James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, twenty-five years ago, Congress voted to deregulate the Nation's railroad industry and enacted the Staggers Rail Act. The railroad industry at that time was in dire straits. Years of low profits, deferred maintenance, and ill-conceived regulatory policies had resulted in a very sick industry. We were assured that deregulation was the cure. We were told that economic regulation had outlived its usefulness; that it was preventing the industry from competing effectively with trucks, barges, and pipelines; and that there were still a sufficient number of rail carriers to provide significant rail-to-rail competition. We deregulated the industry. At the outset, some good things did happen. America's railroads are much healthier today than they were in 1980. Industry rates of return that hovered in the 1-2 percent range in the 1970s were up in the 6-9 percent range in the 1990s. Today, U.S. railroads account for 42 percent of intercity freight ton-miles; more than any other mode of transportation. In fact, U.S. railroads move four times more freight than all of Western Europe's freight railroads combined. North American railroads currently earn $42 billion in annual revenues. The most recent financial reports are strong. For the first quarter of 2005, BNSF Railway's freight revenues increased $451 million, or 18 percent, to a first quarter record of $2.9 billion. Consumer products revenues increased $203 million, or 22 percent. Agricultural products revenues were up $86 million, or 20 percent, to $524 million. Industrial products revenues increased $84 million, or 15 percent, to $647 million. And coal revenues rose $78 million, or 15 percent, to $598 million resulting from record haulage of 66 million tons for utility customers. Union Pacific reported a first quarter 2005 record for commodity revenue: $3 billion in 2005, up 8 percent from 2004. Energy revenues were up $81 million, or 14 percent, to $668 million. Agricultural revenues were up $37 million, or 9 percent, to $448 million. Industrial products revenues were up $67 million, or 12 percent, to $630 million. And chemical revenues were up $31 million, or 8 percent, to $441 million. CSX's surface transportation revenue for the 2005 first quarter was $2.1 billion versus $1.9 billion in 2004. Metals revenues were up $19 million, or 16 percent, to $138 million. Forest products revenues were up $84 million, or 11 percent, to $176 million. Coal, coke, and iron ore revenues were up $84 million, or 20 percent, to $506 million. And automotive products revenues were up $6 million, or 3 percent, to $208 million. Norfolk Southern's general merchandise revenues for the 2005 first quarter reached a record $1.1 billion, an increase of 12 percent over the same period in 2004. Metals and construction revenues led the growth with a 22 percent increase, followed by paper, up 19 percent, and chemicals, up 14 percent. Coal revenues increased 17 percent to $467 million in the first quarter compared with the same quarter last year. With the exception of Union Pacific, all of the Class I railroads in the U.S. are making higher profits. BNSF's net earnings for the first quarter of 2005 were $321 million, up $128 million from the same period in 2004. CSX's net income was $579 million, up $30 million from 2004. Norfolk Southern's net income was $194 million, up $36 million from 2004. And although Union Pacific's profits were lower than 2004 figures, the railroad's net income was $128 million in 2005. But all of these gains have come at a price. Competition requires competitors. Yet since 1980, over 40 Class I railroads have consolidated into just seven Class I railroads serving the entire North American continent, four of which--two in the West (Union Pacific and BNSF Railway) and two in the East (CSX and Norfolk Southern)--control over 95 percent of the railroad business. This unprecedented consolidation has resulted in entire States, regions, and industries becoming captive to a single Class I railroad. These captive shippers often tell me that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) has been too concerned about the financial health of the railroads and not concerned enough with the financial health of the railroads' customers. I believe them. The STB's procedures have made it difficult for rail customers to secure meaningful relief from high rail rates and poor rail service, even though the Staggers Rail Act directed the STB's predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, to ensure that rail rates remain reasonable when there is an absence of effective competition. During the years since the STB was first authorized in 1997, I have received numerous complaints from captive shippers about the high rates they are charged and the poor service they sometimes receive. Laramie River Station is an example. Laramie River Station (LRS) is a coal-based electric generating plant that produces power for more than 1.8 million consumers in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. LRS is served by a single railroad, BNSF Railway, which delivers 8.3 million tons of coal annually from the Wyoming Powder River Basin to LRS, a distance of approximately 175 miles. In September 2004, the LRS contract expired and BNSF unilaterally imposed massive freight rate hikes on the LRS traffic. Basin Electric Power Cooperative, one of the owners of LRS, tells me that these increases call for more than double LRS' prior freight rates. The initial tariff rates are projected to double again over time. According to LRS' owners, these increased rates are four times BNSF's average coal rates, and will cost electric power consumers $1 billion over the next 20 years. Dairyland Power Cooperative, a generation and transmission cooperative located in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, has experienced similar problems. The Cooperative asserts that failure by the Union Pacific Railroad to deliver 25 percent of scheduled shipments of Utah coal resulted in Dairyland's overall fuel budget increasing by roughly 10 percent. Dairyland is also bracing for a 49 percent increase in rail rates in 2006. Other shippers have suffered similar fates. The lack of true competition has also affected farmers. Montana grain producers advise me that their counterparts in Nebraska--where a limited amount of rail competition exists--pay less in transportation costs than Montana farmers to ship grain to Portland, Oregon, despite the 200 miles in additional distance the Nebraska grain has had to travel. The Montana farmers estimate that this disparity has cost them about $60 million a year. In these and other similar cases, the captive shippers have found that there is no realistic possibility of meaningful relief from the STB. This is hardly the competitive environment envisioned when Congress voted to deregulate the railroad industry. Unfortunately, my concerns have fallen on deaf ears at the STB. This year, Chairman Roger Nober has discussed the possibility of moving a ``clean'' STB reauthorization bill (i.e., one with no change to existing law other than funding levels) in the 109th Congress. I have told him the same thing I told him in the 108th Congress and the same thing I told his predecessor: I believe that any STB reauthorization bill must adequately address the concerns of captive shippers. That is why I introduced legislation in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, and the 108th Congress that would reauthorize the STB and reform its policies and procedures. Other Members of Congress, including Congressman Richard Baker, introduced similar legislation to reform railroad regulation. But to date Congress has failed to act upon these bills, and the STB has operated without an authorization since 1998. When the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held hearings on railroad competition last Congress, it was obvious that Congressman Baker and I shared the same concerns about captive shippers and the lack of competition in the railroad industry. So this year, we've decided to join forces. Congressman Baker and I, and 13 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, are introducing a bipartisan STB reauthorization and reform bill, entitled the Railroad Competition and Improvement Act of 2005. A bipartisan companion bill, S. 919, has been introduced in the Senate. This bill will preserve existing rail-to-rail competition in areas of the United States where competition is working, and take action to reduce impediments to competition that adversely affect rail customers. The bill establishes four new primary objectives of U.S. rail transportation policy, all of which focus on competition and shipper needs. These primary objectives are: (1) To maintain consistent and efficient rail transportation service for shippers, including the timely provision of rail cars requested by shippers; to promote effective competition among rail carriers at origins and destinations; and to maintain reasonable rates in the absence of effective competition. The bill will also: Eliminate ``bottlenecks.'' Under the bill, on the request of a shipper, the carrier must establish a rate for any two points on the carrier's system where traffic originates, terminates, or can be interchanged. In addition, the reasonableness of the rate would be subject to challenge. This bill will give shippers access to competitive rail service even if a single carrier has monopoly control over a short, bottleneck portion of a route. Create competitive rail service at switching points. The bill requires rail carriers to enter into reciprocal switching agreements where the STB finds that such agreements are in the public interest or where agreements are needed to ensure rail service is competitive. The bill also prohibits the STB from requiring that the petitioning carrier show conduct inconsistent with antitrust laws. Eliminate ``paper barriers.'' These barriers are contractual agreements that prevent short-line railroads that cross two or more major rail systems from providing rail customers access to competitive service on one of these systems. The agreements require the short-line railroads to deliver all or most of its traffic to the major carrier that originally owned the short line facilities. Under the bill, where such restrictions were approved prior to the enactment of this Act and have been in effect for at least 10 years, the STB must terminate the restriction, upon request, unless the STB finds that the termination would be inconsistent with the public interest or materially impair the ability of an affected rail carrier to provide service to the public. Establish a new regulatory process for ``Areas of Inadequate Rail Competition.'' The bill allows the STB to designate a State or substantial part of a State as an Area of Inadequate Rail Competition (AIRC), upon petition of a Governor or Attorney General of a State, Member of Congress, or the Rail Customer Advocate of the Department of Transportation. Upon the designation, the STB has 60 days to provide remedies authorized by current law to resolve the anti-competitive conduct. The bill also requires the Rail Customer Advocate to conduct an oversight study of AIRCs within one year of the date of enactment. Highlight rail service problems. The bill requires the STB to post on its website a description of each complaint from a customer about rail service. The STB is also required to submit an annual report to Congress regarding rail service complaints, and the procedures the STB took to resolve them. Create an arbitration process for certain rail disputes. The bill allows either party to submit a dispute over rail rates, rail service, and other matters under the jurisdiction of the STB for ``final offer'' binding arbitration, for relief within the jurisdiction of the STB. Eliminate fees for filing rail rate cases. Shippers are now required to pay a $61,000 fee for filing a rate case. Effective May 6, 2005, this filing fee will double to $102,000. The filing fee for all other complaints will increase from $6000 to $10,100. Improve the rate reasonableness standard. The bill prohibits the STB from using their current practice of requiring shippers challenging rail rates to submit estimates of the costs of constructing and operating a new, hypothetical railroad that carries only the commodity that the shipper transports. The STB currently compares the expense of the hypothetical railroad with existing rates to determine whether the challenged rates are reasonable or not. Under the bill, the STB would be required to adopt a new method based on the railroad's actual costs, including a portion of fixed costs and an adequate return on debt and equity. Create an Office of Rail Customer Advocacy in the Department of Transportation. The Rail Customer Advocate would accept rail customer complaints; collect, compile, and maintain information regarding the cost and efficiency of rail transportation; and participate as a party in STB proceedings. The Rail Customer Advocate may also petition the STB for action. Authorize a study of rail transportation competition. The bill requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of rail carrier competition since the enactment of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. Require the STB to consider all effects of mergers. Under the bill, the STB must consider the effects of mergers on local communities and is required to impose conditions to mitigate the effects of those mergers. Reauthorize the STB. The bill provides the STB $24 million for FY2006, $26 million for FY2007, and $28 million for FY2008. I am pleased that a number of organizations are supporting this bipartisan effort, including the Alliance for Rail Competition, Consumers United for Rail Equity, the American Chemistry Council, the National Industrial Transportation League, Edison Electric Institute, the National Association of Wheat Growers, and the National Barley Growers Association. I join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, in introducing this bill. Together, we will work to ensure passage of this important legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Costello, Congressman DeFazio and I have introduced a bill to enhance the security of the U.S. passenger air transportation system--The Airport 5 Screener Technology Improvement Act of 2005. This bill will create a Checkpoint Screening Security Fund for the TSA that will fund $250 million that has been authorized for the deployment of new checkpoint screening technologies. The bill also provides funds for $650 million a year, which has been authorized for the installation of in-line baggage screening systems. Mr. Speaker, last week the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (DHS IG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) both released reports that indicate improvements are still needed in the screening process to ensure that dangerous prohibited items are not being carried on aircraft, or enter the checked baggage system. While the traveling public is more secure today than before September 11th, 2001, airport screeners are not detecting prohibited items at the level we need. Regarding the causes of poor screener performance, the DHS IG stated-- Despite the fact that the majority of screeners with whom our testers came into contact were diligent in the performance of their duties and conscious of the responsibility those duties carry, lack of improvement since our last audit indicates that significant improvement in performance may not be possible without greater use of technology. . . . We encourage TSA to expedite its testing programs and give priority to technologies, such as backscatter x-ray, that will enable the screening workforce to better detect both weapons and explosives. In response to the DHS IG's findings, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) responded-- We agree with the IG's conclusion that significant improvements in performance will only be possible with the introduction of new technology. Mr. Speaker, our screening system is failing us because this Congress and this Administration are failing both the screeners and the American traveling public. This Congress has arbitrarily capped the number of airport screeners at 45,000, and has provided neither the resources nor the technology for the screeners to get the job done. It is a failure of leadership and there are no more excuses. Last year, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (``the 9/11 Commission'') specifically recommended that the TSA and the Congress ``give priority attention to improving the ability of screenings checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers.'' The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) authorized $250 million for the research and deployment of advanced passenger screening technologies, such as trace portals and backscatter x-ray systems. To date, only about $30 million has been appropriated specifically for the general deployment of these types of technologies. The 9/11 Commission also recommended that the TSA ``expedite the installation of advanced (in-line) baggage screening equipment.'' The Chairman of the 9/11 Commission testified before Congress that: The Commission supports an effort to move explosives units out of airport lobbies and into a secured area where they can be integrated into the process of moving the bags from the check-in counter to the loading area in a seamless, in-line process. This will promote greater security, because: (1) screening machines will not be exposed to the public; (2) screeners will be able to focus on screening bags rather than moving them; and (3) fewer people will be congregated around machines in the public area. Moreover, processing bags from checking to loading through an in-line system is functionally more efficient making travel more convenient as well as more secure. 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. The TSA and airport operators rely on commitments in letters of intent (LOIs) as their principal method for funding the modification of airport facilities to incorporate in-line baggage screening systems. The TSA has issued 8 LOIs to cover the costs of installing systems at 9 airports for a total cost to the federal government of $957.1 million over 4 years. The GAO reports 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 in the in-line systems at these airports in a little over 1 year. In total, the GAO reports that 86 of 130 airports surveyed are planning or are considering installing in-line baggage screening systems throughout or at a portion of their airports. Moreover, GAO reports that TSA officials have identified 27 additional airports that they believe would benefit from receiving LOIs for in-line systems because such systems are needed to screen an increasing number of bags due to current or projected growth in passenger traffic. TSA officials stated that without such systems, these airports would not remain in compliance with the congressional mandate to screen all checked baggage using EDS or ETD. Yet, the TSA has also acknowledged that it currently does not have sufficient resources in its budget to fund any additional LOIs. While $650 million is authorized for the installation of in-line baggage screening systems, annual appropriations have not allowed for any new LOIs to be signed. Our bill will ensure funding for the screening technology we need. We're collecting over $1.5 billion a year from the passenger security fee. Our bill will put a portion of that fee into two funds that will guarantee that TSA will spend the authorized amount of $650 million a year and $250 million for the installation of in-line baggage screening systems and passenger checkpoint explosive detection respectively. Mr. Speaker, there is overwhelming evidence in the recommendations, findings and statements of the 9/11 Commission, the DHS IG, GAO and TSA that technology is sorely needed to improve security at our airports. We can no longer plead ignorance nor stand idly by and criticize airport screeners working the front line defense in the war on terror. We must demonstrate the leadership and the political will to do what we know is right and deploy technologies that will help our screeners get the job done, and keep the American public safe and secure. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to pass this important legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join Chairman Young in introducing, by request, the Administration's Amtrak ``reform'' legislation. It is a common practice for the Chairman and Ranking Member of a Committee to jointly introduce an Administration's bill, regardless of which political party controls the White House or Congress or the specifics of proposed legislation, and I do this as a courtesy to the Administration. However, introducing a bill ``by request'' should not be interpreted to imply endorsement. In fact, in this instance, I am strongly opposed to the Administration's legislative proposal for Amtrak and the direction this Administration has chosen for intercity passenger rail service in our Nation. The Administration's proposal is nothing new. It is the same flawed bill that the Administration sent to Congress in 2003. The bill establishes two private for-profit corporations to separately manage and maintain infrastructure and operations, eliminates our Nation's intercity passenger rail network and shifts the cost burden of continuing rail service to the States, separates the Northeast Corridor from the rest of the rail network, divides Amtrak into three separate entities, and eliminates Federal operating support for all intercity passenger trains over a four-year period. As a practical matter, within three years, all long-distance train service is likely to be eliminated. Soon thereafter, the United States entire intercity passenger system could consist of skeletal service along the East and West coasts. The Administration's trust in the magic of privatization and decentralization to solve Amtrak's problems is astonishing. It shows this Administration's ignorance of the disastrous consequences of privatization and under-investment in rail. Great Britain's experience with privatization is a perfect example. In 1994, government-owned British Rail was dissolved and the British government separated intercity passenger rail infrastructure from operations. A private corporation called Railtrack took over ownership of all track, signaling, and stations. Passenger train operators competed with each other to provide service. Unfortunately, the new approach assumed that private sector innovation and discipline would drive down the railway's public funding requirement and drive up quality of service, overcoming recent trends of falling demand. It didn't work, and it led to tragic consequences. The safety of operations and the quality of service declined steadily. More than 30 people were killed in an accident at Ladbroke Grove in 1999 and four more were killed in an accident at Hatfield in 2000. In 2001, another fatal accident occurred at Potters, just north of London. These accidents were directly traceable to privatization and Britain's long history of under-investment in rail. Today, the British government is reeling from the legacy left behind by privatization. The government has almost doubled funding for rail, and has taken steps to improve performance and tackle the backlog of maintenance and renewal needs that exploded under privatization. British government officials have described their rail privatization as ``an absolute disaster''. Despite the British experience, the Bush Administration's blind faith in the ideology of privatization leads it down the same wrong path. Let us not repeat Britain's mistake. The solution to Amtrak's problems is not privatization. Amtrak's problems have one root cause: money. Lack of adequate investment and the annual threat of elimination have conditioned Amtrak to focus on survival. Amtrak's opponents are quick to point fingers at Amtrak management, and claim that private corporations could dramatically improve intercity passenger rail service. The truth is that a succession of hardworking and dedicated management teams at Amtrak could not do the impossible--that is, operate our Nation's intercity rail passenger service without a substantial level of investment from the Federal Government. Railroads throughout the world receive some government support to supplement the revenues paid by passengers. But the Administration continues to insist on the impossible. Yet despite Amtrak's starvation budget, Amtrak has had its successes. Under David Gunn's leadership, Amtrak has improved operations and increased ridership to more than 25 million passengers in 2004: an increase of one million passengers from 2003 and an Amtrak record. In Southern California, Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner has had a 26.3 percent increase in ridership in the past year. In Southern California, Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner has had a 26.3 percent increase in ridership in the past year. Similarly, several Midwest trains, the Pere Marquette (up 22.1 percent), the State House (up 13 percent) and the Illini (up 11.4 percent), experienced the next largest increases in passengers. In the East, regional trains carried more passengers than any other Amtrak service in the country, increasing from 5,760,499 last year to 5,974,806--an increase of 3.7 percent. Amtrak has also made significant progress in rebuilding infrastructure and rolling stock after years of deferred maintenance. In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, 256,000 concrete ties were laid; 2,755 bridge ties were replaced; 266 miles of continuous welded rail were installed; 34 miles of signal cable were replaced; and 19 stations and 37 substations were improved. Amtrak's mechanical department plowed full steam ahead. In 2004, it remanufactured 180 passenger cars, rebuilt 51 wrecked cars and locomotives, and made seven Superliner baggage modifications in passenger cars. Amtrak sold excess equipment, eliminated unprofitable services, lowered fares on long-distance routes to increase ridership, and, in partnership with the State of California, opened a $71 million maintenance facility. In short, Amtrak is making great progress. All of this progress will halt under the Administration's radical Amtrak reform plan. Therefore, while I join in introducing this bill as a traditional courtesy to the Administration, I want to be clear that I do not support its initiatives. Together with Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman LaTourette, Subcommittee Ranking Member Brown, and the other Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I strongly support both H.R. 1630, the Amtrak Reauthorization Act of 2005, and H.R. 1631, the Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (RIDE 21). In the 108th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported similar bills with near unanimous bipartisan support. I am very hopeful that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will again soon consider this bipartisan legislation and begin to provide the necessary investment for our Nation's intercity passenger rail system--that is the ``reform'' that Amtrak so direly needs.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I could well envision a procedure that would require the EPA to coordinate in a consultative process with the Department of Energy to resolve environmental issues, but the crafters of this bill have I would say knowing the gentleman from Texas not intentionally but unintentionally overreached. They extend this authority for the Secretary of Department of Energy to overturn a range of Federal laws. The Corps of Engineers regulates activities that would have adverse effect on navigable waters of the United States. Private parties could locate wharves, docks, other structures in the water that would obstruct commerce; but the Corps of Engineers has permitting authority that says, no, you cannot do that. With this language, the Secretary of Energy could throw out a century of regulatory authority, for example, in the case where a refinery has been denied a permit to build a structure in a navigable waterway. The applicant would appeal to the Secretary of Energy who would just simply overturn the corps. Refineries often are not located near navigable waterways to facilitate barge traffic. If the corps said, no, you are going to do something that is going to obstruct navigation, the Secretary of Energy could overturn the corps. I do not think that is intended, and this authority goes even further to FAA and other agencies under the jurisdiction of our committee. It should be defeated.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and commend the gentleman from northwestern Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for offering this resolution and all of my Minnesota colleagues in joining in a moment of reflection and of solidarity for the people of the Red Lake Band, to pray for those whose lives were taken, for those who survived, for the families of all, victims and perpetrator alike. This is an occasion to mourn, but it is an occasion also to reflect, to join our hearts in prayer, but to reflect on the past and to consider what might be for the future. The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) has spoken eloquently about the tragedy at Red Lake. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) who represents the district, who knows the people intimately, the people of Red Lake, has spoken about the spirit of warrior on the reservation. I would like to think in a broader term about the Nishnawbe people, who have not been well treated going back to the times of the treaties of the 1850s; and particularly among them, the Red Lake, that ceded in 1863 11 million acres to the United States for $500,000, a paltry sum in comparison to the value and the expanse of land. In 1889, they ceded an additional 2.9 million acres for a 50-year trust fund, only a third of which went to the people of Red Lake. And again to the 1902 Western Township Treaty, they again ceded 256,000 acres to the United States for very little in return, except for recognition. The Nishnawbe people deserve better than recognition, deserve more than beads and blankets, for their land, their rights, the rights to hunt and fish, the right to earn a living. Over 100 years ago, the first education was introduced into Red Lake. Lewis and Clark passed through the Red Lake territory, but it was not until the mid-1930s that a high school was established in Red Lake. They have been a proud people, proud to rely upon themselves and the resources of their traditions. It is going to take more than a visit to the sweat lodges to heal the pain and the suffering that the people feel because of this tragedy. I pray that Red Lake will be known for more than this incident that is just an intrusion upon a long and proud history. But I pray also, and I urge this body, to pay attention not just to Red Lake, to the Nishnawbe people and to the First Americans, but to the needs that they have throughout this country, for greater investment in education, greater investment in job training and opportunities, for greater investment in health care, and housing and water and sewer and road and development and access on the reservations of this country. That is the great tragedy, that they are not served, our first peoples of this land. We have taken from them the riches, the resources, minerals and hydrocarbons; we have given very little back in return. In recent years, casino gambling has provided a revenue stream and a source of opportunity for investment on many of the reservations of the native American peoples. But it has not benefited all. Red Lake is among those that has not benefited, has not been able to enjoy a revenue stream. But even for those who have been able to develop a revenue stream over the last 20 years, you cannot erase 200 years of mistreatment in 2 decades. And let this incident, while an anachronism, not resulting from internal ferment and neglect on the reservation, but an intrusion upon the people of Red Lake, let this be a call to attention to think more constructively and productively about the needs of native Americans and our responsibility to invest more and to help them lift themselves out of poverty. Over 50 percent unemployment rate on this reservation alone. There is more we can do together. First we must heal. First we must help those at Red Lake, proportionately a greater scar for them than was Columbine, to heal, to look forward, to look to the future, and to rebuild and ignite again the spirit of pride and of accomplishment, which should be their heritage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Michigan for offering the amendment I had planned to and was designated to offer, and to the gentleman from Texas for accepting the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oberstar-Norton amendment. The amendment authorizes the Administrator of the General Services Administration to install a photovoltaic solar energy system (photovoltaics) in accordance with the Sun Wall Design Project on the Forrestal Building, the headquarters building of the Department of Energy located on Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C. The Sun Wall is an engineering and architectural marvel; 24,750 square feet of power generating panels installed on the building's south facing wall. It is also visually exciting, reaching 300 feet wide and 130 feet high. In fact, the Sun Wall design was selected as the winning design in an national contest sponsored jointly by the Department of Energy and the National Renewable Fuels Laboratory. The project design was completed 5 years ago, in 2000. The project design is ready to go. All that is left to do is provide funding for the project so that construction of the Sun Wall can begin. With ever rising oil prices and our country's ever-increasing dependence on oil, the time has come for the federal government to get serious about alternative, renewable fuels. In fact, the time is long past overdue. The federal government is the Nation's largest energy consumer, a typical office building is estimated to spend one-third of its operating expenses on energy costs. Using alternative sources of energy will help us reduce these costs. Photovoltaics are a proven, reliable source of energy. Simply put, photovoltaic systems convert solar energy into electricity. They not only reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, but they are highly efficient and have no moving parts, so the need for maintenance is virtually non-existent. Because they emit no harmful pollutants, they are a clean, environmentally-friendly energy source. H.R. 6 does include provisions aimed at increasing energy efficiency in our public buildings. I am especially pleased to see in the bill section 205 (regarding the procurement and installation of photovoltaics in federal buildings generally), which I offered, and which was accepted, as an amendment during consideration of the energy bill last Congress. Over 25 Federal buildings throughout the country, from Boston, Massachusetts to San Francisco, California, already use photovoltaics to great effect. We ought to add the national headquarters of the Department of Energy to that list. The Sun Wall Project is an opportunity to have the Department of Energy Headquarters building in our Nation's capital--the building where energy policy is debated and refined--stand as a testament to the utility and promise of photovoltaics. In a city of monuments, the Sun Wall Project would be a monument to America's commitment to advanced technologies, alternative energy and a cleaner environment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I join Chairman Young, Railroad Subcommittee Chairman LaTourette, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Brown, in introducing two bills: the Amtrak Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (RIDE 21). The Amtrak Reauthorization Act of 2005 will provide Amtrak $2 billion for each of Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008. RIDE 21 will provide $56 billion for new high-speed rail development for passenger and freight rail improvements. Last Congress, I joined Chairman Young, Subcommittee Ranking Member Brown, and the former Chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee, Congressman Jack Quinn, in introducing these bills. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported the bills, but unfortunately, no further action was taken. This year, we have a new Chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee. We talked about what we wanted to do on Amtrak and high-speed rail, and we all agreed that these bills are the right approach. The wrong approach is the President's plan: zero-out funding for Amtrak; eliminate the high-speed rail program; and provide $360 million to the Surface Transportation Board to run commuter operations should Amtrak shut down. In short, the Administration's plan is to pass legislation that, if enacted, would destroy Amtrak and our Nation's intercity passenger rail system. The Administration, in a letter sent to the Speaker of the House yesterday, said that Amtrak has not evolved with the rest of the transportation sector and that structural reform is needed to make Amtrak a viable transportation alternative. Well, to the extent there is any truth to allegations that Amtrak hasn't evolved like the rest of the transportation sector, there is a good explanation. For too many years our Nation's passenger railroad has been treated as an unwanted stepchild. Year after year, Congress has shortchanged Amtrak. Even in the area of security, while we have enacted legislation protecting airlines from the threat of terrorist attacks, we have done virtually nothing to protect our railroad infrastructure and those who rely on it. Amtrak has survived despite a severe lack of funding and an annual threat of elimination, which has conditioned Amtrak to focus on survival. Railroads throughout the world receive some government support to supplement the revenues paid by passengers. The Administration has not accepted this and every year proposes inadequate or no funding. A period of uncertainty follows, at the end of which Congress usually provides more than the Administration has requested, but sometimes less than Amtrak needs. I challenge anyone in this Congress to name one company who can develop and implement a 5-year capital and operating plan without knowing if they'll have any money for it the following year. That company would fail. That's not an option for Amtrak. It's our responsibility to ensure that Amtrak survives. Without Amtrak, millions of passengers--many of who cannot afford to buy a plane ticket or for whom driving is impracticable--would be stranded. Without Amtrak, millions of travelers would be added to already congested roads and airports. Amtrak's 20,000 workers would be out on the streets looking for new jobs. Local economies and businesses that have benefited from Amtrak's service would suffer. States already under tight budget constraints would be forced to figure out how to pay for new service. Without Amtrak, the Railroad Retirement and Unemployment programs, which cover employees of all railroads--freight and passenger--would be in dire straights. According to the Railroad Retirement Board, without the participation of Amtrak, employer and employee payroll taxes would need to be increased from the current 16 percent to 27 percent in 2027. Those tax increases, however, would ultimately be insufficient and serious cash flow problems for Railroad Retirement would begin in 2031. Without Amtrak, cash reserves for the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account would be exhausted by 2006, and nearly $297 million would have to be borrowed from the Railroad Retirement account to make up for losses. The Board informs me that ultimately Amtrak's unemployment benefit costs would be borne by other railroads. Without Amtrak, the commuter operations that serve millions of passengers along the Northeast Corridor, Chicago, and the West Coast would halt. These operations, which include SEPTA in Philadelphia and New Jersey Transit, require the use of Amtrak infrastructure, such as catenaries. They also require the continuation of Amtrak's dispatching system. Yet despite chronic underfunding, Amtrak has had its successes. Under David Gunn's leadership, Amtrak has improved operations in some markets and increased ridership to over 25 million passengers in 2004: an increase of one million passengers from 2003 and a new Amtrak record. Ridership on short-distance routes in the West is up 11.7 percent. The Pacific Surfliner, serving Southern California, showed the largest increase in ridership, with a gain of 26.3 percent. Midwest trains experienced the next largest increase in passengers. Amtrak has also made significant progress in rebuilding infrastructure and rolling stock after years of deferred maintenance. In Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, 256,000 concrete ties were laid; 2,755 bridge ties were replaced; 266 miles of continuous welded rail were installed; 34 miles of signal cable were replaced; and 19 stations and 37 substations were improved. Amtrak's mechanical department plowed full steam ahead. In 2004, it remanufactured 180 passenger cars; rebuilt 51 wrecked cars and locomotives; and made seven Superliner baggage modifications in passenger cars. 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 progress, even under a starvation budget. All of this progress would halt under the Administration's radical so- called ``reform'' schemes. Our Nation's high-speed rail program is also on the Administration's chopping block. If the United States is serious about maintaining our status as the world's leader in transportation then we must tap into the potential of our rail system. Even with continuing investments in our highway and aviation systems, we can't depend on our highways and airports alone. We must strengthen our rail system by expanding its capacity and improving reliability for freight and passenger services. I thank my colleagues, Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman LaTourette and Ranking Member Brown, for their dedication to rail and I look forward to working with them in moving these bills through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee toward final passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1463, a bill to designate the A-Wing portion of the new United States courthouse located at 2100 Jamieson Ave, in Alexandria, Virginia as the ``Justin W. Williams United States Attorney's Building.'' This designation honors former Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin Williams. Mr. Williams enjoyed a remarkable and distinguished career in public service. After his graduation from the University of Virginia Law School in 1967, he accepted a job as an attorney in the Criminal Division in the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney in Arlington County, Virginia, and in 1970, he accepted an appointment as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia where he served for 33 years until his death in August 2003. At various times in his career, he held the position of Acting U.S. Attorney, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Chief of the Criminal Division for the Eastern District of Virginia. As Chief of the Criminal Division, to which he was appointed in 1986, Mr. Williams was involved in virtually all major federal prosecutions in that District and was responsible for many high profile cases, including U.S. v. Aldrich Ames and U.S. v. Robert Hanssen. In each position, he consistently displayed the highest levels of professionalism, serving with distinction and honor. During his long and distinguished career, Mr. Williams received a number of awards and honors, including the U.S. Attorney General's Award for Excellence in Further in the Interests of U.S. National Security. He was deeply admired by all his colleagues and loved by his family and friends, and he served as a role model and mentor for all worked with him in the U.S. Attorney's office. H.R. 1463 has strong bipartisan support from many members of the Virginia delegation. I also support the bill and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 787, a bill to designate the new United States courthouse located at 501 I Street in Sacramento, California in honor of our friend, my dear and treasured friend and colleague, Congressman Bob Matsui. Congressman Matsui's death this past January deprived this House of one of its most astute, most admired statesman. The headline in the ``Sacramento Bee'' newspaper said it well: ``A Good and Decent Man.'' A lifelong Californian, Bob Matsui served the people of California's 5th District with dedication, commitment and compassion. I was able to witness Bob Matsui's commitment to his constituents first hand when he and I worked together to address flood control issues for his beloved Sacramento area. No other major metropolitan area faces as severe a flood risk as Sacramento. Congressman Matsui believed, as do I, that the capital city of the world's fifth largest economy deserved to know that it would not face severe threats from flooding. Following the high flows of 1986, when the levees almost failed, Congressman Matsui worked tirelessly to improve flood protection. He examined every option. He worked to forge agreement to complete a dam at Auburn, California. It was to be a multipurpose dam, then a dry dam, and then ultimately, no dam, but assurance of adequate water supply for up-country users represented by Congressman John Doolittle. Because of Bob Matsui's persistence, original thinking, flexibility and collegiality, we were able to develop a comprehensive proposal that strengthens levees, makes use of the existing Folsom Dam, and preserves the beautiful American River Canyon. As this project comes to completion over the next few years, every Spring, when the snows melt and rains come, and the State Capitol in Sacramento stays dry, the people of California and the Nation will owe a debt of gratitude to Bob Matsui for his persistence and wisdom on behalf of flood control. Flood control is just one example of Bob Matsui's dedication and effectiveness. There are countless other examples. In his first congressional race in 1978, Congressman Matsui campaigned as an underdog who vowed to bring new statesmanship to public office. His campaign was enriched by literally hundreds of volunteers that helped him achieve victory. Bob Matsui did not disappoint his constituents. He brought not only statesmanship, but also dedication, competence, innovation, and integrity to public service. Elected to 14 consecutive terms in the House, Bob Matsui rose through the ranks to be a member of the Leadership team. Under his quiet demeanor lay a man of keen intellect who was a trusted friend and a formidable competitor. As a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Congressman Matsui was substantially involved with all the complex policy issues placed before the Committee including international trade, health care, welfare reform, and tax issues. Congressman Matsui helped create the Research and Development Tax Credit in 1981 to fuel innovation in the American economy. In 1986, he spearheaded efforts that resulted in extensive reform of the tax code. His work on the Earned Income Tax Credit helped extend the tax credit for working poor families. Most recently, Congressman Matsui was preparing to lead the discussions regarding the future of social security and his desire to preserve social security for future generations. Bob Matsui truly understood the varied complexities of the social security program, and he was determined that any reform of social security would provide for its long-term solvency without compromising its fundamental purposes. Bob Matsui was intellectually curious and honest. He was fair minded and even handed. His legacy is one of compassion, commitment to do the right thing, hard work, and wisdom. Congressman Matsui is ably succeeded by his wife Doris Matsui. She has already done an admirable job of representing the people of California's 5th District and I am confident that she will continue to do so. It is most fitting and proper that the career of this truly outstanding member be honored with the designation of the new courthouse in his hometown of Sacramento, California as the ``Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse.'' I urge the bill's passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 483, a bill to honor two members of the United States Judiciary. The bill would designate the federal courthouse located in Brownsville, Texas as the Reynaldo G. Garza and the Filemon B. Vela United States Courthouse. I'd like to recognize the Gentleman from Texas, Congressman Ortiz, for introducing this bill. The Gentleman introduced this same legislation in the 108th Congress, which passed the House last September. Unfortunately, the Other Body did not act on that bill. I am hopeful that with our passage of the bill today, the Senate will take quick action on it. These two jurists displayed the very finest in legal scholarship. Judges Garza and Vela have contributed several decades of legal excellence to the judicial system of the United States. In addition, both these gentlemen have made substantial contributions, through extensive volunteer efforts, to the well being of their communities. Judge Reynaldo Garza was appointed by President Kennedy to the federal bench and was the first Hispanic Federal Judge. After serving in the federal district court, Judge Garza was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He also served on the Brownsville Independent School Board, the Texas Educational Standards Committee, and the Select Committee on Higher Education. When Judge Garza was appointed to the Fifth Circuit, Judge Filemon Vela succeeded him on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville. Judge Vela had a history of service to the community of South Texas. He worked closely with The Esperanza Home for Boys, and headed numerous local activities to encourage young people to stay in school. He was an active member of the Texas Conference of Churches and was former district Chairman of the Boys Scouts of America. Judges Garza and Vela were active members in numerous civic organizations including the Texas Bar Association, and the United States Sentencing Commission, Brownsville Rotary Club, the Latin American Relations Committee, and the Brownsville Chamber of Commerce. They were beloved and revered members of the Mexican-American community, the judicial community, and the city of Brownsville. Judges Garza and Vela were outstanding jurists and good friends. This designation is a fitting tribute to their distinguished public and civic careers of two remarkable Texans and I urge its adoption.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 135, a bill to establish a commission to examine the issue of clean, safe, and reliable water supplies for this generation and for generations to come. Madam Speaker, water may well be the most precious resource on Earth. The existence of water set the stage for the evolution of life and is an essential ingredient of all life today. Recognizing the importance of this vital resource, the United Nations designated 2003 as the ``International Year of Freshwater.'' According to the U.N., throughout the world roughly one person in six lives without regular access to safe drinking water, and over twice that number--or 2.4 billion--lack access to adequate sanitation. In addition, water-related diseases kill a child every eight seconds. In the United States, we have avoided many of these concerns through careful planning and decades of investment in our water infrastructure. Nationally, a combination of Federal, state, and local funds have built 16,024 wastewater treatment facilities that provide service to 190 million people, or 73 percent of the total population. In addition, 268 million people in the United States--or 92 percent of the total population--are currently served by public drinking water systems, which provide a safe and reliable source of drinking water for much of the nation. As I noted earlier, clean, safe, and reliable sources of water are critical to this nation's health and livelihood. However, in the past few decades, a series of natural events, as well as, human-induced events have demonstrated that our nation remains vulnerable to shortages of water. In my own State, we have experienced shortages of snowfall and rain which have had an adverse impact on local water supplies, agriculture, and recreation and tourism, and have contributed to historically low water levels in the Great Lakes. One thing is certain: no area of this country is immune to the threat of diminished water supplies. We must be vigilant in preparing for such occurrences. This bill is a part of the debate on the very important issue of water resource planning in this country. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Linder, has taken an important step in encouraging this debate, calling for the creation of a Federal commission to examine issues related to national water resource planning, and to report its findings on potential ways to insure against large-scale water shortages in the future. While I believe that the legislation introduced by our colleague is a good starting point, we must be sure to examine fully all of the relevant issues for ensuring adequate supplies of clean and safe water to meet current and future needs. For example, water resource planning should work toward increasing the efficiency of water consumption as well as increasing the supply of water. Simply increasing the supply of water can be a more costly approach to meeting future water needs, and in any case, merely postpones any potential water resource crisis. In addition, it is important to remember that issues of water supply are closely related to water quality. Contaminated sources of freshwater are of little use to the Nation's health or livelihood; removing contaminants drives up the overall cost of providing safe and reliable water resources to our people. In addition, human activities, whether through the pollution of waterbodies from point or non-point sources, the elimination of natural filtration abilities of wetlands, or through the destruction and elimination of aquifer recharge points, can have a significant impact on available supplies of usable water. We cannot base our future water resource planning needs on the possibility of finding ``new'' sources of freshwater while, at the same time, tolerating practices that destroy or contaminate existing sources. All the water there ever was or ever will be on this planet is with us now; we must spare no effort to be vigilant and careful stewards of that water. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today Congresswoman Norton and I have introduced the ``Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act''. A detailed summary of the bill's provisions is attached. The bill organizes four regional commissions under a common framework, thereby providing a more uniform method for distributing economic development funds throughout the regions most in need of such assistance. It reauthorizes the Delta Regional Authority and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority and creates two new regional commissions: the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. Both of these latter commissions have been proposed in legislation introduced in the previous Congress and are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and chronic underdevelopment in those regions. Every county or parish that is currently included in a commission through enacted or proposed legislation is similarly included in that same commission under this bill. While the bill follows the successful organizational model of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), it does not include the ARC or the Denali Commission (a wholly intrastate commission) in its framework. Regional commissions provide vital assistance to the development of the Nation's most chronically poor and distressed regions. They are true federal-state partnerships, bringing together federal, state, and local governments to expand the economic and development opportunities of a chronically distressed region. These regions typically experience rates of poverty and unemployment that are more than 150 percent of the national average. Further, some of these areas lack the transportation and basic public infrastructure necessary to support business development, and importantly, create jobs in the region. The regional commissions are designed to assist areas in overcoming chronic economic distress by focusing on the distressed region as a whole. By recognizing that systemic economic distress follows geographic and natural resource realities, rather than arbitrary state or political subdivision borders, the commissions are able to concentrate their efforts over the entire region--regardless of state lines. One way that federally designated regional commissions work within the region to overcome the effects of chronic underdevelopment is through investment in infrastructure, including transportation, telecommunications, and other basic public infrastructure. The commissions also assist the region in obtaining job skills training, entrepreneurship, technology, and business development. Through these efforts, commissions work to improve the economic development of these systemically distressed regions. Regional commissions also supplement the state share of other federal programs to ensure that areas that do not even have the economic means of meeting a required state or local funding share are not denied the opportunity to participate in these programs. Regional commissions assist in local development planning by helping provide local development districts with the resources and expertise necessary to formulate and follow a comprehensive, strategic regional development plan. Often it is the local development planning that is the key for the successful implementation of economic and infrastructure development programs. The Regional and Economic Infrastructure Development Act is modeled after the statute authorizing the ARC. The ARC has demonstrated that regional commissions are successful in fighting chronic underdevelopment and poverty. Since the ARC's creation in 1965, employment in the thirteen-state region has grown by nearly 66 percent. In contrast, in the decade preceding its creation, employment in the region had declined by 1.5 percent. Further, the poverty rate of the region has been cut by more than one half--from 31.1 percent in 1960 to 13.6 percent in 2000. As the Nation continues to suffer through a weakened economy, the need for these commissions becomes even more important. In February 2005, the national unemployment rate reached 5.4 percent. Further, since January 2001, the number of people unemployed increased from 6 million to 8 million--an increase of 2 million people, or 33 percent. Moreover, workers who have lost their jobs are having more trouble finding new jobs. The average length of unemployment is now almost 20 weeks, and more than one in five unemployed workers have been out of work for more than six months. As the economy continues to struggle, it is these historically depressed regions--the regions that have already been struggling--that suffer a disproportionate share of the burden. Now, perhaps more than ever, there is a greater need for these regional commissions. This bill recognizes the importance of the regional commissions to these chronically distressed areas. The bill strengthens the commissions by establishing a uniform organizational structure, under which an affirmative vote of a commission requires a majority of state members plus the affirmative vote of the federal cochairperson. With this voting structure, the bill ensures that the federal and state roles in a commission are equal and interdependent, thereby promoting a true federal-state partnership. In addition, the bill establishes a coordinating council for the regional commissions consisting of representatives from all the commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Denali Commission. The coordinating council is directed to meet biannually to discuss issues facing regions that suffer chronic distress and successful strategies for promoting regional development. While the council will assist the commissions in promoting regional development, it has no decision-making authority over any of the commissions. Finally, the bill authorizes sufficient funds for each commission so that a commission will have the means available to fulfill its mission of promoting economic and infrastructure development. The bill authorizes $30 million for each commission in fiscal year 2006 (the amount currently authorized for the Delta and Northern Great Plains Regional Authorities) and increases that authorization by $5 million for each successive year through fiscal year 2010. Frankly, I am concerned about this Administration's lack of funding for existing regional commissions and lack of interest in promoting economic development programs that create jobs and improve communities. In its fiscal year 2006 budget proposal, the Administration proposes $6 million for the Delta Regional Authority and only $1 million for the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. Further, the Administration's budget proposes to dismantle 18 different economic development programs and instead ``consolidate'' these programs into a formula-based program housed in the Department of Commerce. Presently these 18 programs include funding for grants and other economic development activities that total $5.5 billion. The new program will be funded at $3.7 billion--a reduction of nearly $2 billion in economic development program funds! It is time that we affirm our commitment to regional economic development by authorizing these commissions and providing the funding necessary from them to break the cycle of chronic distress in these regions. I believe this bill will help us do that. Summary of the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act organizes four regional commissions under a common framework, thereby providing a more uniform method for distributing economic assistance throughout the regions most in need of such assistance. It reauthorizes the Delta Regional Authority and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority and creates two new regional commissions: the Southeast Crescent and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. Both of these latter commissions have been proposed in legislation introduced in the previous Congress and are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and chronic underdevelopment in those regions. Every county or parish that is currently included in a commission through enacted or proposed legislation is similarly included in that same commission under this bill. While the bill follows the successful organizational model of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), it does not include the ARC or the Denali Commission (a wholly intrastate commission) in its framework. purpose To organize the regional commissions in the lower 48 states (with the exception of the Appalachian Regional Commission) under a common framework, providing a more uniform organization structure among the commissions and a more uniform method for distributing economic assistance throughout the country. commissions The bill reauthorizes the Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission, and creates the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. The Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission are composed of the same states, counties, and parishes included in the existing Delta Regional Authority and Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and the Southwest Border Regional Commission are composed of the same states and counties proposed in legislation introduced in the 108th Congress to create a Southeast Crescent Regional Authority and a Southwest Border Regional Commission. Each commission is authorized to receive appropriations of $30 million for fiscal year 2006; $35 million for fiscal year 2007; $40 million for fiscal year 2008; $45 million for fiscal year 2009; and $50 million for fiscal year 2010. Currently, some counties qualify for membership in more than one regional commission. The bill does not change that. However, the bill provides that an individual county may only receive economic assistance from one regional commission. Therefore, if a county is eligible for membership in more than one commission, it must select one commission in which it would like to participate and be eligible to receive funds. A county or parish can change its selection 90 days before the start of the fiscal year. The Denali Commission and the Appalachian Regional Commission are not included in this statute. Composition Each commission includes a Federal cochairperson and a state cochairperson, who is selected from among the state members. Like current law, the Northern Great Plains Commission also includes a tribal cochairperson. An affirmative vote of a commission requires an affirmative vote of the federal cochairperson plus a majority of state members. Like the current laws authorizing regional commissions, the bill sets forth provisions for the salaries of commission members, the appointment of alternatives, and the hiring of additional staff, including an Executive Director. The bill establishes a coordinating council for the regional commissions consisting of representatives from all the commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Denali Commission. The coordinating council is directed to meet biannually to discuss issues facing regions that suffer chronic distress and successful strategies for promoting regional development. The council has no decision-making authority. Also like current law, each state must develop a comprehensive economic development plan and each commission must develop an economic and infrastructure development plan. Commissions are required to designate distressed, transitional and attainment counties, and isolated areas of distress within attainment counties, within their region and must allocate at least 50 percent of the appropriations made available to the commission to projects in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress. Economic and Community Development Grants Commissions have the authority to make grants to State and local governments, and public and nonprofit organizations, for economic development projects, with an emphasis on infrastructure projects, including transportation, basic public, and telecommunications infrastructure projects. The bill provides for a commission share of 50 percent of the costs of projects; that percentage increases to up to 80 percent for distressed counties. These shares are increased by 10 percent (to 60 percent and 90 percent, respectively) for those projects that have a significant regional impact, including projects that involve 3 or more counties or more than one State. Commissions have the authority to make grants to local development districts to assist in the payment of the administration of the district. The commission of these grants is limited to 80 percent of the administrative expenses of the local development district receiving the grant. Commissions have the authority to supplement part of the basic Federal contribution to projects authorized under other Federal grant programs and to increase the Federal contribution above the fixed maximum part of the cost. The federal share is the same for projects (50 percent and 80 percent for distressed counties, with a 10 percent bonus for regional projects), with the stipulation that the total federal contribution cannot exceed 80 percent.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman that we will reach in every good faith a resolution to this matter. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) raises a very serious matter, modifying the Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement provisions in current law and the formula. The manner in which the gentleman proposes to do this is a little more complicated than I think is appropriate to resolve in amendment form on the floor. But I, in cooperation with the chairman of the full committee, believe we can work this out with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) as we proceed to conference. If the gentleman is inclined to withdraw the amendment, having given a very thoughtful discussion of it, I believe as we did last year in the effort to reach a bill which we ultimately did not, not for this reason but for other reasons, that we can work this matter out.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I affirm my willingness to work with the gentleman and the chairman to resolve this matter as we proceed to conference on withdrawal of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Let me first make it clear that the language of this amendment was not worked out with staff on our side, nor by the majority staff. I represent on this issue the bipartisan position of the committee in opposition. We have seen the dangers of manipulated science. The tobacco industry produced study after study trashing the impact of smoking and secondhand smoke, only to be overturned in case after case and by Federal Government health agencies. This year, we have seen the dangers of industry-funded studies on Vioxx and Celebrex, and those two drugs have been withdrawn. Was that done on the basis of weight of evidence? Such a vague and subjective standard. Mr. Chairman, the National Academy of Sciences is the authority that we frequently turn to in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and in the transportation community. They oversee transportation environmental research. They, the National Academy of Sciences, truly are the gold standard. They do not play around the edges with such vague terms as ``weight of evidence.'' They evaluate the evidence. They make scientific judgments. They come to good science-based conclusions. That is where we ought to go; and if the gentleman were serious about this issue of getting very objective scientific evidence to bear on environmental issues of health or environment, subject it to review of the National Academy of Sciences. That would be standard enough for us. We would let it ride at that. But as it stands, I must oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, on the face of it, who could object to sound science, objective science? That is what science should be. But the thrust of this amendment is not in the words of the amendment. They are not going to get us to that point. The language says, in considering assessment of risks to human health and the environment, such an assessment, where an assessment concerns the evaluation of multiple studies, shall include the best available science and description of the weight of the scientific evidence. And further on, in subsection 2, a description of the weight. That is not objectivity. That is totally subjective. To start considering the weight of scientific evidence, that is not a scientific term in and of itself. So I am all for science and for good science, but this language is going to obfuscate the evaluation of risks and open the door of opportunity for more lawsuits over what is meant by weight, multiple studies, available science. I think this goes directly in the opposite direction of the purpose of the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, our side has the right to close. I await the arguments on the part of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment gets to the guts of the bill that we are presenting to the House today. A similar amendment, maybe even the exact language of this amendment, was overwhelmingly defeated last year by a vote of 367 to 60. The intent of the amendment is simply to reduce a State's apportionment under the Surface Transportation Program dollar for dollar by the authorizations that Members of that State receive for highways and transit high-priority projects and require the Secretary to use a revised apportionment that includes the offset in determining the State's rate of return. The amendment punishes States that do well in high-priority projects and transit new starts and redistributes those dollars elsewhere. That is contrary to the entire intent of this legislation. Members should have a say in the distribution of the dollars under this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.