James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), one of our most principled Members and most thoughtful Members of this body for always seeking to do the right thing, policy-wise, and for the people. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), the ranking member on our Rail Subcommittee, who has led the charge in support of Amtrak. (Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I underwent corrective hernia surgery on June 13, and I was unable to record my vote during the consideration of legislation earlier this week, including the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for Science, State, Commerce and Justice. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes Nos. 241, 242, 244, 246, 248, 252, 254, 255, 256, 258, 261, 264, 268, 270, 271, and 272. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes Nos. 243, 245, 247, 249, 250, 251, 253, 257, 259, 260, 262, 263, 265, 266, 267, 269, and 273.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have had a good discussion of the subject matter. I think it need not be further elaborated. Again, if you are serious about a good result in the conference, you will support this motion to instruct conferees, a fair, equitable, and balanced motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank the gentlewoman from Houston for her thoughtful remarks, representing the Nation's fourth largest urban area. She certainly knows whereof she speaks about transportation and congestion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Railroads.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I appreciate the difficulty in which my committee colleagues find themselves in this matter, but I would also observe that the business of the House is never over until the adjournment vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when we passed the legislation to extend highway programs for another 30 days, I said that the most hopeful sign for the upcoming conference was the apparent agreement that the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) would chair the conference. That assures that this conference will move expeditiously, on time, with attention to detail and with a deliberate spirit of achieving all that we need to do in policy and financing to get a bill back, a conference report back to the House, to the other body and downtown to be signed. I know how hard the chairman has worked, how much time and effort and commitment he has made personally to that initiative, and I am proud to work alongside with him. The motion to instruct that I offer directs House conferees to do two things: Insist in the conference on a level of funding for highway transit and highway and motor carrier safety programs equal to the level of funding that is in the bill that passed this body, was reported from our committee, passed this body, 283.9, it should be 284, but who is going to quibble with Filene's Basement's version of transportation, and the additional resources necessary to increase the guaranteed rate of return for States to not less than 92 percent, while ensuring that every State gets no less than we provided for every State in our version of the bill. It has been our goal all along to increase from 90.5 to 92 percent. The question of equity has been central to last year's and the year before and this year's reauthorization debate on surface transportation. In fact, the very title of our bill, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, makes equity the very top issue in our legislation. Donor States, as we have heard for months and months, want their guaranteed rate of return raised from 90.5 percent to as much as 95 percent. Now, we could do 95 percent handily at $375 billion, the bill that the chairman and I agreed upon, and 74 to 75 members of our committee cosponsored, but that was not possible under the politics of transportation. We understand that. Donee States, on the other hand, want to ensure that they continue receiving the adequate highway transportation funding that they have been accustomed to and committed to. So the bipartisan bill that we reported from committee in the last Congress set the level at $375 billion. We knew that that was not going to be acceptable downtown or very likely in the other body, so we scaled the bill back to $275 billion. But even then the administration threatened to veto a bill with funding above its view of the proper investment level, which was a paltry $256 billion that everyone, the contractor community, the labor community, the States, the transit authorities, everybody knows that does not build you one more mile of highway, one new bridge or buy one new transit bus or rail car. Everybody knew that. It was completely unrealistic. When we got into conference last year just before the August recess, the administration finally put on the table $283.9 billion. And we said, you know, it is movement in the right direction. Let us take it and let us go with this. But we never reached agreement in conference, which is why, of course, we are back here on the floor. We agreed at the outset of this Congress to start where we left off in the last Congress, without any smoke and mirrors, without any fussing said, this is the number that is realistic, that if you want to do legislation, this is the way to do it. Let us start with this number. But we also had to face the reality that it is not possible to do anything above 90.5 percent return on equity for those States who want us to move higher, without taking away from someone else, without doing damage to core programs, without a whole host of other difficulties. Now, the other body found some money. The other body found $11 billion; and in their bill, provided $295 billion in funding and were able to increase the minimum rate of return to 92 percent. Now, whether that $11 billion is fiscally sound or politically sustainable is a matter we will have to address when we get into conference, which is why this motion to instruct is important. We all want to achieve equity. We all want to raise those States up. We all understand, as the other body understood, that if they did not raise their numbers to get to be able to commit $295 billion, they would not be able to achieve the equity they needed for those western States, large geographic areas and large highway mileages and transportation needs, nor would they be able to satisfy the donor States or other, smaller, donee States. So they needed more money. They realistically approached the issue and approved 11 billion additional dollars. The reality, as we get into conference, we are not going to be able to, without additional resources, to come up to the $292 billion level. The other body will need to pass a conference report, and we will not be able to bring back to this body a conference report that will satisfy donor States, donee States without additional resources. So that is why the additional resources language is needed. All of it comes right on the heels of the Texas Transportation Institute Annual report on congestion, their Urban Mobility Report, issued just a few weeks ago, which finds once again, every year, they find congestion increasing. Overall traffic delays totaled 3.7 billion hours, up from 3.6 billion a year ago. Congestion and delay cause an additional consumption of 2.3 billion gallons of fuel. That means every driver in America in a congested area is spending 1 week longer in their car than they would if they could drive at posted highway speeds, and they are buying one tank of gasoline more than they would if they could drive at posted highway speeds. It is a moral issue because they are taking the name of the Lord more often in traffic on weekdays than they do in church on Sundays. We need to address that issue, all three of those issues. We are the most mobile society in history. We travel at an increasing rate and we travel in our cars. Population in the decade of the '90s as expressed in the Census of 2000 group is 4 percent. But transportation usage grew 14 percent, 3-plus times as much as population growths. Total vehicle miles traveled, just vehicle miles traveled, rose 19 percent in that decade. Number of households grew 72 percent in that decade, but household vehicle miles soared 193 percent. The fact is congestion is choking our cities. It is choking off commerce. It is causing business to spend more money. UPS told me that for every 5 minutes' delay they lose $40 million nationally, every 5- minute delay. There is a business adverse impact unless we make the investment. It is within our hands to do this. Now, even at the Senate-passed level of 295, we are $80 billion below where we know we need to be. What we are saying with this motion to instruct is let us go to conference. Let us keep 92 percent the rate of return on the radar screen, which is our objective and the other body's objective, and get the resources we need and do no less for every State in conference than we did in the House bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the chairman, and I simply reiterate what a delight it is to work with him in concert towards the objective we all share. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would just say it was quite a coincidence that just as we began, or just before beginning consideration of this bill, the papers arrived from the other body, signaling that we are ready, perhaps tomorrow, to move to go to conference. That is a good sign: Appoint conferees, and return from the Memorial Day recess ready to, well, I would not say roll up our sleeves, because it will be short-sleeve time by then, but to go to work on the conference report and bridge the differences, literally, between the two bodies and two versions of the bill with the least amount of interference from the executive branch of government. Left to our own devices, the House and the Senate will come to agreement on the conference report and do what is good and necessary for the country in transportation. Mr. Speaker, almost 20 months ago, on September 24, 2003, when this House was considering the first surface transportation extension bill, I stated: ``I am afraid . . . we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring . . . I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said six years ago, time is running out.'' What I predicted then has repeatedly proven correct--we have had six extensions since that day. And here we are today pleading once again for a temporary extension of authorizations for highway construction, highway safety, and public transportation funding. What is even more discouraging is that we are almost at exactly the same position we were a year ago when both houses of Congress passed legislation and met in Conference Committee to resolve our differences. But the unwillingness of the Administration to agree to a level of investment that this country needs to meet its transportation requirements prevented the Conference from coming to a successful conclusion. So we are here today, trying to pass the 7th temporary extension to keep our federal surface transportation programs going. It is time, in fact it is long overdue, for this Congress to realize that it is not a parliamentary body. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws. It is now up to the House and Senate to come together in Conference Committee and resolve their difference, including deciding the overall funding level of the bill. Too often the Republican Leadership in both bodies simply bows to the wishes of the Administration, which in this case has drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. In doing so, they abdicate their Constitutional duty to make laws and do a real disservice to the American people. Delay in a long-term reauthorization of the federal surface transportation programs has been costly to our Nation. When the first extension was about to expire last year, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) estimated that failure to enact a long-term reauthorization would mean a $2.1 billion increase in project cost and a loss of more than 90,000 jobs that could have been created. The uncertainty caused by Congress' failure to pass this bill has significantly limited the States' willingness to plan and budget for large, multi-year projects. We must now finish the job that Congress should have completed 20 months ago. Now that the Other Body has passed its version of the transportation reauthorization bill last week, we should immediately begin the work of the Conference Committee to ensure that we reach agreement on a Conference Report before this extension expires at the end of next month. Continuing our federal surface transportation programs by temporarily extending their funding authorization is no way to do business, especially when we are dealing with costly, multi-year transportation projects that require long-term certainty in planning, development, and financing. The 2005 construction season is upon us. I can only imagine what further damage and financial cost will be inflicted if another extension is needed to carry us to the promised land of a long-term transportation act. Like the six previous extensions, H.R. 2566 provides for a ``clean'' extension of program funding authorization. As a result, Congress has not been able to modify or update current surface transportation programs that are in need of such adjustment. Overall, this bill would provide $3.14 billion in new contracts authority for highway programs for the month ending on June 30, 2005. For transit programs, this bill would provide $647 million for the month of June. This funding will allow the programs to continue for one more month. I hope we can complete the Conference Report during this time and will not have to come back here again to set new records for the number of temporary extensions and the length of time since the expiration of a regular long-term surface transportation act. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown). (Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it was September 24, 2003, when this House was considering the first surface transportation extension bill that I said, ``I am afraid we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring. I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said 6 years ago. Time is running out.'' Well, what I said 20 months ago has been right again and again. Tonight we are here following six extensions of current law pleading for, once again, a temporary extension of authorization for highway construction, safety and public transportation funding. And what is discouraging is we are almost in the same position we were a year ago when both Houses passed legislation, met in conference to resolve our differences, but the unwillingness of the White House to agree to a level of investment the country really needs and which we all understand is needed prevented the conference from coming to a successful resolution. So here we are with extension number seven. Like the six previous extensions, this bill provides for a clean extension of program funding authorization, which means that in the interim we have not been able to modify or update current surface transportation programs that need those adjustments. The bill will provide $3.14 billion in new contract authority for highway programs through June 30, 2005. I better say 2005, lest we get confused with the next year. For transit programs, the bill provides $647 million for the month of June to allow programs to continue for one more month. The best news about this bill is that the prospects look better than they have for the past 2 years. The chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has been designated, or will be designated and agreed upon to be the Chair of the conference. I think that indicates that we will move with expeditious resolve to get this legislation completed in the month allotted by this extension of time. But let us not underestimate the problems lying ahead of us. They are enormous, and they are principally funding problems. We have passed through our committee, through this House, in extraordinarily good time, early in this year, carrying our responsibility as we said we would do, to the transportation needs of America; but it has been the other body and the other branch of government that have not done their part. Now, I am confident that when we get into conference, we could just take our bill, if the other body would simply accept it, we would get it passed, and we would meet the transportation needs of the country, but I suspect it is not going to be quite that simple. So it is reassuring that our chairman will be the conference chair, and that means that things will move along, I think, very expeditiously. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the issue of embryonic stem cell research places humanity on the frontier of medical science and at the outer edge of moral theology. On the side of science there is much hope, even expectation that extraordinarily effective therapies will be developed due to a wide range of maladies from diabetes to Parkinson's, spinal cord injury and a host of others. Progress has been achieved in the laboratory in animal studies and in human application. Much has yet to be learned, however, about adverse outcomes, which is why scientists proceed cautiously without overpromising and with respect for moral considerations of their research. The latter gives me the greatest pause. An editorial in America Magazine said it well: ``The debate over embryonic stem cell research cannot be fully resolved because it is ignited by irreconcilable views of what reverence for life requires.'' Let us recall Louise Brown, the first test tube baby. Her life began as a single cell, fertilized egg, in vitro. There are many leftover potential Louise Browns, potential human beings as cryogenic embryos conceived in the laboratory. Are they to be discarded or, can they be ethically used for stem cell research? That is the moral theology issue that we must resolve. I cannot get over the reality that human life is created in creating an embryo, whether in vitro or whether in utero. Each of us has to decide the morality of this unique aspect of the issue. But I cannot get over the moral theology underpinning of this extraordinary research on the frontier of science that we are tinkering with human life. And we must not tinker further. We know not where we head. It is between God and us. Let us resolve any uncertainty in favor of life.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from spending any of the funds provided by this bill to finalize any new policy related to sewage blending. Mr. Chairman, when EPA proposed to issue a new policy document on sewage blending, I was concerned that it could cause an increase in the frequency of blending by those communities that current use the practice, and an increase in the number of communities that use the practice. That is why I thought the policy was flawed. I do not believe that there currently is enough information available to EPA and state permit writers to know that any increase in the use of blending is protective of human health and the environment. That is why I believe that issuing a policy that could increase the use of blending is wrong. Sewage blending is the practice of taking partially treated wastewater, mixing it with fully treated wastewater, and then relying on the dilution to meet discharge limits. I do not believe that sewage blending is what was intended when the secondary treatment requirements for publicly owned treatment works were put in place by Congress in 1972. Congress intended that all domestic sewage receive a minimum of secondary treatment, and greater levels of treatment where water quality demanded it. Since sewage blending is a process that is used only during periods of high flows, then the question presents itself as to whether blending complies with the secondary treatment requirements. Even the proponents of blending acknowledge that blending is used only in limited high flow circumstances--at all other times the sewage otherwise receives full secondary treatment The current, acknowledged limitations on the use of blending lead to the question--if blending constitutes secondary treatment, then why is it not acceptable all the time, or if it does not constitute secondary treatment, why is it allowed at all? Recently, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water acknowledged, ``the heart and soul of the Clean Water Act, is that dilution is not the solution to pollution, that you need to treat the sewage. Blending isn't the solution. It's a short-term fix. [EPA] want[s] to make sure that it only occurs in the very limited, narrow circumstances and that it meets all requirements in their Clean Water Act permit, and that water quality standards downstream are also maintained.'' Mr. Chairman, increasing the use of blending is not an acceptable long-term solution to meeting secondary treatment requirements. I support the amendment to bring the expanded use of blending policy to a halt. Point of Order

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by Ms. Johnson of Texas, the Ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The amendment moves $2 million from grants for state administrative expenses to grants for communities to conduct actual cleanup of contaminated brownfields. The Bush administration has called the federal brownfields program, enacted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 2001, ``one of the administration's top priorities and a key to restoring contaminated sites to productive use.'' Yet, despite this praise, the administration's budget requests for the cleanup of brownfields demonstrate its lack of commitment to the cleanups necessary to reduce the risks to human health and the environment. In fiscal year 2006, the administration requested $210 million for Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields program; however, of this amount, approximately 45 percent, or $90 million, is earmarked for Federal and state bureaucrats to manage the program. That leaves only $120 million of a $210 million request devoted to actual cleanups-- shovels in the ground--and this bill further reduces that amount by about 20%. Since 2001, the Bush administration has consistently requested far less than the fully-authorized levels for assessment and cleanups, yet attempts to take credit for fully-funding the brownfields program. While the budgetary constraints of the House Republican Leadership prevent us from fully-funding brownfields cleanups, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, shifts dollars away from the management of the program to actual cleanups. The amendment reduces, by $2 million, the amount appropriated for State Response programs under section 128 of the Superfund law to $50 million, the total authorized level of funding for these programs. The amendment adds $2 million to the site assessment and cleanup portion of the brownfields program, raising this level from $95.5 million to $97.5 million. Under current law, the brownfields sites assessment and cleanup program is authorized at $200 million annually by section 104(k) of the Superfund law, so even this increase leaves the program at less than 50 percent of its authorized funding level. Mr. Chairman, the brownfields program is critical for the restoration and reuse of the legacies of this Nation's industrial era, many of which have plagued our cities and communities for decades. In this time of scarce Federal resources, it is important that we devote what limited dollars are available to actually accomplishing what the brownfields program set out to do over five years ago-- redeveloping the underused and abandoned brownfields across this country. I strongly support the amendment offered by Ms. Johnson, and urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Thompson amendment in the nature of a substitute. This amendment sets forth a comprehensive, integrated policy to promote homeland security. This amendment is a true substitute amendment and covers important areas where Federal security plans are sorely needed--such as rail and transit transportation--that are omitted from the underlying bill. Frankly, the Thompson amendment demonstrates that the Democrats in this body have the better plan for securing our Nation. I'd like to thank the Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Congressman Thompson, for actively working with me to develop this comprehensive amendment. In particular, I'd like to thank him for recognizing the important role that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has in devising and implementing transportation security regulations. DOT has extensive experience in security and has the primary responsibility for the efficiency and safety of transportation. For transportation security to work well, it is imperative that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOT work on security plans in tandem. The transportation provisions in this amendment insure that the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Transportation will work together to ensure that this Nation has the strongest, smartest homeland security procedures, which do not unnecessarily undermine efficiency or compromise safety. I'd like to highlight some of these provisions. Section 518 of the amendment is the language from H.R. 1496, a bipartisan bill which I cosponsored and which was reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in April, to allow general aviation to return to National Airport. Opening National Airport to general aviation is long overdue. In Vision 100, reported by the Transportation Committee and passed by Congress in 2003, Congress mandated that National Airport be open to general aviation after a security plan is established. To date, this Administration has not taken action to comply with this directive. I am disappointed that the Administration has avoided reopening general aviation at National Airport for this long, and this legislation is necessary to fully restore our transportation system, and our economy. Further, I strongly support Title VI of the Thompson amendment. This title provides for transit security and passenger and freight rail security. Again, rail and transit security are areas where DOT and DHS must work together. This amendment would provide for that. Subtitle B is taken directly from H.R. 2351, the ``Rail Security Act of 2005,'' which I introduced earlier this month. It requires that within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation shall develop and implement a railroad security assessment, a railroad security plan, and prioritized recommendations for improving railroad security. The amendment also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation to execute a memorandum of agreement governing the roles and responsibilities of their Departments in addressing railroad transportation security matters. Moreover, the amendment focuses on an issue that security bills often ignore: the importance of ensuring that key workers have the support and training required to protect our rail system, whether those workers are railroad employees or emergency responders. Rail workers are truly the eyes and ears of the rail industry. They greet passengers, sell tickets, operate trains, maintain track and signal systems, dispatch trains, operate bridges, and repair cars. They are in the most direct position to spot security risks and potential threats. This bill requires rail carriers to provide security training to these workers to ensure that they are prepared to take appropriate action against threat conditions. While I do support most of these provisions in the Thompson amendment, I have serious concerns about one particular section. Section 519 would mandate that 100 percent of air cargo on passenger planes be physically inspected. While ensuring the security of air cargo is a laudable goal, this mandate is not the best way to accomplish that goal. The effect of this amendment would be to force air carriers to remove all cargo from passenger aircraft, jeopardizing 27,000 direct jobs and $4 billion in annual revenue. No available technology exists today to efficiently and effectively screen all air cargo for explosives. Most of the cargo screening technologies referenced by those in favor of this amendment are basic or high energy x-ray systems, which currently are not certified explosive detection systems (EDS) for cargo. U.S. airlines have implemented significant cargo inspection and screening measures mandated by Congress and enforced by TSA. First, only known shippers (shippers who are part of the Known Shipper database) may ship cargo on passenger aircraft. Second, all cargo is subject to random inspection. In addition, U.S. airlines have collaborated with TSA and the U.S. Postal Service to develop and implement a canine mail-screening program for mail carried on passenger airlines. The airlines continue to assist TSA in programs to evaluate the utility of explosive detection systems (EDS) and canines for cargo screening. These programs are the best methods available for ensuring cargo security. However, Mr. Chairman, my concerns about the cargo security provision are outweighed by the many good security provisions in the amendment. I support the Thompson amendment. It is a comprehensive approach to providing the best security for our Nation. I urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today, together with Subcommittee on Railroads Ranking Member Corrine Brown and 12 of my other colleagues, I introduce the ``Rail Security Act of 2005.'' It's been almost 4 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and one year since the terrorist train bombing in Madrid, Spain, that killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,800 others, making it the deadliest terrorist attack against European civilians since 1988. Last month, Spanish authorities found in the home of a suspect in the Madrid bombing, a rough sketch of New York's Grand Central Terminal, the significance of which is being evaluated. The Madrid bombing was just the latest in a series of attacks on railroads worldwide. Between 1998 and 2003, there were 181 attacks worldwide 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 security in the United States. The Madrid bombing alone should have served as a wake-up call to Congress and the Administration. Last year, the United States spent $4.4 billion on aviation security, but only $115 million on rail and transit security, even though five times as many people take trains as planes every day. The President's FY2006 Budget for the Transportation Security Administration proposes $4.7 billion for aviation security and just $32 million for highways, passenger rail, buses and other modes of surface transportation. Amtrak alone has requested $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, D.C. Securing Amtrak and other rail facilities is a formidable task, but Congress must get it done. Of course, that requires Federal leadership and Federal resources, both of which are long overdue. For 4 years now, our country still hasn't produced a national transportation security plan. The Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001 originally required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop and submit to Congress a National Strategy for Transportation Security. In 2003, then Transportation Security Administrator Admiral James Loy promised the plan by the end of that year. Most recently, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 required the plan to be produced by April 1, 2005. Unfortunately, the Department has pushed back the completion date for this document again. On April 1, 2005, the DHS sent a letter to Congress stating that the Department now intends to produce the National Strategy for Transportation Security to Congress in two to three months. We cannot continue to delay security improvements while awaiting the National Strategy. Congress needs to act now to protect the safety and security of our Nation's railroads, rail passengers, rail workers, and communities served by them. The Rail Security Act of 2005 requires that within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation shall develop and implement a railroad security assessment, a railroad security plan, and prioritized recommendations for improving railroad security. The bill also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation to execute a memorandum of agreement governing the roles and responsibilities of their Departments in addressing railroad transportation security matters. The bill authorizes more than $1 billion to safeguard our Nation's rail network from terrorist threats, $500 million of which is authorized for grants to State and local governments, railroad carriers, rail labor, and others for costs incurred for preventing 3 or responding to terrorist activities or other security threats to intercity passenger rail and freight rail service. Under the bill, Amtrak will receive $100 million for security upgrades, plus a total of $597 million to make fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on the Northeast Corridor in New York, New York, Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. This funding is critical to protect Amtrak's 25 million passengers, two-thirds of whom travel along the Northeast Corridor. The bill authorizes $50 million for the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a research and development program to improve freight and intercity passenger rail security. The Secretary of Homeland Security is also required to develop a national plan for public outreach and awareness and a study on passenger, baggage, and cargo screening. Moreover, the Rail Security Act of 2005 focuses on an issue that security bills often ignore: the importance of ensuring that key workers have the support and training required to protect our rail system, whether those workers are railroad employees or emergency responders. Rail workers are truly the eyes and ears of the rail industry. They greet passengers, sell tickets, operate trains, maintain track and signal systems, dispatch trains, operate bridges, and repair cars. They are in the most direct position to spot security risks and potential threats. This bill requires rail carriers to provide security training to these workers to ensure that they are prepared to take appropriate action against threat conditions. The bill also strengthens whistleblower protections to ensure that workers who report or identify a security risk will not face retribution or retaliation from their employers. A rail worker should not have to `` choose between doing the right thing on security and holding on to his or her job. Despite whistleblower protections in current law, employees still experience employer harassment and intimidation when reporting accidents, injuries, and other safety concerns. This language will help ensure that these practices end. Congressmen Henry Waxman, Elijah Cummings, and I asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2002 to examine ten communities to evaluate whether they were prepared to respond to rail incidents involving hazardous materials, whether accidental or intentional. Accidents in urban areas, such as the 2001 occurrence in the Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore, Maryland, involving a fire fueled by hazardous materials, and a leak of hydrochloric acid from a parked tank car in an urban area in Lowell, Massachusetts, have called attention to the safety of hazardous materials shipped by rail. The recent tragedy in Graniteville, South Carolina showed the devastating effects such hazmat accidents can cause. To my disappointment, GAO found that many emergency responders were not properly trained to respond to incidents involving hazardous materials and radioactive waste. In each of the ten Communities evaluated, local fire department officials confirmed that fire department personnel had only received hazardous material awareness- level training, the lowest level of training recommended in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 472, Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents. This training provides first responders with the knowledge and skills to identify a hazardous materials incident and to contact the appropriate response resource. However, NFPA representatives have advised me that the minimum level of training for first responders should actually be at the operations level, the second highest level of training described in NFPA Standard 472, which trains responders to plan and initiate a response to the incident. The Rail Security Act of 2005 requires this training. GAO also found that while most local communities have equipment on hand to use in response to a hazardous material incident, some locations lacked important equipment, such as detectors, decontamination equipment, and personal protective gear needed to respond to accidents involving hazardous materials and radioactive waste. My bill addresses this need. It authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to State and local governments, as well as nonprofit employee organizations representing emergency responders, for advanced firefighter turnout gear. The Rail Security Act of 2005 also ensures that emergency responders will be able to get real-time information for dealing with hazardous materials and passenger railroad incidents through the Operation Respond Institute. The bill provides Operation Respond with $2.5 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007 for deploying and expanding the Operation Respond Emergency Information System software, developing and implementing a railroad infrastructure mapping program, and establishing an alert and messaging capability for use during emergencies involving freight and passenger railroads. The Rail Security Act of 2005 includes legislation that the House has overwhelmingly passed in previous Congresses, the Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act, which ensures that the needs of the families of the victims of terrorist attacks or accidents are addressed. This bill was similar to legislation we enacted in 1996 to address the treatment of families of the victims of airline crashes. We should do no less for those who ride our nation's passenger trains. As we introduce this bill today, we invite other colleagues to join us in co-sponsorship and work together to ensure its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, the annual soap box derby is one of the most constructive activities that the Congress can support in behalf of young people and truly for families. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has already explained and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) has explained, constructing these vehicles brings together families, brings out the creative instincts of young people, gives them an opportunity to innovate and to produce a product in which they have ownership and which takes a great deal of time and which brings families together. Supporting the annual soap box derby, we are doing something truly constructive for families, for the Nation's capital young people and for young people across America.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and, again, the committee for bringing this concurrent resolution to the House floor, as is our annual responsibility, to authorize the use of the Capitol grounds for the Special Olympic Law Enforcement Torch Run. The gentlewoman and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), representing the majority, have well explained the purpose of the Special Olympics and the Torch Run. But I just want to take a moment to pay tribute to Sarge Shriver, who for so many years has been the inspiration behind, and the organizational force of, the Special Olympics. It really has become synonymous with Sarge Shriver. This event, which has become so widely admired, so greatly appreciated, has just made an enormous difference for young, middle-aged and older mentally disabled persons, reinforcing their self-confidence, building self-esteem, and improving the quality of their health as they prepare for and participate in the Special Olympics. From time to time on Sunday I see Sarge Shriver at our Lady of Mercy Parish where I participate in mass when I am in the Washington Area. It just pains me as I see Sarge Shriver overcome by the mental ravages of Alzheimer's. Even with this dreadful disease he certainly functions well, and his body is strong, and his mind is clear. But one can see the ravages of this dreaded ailment. And for one who has given so much to so many people for so many years, it just brings home to me every time I see him this enormous contribution that he has made so selflessly over the many years. Eunice Shriver, who took over the Kennedy family initiative on behalf of the mentally disabled, played a strong, forceful role in my hometown with the publisher of our hometown newspaper, Veda Ponikvar, in building and commissioning the Range Center for the mentally retarded, bringing people who have been neglected, held in homes, shut away in closets and downstairs rooms and attics and bringing them out into the world and giving them an opportunity for self-esteem, for self- confidence, to learn skills, to be productive members of our community. And so across the country, those who have been helped by the Shriver family and the Kennedy inspiration for the programs to support those with mental disabilities, the Special Olympics stands out as the premier activity nationwide to give respect, recognition, full membership in society to those not so fortunate as the rest of us.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 136, to authorize use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service on May 15, 2005. 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 each of us. The 2005 event marks the 24th anniversary of the Capitol Hill event. In the post September 11th 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. Officers work for states, counties, U.S. territories, federal enforcement, military police, and corrections departments. Ten percent of law enforcement officers are women. During 2004, 153 peace officers were killed in the line of duty; of those killed, nine were women. The average age of those killed in the line of duty was 37 years. It is most fitting and proper to honor the lives, sacrifices, and public service of these brave men and women. I urge support for H. Con. Res. 136.