they have never seen nor read, has become the all too common practice of this majority. The days of filing a conference report, giving Members an opportunity to read it, and allowing the House to consider it without all points of order waived against the bill are a distant memory of a Democratic majority. When Democrats were the majority party of the House, under House Rules, provisions that were beyond the scope of an Appropriations Conference Report were subject to a separate vote. A Member could vote against these types of riders without killing the Conference Report. In the early 1990's, I recall how proud then-Appropriations Committee Chairman Natcher was to bring appropriations bills to the Floor with no authorizing provisions and no points of order waived. Clean bills and transparency are no longer the goal. The new order is to ram through this House the Majority's agenda. Although there is much in this Conference Report that I support, I regret that the Committee on Appropriations, with no consultation with the Committee on Transportanon and Infrastructure, has made numerous changes to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), just months after the President signed the Act. The Conference Report alters the SAFETEA-LU highway formula for distribution of funds to the States to provide more than $600 million in earmarks at 100% federal funding for the chosen few. The Report cuts funding for the National Highway System, Interstate Maintenance, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, Equity Bonus, Appalachian Development Highway System, and Federal Lands programs in order to finance these earmarks. Simply earmarking every available dollar of the Department of Transportation's discretionary funding is apparently not enough--the Appropriators need to skim highway formula dollars too. The earmarks are 100 percent Federally funded and subject to no reduction like other programs and projects. There appears no limit to the majority's insatiable appetite for highway and transit earmarks. I also regret that the Appropriators, with the concurrence of the Republican Leadership, have enabled Members and Senators to revisit issues that were clearly decided in the Conference on SAFETEA-LU. We appear to be moving from a time when an agreement could be secured with a handshake to a period in which an agreement is only for today: there is always the opportunity, with an appropriations rider, to get another ``bite at the apple''--fair compromise be damned. The Conference Report's household goods appropriations rider provides a telling example. The Report overturns SAFETEA-LU's consumer protection provisions that give States the power to enforce federal consumer laws on interstate moving companies. Just three months ago, the President signed SAFETEA-LU with important consumer protection provisions to address the serious problem of fraud by unscrupulous moving companies. Fraud in the household goods moving industry affects thousands of victims each year, as documented in hearings of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. Unscrupulous movers offer low estimates, then later inflate the price of the move and hold the customer's goods hostage until they pay the inflated price. The frequency of such scams increased after federal authority over these companies was transferred from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1995. These responsibilities fell to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and later to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). FMCSA's primary mission is safety, and the agency has few resources to focus on consumer protection. Corrupt movers increasingly exploited this regulatory gap. In March of 2001, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that complaints of consumer fraud in the household goods moving industry rose dramatically from 1996 to 1999. Complaints to DOT rose 107 percent and the number of requests for arbitration to the American Moving and Storage Association went up 750 percent. In response, and after much discussion in the Conference Committee, we included language in SAFETEA-LU that provided greater protection against unscrupulous ``rogue'' movers. The law authorized state attorneys general and state consumer protection agencies to enforce federal regulations governing the interstate movement of household goods. Today, the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Conference Report undoes this protection. The new language prevents state authorities from taking action against established movers, or those who do not egregiously violate federal motor carrier safety regulations, regardless of how flagrantly these companies violate consumer protection laws. It also prevents state consumer protection agencies from taking administrative action against unscrupulous movers, and limits these agencies to filing cases in United States District Courts. I am disappointed that the Appropriations Committee and the Republican Leadership would not honor the agreements of SAFETEA-LU and allow such a rider to be added. Although the Conference Report includes dozens of other surface transportation authorizing provisions that were included without the concurrence of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I will focus on only one other provision--which I find truly indefensible. Section 1926 of SAFETEA-LU requires the Department of Transportation to provide budget justification documents to the Transportation Committee and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the U.S. Senate with the President's annual budget submission. The budget justification documents provide the line-item detail of the President's Budget that helps the Transportation Committee analyze the programs within our jurisdiction. Although the Transportation Committee routinely receives these budget documents from non-DOT agencies within the Committee's jurisdiction, the Department of Transportation has been reluctant to provide the information without express authorization. Thus, SAFETEA-LU specifically required that DOT provides the documents to the Committee with the President's budget, in February each year. The Conference Report amends this provision to prevent our Committee from receiving these documents until June, four months after the President's Budget is submitted. Why would the Committee on Appropriations not want an authorizing Committee to have the necessary information to conduct budgetary oversight over the agencies within its jurisdiction? Does the Committee on Appropriations believe that it is the only committee entitled to such budget information? The Conference Report's provision is indefensible and I can assure you that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which provides the mandatory budget authority for the highway, transit, highway safety, and aviation programs, has every right to this information and will restore the SAFETEA-LU provision. The Conference Report also disregards the aviation budgetary firewalls established under Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The Report cuts the capital investment guaranteed in Vision 100 by more than $500 million. These cuts, in direct violation of the aviation budgetary firewalls, will directly impact our efforts to address the continued growth of commercial aviation. Commercial aviation is on track to reach 1 billion enplanements by 2015. DOT predicts up to a tripling of passengers, operations, and cargo by 2025. The Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry reported that consumers could lose as much as $30 billion annually if people and products cannot reach their destinations within the time periods expected today. Yet, the Conference Report dramatically cuts the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Facilities and Equipment (F&E) capital account-- the primary vehicle for modernizing the National Airspace System (NAS)--for the second year in a row. Together, the FY2005 and FY2006 Transportation Appropriations Acts have cut the F&E account by almost $1 billion below the level authorized and guaranteed by Congress in Vision 100. The DOT Inspector General testified before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the FAA could not technologically transform the NAS with only the approximate level of F&E funding provided by the Conference Report. In addition, according to the FAA's own analysis, two thirds of its $30 billion worth of assets is beyond their useful life. Air traffic control towers average 30 years in age. TRACON facilities average 34 years. Primary En Route Radar Systems average 27 years. En Route Control Center facilities average 40 years and are rated by the General Services Administration as being in poor condition and getting worse each year. The cuts to FAA's capital account will make it more difficult for the FAA to maintain its current deteriorating facilities and equipment, much less technologically transform the system to handle the nation's future needs. The Appropriators, with the concurrence of the House Republican Leadership, include these and dozens of other authorizing provisions in the Conference Report that we consider today. Votes are cast before the Conference Report is even printed. I regret that so few Members know that it needn't be this way. I regret that the Republican rank-and-file Members allow their Leadership to run the House in such a way. I regret that, under this majority, we may never be able to recapture an appropriations process that made Bill Natcher so proud.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman Shuster and Subcommittee Democratic Ranking Member Norton, for all of their work on this important bill. H.R. 4324, Predisaster Mitigation Act Reauthorization Act of 2005, provides funding for a competitive grant program to assist States and local governments in implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program. The Predisaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) will provide funds to states, and local governments and communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. This program funds activities like, the seismic strengthening of buildings and infrastructure, the construction of levees and the building of ``safe rooms'' in houses and other structures to protect against high winds. It is important to note that this program complements another Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act post mitigation program--the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMPG) which provides fund to reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss or suffering in any area affected by a major disaster. Over the last twenty-five years, this country has had over one thousand presidential disaster declarations in the United States and the Insular Territories. These disasters have cost our nation billions of dollars and taken an untold number of lives. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Rita and Wilma, we have all become acutely aware of the devastation natural disaster can bring. We know that these natural disasters will continue to occur and bring damage and destruction but we also know that mitigation programs like the Predisaster Mitigation Program will help save lives and property. According to the Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences which conducted an independent study on the costs benefits of mitigation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--mitigation saves lives and tax dollars. For every $1 spent from the United States Treasury for mitigation, we will save $3.65 for taxpayers when disaster strikes. Mitigation reduces property damage, reduces business interruption, reduces environmental damage and most importantly, it reduces societal losses, including causalities and homelessness. Moreover, the benefits of FEMA hazard mitigation grants significantly exceed their costs--by a 4 to 1 margin. In addition to providing broad-based benefits to society, FEMA hazard mitigation grants more than pay for themselves. Mr. Speaker, it is unmistakably clear, mitigation is essential to reducing the loss of lives and property in future natural disasters. In October 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA), which reauthorized the Stafford Act and created several new programs. One of those new programs was a Predisaster Mitigation Program that tasked FEMA with awarding grants to states on a competitive basis to implement predisaster mitigation plans. Again, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina as the Gulf Region begins the long and difficult process of rebuilding we can truly appreciate the importance of predisaster mitigation planning. Today, this bill extends the authorization of this program for another three years and directs the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to conduct a study on the program's effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good bill that will save both lives, property and taxpayer funds. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H. Res. 547, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives ``that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District.'' I oppose this resolution, because I believe the legislative branch ought not to intercede in the matter at this time. It is premature for Congress to take a position on the court's ruling, because the issue has not yet been definitively decided by the judicial branch. Fields v. Palmdale School District is an ongoing legal matter that is being addressed by the judicial branch. The legislative branch's action to prejudge the decision infringes on the separation of powers in the Constitution and is an unnecessary usurpation of the judicial branch's role. Should Republican leaders choose to continue bringing to the floor of the House of Representatives resolutions that criticize decisions of the courts, they should wait until the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a final decision.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees to H.R. 3058, the Fiscal Year 2006 Transportation- Treasury Appropriations Act, offered by the Gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), Ranking Democratic Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee. In part, this motion instructs conferees to recede to the Senate levels for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak. This past summer, the House approved by voice vote a bipartisan Amtrak funding amendment that the Gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, and I offered to H.R. 3058, the Fiscal Year 2006 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations bill. The amendment increased funding for Amtrak to $1.176 billion: $1.176 billion more than the Administration proposed in its Fiscal Year 2006 budget request and $626 million more than the House Appropriations Committee approved. It passed overwhelmingly. The Senate followed the House's lead, but raised the bar, providing Amtrak with $1.45 billion, a difference of about $275 million. During Floor consideration, the Senate also stripped the Senate bill of several controversial provisions regarding Amtrak, opting instead to pass a reasonable, sensible, bipartisan Amtrak reauthorization amendment, offered by Senators Lott and Lautenberg, to the Budget Reconciliation bill by a vote of 93-6. I urge that the conferees recede to the Senate level of $1.45 billion. The fact is that this Congress time and again promotes transportation, particularly rural access to transportation. We should do no less for Amtrak. Amtrak's opponents, however, are quick to point fingers at Amtrak's management, and claim that Amtrak doesn't deserve our support: That private corporations could run a better passenger railroad. The truth is that a succession of hardworking and dedicated management teams at Amtrak cannot do the impossible--that is, operate our Nation's passenger rail system without a substantial level of investment from the Federal Government. From its creation in the 1970's, the Corporation has been on a starvation diet. Lack of adequate funding and the annual threat of elimination have conditioned Amtrak to focus on survival. Yet despite chronic underfunding, Amtrak has had its successes. According to the Amtrak Reform Board, since 2002, Amtrak has: implemented new accounting and financial reporting systems; reduced personnel by almost 5,000; developed a detailed and prioritized five- year capital plan focused on restoring the Northeast Corridor to necessary levels of reliability and safety, and on restoration of an aging fleet of rolling stock used throughout the system; terminated the mail and express operation; eliminated or truncated three long-distance routes; increased ridership from 22.5 million in 2000 to 25.1 million in 2004; and contained Amtrak's cash-operating requirement at or below $570 million. Capital investment is up substantially: 256,000 concrete ties were installed; 104,000 wood ties were replaced; 266 miles of rail infrastructure restored; 50 undergrade bridges improved; 43 miles of signal and communications cable replaced; 116 miles of catenary hardware installed; and 19 stations and 37 substations improved. Since 2002, Amtrak's mechanical department completed 180 remanufactures/heavy overhauls, 111 diesel locomotive overhauls, 14 electric locomotive overhauls, 31 equipment overhauls, 51 wreck repairs, and 32 baggage car modifications. Excess equipment was sold, unprofitable services were eliminated, fares were lowered on long-distance routes to increase ridership, and a $71 million maintenance facility was opened in a joint partnership between Amtrak and the State of California. In short, Amtrak is making great progress, even on a limited budget. Let's invest $1.45 billion in our rail passenger future and help Amtrak succeed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Motion to Instruct Conferees. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, there is no comparable provision that I am aware of, and that is why I think it is important for the House to insist on this language, a position that I know the Chairman will stoutly defend, and we will have unanimous support on our side. We will have a bipartisan position.

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we will not take anywhere near the time allotted. I will take a few moments to explain the motion which the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of our committee, and I have discussed previously. The subject of this motion is summed up by a committee hearing held earlier this year on the tragedy that occurred November 26, 2004. The Athos, 750-foot single-hull tank vessel, hit a submerged object in Delaware Bay just south of Philadelphia, spilling 265,000 gallons of heavy crude oil. In January of this year, our Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation held a field hearing on this marine casualty in Philadelphia. The Coast Guard estimated that the costs of cleanup and natural resources damages resulting from the grounding of the Athos I could be in the range of $200 million. Under current law, the owners of the vessel would be liable for costs of only up to $45 million. At that hearing, the Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and our newly elected Member, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), raised the concern that the limits of the vessel owner's liability for response, cleanup, and restoration to the damages caused by this spill were relatively modest, set when the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was enacted over 15 years ago. The Chairman and I both remember, when we served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, we were part of setting that oil pollution liability limit. We have not increased those limits since that time even though inflation has actually overtaken. With the leadership of the chairman of the subcommittee and the gentlewoman from Philadelphia and to ensure that the limits do not again become out of date, Section 603 directs the President to adjust limits of liability. First, Section 603 adjusts the liability limits to account for the inflation of the past 15 years, since the Oil Pollution Act was enacted. Secondly, the provision requires that the President adjust these liability limits not less than every 3 years to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index since the last adjustment. I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the gentlewoman from Philadelphia (Ms. Schwartz), and especially our chairman who has concurred, and we worked together in crafting this language to ensure that the Coast Guard reauthorization bill includes this provision and the other provisions of H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act of 2005. I think it is an important step forward for the environment, for the taxpayers, and for safety of the future.