James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on each side?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation.

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

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the language of the bill is limited to restricting or prohibiting design features or operating practices that have resulted in serious or fatal injury.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully say to the chairman, our side was never included, never advised, and when the bill passed the House in March of this year, it did not have any reference of this nature to safety.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Let us read further. After the language in the bill that says regulation shall be limited to restricting or prohibiting design features or operating practices that have resulted in serious or fatal injury to crew or space flight participants, it goes on to say, or contributed to an unplanned event or series of events. There is a whole series of conditions after this, but it is still subject to the first language that says you have got to die first, serious fatal accident, and I do not agree with what the gentleman is saying, that this is going to strangle. First of all, we have time to come back next year in due course, in careful, thoughtful deliberation, in public hearings to expose this issue, have a discussion of it and report a bill back to the House with the appropriate safeguards and appropriately designate it the Rohrabacher space commercial space amendments bill so that the gentleman's parentage will be protected, but we should not have that parentage associated with fatalities. Why would the gentleman object? Why would the gentleman not have discussed with us the safety issues when it is the jurisdiction of this committee, and we do have some experience and expertise with it, give us appropriate time during this very rushed period?

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. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Those of us who live on or along the Great Lakes or within the Great Lakes basin know what a great resource this extraordinary collection of individual bodies of fresh water is. It is 20 percent of the fresh water on the face of the earth. We think of it as a great fresh water resource, but it is also a highway of commerce, and we recognize today that in this highway of commerce there are dangers for those who ply the waterways. The story of today's legislation begins in 1871, when a young lawyer from Maine named Sumner Kimball was appointed chief of the Treasury Department's Revenue Marine Division. Not many people know, or if they knew recall, that the Coast Guard we know today started out as a revenue cutter service. It was the main source of revenue for the fledgling U.S. government. So the Revenue Marine Division leader began a review of the Department's life-saving network. He found equipment old, rusty, in need of replacement and that the Department's lifesaver employees were too old for life-saving missions, few were competent, and that their selection depended more on politics than qualifications in handling boats. It was indeed a very dark time for life-saving, especially on the treacherous waters of the Great Lakes, whether it is Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie or Ontario. Kimball went to Congress to ask for and was successful in getting an appropriation of $200,000 to hire the necessary life-saving personnel. He instituted six-man boat crews at all stations, built new stations, set performance standards, physical standards for crews and also schedules for the life-saving stations. Within 3 years, by 1874, Mr. Kimball's life-saving stations had been established not only across the Great Lakes but all across the country, three of those in particular on key points on the Great Lakes. By 1878, the life-saving mission within the Department of Treasury was split off as a separate organization, named the U.S. Life-Saving Service. Sumner Kimball would be named superintendent of this service and remain there until his civilian service was merged with the revenue cutter service that I mentioned a moment ago in 1915 to create what we know today as the U.S. Coast Guard. For over 10 years, the Life-Saving Service and the Coast Guard operating the Great Lakes have encountered over 10,000 disasters, saved 55,000 people, and over $110 million in property damage protected. Over 40 life-saving and Coast Guard personnel have sacrificed their lives in the pursuit of this service and their duties. The legacy of Sumner Kimball and the Life-Saving Service continues in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes region is part of the 9th Coast Guard District, with two air stations, two air facilities, five group offices, eight marine safety offices, 10 cutters and 46 small boat stations, protecting more than 6,700 miles of coastline in the eight States in the 9th Coast Guard District. We talk a great deal about homeland security in this post-9/11 era, and that certainly is one of the missions of the Coast Guard, but far predating homeland security was that of life security, and there is no organization in the Federal Government better suited to saving lives than the U.S. Coast Guard. Its personnel are rigorously trained, highly skilled, a great sense of mission, and today we recognize a great sense of history in the carrying out of their life-saving responsibilities that we know today as the search and rescue service of the U.S. Coast Guard. With great pleasure, we bring to the House floor from our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure H. Res. 750 recognizing the extraordinary and valiant service of the men and women of the Life- Saving Service and the U.S. Coast Guard on our Great Lakes. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for an explanation of the measure before us.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee for his diligent work in shepherding this bill through this historic moment. He has been a dedicated and informed and forthright leader of the subcommittee and on the issues under its jurisdiction, particularly those relating to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. For the last decade, as a member of the Board of Trustees, I have watched firsthand the center undertake major capital projects, renovating the theaters, creating state-of-the-art concert halls, the Opera House, replacing a badly deteriorated roof. Throughout all these major capital maintenance renovation construction projects, the center opened every day of the year and welcomed over 5 million visitors and has stayed true to its mission as a national cultural arts center and a living memorial to our 35th President. The chairman has described the principal features of the bill. What I want to emphasize, however, is the great difficulty of running this incredible living memorial and arts center while managing the major construction initiatives. The Kennedy Center, in doing so, and the chairman I know agrees with this position, must improve its construction management. The General Accounting Office reviewed the Kennedy Center's operation and found that the Center needs, one, to develop policy and procedures to guide the plans and management of its construction projects; two, ensure that its construction contractors provide schedule and cost information in a timely fashion; and three, invest in the key human capital resources and the expertise to manage better its construction projects. The Center has made progress. The chairman has held hearings on this matter, and we greatly appreciate those hearings. They reveal that the Center needs to do much better. Just last month, GAO reported that the Center has not updated its building plan each year as the law requires. The building plan does not explain how the Kennedy Center prioritizes its capital projects. It fails to provide adequate information on project-specific status, updates and budgets so that we in the Congress and the board of trustees will have the information necessary to ensure that the Center's capital projects are well managed. I think this legislation, by requiring further steps to strengthen the construction management process, will move the Kennedy Center forward in directions that we feel are important, and for that, I thank the chairman for his vigilance and greatly appreciate the partnership. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, all in all, unfortunately, we had a great opportunity to do something really good with this H.R. 10 from the recommendations of our committee. Had we gone further to deal with Amtrak and other rail protections, include our transit security provisions, and expand that to port security, we could have had a really good bill if our committee had been permitted to participate in the full, open process, instead of spending an enormous amount of time, like we have done over the last couple of days, naming post offices and other minuscule resolutions. We have not achieved the goal that we should have of a really substantive bill.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I join at the outset with our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, in expressing support for reserving to the next Congress the issue of jurisdiction of homeland security and how the matter of legislative authority over these issues should be handled. The gentleman is absolutely correct, and we are in full agreement. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering, H.R. 10, implements only 11 of the 41 recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Our committee actually reported stronger language and better provisions than are in the vehicle before us today, and, had the process provided for it, our committee proposals in aviation and in transit would have been superior to what is in the pending legislation. Actually the Menendez amendment in the nature of a substitute is superior. It implements all of the Commission recommendations and borrows from the other body's approach, which passed the other body 96 to 2. We are not likely to have that kind of outcome on the House floor today. In a process where 50 items not recommended in the September 11 Commission report are added to this bill, our side is not allowed to offer amendments to the Menendez substitute in which we could have made major improvements, including not only those recommendations of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but many that we considered but have not yet acted upon. Gaps exist, and, unfortunately, the September 11 Commission did not deal with highway, bridge, transit, rail and port facilities. We passed a port facility bill. We got it enacted, but it has not been funded. The administration has not seen fit to put money into the port security requests that have come in the nature of some $2.9 billion requested by ports, both saltwater, fresh water and river ports in the United States. They are woefully inadequately funded, and yet all of us recall the tragedy of the USS Cole and the merchant vessel Limburg just 2 years ago. I can envision a scenario when the same type of attack is made upon cruise ships or LNG tankers or chemical tankers. There are also threats from the 6 million containers that enter U.S. ports every year. We have no comprehensive means of screening containers. We need to do that. We need to invest maybe not the $7 billion the Coast Guard proposed, but something in that nature, and this H.R. 10 document does not move us in that direction.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5163, the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act. I believe this bill is appropriately named--as my good friend, Norm Mineta, has dedicated a lifetime to improving transportation and strengthening safe in this country. Last year, the Department of Transportation (DOT) approached the Transportation Committee with a proposal to reorganize the DOT. The proposal was, first, to abolish the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) and reinvent it as the Research and Technology Innovation Administration, and then to transfer the pipeline program, which is housed under RSPA, to the Federal Railroad Administration. That proposal raised serious concerns that pipeline safety would not get adequate attention in an agency focused solely on railroads. The Committee, on a bipartisan basis, directed the DOT to go back to the drawing board, and they have now come back to us with a much better proposal. This bill will restructure the Research and Special Programs Administration by splitting its functions into two separate, more- focused agencies within the Department of Transportation: the new Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) and the new Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Mr. Speaker, I've had 20 years experience with the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), and I believe that this Act is a good ``first step'' toward helping the Department raise pipeline and hazardous materials safety to the level of significance they deserve, and need. Our nation's pipeline system consists of more than two million miles of pipe moving millions of gallons of hazardous liquids and more than 55 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily. Although moving commodities such as crude oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, and natural gas through pipelines may be safer than moving the same commodities on other transportation modes, pipeline incidents can have catastrophic consequences, such as the deadly explosions in Bellingham, Washington, and Carlsbad, New Mexico, in which a total of 15 people were killed. This past June, DOT Inspector General Kenneth Mead released an audit report that found severe deficiencies in the government's pipeline safety program. The Inspector General found: Of the 31 mandates from legislation enacted in 1992 and 1996, six mandates have yet to be implemented, and all of these are over eight years past due. For example, two such mandates, which are a decade overdue, require defining ``natural gas and hazardous liquid gathering lines'' in order to determine which lines can and should be regulated. Separately, seven NTSB safety recommendations remain open, two of which were identified in an Inspector General report issued in March 2000. This is unacceptable, and it is my hope that this bill will set OPS on a path toward finalizing all mandated and recommendations in a timely fashion, while ensuring that the agency is working effectively to promote safety as its highest priority. To accomplish this, we included safeguards in this bill, which are modeled after the safety functions of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. First, we require PHMSA to consider the assignment and maintenance of safety as the highest priority. Second, we require PHMSA to hire a Chief Safety Officer who will help keep the agency focused on its new safety mission. Third, we require the Inspector General to transmit to the Secretary of Transportation and to Congress periodic reports on the progress PHMSA has or has not made on implementing the outstanding statutory mandates and recommendations. Pipeline security must also receive more focused attention. The Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security have just finalized a Memorandum of Understanding that seeks to improve the Departments' cooperation and coordination in promoting the safe, secure, and efficient movement of people and goods throughout our vast transportation network. However, no such agreement exists to specifically address the unique challenge of securing our Nation's pipelines. The Committee report therefore directs the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security and the Departments of Transportation and Energy to execute separate Memorandums of Understanding governing the roles, responsibilities, and resources of the Departments in addressing pipeline and hazardous materials transportation security. With respect to hazardous materials transportation, from 1994 to 2003 (the most recent information available), more than 157,000 hazardous materials incidents and accidents have occurred. These accidents have accounted for more than 220 deaths, 3,500 injuries, and well over $500 million in damages. Yet responsibility for the hazardous materials transportation safety has bounced around the Department and is now buried deep within RSPA. Unless the office has a higher profile within the Department and the federal hazmat program itself is significantly improved, there will surely be more deaths and injuries. We have included long-needed improvements to federal hazmat law in H.R. 3550 and I support enactment of those provisions through the comprehensive surface transportation reauthorization bill. But for now, let us begin the strengthening of our hazmat laws with the creation of this new Administration and a renewed focus on pipeline and hazardous materials safety. Furthermore, this bill creates a new Administration to focus on DOT's research and development activities: the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. By creating a separate Administration to manage these important activities, this bill goes a long way to move transportation research forward and to ensure that federal dollars are invested in research and innovative technologies that help address our Nation's pressing transportation needs. This bill also places the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Office of Intermodalism within RITA. I championed the creation of the Office of Intermodalism. Yet, regrettably, since its creation it has not fulfilled its original mission. This bill will help give the Office new direction, and help contribute and perhaps improve upon DOT's intermodal programs and activities. I'd like to thank Secretary Mineta for spearheading this reform, an thank him for his continued commitment to transportation safety. I support this bill, and I urge all Members vote for it.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4794. The bill amends legislation enacted in 2000 to address the continuing problem of untreated or partially treated sewage that migrates across the U.S.-Mexican border into the waters off San Diego, California. Since the original legislation in 2000, the United States, acting through the International Boundary Waters Commission (IBWC), has successfully negotiated an agreement with Mexico on implementing a bi- national effort to address this problem. The bill makes minor changes to reflect those discussions, and provides an updated authorization level to allow for the construction of the wastewater treatment facility, as contemplated in 2000. It also addresses an interpretation by the Office of Management and Budget that was contrary to the original intent of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure when the bill was first developed. When this bill is enacted, it should create all the authority necessary for the construction of treatment facilities to protect the public and the ecological health of the San Diego region. I commend our Committee colleague, Mr. Filner, who first brought this issue to the Committee's attention in the 106th Congress, for his efforts in pursuing this legislation. I support the bill and urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4470. The bill extends the authorization of appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program. Since its establishment in 2000, this program has helped coordinate restoration work for Lake Pontchartrain, in southeastern Louisiana. This legislation authorizes $99 million through 2010 for restoration projects and studies recommended by the Lake Pontchartrain Management Conference, public education projects to inform the local community of public health concerns, and practical ways to help clean up the Lake. It also clarifies the status of the Management Conference so that protection of Lake Pontchartrain can proceed expeditiously. I support the bill, and urge all Members to join me in that support.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Here we are again doing an extension. In the famous words of President Reagan, there you go again, doing another extension. But, frankly, you might just call this a no-fault divorce. We tried. The other body tried. The two parties in the other body tried. They could not come to a meeting of the minds. They could not come to a meeting of the minds with the White House. The only body that has its act together is this body. The only group that has its act together is this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We have worked shoulder to shoulder and, may I say, kneecap to kneecap across the table to fashion a bill that is good for America, to move transportation ahead, that would address congestion and safety and mobility of all things in America. We introduced that bill a year ago at a time when gasoline prices were $1.34 a gallon. They are now consistently well over $2 a gallon all across the country and that 70-plus cents of increase in fuel price, about 60 percent of it, 70 percent of it, is going overseas to OPEC. We are not getting any transportation benefit of that increase in fuel price. Not a penny of that increase in fuel price is going to fill pot holes, build new bridges, improve safety on our highways, build more bicycle lanes. Incidentally, I must say to the chairman of our committee and ranking member, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for managing this bill. It is his last hurrah, if you will, on the House floor in a management position. But I was out on my bicycle doing what I thought was going to be a 20-mile ride this morning, and I got the message that this bill was being called up. It seems the leadership over here just sort of all of a sudden decides in a big rush, this is the time to do this thing without any advance notice. That is not particularly useful. In fact, I was dodging pot holes, cursing the road conditions as most travelers are doing. But we need to do this. I want to take this opportunity to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois for his 2-decade tenure in this House, for the partnership that we have had, on aviation, on surface transportation, on railroads, on water resource issues, everything that has affected this committee. He has really devoted his career to the work of this committee. The gentleman has absorbed the subject matter and made it a core of his service in the Congress. He has not only served his district well and his State well; he has served the Nation well. I salute the gentleman from Illinois on this, his last opportunity to manage a major transportation bill. Perhaps there may be another opportunity. We never know. But it may be the last. One never knows what happens in this body. Winds blow. Conditions change. The barometer rises. The barometer falls. Something happens. It can all happen in the blink of an eye, and we could have a major bill back on the House floor yet before this Congress adjourns. I regret, frankly, that we are here with an extension, that we are not here doing the TEA-LU bill that the chairman of the full committee and I and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and our committee staff and members have worked so hard to fashion, because we know that at $375 billion, that is the level of investment America needs to move this country ahead, at a time when global mobility at home is a cornerstone of our global presence in international competition in the marketplace. About 6 months ago, I visited China to speak at an aviation conference and traveled to the city of Laiwu, which is the home of a steel mill which is a part owner in an iron ore mine in my district. I traveled from Jinan 2 hours to Laiwu. Jinan is a city of 6 million people. Laiwu is a city of 1.2 million people. They have a six-lane divided, controlled-access superhighway connecting these two cities, the vanguard of the equivalent of our interstate highway system which China is planning to build in the next 15 years to invest well over $200 billion in improving their mobility, their ability to move goods to market and people to their destinations; and they are doing it with the savings of the Chinese people who have a savings rate of over 60 percent. They are investing $200 billion in modernizing their ports, they are halfway through a $100 billion airport modernization plan, and we are sitting here, standing here, advancing the cause of transportation by taking the 6-year-old TEA-21 and moving it incrementally forward and saying, sorry, folks, this is the best we can do. That is not right. This committee knows what is right. Members of this committee have worked hard. They understand transportation problems. They understand what America needs. They understand the needs of mobility. They understand the needs of safety and investment in America. Yet because of ideological hard-and-fast positions by the White House and divisiveness over in the other body, we cannot move the agenda ahead. I say, let us pass this bill. Let us inch forward. Let us come back after this Congress has concluded its business and into the next Congress and do the right thing for America. Make the right investments. Let us move America ahead in the way we know it needs to move, keep our mobility, keep our marketplace production and productivity and reduce the cost of moving people and goods in America. Exactly 1 year ago today we ended an era: The era in which our Nation's transportation policy was governed by legislation establishing a multiyear plan with the funding needed to implement the plan. During the past year, our national transportation policy has gone forward in fits and starts, by extensions of a month or two. Just over a year ago, on September 24, 2003, when this House was considering the first surface transportation extension bill, I stated: ``I am afraid . . . we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring. . . . I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out.'' What I predicted then has repeatedly proven correct--we have had 5 additional extensions since that day. And here we are today pleading once again for a temporary extension of authorization for highway construction, highway safety, and public transportation funding. Our inability to enact legislation to reauthorization surface transportation programs is caused by an administration guided by ideology rather than good transportation policy and by the unwillingness of the Republican leadership in Congress to let the people's branch of government work its will. Analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation shows that we need to invest $375 billion to maintain and improve our aging infrastructure. On November 19, 2003, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced H.R. 3550, authorizing that same amount-- $375 billion for the highway, transit, and transportation safety programs for the next 6 years. The T&L Committee marked up that legislation and unanimously voted it favorably to the House, but the Republican leadership blocked its consideration because of objections from the administration to the funding level. But that funding level was derived from the administration's own analysis, and the bill, included proposals to fully fund the investments. Nevertheless, our committee was prevented from moving the bill through the legislative process. That 1-year delay has been costly to our Nation. AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, estimated when the first extension was about to expire early this year that failure to enact a long-term reauthorization would mean a $2.1 billion increase in project costs and a loss of more than 90,000 jobs that could have been created a long-term authorization bill. Today, we continue our muddling through, debating on a measure that would temporarily extend funding authorization for another 8 months before the current extension expires at midnight. This is no way to do business, especially when we are dealing with costly, multiyear transportation projects that require long-term certainty in planning, development, and financing. I can only imagine what further damage we have now done, and at what new financial cost due to another year of inadequate funding levels. The extension bill now before us provides some modest increase in the investment levels of a number of the highway and transit programs, other programs are less fortunate. Their funding is held constant at the FY 2003 levels. Moreover, the insistence on passing ``clean'' extension bills, Congress has not been able to modify or update current surface transportation programs and policies that are in need of such adjustment. Overall, this bill would provide $24.5 billion in contract authority for the 8 months ending on May 31, 2005, for highway programs. This is based on $36.76 billion for the entire fiscal year 2005. Of these amounts, $21.3 billion for 8 months is guaranteed. For transit programs, this bill would provide $5.17 billion guaranteed funding for 8 months. Despite the fact that the funding levels included in our original bill were derived from the Department of Transportation's highway and transit needs report, the administration has strongly opposed additional infrastructure investment. The President's budget to Congress flat-lined the highway and transit programs. The President's bill did not include one additional dollar for highway and transit investment, nor would it produce one additional job in the transportation construction sector, over the next 6 years. But what's worse is the mess we have created in the last year. The lack of vision, the lack of a clear plan, the continual struggle to give States scraps from the table. We should do better.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I too rise in support of H. Con. Res. 161 and salute the people and the communities that volunteered and donated to North Platte Canteen. I can remember our own canteen in my hometown of Chisholm, Minnesota, in World War II when I was just a youngster.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in commending Lance Armstrong on his 6th consecutive victory in the Tour de France. I know that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) recognizes the extraordinary accomplishment that winning the Tour de France represents. This is the world's greatest athletic endurance contest. No comparison. It would be like compressing the National Football League's 16 games into 3 weeks, a game a day. I do not think there are any who could sustain the enormous output of energy required by even the least of the 192 riders who begin each year's Tour de France. To win a stage is a great accomplishment. To win the tour is extraordinary. Only five have won five tours. Only two have won five tours consecutively. And only one has won the Tour de France six times consecutively, and that is our America's Lance Armstrong. Over 13 million people this year watched in person the Tour de France. It is the greatest citizens sporting event. No one pays to be on the sidelines, to be in attendance at the Tour de France. There are no tickets. There is no reserved seating. There is no special place. There is no charge. And yet a million people watched the time trial on Alpe d'Huez in which the riders in 9\1/2\ miles climb 5,000 feet with 21 switchbacks in a race against the clock and which is in itself probably the most challenging sports event in the history of athletics. Lance Armstrong, after already riding over 2,000 miles, came within 1 second of the all-time record time trial climb on Alpe d'Huez, but that was enough to put him in the record books to solidify his position. As a leader, as an athlete, but, as he would like to be known, as a cancer survivor, he is quick to point out that while all of his accomplishments in the field of cycling are extraordinary, his greatest claim is as a cancer survivor.