James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close. I am the only speaker. If the gentleman wishes to conclude his amendment, I will make the closing remarks.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is true that other States have the right to operate longer-length vehicles. They were grandfathered in in 1991. I like being a grandfather but of very small children, not of very large trucks. Had I been in the leadership position in 1991, I did oppose it, I did object to it, but I was not in a leadership position to stop it, and we would have stopped it. This is not a good move. This is not in the public interest. The adjoining States ought not to have longer vehicles; and if this amendment is done, then we might as well just throw the motor carrier safety rules away and let everybody drive longer vehicles, heavier vehicles at any time of the year and see further endangerment of safety on the roadways. This well-intentioned amendment, it is certainly initiated by farmers who feel they are going to be able to move their goods to market at lower cost, more efficiently, but at great risk to life and to the public safety. So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, transportation is a public service. It is a means of moving people and goods in the public interest. And every industrialized nation in the world supports, with public funds, their public transportation. Let us not fool ourselves. The freight railroads would like to say, oh, we do not use public funds. But to get the freight railroads started in America, the United States Government gave them land. Every other section of land from the Mississippi River to the West Coast, the Pacific Ocean to build their railroads. Without that land and the rights to the minerals and the lumber on that property, they would not have been able to build these railroads. They are still living off the profitability of the land that they were given in the public interest to serve the public interest. And the same with aviation. Yes, there is a passenger ticket tax that pays for a great deal of our airport improvement program, air traffic control system; but the public funds pay for at least 15 percent of air traffic controllers' costs, pays for the research and development and new ideas in aviation. And our highway and transit system, the passengers do not pay for every mile of road construction or every new bridge construction. A good deal of that comes out of public funds, either at the county, State, or city level. And maritime just as well. Our maritime freight shipping operations are supported by the operating differential subsidy and construction differential subsidy programs to which we have committed well over $12 billion over the years that I have served in the Congress. So the gentlewoman's point is well taken. Transportation is a service in the public interest, and the public should give it a reasonable level of investment and support.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding but, more importantly, I commend her and acknowledge her courageous leadership in being such a strong and consistent advocate for passenger rail service as our senior member and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Railroads on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. America is a third world country when it comes to passenger rail service. That abysmal condition did not happen by accident. It happened by design. The slow, inexorable process of deterioration of rail passenger service began in the 1960s when the freight railroads, which were also carrying passengers and carrying U.S. mail on the railroad post office, the RPO overnight distribution service, began to combine with the United States Postal Service to terminate the RPOs because their passenger rail service was not profitable unless mail service was included in the revenue stream. So the RPO would work the mail overnight and drop it off along the route. They would pick up passengers and carry them to their ultimate destination, but if the U.S. Postal Service would drop the RPO, that line, that segment of service, would then be unprofitable. And then they could apply, the railroads, to the Interstate Commerce Commission for discontinuance on economic grounds of unprofitability. I witnessed that process happening in our State of Minnesota and in my congressional district when I was then administrative assistant to my predecessor in Congress. By the time I was elected to Congress, passenger rail service had disappeared. The railroads shed all of their so-called unprofitable lines in cooperation with the U.S. Postal Service, and the Federal Government then to ensure that there would be a vestige of passenger rail service in America took over, accepted the liability and the responsibility of carrying on with passenger rail and set up the Amtrak Corporation, American Rail Passenger Service Corporation. But what did they get, Amtrak? They got the remnants, rundown rail cars, rundown locomotives. They got the rail service through the worst sections, the industrial, rundown, in many cases abandoned industrial sections of America's cities, not the very attractive segments of rail passenger, not the High Sierras and the beautiful western routes. They got on the east coast and the center of America and urban centers, the places passengers did not want to see, that they could avoid with their automobiles. And slowly Amtrak had to plead and beg and wheedle and cajole for funds to invest in upgrading the track, upgrading the passenger cars, upgrading the locomotives to continue these vestiges of service, both long haul and short haul. The problem with rail passenger service in America is that Amtrak never received the investment dollars it needed to remake the entire passenger rail system. In France, President De Gaulle convened a meeting of his cabinet in 1968 and proposed that the cabinet approve funding for a study of and recommendation for a completely new high speed rail passenger service. The report came back 6 months later. The Cabinet was convened again and the report presented; the cost, $12 billion in today's dollars. Every one of the ministers said, oh, that will hurt defense. It will hurt health. It will hurt education. Charles De Gaulle asked one question: Does any other country in the world have high speed, 185-mile-an-hour rail passenger service? And the answer was no. De Gaulle said: Then France will be the first. That is what I call political will. That is what it took to launch this investment. And now you have the TGV, Tres Grande Vitesse, that goes from Paris to Lyon, 288 miles, in 2 hours and 1 minute. When I was a student in Europe in college, I took that train. It took 4\1/2\ hours. Today, it is 2 hours and 1 minute. When I traveled from Paris to Brussels to begin my studies at the College of Europe, it was a 6-hour trip. Today, it is a 45-minute trip. Two hundred sixty-four million people ride the Shinkansen high speed train in Japan at 186 miles an hour. They have had one accident. A portion of land subsidence occurred; no fatalities, in 30-plus years. They have had one accident with the TGV. No fatalities. We have the ICE in Germany. We have the Talgo in Spain. We have high speed train service in Italy. And in America, the world's number one economy, the best we can do is, for a few miles, 125 miles an hour on Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor? That is wrong. We need to make the investment in this passenger rail service. All it takes is political will. This administration has demonstrated, rather than stand up for and invest in rail passenger service, strengthen America's cities, take short haul aviation out of our skies, serve those routes of 300 miles or less with high speed passenger rail; they want to disinvest, drive Amtrak into bankruptcy, wash their hands of the issue and walk away from it. That is wrong. That keeps America as a third world country. We got there by accident. We can get out of this problem by design, by responsible investment in the future of rail passenger service. Others will talk about the infamous September 11 when 5,240 aircraft, commercial airplanes came out of the skies, and all of the radar screens of our aircraft control system went dark. Amtrak was operating. We must not wait for another tragedy to shut down an important segment of transportation and come to the realization we should have been investing in Amtrak. I salute the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for her commitment, for her dedication, for raising this issue, taking this time to bring to the American public the need for investment in Amtrak.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, no person in our country should be given unfettered authority, unfettered discretion to waive any or all laws, for whatever the purpose. Take this situation. In order to expedite construction of this fence, the Department of Homeland Security could select a contractor without competitive bidding, use undocumented workers, violate child labor laws, pay the workers less than the minimum wage, exempt contractors from Federal and State withholding; workers could be forced to put in 18-hour-days without overtime pay, in unsafe conditions, and be transported in trucks used for hazardous cargo; and allow the Secretary discretion to have these workers construct fences and roads through private property. That is wrong. You can build a fence, but you do not have to violate all those laws.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the ``Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act'' (the STREET Act). This bill recognizes the close connection between transportation policy and energy policy. In many respects, transportation policy is energy policy. Our transportation energy needs are increasing, but we have not done enough to be able to meet these needs with new technologies and alternative fuels. As a result, our dependence on foreign oil continues unabated. Today, the transportation sector consumes a greater share of petroleum (67 percent) than it did in 1973 (50 percent). Each year for the past decade, energy use in the transportation sector has increased by a rate of 1.6 percent. It is time, indeed it is long overdue, for the Federal Government to lead in the development and promotion of energy efficient technologies and alternative and renewable fuels. As the Nation's largest energy consumer, the Federal Government is in a unique position to promote energy conservation and efficiency, particularly in the transportation sector and in the operation of Federal buildings. The STREET Act ensures that the Government does just that by promoting greater energy efficiency and further developing the use of alternative and renewable fuels on our highways, railroads, airplanes, ships, and in our Federal buildings. For example, the bill provides for the use of photovoltaic solar energy systems (photovoltaics) in our Federal buildings. Photovoltaics reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and offer distinct advantages over diesel generators and primary batteries. Photovoltaics are highly efficient and have no moving parts, so the need for maintenance is virtually non-existent. Over 25 Federal buildings throughout the country, from Boston, Massachusetts, to San Francisco, California, already use photovoltaics to great effect. This bill seeks to fulfill the promise of President Clinton's Million Solar Roofs Initiative of 1997 of having photovoltaic solar energy systems installed in 20,000 of our Federal buildings by 2010. The bill also provides for the development and deployment of new technologies to create cleaner, more fuel-efficient engines for use in all modes of transportation including on rail, in water, and in the air. The bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to enter into public-private partnerships with universities and industry leaders to promote the development of cleaner, more fuel-efficient engines for our Nation's railroads, ships, and airplanes. These clean engines would help reduce ozone-forming emissions and would be especially significant in areas of nonattainment. Research on many of these projects has already begun, and this bill ensures that the Federal Government remains committed to the development and deployment of these promising new technologies. To promote the use of cleaner energy on our Nation's highways, the bill establishes a grant program by which the Department of Transportation can make up to ten grants for the development and demonstration of fuel cell-powered buses. Heavy-duty vehicles, which include buses, account for only 6 percent of the total vehicle population, but generate 60 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions and over 80 percent of all particulate matter emissions. Fuel cell buses would reduce pollution on our roads through the use of a clean, environmentally-friendly energy source and would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In addition, the bill provides a $75 transportation fringe benefit to employees who commute to work by bicycling, carpooling, or car-sharing. Currently, employees who drive to work can receive a $200 per month parking benefit and employees who use transit can receive up to $105 per month. This bill represents a first step in extending those benefits to citizens who choose to promote energy conservation while commuting to and from their jobs. Mr. Speaker, it is time to make a real and lasting commitment to the development of these new technologies and the use of alternative and renewable fuel that can help make this Nation more self-suff1cient in meeting our energy needs. We have the means available; the place to begin is with the Federal government and with this bill. A detailed summary of the bill's provisions is attached. Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act of 2005 (The STREET Act) The Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act (the STREET Act) recognizes the connection between energy policy and transportation policy and the importance of utilizing new technologies and alternative fuels to meet our transportation energy needs. The STREET Act promotes the Federal Government's leadership in the development and utilization of alternative and renewable fuels in the transportation sector and in the operation of Federal buildings. Our Nation's energy needs are increasing. Energy use in the transportation sector alone has increased by a rate of 1.6 percent each year for the past decade. The vast majority of that energy (approximately 97 percent) comes from traditional fuels. Today, the transportation sector consumes a greater share of petroleum (67 percent) than it did in 1973 (50 percent). As the Nation's largest energy consumer, the Federal Government is in a unique position to promote energy efficiency and the use of alternative and renewable fuels. The STREET Act promotes greater energy efficiency in our transportation sector and our Federal buildings and furthers the development and use of alternative and renewable fuels in our highways, our railroads, our airplanes, our ships, and in our Federal buildings. Economic Development and Public Buildings Photovoltaic Solar Energy Systems for Public Buildings. Amends the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to authorize the Administrator of the General Services Administration to establish a photovoltaic energy commercialization program for the procurement and installation of photovoltaic solar energy systems for electric production in new and existing public buildings. The purposes of this section include a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and attainment of the goal of installing 20,000 solar energy systems in federal public buildings set forth in the Federal Government's Million Solar Roof Initiative of 1997. The bill authorizes approximately $300 million over 5 years for this program. This section also authorizes $14 million for the Administrator of the General Services Administration to install photovoltaics in accordance with the Sun Wall Design Project on the headquarters building of the Department of Energy. Capitol Complex Energy Efficiency. Authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to conduct a study to evaluate the energy infrastructure of the Capitol complex to determine ways to increase energy efficiency including the use of photovoltaic solar energy systems, district heating, and other unconventional and renewable energy resources. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary for this study.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 548, a bill to honor our former colleague Tony Hall by designating the federal building located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio as the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' The House introduced and passed two similar bills with strong bipartisan support in the 107th and 108th Congresses. Unfortunately, the other body did not vote on either bill. We reintroduced this legislation early in this session and are considering it today to ensure that Congress has the opportunity to complete action on it in the 109th Congress. Tony Hall was elected to his first term in Congress in 1978. He went on to serve 11 consecutive terms. Congressman Hall spent 21 years on the House Rules Committee and was chairman of the House Democratic Caucus Task Force on Hunger. Congressman Hall's long career in public service is distinguished by his unwavering commitment to humanitarian causes, in particular to combating hunger issues not only in this country, but also among the world population. His early commitment to helping others and serving this Nation began in the Peace Corps, which he joined in 1966 after graduating from Denison University in Ohio. I witnessed this commitment first hand in 1983 when I traveled with Congressman Hall and two other colleagues to Kansas City. At a time of high unemployment in our country, the Federal Government was storing surplus milk, butter and cheese in Kansas City. Congressman Hall was determined to focus national attention on this issue and press for the release of this surplus food into general distribution. He even personally went on a hunger strike to compel the government to release the stored food. As a result of these efforts, the stored food was eventually distributed to homeless shelters and the general public. Throughout his career, Congressman Hall focused on helping those in need. He promoted economic development that created jobs, championed efforts to ease food-stamp reductions, and in 1997, spearheaded the ``Hunger Has A Cure'' campaign. In the international arena, Congressman Hall visited numerous countries around the world in an effort to focus attention on the problems of world hunger and to promote international aid. He took part in one of the first Congressional delegation trips to Ethiopia in the 99th Congress, and he traveled to Bangladesh to observe disaster relief programs in the 100th Congress. Congressman Hall also helped create the Select Committee on Hunger, which focused on the problem of hunger both domestically and internationally. He served as Chairman of that Select Committee from 1988 until its elimination in 1993. He was also founder and co-chair of the Congressional Hunger Center, a nonprofit organization created to bring awareness to world hunger concerns. Tony Hall made numerous other trips across the world to serve as an advocate for human rights, including a trip to draw attention to the illicit diamond trade in Sierra Leone. Congressman Hall continues to work to banish world hunger and promote developmental assistance. In 2002, President Bush appointed him Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture. He was once aptly described by former colleague Eva Clayton as ``the moral conscience of Congress on issues of hunger and poverty.'' This bill to designate the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse'' is a fitting tribute to the compassion and humanity with which Ambassador Hall conducts his public service. I urge all of my colleagues to honor Tony Hall and to support H.R. 548.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 315, a bill to designate the United States Courthouse located at 300 North Hogan St., Jacksonville, Florida, as the ``John Milton Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse''. I commend the bill's sponsor, the gentlelady from Florida, for her diligence and hard work in pursuit of honoring such an eminent jurist. Judge Simpson was chosen for this distinction from among 20 nominees of prominent civic leaders and jurists who have played an outstanding role in the history of the middle district of Florida. Judge Simpson was a native Floridian. He was born in 1903 in Kissimmee and attended local public schools. In 1926 he graduated from the University of Florida Law School. In 1950, after a long career in private practice and as a judge in Florida state court, President Truman appointed Judge Simpson to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In 1966, President Johnson appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Simpson also later served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Simpson was known for his extraordinary personal courage and insistence on racial equality. Judge Simpson issued landmark decisions on desegregation, including ordering the desegregation of public schools in Orlando and Daytona Beach and ordering the desegregation of Jacksonville city pools and golf courses. With these decisions, he established a model for all such future decisions. Judge Simpson was also a devoted father and husband. His family, friends and colleagues enjoyed his companionship and his love of life. It is fitting to honor the career of Judge Simpson and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 315.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill to enhance the safety of commercial space flight by ensuring that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the authority it needs to protect the safety of passengers of the emerging commercial space industry. Mr. Speaker, I support commercial space exploration and the commercial space industry, but not at the expense of totally ignoring safety. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, P.L. 108- 492, prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from issuing safety design and operating regulations or even minimal safety requirements for individual licenses for the next eight years unless there is a potentially catastrophic incident. The current statutory language amounts to, in essence, the codification of what has come to be known in aviation safety parlance as the ``Tombstone Mentality.'' For years, both I and many of my colleagues on the Aviation Subcommittee have criticized the FAA for waiting until after a disaster to take safety actions, and have urged more proactive safety oversight. Supporters of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act argued that safety regulation would discourage experimentation and innovation. However, the Act went well beyond these objectives and essentially tied FAA's hands by totally banning any safety requirements, except in post- accident circumstances where lives have already been lost. Under the Act, the FAA would be prevented from requiring even the simplest, least expensive enhancements to protect safety of passengers on these space flights. Mr. Speaker, my bill would amend the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act to give the FAA the authority and flexibility to establish minimum safety regulations. My bill would not preclude innovation and, contrary to the claims of supporters of the Act, my bill would not require FAA to impose the same degree of regulation on the developing space travel industry that is imposed on the mature air transportation industry. Specifically, although my bill would require that FAA include, in each license it issues, minimum standards to protect the health and safety of crews and space flight participants, it would further require that, in imposing these standards, FAA must take into account the ``inherently risky nature of human space flight.'' My bill would give the FAA the flexibility to create a regulatory structure governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle to protect the health and safety of crews and space flight participants as is necessary, without having to wait for a catastrophic failure to occur. Mr. Speaker, safety regulation need not be incompatible with developing new technology. For example, although FAA has closely regulated aircraft manufacturing since the 1920's, this regulation has not prevented major technological progress, including the development of jet aircraft in the 1950's and all-composite general aviation aircraft in recent years. We can and should protect the safety of passengers on space flights in this new and emerging industry, without placing unreasonable limitations on industry development. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to pass this important legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 5, to the Republican rules package. Specifically, I oppose the proposed changes to rule X, which among other things creates a permanent standing Committee on Homeland Security and grants legislative jurisdiction to that committee. I am not opposed to the creation of a permanent Homeland Security Committee. Indeed, I believe that the Homeland Security Committee should be made permanent and should be granted jurisdiction over the overall homeland security policy of the Federal Government. Further, I believe that a Homeland Security Committee is needed to oversee the internal administration of such a large Federal agency as the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, which has over 180,000 employees. Although H. Res. 5 includes these provisions, I oppose its grant of legislative jurisdiction to the new committee of areas that have previously been the jurisdiction of other committees. I oppose this grant of jurisdiction, not because of some desire to protect existing committees' ``turf'', but because transfer of these security issues to a new committee divests from the responsibility for those issues from those Members who have substantial experience and expertise--in some cases developed through decades of work--on them. The existing committees are best equipped to give the full House the benefit of carefully thought out recommendations that provide effective security without unnecessary risks to safety or economic efficiency. It will take years for a new committee to be able to develop the expertise to provide the House and the Nation with reports and recommendations of the quality that existing committees provide. It is not enough to say that members with particular areas of expertise will have an opportunity to be heard on these issues. The most effective way to influence policy is to be part of the debate and discussion in the early stages of policy formation; simply voting yes or no when legislation makes it to the House floor is generally not sufficient participation to craft policy. I take this position on the basis of my 30 years of experience in the House, during which time I have given high priority to security, particularly the security of our transportation system. H. Res. 5 would divest responsibility for DHS' transportation and port security functions from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, T&I Committee, and transfer it to the Homeland Security Committee. However, transportation and port security cannot be considered in a vacuum. Developing sound security legislation requires balancing security risks against the economic and safety impacts of such measures on transportation industries and their customers. For example, we would not want to install technology on aircraft to protect against missile attacks if that technology would create disproportionate safety risks. In addition, security mandates are only one type of requirement imposed on transportation industries. Other requirements include safety, consumer protection, environmental, accessibility, and competitiveness statutory or regulatory mandates. Any security legislation or regulation must be considered in the context of the costs and benefits of all such requirements governing transportation industries. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has the responsibility and the expertise to broadly consider security risks, weigh all costs and benefits of proposed requirements, and determine the likely effects of such actions on transportation industries, their customers, and the existing framework of other statutory and regulatory requirements. The T&I Committee, time and again, has proven it's capable to ensure that the U.S. transportation system is efficient and safe, as well as secure. In the aftermath of the Pan Am Flight 103 tragedy, the T&I Committee developed the landmark Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-604), which mandated background checks for airline and airport employees and the deployment of bomb detection equipment for baggage at our Nation's airports. During the 1990s, our committee continued to respond to the changing security needs through oversight and legislation. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the T&I Committee developed and considered the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, ATSA. ATSA established a new Transportation Security Administration, TSA, federalized the screening workforce, and required the screening of all checked baggage to protect against terrorist threats. The Aviation Subcommittee alone has held 19 hearings on aviation security issues since September 11. Since September 11, the T&I Committee has also spearheaded important maritime and port security legislation including the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The T&I Committee has the member expertise, the staff, and the institutional memory to deal with these issues. I believe that the quality of congressional oversight and legislation on these issues will suffer if these issues are simply transferred wholesale to a new committee. It will take years for the new committee to develop the institutional background and expertise that currently resides in our committee. Finally, the Republican Conference drafted these changes to rule X in isolation. Democrats were afforded no role in crafting this critical security policy. I believe the proposed changes to rule X do not further the security of this Nation. Instead, I fear that they will hamper security by divesting from those Members with the experience and institutional knowledge of these issues the direct responsibility to craft security policy. For all of these reasons, I oppose H. Res. 5.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, our side has reviewed the bill. We are in full accord with the explanation that the gentleman just made. They are truly technical in nature to correct typographical errors and to eliminate section number duplications. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, while I do not intend to object, I do believe the gentleman should explain the relatively minor technical, truly technical changes, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would simply note that the air patrol in Minnesota has a similar program, we call it the Young Eagles, to bring young people into participation in aviation at an early age. It is beneficial to all of aviation. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 532 submitted by the chairman is a very commendable bill which acknowledges the work of the Aero Squad After School Program at the Tomorrow's Aeronautical Museum in Compton, California, that will give young minority aviators experience in the field of civil aviation. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her comments on the bill, as she has a response to the bill which our committee has reported out.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, had time permitted, I would have asked the following question of the Chairman of the Committee, the Gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young): Given that earlier this week the Majority insisted that Congress increase the debt limit by $800 billion, and that this bill includes an across-the-board cut of everything from cancer research to highway funding, why does this bill, specifically section 108 of Division J, appropriate $2 million to purchase a Presidential yacht, the Sequoia? At a time when we are sending American men and women to war in Iraq without the necessary body armor and equipment, why in the world are we spending taxpayer money on a Presidential yacht? The background of this issue deserves some elaboration. Division J of H.R. 4818 appropriates $2 million for the Secretary of the Navy to purchase the Presidential yacht Sequoia. President Jimmy Carter ordered that this yacht be sold to eliminate signs of an ``imperial presidency''. It is unclear whether the purpose of purchasing the yacht, a national historic landmark, is to provide a yacht for the President, or to bail out the current owner of the vessel, or to donate the vessel to a maritime museum. When the Navy previously owned the vessel, it cost $800,000 a year to keep the vessel running safely and securely. The Sequoia was built in 1925; President Herbert Hoover was the first President to use the yacht. It was used by all Presidents until Jimmy Carter became President. President Nixon used the Sequoia approximately 100 times--including the evening on which he decided to resign the Presidency. The yacht is owned by Gary Silversmith, a lawyer and collector of presidential memorabilia, who purchased the vessel in 2000 for $1.9 million. In recent years, the Sequoia has been available for charter on the Potomac for $10,000 per day. A nonprofit group, the Presidential Yacht Sequoia Foundation, has been raising money to make the privately owned vessel ``public.'' According to an April 17, 2003, Washington Times article, Bill Codus, vice president of the foundation, said that the foundation had the ear of certain Members of the Congress for future appropriations, but he understood if, during tough economic times, the yacht is not at the top of Congress' list. He specifically stated: ``We have to be patient. A lot is going toward defense now, and we understand that.'' This body ought not to be patient with a frivolous expenditure of $2 million to buy a yacht that the Federal Government does not need and which, in fact, was once sold by the Government as excess property. This $2 million could be put to much better use by the U.S. Coast Guard to help buy a high speed cutter to interdict drug runners and illegal immigration in the U.S. coastal waters, for example. There are, no doubt, numerous other such unwarranted expenditures buried in this bill which should be excised--nontheless, I will vote for the conference report: it is better than the ``C.R.'', and I consider an ``aye'' vote necessary to keep the Government functioning.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he is opposed to the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a most extraordinary process here. The chairman of the subcommittee just now said, at the last minute, now we are confronted with proposals for regulation. Well, at the last minute, we have this bill before us. If the gentleman were concerned, Mr. Speaker, about including those who are concerned about safety in flight, the Members on this side of the aisle would have been included much earlier on in this process. The bill was not even introduced until yesterday. We did not have a copy of an introduced bill to look at until yesterday afternoon or evening. That is not the way we work on our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We at least include both parties in discussions. Now, I want my colleagues to understand the language of this bill. On page 13, line 17: ``Safety regulations. The Secretary may issue regulations governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle to protect the health and safety of crew and space flight participants.'' But, ``Regulations issued under this subsection shall be limited to restricting or prohibiting design features or operating practices that have resulted in a serious or fatal injury to crew or space flight participants.'' Is the gentleman going to include on the space flight ticket the disclaimer there has been no safety provided until after you are dead? Our committee colleague of some years ago, Mr. Molinari of New York, the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight at the time when I was chairing hearings and we looked into FAA safety practices, he described FAA's procedure at the time as a tombstone mentality. They act only after there is a fatality. I do not want to see people dead from a space experiment and then the Federal Government comes in to regulate.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time in recognition that the other side has the right to close. Yes, this bill was considered by the House earlier this year, but without this language; without any reference to safety and without any consideration. And I disagree that there is no protection if this language were stricken. Under current law, and I am familiar with the commercial space flight activities of DOT and FAA, under current law, the DOT must issue a license to launch; and in the process of issuing that license to launch can insist on safety regulations if it takes an assertive stance and is concerned about safety of flight for experimental personnel and for commercial passengers. But, again, I come back to our very modest proposal of language that, had we been included in the discussions that have been going on between the Committee on Science in the other body, if our side would have been included, we would have proposed language to prescribe minimum standards necessary for safety of design features and operation of a launch vehicle, taking into account the inherently risky nature of human space flight. We can defeat this bill and come back later tonight with an amended version and fix it, or come back in the next Congress and do it right. Let us not do tombstone safety.