James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado. Madam Chairman, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a true American success story. Throughout its existence, it has consistently risen to the challenge of leveraging federal dollars in a prudent manner, providing a fair return, both socially and economically, for the Federal Government's investment. The Appalachian Regional Commission was created in 1965 to provide social and economic support to severely distressed counties in the Appalachian states stretching from New York to Mississippi. Its goal is to bring over 23 million citizens in 410 counties into America's economic mainstream. There is no doubt the public works and infrastructure projects supported by the ARC are having a very positive effect in meeting the challenges of the Appalachian region. Building on their successful strategy of a regional approach, the ARC encourages affected states to work cooperatively to address issues of economic distress particular to the Appalachian region. Very importantly, Madam Chairman, ARC programs do not duplicate other federal programs. ARC programs respond to locally identified needs and are extremely flexible in their ability to quickly respond to the unique problems of the Appalachian region. The ARC's record is truly impressive. Under its tenure, the number of distressed counties has been cut by more than half, from 223 in 1965 to 91 in 2004. Furthermore, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 31 percent to 13 percent. Infant mortality has dropped significantly, high school graduation rates now mirror those of the nation as a whole, and more than 800,000 Appalachian residents have access to clean water and sanitation facilities through ARC projects. In 2003, the ARC's ``smart business'' approach leveraged $185,905,000 in other public funds, and over $464,107,000 in private funds. Much work still needs to be done. This region has been disproportionately hard hit by loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. One out of every five jobs lost in manufacturing has been in Appalachia. In northern Appalachia, the steel industry has likewise suffered major job losses, while in central Appalachia the number of workers in the mining industry continues to fall. Unemployment rates stubbornly continue to exceed the national average, and the Appalachian region continues to suffer from disproportionately high rates of chronic disease such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes. Now is certainly not the time to short-change this Commission, which has a proven track record of effectiveness, and efficiency. Madam Chairman, as I recall the last attempt to dismantle the ARC through a reduction in funding was overwhelmingly rejected by this body by a vote of 328 to 97. I urge my colleagues to join me once again to reject, resoundly and overwhelmingly, this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the ``yeas'' and ``nays''. The ``yeas'' and ``nays'' were ordered.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of my chairman whether he has any other speakers.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will make a few remarks and close and yield back, and I thank the gentlemen from Oregon for their remarks. I appreciate their support all along, and I appreciate the leadership, once again I want to say, I cannot say it often enough, of our chairman who has stood up against remarkable odds. The term that we use in this committee, ``investment,'' is the way to describe what our committee is all about. This is a committee about building America, whether it is our inland waterways, our coastal ports, our inland ports, our St. Louis seaway, our passenger rail system, transit ways, bus ways, our airports, airways, Corps of Engineer works, the water and sewer system needs of America, Economic Development Administration creating jobs. The Tennessee Valley Authority comes under the jurisdiction of our committee. Airport, airways, safety of air traffic control system, everything this committee does is involved in building America, investing in our productivity, investing in logistics, the cost of moving people and goods. Because of those investments, we have improved the marketplace in America. In 1987, the cost of logistics, moving people and goods, was 17 percent of our gross domestic product. In 1987. Last year, the cost of logistics was under 10 percent. That is a $700 billion gain in productivity in logistics, moving people and goods in the American economy, society and marketplace. That is a huge productivity gain. The stock market does not make that kind of gain. But we do, with the investments that we make in this committee that stimulate the national economy. Now, when we talk about investment in surface transportation, think of the Romans and the Appian Way, the classic roadway built that is still there 2,000 years later. If we do not continue to improve, continue to invest, continue to tend to the needs of transportation, our roadways are not going to last for 2,000 years. They will not even last for 25 or 30 years. Airport runways are supposed to last for 25 years, and then suddenly they begin to deteriorate. That is why we have to continue to invest in the Airport Improvement Program, to keep America flying, keep our economy moving. And the same with our surface transportation needs. We have the key to doing it in the $375 billion. And when that bill was introduced in the House last year, the price of gasoline was $1.34 a gallon. Now, it is, in some places, as much as $2.24 a gallon. And where is that 70, 80 cents going? It is not staying in America. It is going overseas. Going to OPEC. We are not getting the benefit from it, except that you can power your automobile. But if we had passed our bill with the 5 cent increase in the user fee, we would be making those investments right now. We would have people working improving our roadways, reducing congestion. We can do it. Every 5-minute delay experienced by United Parcel Service costs $40 million nationwide. Multiply that cost over and you get to the $68 billion cost of congestion in just the 75 major metropolitan area in the country. That is why we need to do this legislation. That is why we need this bill passed and why we need the Chairman's leadership in the conference. I want to stand for the reopener, I want to stand for the more robust investment we passed in the House, and I want to see this 30-day extension, this record-breaking extension passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the late Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, ``Here we go again.'' This is the third act of a play that does not have a number of acts pinned to it yet. In fact, we are setting a record today. This will be the longest extension of a transportation bill while working out a conference in recent memory, at least in the last decade or so. Now, that is not any fault of anyone in this body. Certainly not of the chairman. If the chairman had his way, we would have had this bill done 6 months to be at the $375 billion level. We will be building highways right now and bridges and transit systems. We would be investing in America. We would be on our way to having 475,000 new jobs in the marketplace by Labor Day and $80 billion of economic activity in the marketplace. We would have America back to work again if only the White House would have listened to our chairman. And I must say, Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest admiration for our chairman for standing up to this administration saying what he thinks is right. I remember in days when we had a Democratic administration we were add odds with them. It was not pleasant, but one had to stand up for what our committee position is and what we believe is the right thing to do and we did it. And the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) has done so. And his wisdom has been rejected. We should have had this conference all done and completed with. It is all over one issue, how much are we willing to invest in America in our transportation and mobility, in reducing congestion, improving productivity, moving America forward, reducing the cost of logistics in this country, that is what we ought to be doing, instead of dragging our feet over this issue of fiscal conservatism, some imagined effect upon the deficit. The Federal aid highway program and transit program has no effect on our deficit unless you engage in some fanciful financing, some of which is included in the bill that is the only bill that is now in conference. We can resolve all of that. The Federal highway trust fund is derived from the revenues collected at the pump which traveling America pays. They expect to get the return as they drive away from the pump in the form of improved roads and transit systems and bridges and safety. And we have performed. We have done that through the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 and 1987 and ISTEA in 1991, TEA-21 in 1998 and we are prepared to do that with TEA-LU. The investment for the next 6 years is at a level that the Department of Transportation, not this committee, selected, the one that they studied as directed by TEA-21 to assess pavement condition, congestion, bridge conditions, safety needs and investment requirements for the future, and they came back with this figure of $375 billion. We took them at their word. We held hearings on it. We traveled around the country. We went to congested areas of great need in America by holding public meetings, committee hearings. We validated that figure. We reported it out of our committee. With 74, 75 members, that does not get anymore bipartisan than that. And I have said it many times, how can it be a political detriment to the President if the Democrats in the House, Democrats in the Senate all stand side by side with the Republicans and vote for this bill, a robust investment in the needs of America, in transportation, in mobility, in reducing the cost of logistics. If we all stand shoulder to shoulder, that is not a partisan issue. That is not a slur on the President. There is no way he could be criticized for signing such a bill, and we are prepared to say this is the right thing to do. We have said it. So let us get on with this. Now, there are discussions, back door, called it in one meeting kind of a Kabuki dance, wearing a mask, putting on a uniform and doing this dance, and we are supposed to understand what is happening behind the dance. On our side, we are not participants in that dance. We do not know what that number is going to come out of that dance, but so far the numbers are not good. We did the right thing in this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We agreed to scale back the 375, bring a smaller dollar amount to the House floor, with a wink from the leadership that if we bring this bill through the House, go to conference, that number will go up from the House figure. Nominally 275, actually 284, it will get up there to $300 billion, maybe even beyond; and I give the Speaker enormous credit because he understands what we need to do for America, for our mobility, to reduce congestion, create jobs. He understands that. He has argued. He has been an advocate at the White House. He has been turned down. So now we are at that point in conference, and the wink is like the Cheshire cat's smile, fading. So we are going to go along with this Act III of a multi-act play extension and trust in the enormous fortitude of our chairman, the advocate of what is right, as he has done right along, and advance the cause of transportation in America; but it is not going to be below the House number, I tell my colleagues that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, those who are here advocating a limitation or banning of snowmobiles from Yellowstone and perhaps from other national parks are operating under what I am convinced is a misguided understanding of snowmobiling. They are probably thinking of snowmobiles as they existed 10, 15, 20 years ago, not the snowmobiles that have been developed in recent years and which meet and even exceed the stringent standards that the National Park Service has established for snowmobile use in our national parks, as in Voyagers National Park in my district and as we are talking about with Yellowstone. Some years ago, there were 2,000 snowmobiles a day allowed in the park. Today that is 740. Fifteen years ago, they were noisier, perhaps more emissions emitted from such machines. Today it is vastly different. Snowmobile technology has vastly improved. The primary snow machine used in Yellowstone and in Voyagers has emissions 97 percent lower for particulates and 85 percent lower for carbon monoxide than machines used just even 5 years ago. The U.S. manufacturing sector, Polaris, Arctic Cat, Bombardier, have invested millions, even tens of millions of dollars to improve the quality of their snowmobiles to operate in our national parks and elsewhere throughout the United States. The maximum grams per kilowatt hour allowed in Yellowstone, 120 for carbon monoxide; Arctic Cat emissions, 92; Polaris, 111; bombardier, 92. Technically, just on the science alone, they are well below the standards set by the National Park Service. Hydrocarbon emissions, maximum allowed in Yellowstone per kilowatt hour, 15; for Arctic Cat machines, 5.6; for Polaris, 5.4; for Bombardier, 6.12, two-thirds less than the national standard set by the National Park Service. Noise is another argument made against snow machines. Run a hair dryer or a hair blower, that is 100 decibels. Run a lawn mower, that is 85 decibels. Run your garbage disposal in your kitchen, that is 80 decibels. Run a vacuum cleaner around your house, that is 80 decibels. Run a snowmobile. The maximum decibel level allowed in Yellowstone is 73 decibels. Arctic Cat is at 70. Polaris is at 73. Bombardier is at 72. They are at or below the level of noise standard set by the National Park Service, and they are getting better. I think that we need some common sense in this matter of access to the national parks. Before snowmobiles, we did not really have a life in the northern tier of States, but now people are able to get out and enjoy the countryside, to travel distances out into the woods, out on the side roads and the byroads and the tote roads of logging days. In Minnesota, we have got 11 months of winter and 1 month of rough sledding. Without the snowmobile and stretch pants, we would not have a life. So do not take this away. Do not come down with this hard and fast, you cannot use this. Accept the march of technology and sensible use. Snowmobilers are just good, ordinary citizens. Who are they? In my district, they are the men and women who work in the iron ore mines. They are the men and women who work in the retail grocery stores and in the hardware stores, the men and women who work in the pulp and paper mills. They go out to exercise themselves, to enjoy the winter that they live there for. Do not take this away from them. They are respectful of this environment. That is why they live in that north country. Defeat this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made an eloquent appeal and a very compelling appeal. I just want to suggest for those who are concerned about snowmobiles and their effect on the environment, they should take a look at the 1,790,000 vans, buses, automobiles, motorcycles, RVs, SUVs, trucks that are rumbling through Yellowstone. If they are really concerned, take a look at that impact on the environment and not pick on the snowmobile, which is well in compliance with the air quality and noise requirements of the National Park Service.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I hope we can put aside the unnecessary and overblown hyperbole that has at times crept into this discussion such as Moscow-style bureaucracy; TSA is a joke. TSA is not a joke. This agency, its personnel are engaged in the very serious business of maintaining security at our Nation's airports, for air travelers, for the airline business in America. They have done an extraordinary job under extremely difficult circumstances, tight timelines, unavailability of space, equipment that was not forthcoming, equipment that was not ready to do the task that was set before them; and I think rather than disparage this agency and these personnel who came in with a very high degree of spirit to do the right job for America, we ought to commend the individual workers for making the effort and continue our focus on redirecting the management and setting performance standards. Performance standards would be far better than an arbitrary limit on the number of personnel. I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Kentucky. We have worked together on so many issues over many, many years; and I do not think that he came in and just picked an arbitrary number just to show that he is in charge. Out of great frustration, out of very serious concern for getting the right number, as my colleague from Minnesota said, they picked a number and said get down to this level; but that is not the right way to achieve the best out of this agency. I agree that at the outset, after enactment of the Air Traffic Security Act, that the agency went in and did many things. A new agency was created, did many things at the same time. They rushed in, they hired many more people than we know in hindsight to be necessary for the job; but remember, they did not know electronic detection screening equipment would be available. They had a deadline to meet within a year. We all agreed in this body that that was a timeline we were not going to budge from; we were going to insist that this deadline be met; that if they could not get the EDS equipment in place, they would have to do hand screening, they would have to do screening with canines; that there were going to be huge time requirements and personnel; they would need more people, and they did not know how many were going to be required at various airports. So they put people in place. They met the goal that we set forth in the authorization law, and then they went about the task of right- sizing. Right-sizing does not necessarily mean down-sizing, and removing the cap does not necessarily mean adding more personnel, but just arbitrarily imposing a cap is not going to achieve the goal of better management of standard-based management of this agency. I think under Admiral Loy and his successor as head of TSA, Admiral Stone, that the process is underway of decentralizing the decisionmaking on locating personnel. For example, in the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport area responsibility, the Federal security director has right-sized that facility by shifting personnel to among the various airports under his jurisdiction. In Duluth, an area that I know very well, the Federal security director has several airports in northern Minnesota under his jurisdiction. He has moved TSA personnel from those airports that were overstaffed and put them to airports where they were understaffed. They have moved to put in place part-time personnel where that fits. There has to be much more of this kind of decentralization of decisionmaking on allocation of personnel.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, so the answer is right-sizing, not necessarily down-sizing arbitrarily. This year we are seeing a rebound in air travel. There is going to be a 6.8 percent, 7-plus percent increase in air travelers. That will mean an increase in demand for screeners. To put an arbitrary cap on screeners at a time when air traffic is growing, when the airlines are beginning to rebound, I think is not responsible. I would hope that the gentleman's amendment would be supported and that we allow a process; and our committee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), has been vigorous in this pursuit of oversight on this agency and are keeping their noses to the grindstone through our oversight process. Insisting on right-sizing and decentralization of decisionmaking for allocation of personnel is a far better way to go than just say here is an arbitrary cap that will result in arbitrary results.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Refinery Revitalization Act, which is nothing less than a direct assault on the ability of qualified State and Federal officials to protect human health, protect the environment, and to protect the economy. In the name of increased refinery capacity, this bill puts the interest of the oil industry above all other interests. It would allow the Secretary of Energy to be the final decisionmaker under Federal law for the Clean Water Act. The Department of Energy would make those decisions without having any of the expertise implementing those laws which are outside of its jurisdiction. The Secretary of Energy could overrule decisions of the EPA and the Corps of Engineers, as well as State decisions, that a refinery might harm public health or harm the environment. This bill would give the Secretary of Energy the final say in protecting human health and environment. If a State agency denies approval for a refinery facility under Federal law, the applicant can appeal to the Secretary of Energy who can issue the approval over the objection of Federal or State interests. That is a clear shot right at our Nation's environmental laws. It specifically lists the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is a predecessor to the Clean Water Act. It specifically lists the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, National Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act as laws that the Secretary of Energy can simply overrule. This makes the Department of Energy the environmental czar in America. States would see their capacity to protect public health and public safety through the clean water permitting program significantly diminished. States would in fact be denied the opportunity to implement their own programs to achieve water quality improvements through the total maximum daily load program. States would be denied opportunity to protect water quality under section 401 of the Clean Water Act which ensures that federally permitted actions are consistent with State water quality goals. I do not understand how it makes any sense to have a Federal entity permit a program to have negative effect on State water quality; yet this bill specifically allows it. Permitting decisions of EPA and the Corps of Engineers, including protection of wetlands or protections of obstructions to navigation, all those could be overturned. While the authors of the bill may be targeting environmental laws, they have gone way beyond any reasonableness. There ought to be some way of bringing the Department of Energy into a coordination or discussion with the EPA, but not to make the Department of Energy the final arbiter to overturn our existing Federal laws. For 100 years, the Corps of Engineers has been charged with regulating activities that could have adverse effect on the Nation's waterways for commerce. Private parties without that protection could locate wharves, docks, and other structures in the water to obstruct free flow of navigation. That century of regulatory authority could be thrown out by the Secretary of Energy if a refinery says we have been denied a permit by the Corps of Engineers, and the Secretary of Energy comes in and overrules them. Refineries often are located near navigable waterways to facilitate barge traffic and so on. If a refiner wanted to extend the docking area into the navigation channel and the corps said no, the Secretary of Energy could say the Corps of Engineers does not count. Mr. Speaker, this is unsound policy. This mega-authority for the Secretary of Energy to overrule air quality safety, water quality safety, and navigation safety is unprecedented, unnecessary, unwise, unsound; and we ought to defeat this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, from the perspective of the Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure on which I serve, the Democrats on that committee, we find a number of offensive provisions littered throughout this bill that fall within the jurisdiction of our committee. I want to be very specific. Section 328 exempts the oil and gas industry from complying with the stormwater permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act of 1972 for construction purposes. This is the only construction action that would not be subject to clean water requirements should this provision prevail. Section 756(c) of the conference report allows a 250 pound increase in the weight of some heavy trucks purportedly for the purpose of providing an incentive to use a certain type of idle reduction technology. Well, we have examined this issue in great detail and with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, the increase in truck weight will inflict damage on the highway infrastructure and create a safety problem and will cost about $300 million a year in increased highway damage. The exemption is unnecessary. The industry's own figures show that idling reduction technologies pay for themselves in reduced fuel costs in about 2 years. Section 1502 provides special protection for MTBE producers from liability associated with the cleanup costs and damage caused by contamination of groundwater. As a result of the special interest provision here, taxpayers will be forced to pay an estimated $29 billion cost of cleaning MTBE contaminated water across the country. That is egregious and unnecessary. Section 326 establishes a dangerous precedent under the National Environmental Policy Act by authorizing the Federal Government to reimburse oil and gas companies for the cost of undertaking environmental impact analyses for oil and gas leasing. They are going to make money off of it. They ought to do their own environmental impact analysis costs.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding contribution which Frank Mulvey has made to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Frank has been the Democratic Staff Director of our Railroad Subcommittee for the past four years. He is leaving to become a Member of the Surface Transportation Board. When Frank came to the Committee in the year 2000, he had already achieved great distinction as a transportation economist. We on the Committee first became familiar with Frank's work in the mid-1980s, when he served as an Assistant Director for Transportation Issues in the General Accounting Office. In this capacity, Frank conducted a number of studies for the Aviation Subcommittee, which I chaired, and appeared as a witness before the Committee on several occasions. The studies were thorough and objective, and Frank was an excellent witness. His studies were extremely valuable in helping us deal with issues of airline competition and the financial difficulties of the industry. Frank's work at GAO also produced similar high quality studies of Amtrak and the freight rail industry. Throughout all the years that I have known Frank Mulvey, it has been clear to me that his breadth of transportation knowledge would enable him to serve with distinction in many positions with the Transportation Committee. When the Railroad Subcommittee position became available in 2000, Frank was a natural and obvious choice. In his four years with our Railroad Subcommittee, Frank has not only met, but exceeded the high expectations we had for him. He has played a major role in all railroad issues before the Committee, including Railroad Retirement Reform, the many difficult issues involving Amtrak, the rail loan program, and efforts to develop a federal program to assist the development of high-speed passenger rail. Frank Mulvey is a Ph.D. Economist and, during his distinguished career, which has included positions at the Department of Transportation Inspector General's Office, the GAO, the National Academy of Science and the American Bus Association, has frequently held part-time teaching positions. For the past twelve years, he has taught courses in managerial economics and public policy in the MBA program at the University of Maryland. Frank's love of teaching has led him to actively seek out interns for his Subcommittee, and then to mentor them and educate them on all aspects of the Subcommittee's work. Many of his interns have continued a career in public service. A noteworthy example is Steve Gardner, who has served in several important Congressional staff positions and most recently was selected to deal with rail issues for the Democratic Professional staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Another of Frank's interns Amy Scarton, went on to become a Senior Legislative Assistant to Congressman Earl Blumenauer. Although Frank's official position with the Committee was with our Rail Subcommittee, we frequently took advantage of his broad knowledge and experience as an economist to counsel us in other disciplines. He was our resident expert on issues such as the economic impacts and job creation effects of our infrastructure programs, and the economic theory governing competition in the transportation industries under the Committee's jurisdiction. Frank has been a pleasure to work with. He is open and friendly, able to communicate difficult economic concepts in non-technical terms, and quick to immerse himself in the details of a complex issue. We on the Committee will miss him personally and professionally, but we are confident that he will make important contributions to the Nation's transportation system in his new role.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House Armed Services Committee for making changes, at the request of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to H.R. 4322, a bill to transfer the Nebraska Avenue Naval Complex (``Complex'') in Washington, DC, to General Service Administration (``GSA'') for the purpose of permitting GSA to use the Complex to house the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS''). One important change clarifies that the Department of Navy will transfer the property to the ``jurisdiction, custody, and control'' of GSA. These terms clarify that GSA will have the same authority over the Complex as it does over other government facilities. However, I regretfully note that the title of the amended bill includes an error that suggests that the bill is establishing the DHS headquarters. Although the bill title does not have legislative effect, I wish to make clear that this bill does not establish a headquarters for DHS. It would be premature to do so because there has been no analysis of the pros and cons of the Complex, compared to other possible sites. DHS will continue to be housed in the Complex facility while DHS and GSA prepare a long-term housing plan for the Department of Homeland Security to be submitted for approval to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Through that process, the Committee will determine an appropriate permanent headquarters location for DHS in the District of Columbia. While the Nebraska Avenue Naval Complex adequately serves DHS as an interim facility, there are many serious deficiencies associated with its aging buildings and the fact that the facility's 33 buildings are scattered across a 38-acre site. Moreover, building and telecommunication security is not optimal. DHS, GSA, and the Transportation Committee will consider these and other issues as we examine a long-term housing plan and headquarters location for DHS.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Faith in Action, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the many dedicated individuals who serve in this interfaith volunteer caregiving program. I had the pleasure of meeting with numerous volunteers from throughout my Congressional District during their visit to Washington, and I was uplifted and inspired by the stories they shared with me. faith in action for cass county Esther is an 83-year-old woman who has osteoporosis and spinal fractures. She is a lovely lady who has lived alone for 30 years since her husband died, in a home built in 1908 in great need of repair. Esther has no children and is on a fixed income. When she was diagnosed with spinal fractures, she was in a lot of pain and was told there was nothing she could do. She had lost hope. She first came to the attention of Faith in Action when the agency was told the water in her home was undrinkable. A septic system repairman told her he punctured her well and she should not drink the water. Faith in Action found a volunteer who brings her clean water every week. For years she used a flashlight to find her way in the bathroom, as the light fixture did not work. She feared asking a repairperson to help as another repairperson had taken her valuables. The Faith in Action AmeriCorps Vista Worker fixed her light fixture, and there is now a team of Faith in Action volunteers who takes her to the doctor, to the grocery store, and out to lunch. They clean her house, repair her furnace when needed and wrap her frozen pipes. Faith in Action is there for her whenever she needs help; she is always so grateful and occasionally pays $5 or $10 to Faith in Action. Esther is determined to stay in her home so she can feed the deer and chipmunks. Faith in Action volunteers help to provide comfort and assistance so she can stay in her home as long as possible. lakes area interfaith caregivers Faith in Action in the Lakes Area received a call last fall from the wife of an 84-year-old veteran of 30 years and two wars. She stated that they needed a ramp because he is confined to a wheelchair, she has a bad back, and it is very difficult to get him out of the house. She even stated that she had dropped him down the cement front stairs onto the cement sidewalk the previous week. This was in late November and within one week Faith in Action had six volunteers over and completed a ramp for them. It snowed the next day. Faith in Action received a nice thank you from her stating that they love the ramp, they feel much safer now, and her back feels much better. Faith in Action also received a note a while ago thanking them for giving a woman a ride everyday for 18 days to see her husband in intensive care. She stated that without wonderful volunteers who brought her 30 miles in the morning and home again 30 miles in the afternoon, she would not have been able to visit her husband of 66 years before he died. Northwoods Interfaith Caregivers are Essential Tessie has been a transportation volunteer for Northwoods Interfaith for nearly 4 years and has provided over 500 hours of priceless services to several Carereceivers. Not only has she made her car available when someone needed a ride to a medical appointment, to the bank, or to the grocery store, but she has also made herself available, as a friend, to each Carereceiver that she helps. When asking a Carereceiver what she thinks of Tessie, the Carereceiver responded: ``I consider Tessie to be my own special angel. I thank God for sending her every day. She is a true champion, and there's nothing she wouldn't do for me. For the past 3 years, Tessie has driven me to dialysis 3 times a week and even when she had to pick me up at 5:30 in the morning, she was always cheerful and kind. She helps me with errands, takes me out to eat when 1 don't feel good enough to cook a meal, and keeps me updated on our church news. She has shared her grandchildren with me, her pets, and her home. She is my family. I can't say enough about Tessie. She is a true example of volunteers at their extreme best.'' Family Pathways Senior Services Every month volunteers are asked to report their activities with clients and turn in their mileage report so they can be reimbursed for their mileage and Family Pathways can tabulate statistics for funding sources. Vicki sent in her report and had driven 1,496 miles for the month. That was much higher than usual. The Volunteer Coordinator visited with Vicki and asked if she had to relinquish 2 of her 5 clients which ones would she be able to give up to another volunteer. After some discussion and consideration, she said, ``Oh, I couldn't give up any of them.'' Her clients can't say enough positive things about Vicki and her unrelenting energy and willingness to help others. Vicki is 90 years old. Family Pathways also assists a couple that lives in a trailer home in the country. He has severe dementia, she has diabetes and has left- sided weakness due to a stroke. Their children all work, and, although they live nearby, they wanted some company for their parents on a weekly basis. Family Pathways found an older couple that wanted to volunteer together. The Volunteer Coordinator brought the volunteer couple to their home to visit to see if it would be a good match. The couples began talking and visiting, and before long an hour had gone by. There was laughter, teasing, story telling and a whole bunch of good feeling around the room. Yes, it was a good match. This couple now goes out once a week to visit. They have driven them into town for shopping, helped plant flowers around their trailer and thoroughly enjoy their time together. I am proud to rise on the floor today to commend these altruistic individuals and to recognize a program that is bringing together people of different faiths to care for their neighbors. Faith in Action was created in the spirit of community volunteerism and the nearly 1,000 interfaith volunteer caregiving programs that have developed across the country provide the balm of Gilead. The stories of changed lives as a result of their presence in the community has touched me and clearly provides hope to many individuals in need.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and express my profound appreciation to Brian Wright of Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota who spent his junior year of high school at the Congressional Page School and worked as a congressional page for the U.S. House of Representatives. As Brian completes his page experience in Washington, I want to acknowledge and thank Brian and the entire Page Class of 2003-2004 for their outstanding work and superb service to the House of Representatives throughout the school year. Congressional pages fulfill a multitude of tasks to ensure that the U.S. Congress operates effectively. Throughout the school year, Brian was responsible for delivering materials throughout the U.S. Capitol, answering phones in the Members cloak room, relaying messages Members of Congress, and preparing the House floor for session; Brian fulfilled these important responsibilities with enthusiasm, commitment, and dedication. I know Brian will continue to apply the same dedication and energy to all his future endeavors in the future and I wish him great success.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has had a positive, upbeat attitude from the outset; and that is what it is going to take to get us through the coming weeks. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted we have reached this point. I know that the point of going to conference and appointing conferees, I know that the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) would, as I, have liked to have had this bill on the House floor last fall; and I think we could have. We could well have had this bill enacted by now, and we could well have been on our way to creating 475,000 new jobs and $80 billion in total economic activity if the committee had been allowed to work its will, as we did in committee. However, other forces intervened; and this is legislative process. We are where we are now, thank heavens; and we will be able to move ahead and I hope to reach the outcome that we all desire of getting a robust investment in transportation through conference, through the House and the other body and to the President for signature. I pledge, as I have done from the outset of this process and demonstrated, that we will bend every constructive effort toward that purpose on our side, working in concert with the chair and the majority. I look forward to a good conference. We have a very good contingent on our side as on the Republican side, and I know that we are all committed together, constructively working to achieve the purpose of a major investment in transportation over the next 6 years. The motion that I offer instructs the conferees to insist on the innovative Safe Routes to School Program included in the House-passed bill. Innovation but one that has been widely tested, is enormously popular and powerfully supported in more than 26 States across the country since the two pilot projects were undertaken in Marin County, California, and in Arlington, Massachusetts. In Marin County, basically a bicycling to school project and in Arlington, Massachusetts, principally pedestrian activity. In Safe Routes to School, California, the nine participating elementary schools in the Marin County region that joined in this pilot program went from 2 percent of children walking and bicycling to school to 54 percent today. This is an enormous vote of support for a healthy life-style, and it is this quality-of-life issue that is a driving force as we move ahead with this transportation bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to extol the labors of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). He has been a constant, solid, secure, wise, counselor as we worked our way through the various provisions of this legislation in the internal negotiations in committee and through the mark-up; and I look forward to his continued participation as a seasoned hand in the House- Senate Conference on Transportation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).