James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

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. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a bittersweet mission--to honor a most cherished staff member, Ms. Sheila Lockwood, on her retirement from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Sheila began her federal government service career in Washington as a clerk-typist for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). After six years at HUD, Sheila joined the staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. For the past 24 years, Sheila has served the Members of the Committee and its staff with grace under pressure, uncommon ability, and an irreverent style that endeared her to all. She has worked for six different Chairmen and Ranking Democratic Members including Harold ``Bizz'' Johnson, Jim Howard, Glenn Anderson, Bob Roe, Norm Mineta, and me. She has held many titles and roles--staff assistant, assistant office manager, assistant to the Chief Counsel, executive staff assistant, office manager, and systems administrator--to name but a few. But titles have never mattered to Sheila; helping people and completing the job have. From Chairman of the Committee to the unpaid intern, she has always been available to help. She has been the glue that has held our Committee and its staff together and we truly appreciate her many important contributions. Sheila has spent many years supporting our legislative staff in the preparation of documents, charts, tables, and statements. She has the innate ability to create easy-to-read materials that enable Members to read documents and charts and quickly discern the critical information. Having worked for the Full Committee for so many years, she has seen it all and always found a way to get it done. In addition, although she began her career with the Committee using a typewriter, Sheila always served as our in-house systems administrator. With each new computer program, Sheila became the expert to whom all would appeal with any computer problem or question, of which there are always many. From Word 11 to Microsoft Word, she always had the answer--and the patience to explain it. One prime example of both Sheila's can-do work ethic and considerable computer skills was her work on the Committee's Democratic Web site. Several years ago, we needed to find a way to more efficiently update our Committee's Democratic Web site. We wanted to be able to provide the public with immediate access to the Democratic position on Committee issues and legislation. Sheila took it upon herself to become our ``Web diva'', as she would say, teaching herself how to post information on the site. Over time, she redesigned the site to make it more user-friendly and to enable users to conduct searches for issues. Within the past four years, the site has received more than 50,000 hits and has become an essential tool for the transportation community. Sheila's greatest contribution to the Committee flowed from her personal qualities--her genially irreverent style, her interest in her colleagues, and her absolute grace under pressure. Sheila started each day with the theme song to her favorite TV show, Hawaii Five-O, and, after her dance to the song, her ``complaining'' began--she made us all laugh. She genuinely cares about her colleagues and has always been there to help. In essence, Sheila has simply made the Committee a much better place in which to work. Mr. Speaker, after 30 years of public service, Sheila returns home to Woodland Park, Colorado, to have the opportunity to spend more time with her beloved family, especially her mother. She carries with her our gratitude for her service, and our prayers for good health and happiness in the many years ahead.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Ryun/ Bordello Taiwan Military Exchange amendment. Military exchanges can advance our national security when they enhance the military professionalism of an ally and foster important relationships between senior military officials. I know the value of these exchanges because I served as a civilian language instructor in Haiti where I taught French and Creole at our Navy military mission to U.S. Marines, and also taught English to Haitian military officers and enlisted personnel at the Haitian military academy. As I witnessed in Haiti, our national security is enhanced when our senior officers share their expertise with their colleagues from other nations. The great difficulty that I have with this amendment is the faulty premise that the United States should develop a military alliance with Taiwan. In my view, the pursuit of closer military ties with Taiwan sends in inflammatory and dangerous message to China that does not promote our national security or stability in this region. The diplomatic ambiguity of the one-China policy has served our nation well. The promotion of military exchanges with Taiwan, however, will destabilize the region and could very well bring us one step closer to hostilities. I encourage my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Our relationships with China and Taiwan are complex and nuanced, and the region is still tense after the recent Taiwan referendum. At this critical time, we should not take any action that could be interpreted as promoting Taiwan independence. I am greatly concerned, however, that the enactment of the Ryun/Bordello amendment would send a clear, but misguided, signal that will undermine peace. Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Ryun amendment. This amendment seeks to allow for educational exchanges between high level military officials from the Republic of China on Taiwan, and those in our own country. The amendment will help to improve Taiwan's self-defense capabilities, and enhance stability in the region. The inclusion of this amendment is critical to assist the Republic of China on how best to organize and prioritize their defense needs, and how to integrate new defensive systems. The amendment also seeks how best to accelerate and facilitate existing educational exchange programs by involving more senior participants and reaching broader audiences. For many years Taiwan has been one of our closest friends in an increasingly dangerous part of the world. Over the last several years, Taiwan has evolved into a pluralistic, free, and democratic society-- despite the constant threat of military force from Communist China, and international diplomatic isolation. As members of the growing family of free nations, the people of Taiwan deserve our cooperation and support. Mr. Chairman, the Republic of China on Taiwan is a free and democratic country, and has been a long-standing ally of the United States for the better part of a century. The passage of this amendment can only serve to enhance that alliance. I hope that today this House will resist the efforts of the Communist government in Beijing to engineer the defeat of this important amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that in the future we can enact additional measures to improve and enhance our relationship with the government of Taiwan.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, this budget conference report is another step backward in the action in reverse the Republican leadership and the White House have been conducting on transportation funding over the last 6 months. Last fall, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced a bipartisan bill at $375 billion over 6 years, but to appease the Bush administration, the House leadership jawboned that number down to $350 billion, then 325, then 300, finally $284 billion, the number which the House passed by an overwhelming vote; but that was not low enough for the White House. Now the conference report cuts $11 billion from the will of the House to $273 billion. The White House still insists on its $256 billion figure. That means not one dollar more for highway and transit, not one new job compared to the current TEA-21 law. That is a formula for gridlock, congestion, and economic stagnation. We should reject this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Resolution Conference Report for FY2005. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly focus on the highway and transit funding assumed in the Republican Budget. Last November, 73 Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced a bipartisan bill to authorize $375 billion for the highway, transit, and transportation safety programs for the next 6 years. We developed these program funding levels based upon the Department of Transportation's report assessing the highway and transit needs of our Nation. In March, the Committee unanimously approved that bill. That bill would have stemmed the tide of crippling congestion that is overcoming our metropolitan areas. However, the Bush Administration adamantly opposes additional infrastructure investment, and the House Republican Leadership made clear that the bill would never see the light of day. We have seen a Republican ``auction in reverse'' ever since. In February, the Senate, by a vote of 76-21, passed its bill authorizing $318 billion for surface transportation infrastructure. The White House threatened a veto. To further appease the Bush Administration, the House Republican Leadership forced the Transportation Committee to cut this infrastructure investment even more--to $284 billion. In April, the House considered that down-sized bill and it passed overwhelmingly, by a vote of 357-65. It still wasn't good enough for the White House and it again threatened a veto. Now, the Republican Leadership, pursuant to the Budget Resolution Conference Report, cuts this critical infrastructure investment even further--to $273 billion. The Republican Budget assumes $273 billion for TEA-21 reauthorization, which is $11 billion less than the $284 billion provided by H.R. 3550 (TEA LU) as passed by the House just last month. The Republican Budget is $45 billion less than the Senate-passed funding level. The reverse auction continues and I fear it will not end until infrastructure investment is cut to President Bush's proposal. The Administration is adamantly insisting that total investment be no more than $256 billion over 6 years. And let me be clear on what the Bush Administration bill provides: not one more dollar for highway and transit infrastructure, not one new job. Compared to where we are today, the Administration's bill provides no increase for highway funding and no increase for transit funding for the next five years-- not a single additional dollar. As a result, not one additional job will be created by this zero-growth investment. The result of the White House's absolute intransigence on its entirely unacceptable proposal is traffic gridlock in our communities and legislative deadlock in Congress. Mr. Speaker, our country has worked too hard to put the current transportation system in place to allow this administration to squander previous investments made over generations and allow that system to deteriorate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S. Con. Res. 95.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I hosted an important conference on retirement security issues last night in Hibbing, MN, as part of my Hometown Values Forum series, and I missed several votes last night and this morning. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 177, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 178; I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 179; I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 180; I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 181; and I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 182.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 423 authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for activities associated with the dedication of the World War II Memorial on the National Mall. I'm proud to support this resolution and to support the dedication of the memorial to honor the achievements and sacrifices of our ``Greatest Generation.'' In 1993, P.L. 103-32 authorized the construction of a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor members of the armed services who served in World War II and to commemorate United States participation in that conflict. Further, the public law authorized the American Battle Monuments Commission to solicit and accept private contributions for the memorial. The formal dedication event for the memorial is scheduled for Saturday, May 29, 2004. The Capitol Grounds will provide additional space for this event, and the Architect of the Capitol is authorized to set up on the Grounds sound devices, related structures, and equipment as may be required to bring the event to a larger audience. Consistent with all events on Capitol Ground, the Capitol Police will enforce the ban on sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations. The dedication will be open to the public and free of charge and is expected to draw many hundreds of thousands of visitors and participants to the Capitol. Use of the Capitol Grounds will enable our veterans and the general public to participate more fully in the day's activities and enjoy this much-deserved dedication. I support the resolution and urge its adoption.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2523, a bill to designate the United States Courthouse located at 125 Bull Street in Savannah, Georgia as the Tomochichi United States Courthouse. Chief Tomochichi was born to the Creek Indian Tribe in 1650 in the small village of Coweta, along the Chattahoochee River. He became the Chief of the Yamacraw Indians and was integral to the success of the Georgia Colony. Tomochichi enjoyed a reputation as a great warrior who possessed sound judgment and wisdom. In 1773, Chief Tomochichi encountered James Oglethorpe, the English settler who founded the Georgia colony. Tomochichi and the Yamacraw greeted the English settlers warmly, and Tomochichi supported Oglethorpe's plan to settle a new English colony in Savannah, Georgia. He aided the plans for the settlement and smoothed relations with the Creek and other nearby Indian Tribes. Tomochichi also warned Oglethorpe about unfriendly tribes. As repayment for his advice and good counsel, Oglethorpe took Tomochichi, his wife, his nephew, and other Indian Chiefs to England where they stayed for four months. When Tomochichi died in 1739, he was buried at Wright Square in downtown Savannah. Oglethorpe served as one of the pallbearers and gave Tomochichi full military honors at his funeral. The Federal courthouse to be named in Tomochichi's honor is located in this same square. Tomochichi's friendship with the English settlers helped the Georgia colony develop in peace, and his hospitality is legendary even today. It is most fitting that his contributions to Georgia and to American history are honored by this designation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2523.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Special Olympics is the premier event in the region that highlights the athletic accomplishments of disabled children and young adults. Thanks to the tenacity of Eunice Kennedy Shriver and her family, thousands of special Olympians see their self-confidence, self-esteem, and health increase by participating in these games. The goal of the games is to help bring mentally disabled individuals into the larger society under conditions where they are accepted and respected. Confidence and self-esteem are the building blocks for these Olympic games. Better health, coordination, and lasting friendships are the results of participation. Law enforcement officers, who are part of the extensive volunteer network that supports the games, carry the Olympic torch across the Capitol Grounds through the District of Columbia to Gallaudet University. These games are a wonderful expression of inclusiveness and a confirmation of individual contribution. I enthusiastically support this resolution and the very worthwhile endeavor of the Special Olympics. I urge support for H. Con. Res. 389.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. We will stand firm in conference.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, ranking member, for his stout defense of the committee position and for his splendid service, and I also wanted to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of the full committee, who has, from his first day in this body, been a stout defender and advocate of the U.S. Coast Guard. He sometimes calls it ``my Coast Guard,'' and rightly so, because Alaska has the largest coastline to protect in all of the Coast Guard's work. And I have enormous respect for the gentleman from New Jersey, who has one of the largest Coast Guard facilities, perhaps the largest in his district, who has chaired the subcommittee with great distinction. But I must say I am disappointed in the Coast Guard and in the administration, whoever it is. It is uncertain. The Coast Guard has been shifted from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. We hardly know who is the Secretary to whom they report for all the various functions of the Coast Guard, or whether this message is coming from the White House or the Office of Management and Budget. Whatever it is, the Coast Guard is on the wrong track. We passed the port security bill, known as the Maritime Transportation Security Act, in November, 2002, hard on the heels of all of the horrific events of September 11 and in the spirit of vastly improving security in all of the modes of transportation. We had extensive discussion, debate within our committee, all aimed at one objective, protecting transportation in America from terrorist threats. Every step of the way, the purpose was to elevate security in transportation, make it substantially better, not just an increment, not just a little step better. And I was at the White House for the signing of the bill. I think the gentleman from New Jersey was there as well, as I recall. A delegation from the other body was there. The President was very proud of that bill. Hardly was the Coast Guard involved in the International Maritime Organization negotiations on the Safety at Sea law, negotiating something that really undercuts a main thrust of this legislation. When we crafted this bill, the MTSA, the original law, I drew on our experience in aviation in the aftermath of Pan Am 103. I served on that commission with the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hammerschmidt, and one of the great failings we saw was that the United States really did not have the ability to go into foreign countries' aviation programs and see whether they had a strong security program, whether they were doing security inspections and screening of passengers, screening of luggage, screening of mail, as we were doing and as we were proposing to do in even stronger fashion; so we crafted in that legislation language to establish foreign security liaison officers within the FAA in foreign countries with the authority to go in and inspect, with the authority to look at aviation security plans of foreign governments. And I took that theme and introduced it into our Maritime Transportation Security Act. It was missing one word. I sort of take the responsibility for it. We did not put the word ``foreign'' vessel, thinking that was pretty clear that vessels coming into U.S. ports that are suspect would be from other countries. The Coast Guard went and negotiated away that power of the U.S. to inspect the security plans of other countries and to see whether vessels operating under a foreign flag were in compliance with the security plan of the country of registry of that vessel. Well, seeing that shortcoming, in the course of hearings that the chairman of the committee conducted, the issue came up. It was raised by members on both sides in the course of our hearings. So the language was tightened up, just to make it very clear we would have the ability to inspect, that the Coast Guard have the ability to inspect, the security plans of foreign governments. Now, why is that a concern? Because this is the document that the U.S. Coast Guard negotiated, the Safety of Actions At Sea. It was 17 December 2002, and the relevant language, ``Ship security plans are not subject to inspection by officers duly authorized by a contracting government to carry out control compliance measures in accordance with regulations specified in section 9.8.1.'' Here is section 9.8.1. ``Officers,'' meaning U.S. Coast Guard in this case, ``will have limited access to the specific section of the plan allowed in the exception, only with the consent of the contracting government,'' meaning Malta, Liberia, Panama, the Philippines, ``or the master of the ship concerned. Parts of the code are considered as confidential and cannot be subject to inspection unless otherwise agreed by the contracting governments concerned.'' Did our President not say, the President of the United States say, and has he not said repeatedly, ``I will never ask permission of the United Nations to defend the United States. I will never ask permission of a foreign government to protect the citizens of the United States. We are not going with a permission slip''? This is a permission slip. This is what has been agreed to. I heard what the chairman said, that, oh, if we insist on protecting our interests, then other governments will insist on inspecting security plans of the United States. We have only 37 American-flagged vessels in international commerce. They do not call on ports at Malta and Liberia. That is not the issue. The issue is whether we, the biggest trading Nation in the world, 11 million containers coming into the United States every year, will have the ability to see whether those ships were loaded in accordance with the security plan that meets our standards and will protect our security, and that there is not anything going on those ships that does not belong on those ships, like bombs, nuclear devices, weapons of mass biological destruction. We do this already with aviation. Why can we not do it for maritime? Time and again, we have heard our biggest threat, the biggest unknown is what might be in a vessel coming into a U.S. port, what could be there that could destroy a city, not only on the coastal plain of the United States, but in the interior as containers move from the port to the interior of the country. Now, why have this motion to instruct? The purpose is that the Senate, excuse me, the other body, has language in its version of our bill that simply accepts the international convention. The Senate version simply recognizes the ISPS Code, security plans drawn up by foreign-flag states, and allows the country of registry to do the signoff. Well, I know from experience and having been at this for some time that in those countries of foreign registry, very frequently the security plan is contracted out to some private entity, a private entity that has been approved by the classification societies. And as we know, those international ship classification societies are not repositories of great strength and great courage and great oversight or great concern about security. So I do not want to see a security plan and have us just on faith accept a security plan of another country of registry, done by a contractor, which we do not even review. Furthermore, under the international convention, which I just read, the Coast Guard has to get the equivalent of a search warrant. They have to have probable cause. They have to find something that they say, we know there is something wrong. We have evidence that this ship has been improperly loaded and there may be ricin stored in one of these containers, or the equivalent thereof. Why do we have to do that? That is nonsense. Are we going to protect America, are we going to protect our shores, are we going to protect our ports, or are we just simply going to leave it to the good will and good offices of other countries? We do not do that in aviation, and we ought not to be doing it for port security. Why do I take the time to say this? Because I feel very strongly about this. I have given 25 years of my service in this body to security in aviation and to maritime security, to on-land security. A good part of my career has been on aviation safety and aviation security, and I do not think that we should do anything less than the best. So, yes, we had that language in our bill. I think we need to have this vote here on that language to reinforce the position of the conferees when we go to the other body because their language simply embraces the international convention. We have to tell them, wait a minute, that is not good enough. That does not do a good enough job. If you are serious about protecting our ports and protecting the homeland of the United States, with 11 million containers coming in, 8,000 vessels calling at our ports every year, let us get serious about it and make sure we provide the Coast Guard with the personnel and financial resources to carry out this mission. It is crucially important. Either we are serious about port security or we are not; and not being serious is swallowing this International Convention on Safety of Life At Sea. That is not safe. I will trust the U.S. Coast Guard. I know what the men and women of the Coast Guard can do. They are serious, they are experienced, and they will do the job of security. So let us reaffirm the position of the House. Let us make sure when we go to conference, we stand firm; that the four principal negotiators on the part of the House are backed up by the voice of this body, so that we stand firm on this language. Let us give the Coast Guard the authority it needs. Let us stand up to make sure that we are protecting our ports. Protect the House position, protect security in the homeland of the United States through the one major Achilles heel afflicting us right now, and that is port security.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 388, to authorize use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service on May 15, 2004. In October 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed May 15 as National Peace Officers' Memorial Day. Each year on this date we, as a nation, have an opportunity to honor the devotion with which peace officers perform their daily task of protecting our families, coworkers, friends, and each of us. The 2004 event marks the 23rd anniversary of the Capitol Hill event. In the post-September 11 environment, the work of selfless police and firemen has become our model of courage and moral strength. There are approximately 700,000 sworn law enforcement officers serving the American public today. Officers work for states, counties, U.S. territories, Federal enforcement, military police, and corrections departments. Ten percent of law enforcement officers are women. During 2004, 145 peace officers were killed in the line of duty; of those killed, 6 were women. The average age of those killed in the line of duty was 37 years. It is most fitting and proper to honor the lives, sacrifices, and public service of these brave men and women. I urge support for H. Con. Res. 388.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to depersonalize it. I did say ``paraphrase.''

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, once again time has run out on our effort to reauthorize the core mobility program of America, our Federal highway public transit and transportation safety programs. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century expired 7 months ago, on September 30, 2003. On September 24, in consideration of that bill, I said, ``I'm afraid we'll 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 in 1997, time is running out.'' Well, here we are. In the words of an icon of the other party, here we go again. We passed the 5-month extension bill last fall carrying programs through February 29, kind of a mystical date. It appears once every 4 years. So here we are mystically appearing once again, pleading for another short-term extension through the end of June. Who is going to give me odds we are going to be back here in June saying, please, another extension of time so we do not shut down our transportation programs. Why? Because, for the first time in my nearly 30 years as a member of this committee, as a member, and another 11 years as a member of the staff of that committee, ideology, not good public bipartisan transportation policy, is driving this process. Despite the fact that we overwhelmingly in both this body and the other body passed 6-year highway transit reauthorization bills weeks ago, there has been no motion to go to conference, no appointment of conferees, no meeting of staff, except for one. Why? Frankly, because the leadership of this body has allowed the Congress to be treated like a parliamentary institution, an extension of the executive; one that works at the direction of, in our government, the President, a President who strongly opposes increased investment at the level that his own Department of Transportation said we need to make. So we have become swept up, pawns in the political agenda, of some operatives over there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Now, step back from that for a moment. This committee, working in the bipartisan tradition, long-standing, and under the able and distinguished stewardship of the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young); the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines (Mr. Petri); the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski); and myself left politics at the door. Oh, we had differences on how these programs should be crafted, but we worked through them. We spent hours working shoulder to shoulder crafting appropriate language to meet what from different viewpoints we saw, and, in most cases, the same viewpoints, are necessary actions to take for the good of mobility and productivity in America. Last November, 73 members of our committee introduced a bill to authorize $375 billion for highway transit transportation safety programs over the next 6 years. We did not pull that number out of thin air. It was prepared by the Department of Transportation at the direction of the committee in TEA-21 to design the pathway to what we need to do in the 6 years following on TEA-21, that number, $375 billion, to stem the tide of crippling congestion that chokes America's seaports, major transportation arteries, our center cities, our suburbs, and even our rural areas. But that bill is still in committee. We did have a voice vote reported out and put aside with common agreement because the leadership of this body made it clear to the leadership of our committee that a bill at $375 billion would never see the light of day on the House floor. Okay, let us go along with this. Let us get another number we can agree on. So we cut the bill $100 billion. On April 2, we considered that bill. We passed it overwhelmingly, by 357 to 65. You pass constitutional amendments by votes like that. Now that vote, that bipartisan overwhelming vote is being cast aside, saying, sorry, we cannot do that. The other body passed a bill at $318 billion. Their vote was 76 to 21. Well, that is a vote that also could pass a constitutional amendment. These are not just squeaker votes, like some we have had in this body. So you would think with such overwhelming bipartisan support that there would be a committee of conference at work to resolve the differences between the two bills. No motion has been made to go to conference; no appointment of conferees; Members have not met with each other. In fact, in 25 days since the House passed its bill, the respective staffs have met only once, and the Republican staff in the other body told our combined staff that their leadership would not allow them to meet on anything substantive. Well, that does not make any sense either. Then we read in the papers about meetings of House and Senate Republicans and the White House to determine the most critical issue in this bill, the dollar amount. Now, that is a little strange. We have stood shoulder to shoulder, meeting to meeting, kneecap to kneecap, Members and staff, for months. Not just an occasional meeting. Our staff worked over weekends. Members met morning, afternoon and evening, Democrats and Republicans, to craft something we thought was in the best interests of the country. And we are not invited to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, or wherever they meet, to fashion the key issue in this legislation? I do not understand it. That does not make any sense. That is not the pathway to progress for America. If we passed the $375 billion bill, which we could do by the end of May, we would have 475,000 new jobs in the workplace by Labor Day. We would have $80 billion of total economic activity in the workplace. We would have a surging national economy. George Bush would be on his way to reelection. I say to people I have never worked so hard to elect a Republican President in my life. But they do not want it. So here we are. Their bill, their idea of progress for America, is $256 billion. That is flat-line budgeting over the next 6 years; not an additional dollar in real dollars, when you take into account inflation, and not one additional job in the marketplace. And we know that. That is why we reported out a bill, or attempted to report out a bill, at $375 billion. Both sides know this. So here we are, caught in the swirl and swirling around of political ideology. Maybe we ought to have the Presidential election next Tuesday, get it over, out of our bloodstream, and then we can go on and pass real policy for America. I say that somewhat facetiously, but this election-year jitters that has its hand gripped around the throat of the most important policy initiative, transportation, that improves productivity, mobility of America, keeps us competitive in the world marketplace, is choking off our ability to compete and our ability to move ahead, to create jobs in America and do what is right for this country.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio. Would there were more like him on both sides of the aisle, a fountain of reasonableness, a center of constructive thought, a Member who really cares about the direction of the Nation and about the programs under the jurisdiction of our committee. Let me also concur with the gentleman from Ohio about the intentions of our Speaker. He has vigorously advocated with the executive branch for a robust bill and has told me, as well as others, that he was not making progress; that there was a determination to stay away from the 5 cent increase in the highway user fee, and that was going to affect the funding level of the successor transportation bill. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), to his everlasting credit, has proven to be a vigorous, forceful leader for the programs of our committee. He has taken the message of our $375 billion bill to the House Republican Conference, to the White House, to the Office of Management and Budget, to the contractor community, and has vigorously advocated for a full, vigorous funding of our transportation programs. We are not there for no lack of effort by our committee leadership, goodness knows. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), Mr. Speaker, has traveled the Nation to points of great congestion, of great transportation need, to advocate the case for a vigorous, robust transportation bill. I have done the same. We have worked side by side to try to advance this cause that we know is the right thing to do; and, regrettably, we are stymied by ideology. When the Congress established the Highway Trust Fund in 1956 as the mechanism with which to launch the interstate highway program, it crafted out of extensive deliberation a funding mechanism, the highway user fee. It was set at 4 cents in 1956. The next year, 1957, President Eisenhower, who was the stimulus for the interstate highway program, said move it ahead, get going. He signed the bill and agreed to that additional 1 cent increase, because he knew, as Congress knew and the Bureau of Public Roads, as it was called in those days, now the Federal Highway Administration, knew, that it would take more than the amount that the 4 cents was yielding to build the interstate. They did the right thing. They saw. They had a vision of where America needed to go, because at the rate of fatalities on the Nation's highways in 1956, it was projected we would be killing 110,000 people a year on America's highways if we did not move ahead with a four-lane, divided access, controlled superhighway system that would link America coast to coast and border to border, theoretically traveling the Nation without hitting a stoplight, although that is not, in practice, possible any more. But it was the right thing. And it was a Republican President who had the vision and the courage to stand up and say we need to invest in a pay-as-you-go system, although that was not called such at the time. Subsequent increases in the highway user fee have been signed into law by President Nixon, President Reagan, and President Bush One. Why not this one? There is, I will not say no, there is minimal opposition to the highway user fee. And when we have an opportunity, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri) knows, as we have sat with editorial boards, we spell it out, we spell it out to the traveling public, they understand it, they get it. There is accountability in the Highway Trust Fund, in the highway user fee. People know they pay at the pump and they drive away on the road, and it improves their driving experience. This is the most effective, sensible, sustainable mechanism in the Federal Government, apart from the Social Security Trust Fund, maybe it is even better than the Social Security Trust Fund, to invest in America. Why is there opposition to it? This has nothing to do with the budget deficit. We cannot spend more money than is available in the Highway Trust Fund because there is an anti-deficiency provision in the basic law that says you cannot run a deficit, and it never has and it never will. So get off it. When we introduced this bill a year and a half ago, the price of gasoline was $1.35. It is $1.95 now, at least here in the Washington area; it is a little bit less in other parts of the country. Where has all that money gone from the price increase at the pump? It has gone overseas, nearly all of it. We are importing better than 50 percent of our fuel, and not a penny of that increase has gone to build new roads or new bridges or buy new buses or light rail systems. That is all going to line the pockets of the oil billionaires and Sheikhs overseas. But the 5-cent increase will be invested right here at home, right here in the good of America, right here in jobs. We have talked about the flights of jobs from America overseas. The job that cannot be built, that cannot be created in China, in Taiwan, in Korea, in Japan, in Thailand is the job of building a road in front of our homes. That job stays here in America. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1904, a bill to designate the United States Courthouse located at 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL, as the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. United States Courthouse. Judge Wilkie Ferguson, a native Floridian, was born of Bahamian parents in Miami on May 1, 1938, and died on June 9, 2003. He was educated at Florida A&M University and Howard University Law School. Judge Ferguson served with distinction as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserves from 1960 to 1964, and as a Reserve captain from 1964 until 1968. He was nominated to the Federal bench by President Clinton in 1993 and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November 1993. Rising from humble beginnings, Judge Ferguson was highly educated, hard working, and a dedicated public servant. In addition to his undergraduate degree from Florida A&M University, he also received a master's degree from Drexel University in Philadelphia, as well as a law degree from Howard University in the District of Columbia. Judge Ferguson holds the distinction of being the first black jurist appointed to the Miami-Dade Circuit Court and the Third District Court of Appeals. Judge Ferguson was a prolific writer and authored many articles on Federal drug laws, expert witnesses, and privacy in the computer age. His professional work was acknowledged with many awards and honors, including the Williams Hastie Award, the United Way of Dade County Distinguished Service Award, and the South Florida Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration Award. Judge Wilkie Ferguson was well respected by his colleagues and by all who entered his courtroom. He was dedicated to fairness and compassion and served as a mentor to many younger colleagues. It is most fitting that the courthouse in Miami be named in his honor. I support S. 1904 and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 376, which authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. I especially want to mention the diligence and dedication of Mr. Hoyer, the resolution's annual sponsor. This annual event encourages all boys and girls, ages 9 through 16, to construct and operate their own soap box vehicles. The principles of aerodynamics are combined with fun and excitement for all participants and their families in the Greater Washington area. The Washington event has grown in size and has become one of the best-attended events in the country. In the past, the Washington event has produced winners who went on to the National Soap Box Derby finals. The derby organizers will work with the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police to ensure the appropriate rules and regulations are in place. I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 376.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support S. 2022, a bill to honor our former House and Senate colleague Paul Simon and I commend Mr. Costello for introducing the House companion bill H.R. 3713. Both House and Senate bills have bi-partisan support. Paul Simon began his public career in 1954 with his election to the Illinois House. In 1962, he advanced to the Illinois Senate and in 1968 he was elected Lieutenant Governor. During his 14 years in the state legislature he won the Independent Voters of Illinois ``Best Legislator Award'' in every session. After teaching at Sangamon State University, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Simon returned to public life in 1974 with his election to the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1984 he upset Senator Percy to win a seat in the U.S. Senate. In 1990 he won re-election to the Senate by defeating his opponent with 65 percent of the vote and by nearly a million votes--the largest plurality of any contested candidate for senator of either party that year. In the Senate he become the champion of new, direct college loan programs, and was the chief democratic sponsor of the balanced budget amendment. He was active in addressing violence in television programming, and wrote the National Literacy Act, the Job Training partnership amendments, and several provisions of the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Simon held numerous honorary degrees and wrote several books on such topics as world hunger, political science, historical biographies, and monetary policy. Paul Simon was a true gentleman, thoughtful and courteous. The American public benefited from his service both in House and Senate. Upon his retirement and until his untimely death in December 2003, Senator Simon taught political science and journalism at Southern Illinois University--Carbondale campus. It is most fitting and proper we honor the legacy of our colleague and friend with this designation. I urge support for S. 2022.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Federal Maritime Commission for its actions on March 31 in granting the petitions of three Chinese maritime carriers to provide relief from the 30-day waiting requirement for reduction of tariff rates of the Controlled Carrier Act. These carriers will now be able to make rate changes within 24 hours, which is the current market standard for all shippers. These recent FMC actions, along with the formal signing of the U.S.- China Maritime Agreement in February, signal that the commitment made by both nations to develop closer maritime and commercial relations and to open markets is closer to becoming a reality. The increased economic cooperation between the United States and China is becoming more tangible, as evidenced by the fact that a business in my district made its first ever shipment to China this year. Mr. Speaker, one of the Chinese carriers whose petition was recently granted by the FMC is the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), which played an important role in supporting the U.S.-China Maritime Agreement. COSCO will soon celebrate the 25th anniversary of the maiden voyage of its first ship in the United States in 1979, an event which marked the re-establishment of U.S.-China trade relations for the first time in 30 years. COSCO was a leader at that time and continues to lead today. COSCO has transformed itself to become a leading global shipper that operates under market rules. Recently, COSCO's CEO, Captain Wei Jaifu, gave the keynote address at the Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach, California. Captain Wei and COSCO where profiled in a cover story by the Journal of Commerce that explained COSCO's goals to expand services and eventually to be publicly listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Mr. Speaker, in order to share more information with my colleagues about COSCO's role in supporting trade with the U.S. and globally, I would like to submit the March 22 Journal of Commerce cover story for the Record. (From the Journal of Commerce, Mar. 22, 2004) COSCO Sets Its Course (By Peter T. Leach) Capt. Wei Jiafu is a man who knows where he's going. He should; he's a former deck officer who now is president and chief executive of China Ocean Shipping (Group), China's largest ocean carrier. Wei is what Gilbert and Sullivan might call the model of a modern capitalist, were it not for the fact that COSCO is owned by the avowedly communist state. As chief executive since 1998, Wei is steering a capitalist course for COSCO that is designed to accomplish three long- term goals, which he discussed in an interview before The Journal of Commerce's 4th annual Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference this month in Long Beach, Calif. Wei said he aims to make COSCO one of the top five shipping companies in the world by doubling the size of its container fleet in the next four years; to expand COSCO's logistics business to provide more revenue balance; and to list the company's stock on the New York Stock Exchange. Wei added a fourth goal last week that is raising questions in the industry. In his keynote address to the conference, he called for the establishment of ``a long-term stable development mechanism'' based on fair regulation, cooperation among carriers, and cooperation among carriers, shippers, terminal operators and service providers. The fact that his remarks attracted questions from shippers and carriers such as, ``What did he mean?'' indicates the prominence that COSCO has attained in the six years since Wei took over. COSCO's reputation has evolved from that of a rate-cutter trying to elbow its way into the trans-Pacific and Europe-Asia trades into a first-tier carrier whose rates have reached parity with its CYKH alliance partners, ``K'' Line, Yang Ming and Hanjin. By contrast, China Shipping Group, COSCO's arch-competitor and one of China's other state-owned shipping companies, is now widely regarded in the industry as a company that is more prone to cut rates. Wei said COSCO currently ranks as the world's seventh, ``or sometimes the sixth,'' largest container carrier, and that China Shipping ranks 10th. Wei predicted COSCO will be among the five largest lines by 2010. Though China Shipping is growing faster than COSCO because its container business is emerging from a smaller base, COSCO is ``expanding faster in all segments of shipping,'' including tankers, dry bulk carriers and specialized project cargo vessels, Wei said. He said he was especially proud of two new semi-submersible project cargo vessels delivered last year that were designed to carry and anchor offshore oil rigs, using new technology to pinpoint locations. Wei said COSCO and China Shipping compete, but that he does not regard the competition as a ``threat alone'' to COSCO's business. ``We have been trying to establish a new kind of cooperative relationship between carriers.'' COSCO and China Shipping began discussing some kind of ``cooperative relationship'' in 2000, but the relationship has not been defined. Both companies are ``100 percent state-owned, so it is very natural that we have the same language,'' Wei said. ``COSCO is always making great efforts to upgrade and strengthen the good relationships between the two companies. We are not part of each other, maybe one day through the stock market.'' He defined this cooperation as vessel-sharing alliances and slot-sharing agreements, the kind of cooperation COSCO is conducting with its CYKH partners. ``Cooperation can benefit COSCO and China Shipping,'' he said. ``Each company has got its own operational competitiveness, but neither of us can cover every corner of the market, so there is the opportunity to cooperate.'' Wei's polite words about his competitor mask the fierce rivalry that has developed between the companies and between Wei and China Shipping President Li Keilin, whom many in the in-dustry believe has the access to the ears of China's leaders. China Shipping has been expanding its fleet rapidly and is atop the list of new ships on order. It will deploy 8,500-TEU container ships in the transPacific this summer. Yet COSCO is not standing still. It added seven new ships, with total capacity of 20,000 TEUs, in 2003. It has ordered another eight vessels with a total capacity of 54,000 TEUs. Five of these, totaling 37,500 TEUs, will be delivered this year. Another eight vessels with capacity of 68,000 TEUs have been chartered. This will bring COSCO's total container capacity to 300,000 TEUs by year-end. Wei said COSCO's fleet capacity will expand to 320,000 TEUs next year, to 420,000 TEUs by 2007 and to 600,000 TEUs by 2010, the year in which he predicts it will join the ranks of the world's top five container lines. China Shipping plans to stay hot on COSCO's heels. Its China Shipping Container Lines subsidiary plans to expand its fleet to a total capacity of 500,000 to 600,000 TEUs by 2010. China Shipping's Li has been quoted in the Shanghai press as hoping its container fleet will attain a capacity topping 350,000 TEUs by the end of 2005. Container shipping is only part of COSCO's business. Logistics is another part that is ``growing very rapidly,'' Wei said. Revenue from COSCO Logistics, established as a separate unit three years ago, increased by what he called a ``surprising'' 50 percent in 2003. ``We are going to expand our logistics business (to) take advantage of the booming Chinese economy and further strengthen our competitiveness,'' Wei said. COSCO faces competition in its logistics business from another state-owned company, Sinotrans, which also competes with its container business. The container competition now appears to be easing, because ``Sinotrans has gradually transformed itself into an international logistics provider rather than a global liner operator,'' Wei said. Sinotrans ended its service in the Asia-Europe trade lane in 2002 to concentrate on the trans-Pacific and intra-Asia trades, ``so based on the transformation of the business strategy, its liner business in major east-west trade lanes will not be further expanded in the future.'' How does COSCO plan to finance all of this additional container capacity and logistics growth? ``I believe getting listed on the stock market is certainly a good choice,'' Wei said. COSCO has listed seven of its subsidiaries in both domestic and overseas stock markets, he said. Two of them are what he called ``blue chip'' stocks. COSCO Pacific became a component of the Hang Seng Index in Hong Kong last year, and COSCO Singapore became part of the Straits Times Index in Singapore this month. Both are the equivalent of the Dow Jones Industrial Index on the New York Stock Exchange. The Big Board is also on Wei's radar screen. ``We will list in the U.S. stock markets soon. We want to list our core business on the New York Stock Exchange,'' he said. ``COSCO has a very good reputation, so its listing in New York will be very attractive.'' China Shipping is planning to take a leaf from COSCO's book by listing the stock of China Shipping Container Lines in an initial public offering on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange as early as May. The IPO is supposed to raise up to $2 billion, though Hong Kong analysts have expressed skepticism that it would reach that amount. The $2 billion estimate appears high for a company that posted losses from its establishment in 1997 until it finally earned a profit last year. This rapid expansion by Chinese shipping companies comes amid the boom in China's containerized trade. ``China's rapid growth in economy and trade has become the main engine to drive the international shipping market,'' Wei said. China's containerized trade increased by 11 million TEUs to a total of 48 million in 2003, pushing China into first place globally, ahead of the U.S. with 40 million TEUs last year. COSCO forecasts that China's containerized trade will grow by another 5 million TEUs this year. Wei is someone who has set and attained goals throughout his career. Born in 1949--the year the People's Republic of China was formed--into a peasant farming family in Jiansou Province, he served at sea from the late 1960s through the early 1980s. He was then named to a senior post at a COSCO subsidiary, Guangzhou Ocean Shipping Co., where he witnessed the initial steps taken by China's then-supreme leader Deng Xiaoping to open the region adjacent to Hong Kong to economic development. He earned a master's degree in shipping management. As he rose through the ranks at COSCO, he managed a joint Chinese-Tanzanian government shipping company and subsequently ran COSCO's Tianjin-based bulk shipping division. As chief executive, he is confronting perhaps his biggest challenge: transforming COSCO from a traditional shipping concern into a logistics services provider, a central element of the company's long-term strategic plan. Container shipping, which accounts for more than half of the group's revenue, is affected by the unpredictable and wild gyrations of global freight rates, a reality that has forced COSCO and other companies to diversify into sectors more likely to yield stable and higher margin earrings. Wei has a window of opportunity to accomplish this goal. He said he expects cargo demand will stay ahead of the increase in the supply of new ships. ``Looking ahead, the ship order book remains at a moderate level, so the market over the next 12 months will be demand-driven,'' he said. ``In the container shipping market, supply will rise by 7 percent this year, and demand will increase by 8 percent, which means freight rates will continue to rise.'' He said demand will stay ahead of supply for the ``next two or three years.'' But Wei is concerned that the long list of shipbuilding orders will catch up with demand after that and affect the shipping market. ``Therefore, I am obliged to ask everybody in this industry to work together and slow down this unreasonable fleet expansion and keep the market stable.'' That's what has the industry reading the tea leaves to try to figure out what he meant with his Long Beach speech's references to cooperation. ``I think what he meant is that carriers and shippers have to get together to agree to even out supply,'' said Howard Finkel, senior vice president of trade at COSCO North America Inc. ``We have antitrust immunity; we need to use it better.'' He said one forum for this discussion might be the Transpacific Stabilization Agreement, where carriers and shippers can discuss rates and set voluntary rate guidelines. COSCO plans to accomplish this fourth goal of Wei's, Finkel said, because it is ``determined not to be the wild man out.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong opposition to this amendment. The Kennedy amendment proposes to allow States to charge a toll on ever Interstate Highway across the country. Under the Kennedy amendment, the word ``toll'' should be spelled ``T-A-X.'' That is because, under the Kennedy amendment, American drivers are taxed twice: first when they pay at the pump and again when they pay the toll on the highway. The Kennedy amendment proposes to eliminate three programs included in H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA- LU), that are dedicated to reducing congestion and testing the introduction of tolls on the Interstate: the Congestion Pricing Program and two tolling pilot programs. Instead of addressing congestion in a comprehensive, multifaceted way, this amendment takes the reckless, single-minded approach of authorizing the use of Federal funds to support adding toll lanes to existing Interstate highways. Essentially, it proposes a permanent, nationwide program of imposing tolls on new Interstate lanes. Mr. Chairman, the two pilot programs in TEA-LU take a measured, smart approach to tolling. First, TEA-LU authorizes an existing program for reconstructing and rehabilitating existing Interstates, and establishes a similar program to cover construction of new Interstate highways. Each pilot program is limited to three States, and each toll facility is to be chosen by the Secretary of Transportation. These steps will provide us with the opportunity to learn how effective Interstate tolling programs are at easing congestion and what we can do to improve their effectiveness. Importantly, the programs in TEA-LU provide important protections against inequity and ensure that States are able to maintain their local roads adjacent to toll facilities in a condition sufficient to meet the traffic demands. When an Interstate highway is tolled, inevitably some drivers will choose to use local, toll-free roads instead of paying the Interstate toll. When that happens, the local roads will likely see an increase in wear and tear and an increase in the number of accidents and injuries. TEA-LU would ensure that States can continue to maintain these local roads as they see fit. In contrast, the Kennedy amendment contains none of these important protections. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to join with the chairman in complimenting the staff on both sides and expressing deep gratitude. As a former staff member myself, I am well sensitive to the long hours that staff put in. On our side, Davis Heymsfeld, Ward McCarrager, Kathie Donnelly, Clyde Woodle, Ken House, Art Chan, John Upchurch, Eric Van Scandle, and Jason Tai, all have worked those long hours the chairman talked about. While we were recharging our batteries, they were running theirs sometimes on practically empty. But we also must express our appreciation to the legislative counsels from the House Legislative Counsel's Office who have provided such skilled draftsmanship for both sides, to David Mendelsohn, Curt Haensel, and Rosemary Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).