James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado has identified an issue that has been highlighted by the National Transportation Safety Board. I am in full sympathy with the gentleman, and we will work to accomplish that objective.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, exactly. I think what we would like to do is exchange some language and refine that language and refer to the original CMAQ and look at the distribution tables, allocation of funds; and I think we will be able to find a way to accommodate the gentleman's objective.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering a divisive and flawed resolution that proclaims that the world has been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq. I have great difficulty accepting that proposition, and am deeply troubled that the House Republican leadership is embarking on this transparent, partisan exercise to score political points with their right wing. Without question, the Saddam Hussein dictatorship brutalized the Iraqi people, and there is universal approval that he has been removed from power. Iraq is moving towards becoming more safe for the Iraqi people, but it is a great exaggeration to claim, as this resolution does, that the world is safer. As we examine the facts on the one-year commemoration of the war in Iraq, there is no direct evidence that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to the United States. President Bush initiated this war which has diverted attention and resources from what should be our primary international objective: discerning, disrupting and uprooting the source of terrorism. Just as the Bush Administration distorted and manipulated intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction to initiate this preemptive and unilateral war against Iraq, the House Republican leadership has added to the Administration's credibility problem by advancing this resolution. The Republican majority are deceiving themselves and the American people with this assertion that we are safer as a nation and we live in a safer world. We are not and do not. We continue to live in a very dangerous world, and we are far from winning the war against terrorism. That is why I am very troubled that the President's proposed budget fails to seek the necessary funds for homeland security. We must provide more, not lower resources, for port security; our firefighters and first responders need additional funding, but the President's budget request falls far short of what is needed to make our hometowns safer. I am also very disappointed with the manner in which this legislation was drafted and brought to the House Floor. If the Republican majority truly wanted a strong expression of support for our troops and the Iraqi people, they could have done so without inflammatory language in this resolution, and by including the Democrats in drafting a responsible statement of bipartisan national purpose and unity. This intentional failure to bring bipartisanship to bear on this critical national security policy leaves no other conclusion to draw than the Republican leadership places a higher priority on partisan gamesmanship than on statesmanship. This ``Do Nothing Congress'' has failed to address the significant challenges at home and abroad, while spending the first three months of this year considering low-priority, feel-good House resolutions. On the one-year anniversary of our military action against Iraq, the House Republicans have squandered an opportunity to demonstrate unblemished, patriotic support for our courageous troops and the Iraqi people. The American people and especially our troops deserve better from this Congress than the misguided resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I simply observe that there is included in this legislation a 2-month extension of the existing 5-month extension of the surface transportation program that will carry us through April 30. I would ask the chairman, is that right?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I very much appreciate the words of the chairman. Of course, the House has spoken on this subject, but so has the Senate; and we are now doing the practical thing, what we can do, and that is to extend the program for another 2 months, which we know is likely to be revisited before the end of April. However, this will give us time to proceed with the legislation pending in our committee and that we have been working on in a bipartisan fashion to do the right thing, to carry the surface transportation program forward and carry T-LU into the future. So, again, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, this is a bipartisan product. We are fully satisfied that the law is fully complied with, that there are no surprises in this legislation, that it is a straightforward extension of the extension, and we have no objection. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, the importance of our action here is that without this extension, the current law expires on February 29 at midnight, and that would mean that without this extension of the 5-month extension, Federal Highway Administration employees would be furloughed, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration employees would be furloughed, some of the Federal Transit Administration employees would be furloughed, and actions by the States submitted to the Federal Government for funding of projects already under way or completed could not be approved, so State programs would come to a halt and the Federal Government would not be able to reimburse States after February 29. Is that correct?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chairman for any further explanation he may have.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous respect and deepest sympathy that I rise today to honor Mrs. Helen Horral who died January 3, 2004, at the age of 87. Helen Horral was a loyal Democrat and a vocal activist who will be deeply missed by everyone who knew her. For the last seventeen years, Mrs. Horral dedicated her life to helping working people, the elderly and the struggling underclass through her tireless advocacy for affordable housing, and senior citizen rights. From 1985 to 1995, Helen helped set low income housing policies by serving on the Duluth Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA). She also served as president of the Authority for one year and helped create solutions for Duluth's low-income housing needs. In addition, Helen was a member of the Single Room Occupancy Commission (SRO) examining issues of homelessness and the use of shelters and food banks. As part of the SRO Commission, she worked to improve living standards and make housing more affordable. While serving on the SRO commission, Helen was a staunch advocate for residents, ensuring that tenants were treated with respect. She came to be known as the ``resident caretaker'' of the SRO Commission. Her deep compassion and bold sincerity made her one of the most respected women in the Democratic Farmer Labor party history. Accordingly, Mrs. Horral was one of the first inductees to the DFL party's Women's Hall of Fame, in 2000. Yet she did not set out to be noticed; for most of her life, her tireless work was done without acknowledgement. Helen was the driving force behind Duluth's political scene, spending countless hours in campaign offices, hosting political dinners, and recruiting other volunteers to engage in the political process. In the end, Helen did all of this not because she was asked, but because she felt a passion to provide service to those less fortunate in our society. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to openly recognize Mrs. Helen Horral's dedication and exceptional service to Minnesota politics and the DFL Party. She has had a tremendous impact on my community and on many communities throughout Minnesota. As a result of Helen's dedicated work, there has been real improvement in Duluth's low-income housing; there are now more low- income, high quality units in Duluth, and low-income senior citizens are living in the dignity they deserve. My thoughts and prayers go out to Helen's family; her son Duane Horral; sisters Betty Guinn and Maxine Hoppus; and her five grandchildren and nine great grandchildren. I extend my deepest condolences and sympathy to those whose lives Helen touched, which have undoubtedly grown dimmer since her passing. Her contributions will be forever remembered, her presence forever missed, and her memory forever in our hearts.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of our long-time staff members on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on his retirement. David Schaffer is retiring as the Majority Staff Director and Senior Counsel of the House Aviation Subcommittee at the end of this month. David joined the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation in 1984 as Assistant Minority Counsel for the Subcommittee on Aviation, became the Minority Counsel of the Aviation Subcommittee in 1992 and then Majority Counsel in January 1995. Over the course of his 26 years in the federal government, including 6 years with the Civil Aeronautics Board, his efforts have directly contributed to many of this Committee's significant legislative efforts to enhance the overall safety, efficiency, competitiveness and security of our Nation's aviation system. During my tenure as Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee from 1989 through 1994, David was a fixture at our hearings, sitting at the elbow of my Republican colleagues John Paul Hammerschmidt and William Clinger. As we crafted some of the most important aviation law of our time, including the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 and the Aviation Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, David was always at the negotiating table, working with my staff and me toward the common goal of effective legislation. As the Majority Counsel for the Aviation Subcommittee, David was instrumental in crafting the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996, the Aviation Medical Assistance Act, Pilot Records Improvement Act, Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act, and the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. His bipartisan, non-confrontational approach to crafting legislation, his painstaking attention to detail, and his mastery of the subject matter has been most impressive and has been greatly appreciated by my staff, and by me. I know that his work has required great personal sacrifice and I commend him for his unwavering commitment to excellence. I wish him nothing but the best as he moves on to the next phase of his exemplary career.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, continuing my earlier statement, time is again running out in our effort to reauthorize our Federal highway, public transit, and transportation safety programs. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) expired on September 30, 2003, and Congress passed a 5-month extension, which expires on February 29. On September 24, during consideration of that extension bill, I stated: ``I am afraid . . . we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring. . . . I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out.'' Well, time is running out and we must again extend the programs. Why? Because ideology, not good policy, is driving this debate. On November 19, 73 Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced H.R. 3550, authorizing $375 billion for the highway, transit, and transportation safety programs for the next six years. Today, the bill has 137 cosponsors. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was poised to mark up this legislation last week, but the Republican Leadership has delayed its consideration. Despite the fact that the funding levels included in our bill were derived from the Department of Transportation's highway and transit needs report, the Administration strongly opposes additional infrastructure investment. Last week, the President submitted his Budget to Congress and it flat-lined the highway and transit programs, and did not include one additional dollar for highway and transit investment over the next 6 years. Why? When our country's economic strength, improve business productivity, and our desire to create a safe, efficient transportation system are all dependent upon increasing investment in our Nation's infrastructure, why does the Administration oppose such investment? It cannot be because of any renewed Republican concern about the size of the deficit--the President proposes $1.2 trillion of new tax breaks that, if enacted, would result in a total of $3.2 trillion of new tax breaks, primarily targeted at the wealthiest Americans, since assuming office in 2001. When this Administration and the Republican-led Congress have presided over an economy that has seen the number of unemployed workers increase by 2.4 million workers and the construction industry is suffering under a 9.3 percent unemployment rate, why does this Administration oppose infrastructure investment that its own Department of Transportation estimates will create 47,500 jobs and $6.2 billion for every $1 billion of Federal funds invested? I am sure that the 800,000 construction workers who look for work each month would gladly line up for the more than 1.7 million construction jobs this bill will create and sustain over the next six years, including 445,000 jobs this year alone. Why? Because the Administration and some of the Republican Leadership would rather kneel at the altar of ``no new gas taxes'' than develop the policy necessary to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. A few days ago, in an interview, President Bush implied that the highway and transit programs were fueling the Federal budget deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly all of the expenditures from these programs are funded by the Highway Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is financed by revenues from user fees. It is a ``pay-as-you-go'' program; outgoing expenditures are tied to incoming revenues; and the revenues may only be used for infrastructure investment. The Trust Fund is a model of fiscal discipline. The Byrd Amendment serves as an anti-deficiency mechanism that prevents the Trust Fund from over-spending. This system of user fees has been well-tested by decades of experience. It provides a clear and unambiguous way to provide the revenues required to make the necessary improvements to the system. It is for these reasons that the bipartisan leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee propose to restore the purchasing power of the gas tax, which was last increased more than a decade ago. Under the Committee's proposal, the gas tax would increase by a nickel and the average commuter would pay only an additional $36 per year. The user fee system has served us well. We should further utilize the strengths of that system to generate the necessary revenues to meet the needs of the transportation system. Regrettably, the reason we are here today with another extension bill is because Administration ideology and political expediency is trumping good policy. The reauthorization bill is again delayed. As we approach the summer construction season, States will be slow to make the necessary investments during these uncertain times. Good-paying jobs will be lost or never created. Last fall, State transportation officials estimated that an extension bill would mean $2.1 billion in project delays and the loss of more than 90,000 jobs. This extension simply compounds those losses. Instead, we now face vigorous behind-the-scenes efforts by the Administration and the Republican Leadership to cut the funding levels in our bipartisan bill and develop budget schemes that shift money from one account to another--to increase revenue to the Highway Trust Fund without increasing the user fee. While I will work with all parties to ensure that we find the necessary resources to increase our transportation investment, I will not support smoke-and-mirror proposals that simply further ideological objectives or political expediency, but not the long-term interests of the highway and transit programs. Faced with these current roadblocks, we must again extend the highway, transit, and transportation safety programs or face a shutdown of both the Department of Transportation agencies and Federal surface transportation funding. Mr. Speaker, before I close, there is one other very important element of this extension that deserves mention. That element is its continuation of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) program, as that program is set forth in TEA 21. Since enactment of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, Congress has included a program to aid socially and economically disadvantaged businesses to successfully compete for transportation construction contracts. Because of this program, we have made impressive strides in increasing the participation of minority- and women-owned businesses in Federally- assisted transportation construction contracts. Today, more than 20,000 DBE's participate in the program. However, as recent evidence demonstrates, there continues to be a compelling need for the DBE program. The current program is narrowly tailored to allow States to set and refine goals for participation of disadvantaged businesses in Federally-assisted transportation contracts. These goals must be appropriate for the State's population. Further, the current program requires States to try and meet those goals by race-neutral means. It is only when race-neutral means fail to achieve sufficient DBE participation, that race-conscious means may be used. Indeed, as recent data provided by the States have shown, the lasting effects of discrimination are such that the overwhelming majority of States must continue to use race-conscious means to try and achieve their participation goals. For example, my home state of Minnesota established a goal for 2002 of 10.3 percent DBE participation in Federally-assisted transportation construction contracts. Minnesota officials determined that only 2.6 percent of this goal could be achieved with race-neutral means and 7.7 percent would need to be met using race-conscious means. Despite its good-faith effort to achieve this self-imposed goal, Minnesota was only able to achieve 6.63 percent DBE participation. Minnesota's experience demonstrates two important facts about the program. First, as courts throughout the country have found, the DBE program is truly one of setting goals; it is not a quota system. States must make a good-faith effort to achieve its goal. Second, the goal setting required by the DBE program is crucial to increasing participation of DBE's in Federally-assisted transportation contracts. In Minnesota state-funded transportation contracts, where there was no DBE goal established, DBE participation was only 4.42 percent. By extending this program today, we specifically reaffirm the government's compelling interest in ensuring that States receiving Federal funds for transportation construction make a good faith effort to ensure participation by minority- and women-owned businesses in those construction projects. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3783.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Omugo Juliet Wasswa-Mugambwa, recipient of the College of St. Scholastica's Alum of the Month for February 2004. St. Scholastica is a private undergraduate college founded in 1912 by a group of pioneering Benedictine Sisters who offered college courses, then, to six young women. Today, St. Scholastica educates more than 2,800 men and women annually and has awarded degrees to more than 13,000 alumni. The college offers the city of Duluth a world-class educational facility, while simultaneously enhancing the cultural and intellectual life not only of the city but also all of northwestern Minnesota. Ms. Wasswa-Mugambwa arrived in Duluth, Minnesota, in the dead of winter in 1990 from her home country of Uganda. Ms. Wasswa-Mugambwa made a remarkable transition between continents, cultures, and degrees Celsius with patience and grace. I was privileged to witness these qualities for myself when Juliet served as an intern in my Washington D.C. office. Her intellectual curiosity and desire to experience the inner-workings of the legislative branch left an indelible memory on my staff and me. Ms. Wasswa-Mugambwa received the Leadership Award for the class of 1994, one of the highest honors for a student at the College of St. Scholastica. Following her graduation that year, she pursued a post- graduate degree in International Economic Development at the University of Denver, earning a Master's Degree in 1996. Ms. Wasswa-Mugambwa continues to sharpen her focus on the issues of international development as an associate program officer with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. As a UN associate program officer, site prepares substantive reports for the UN Secretary General on development cooperation issues for consideration by the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. Her intense focus, nimble intellect, and industrious work ethic are hallmarks of her service at the UN, ensuring that her reports provide the basis for coherent and effective policy guidance to the operation activities of the United Nations family of organizations. In addition to her professional accomplishments, Ms. Wasswa-Mugambwa is very proud of her family. She met her husband Joel, a member of the Toro Royal family in Uganda, in 1995; the couple have been blessed with two young children: Prince Oyo-Nyabongo and Princess Batebe. I most heartily commend Juliet on her continued professional and personal success and express my great respect for her as she accepts the award for February Alum of the Month from the College of St. Scholastica.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time and for his excellent management of the bill and the splendid work the gentleman from Illinois has invested over these many months on the bill, and our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska, who has spearheaded the drive for the right policy for America. The gentleman from Ohio said a moment ago this is an investment in America; it is an investment in jobs at home. The gentleman from Wisconsin talked about China's investment in highways. That is just a pittance of what China is investing: $200 billion to double the capacity of their existing waterway ports; $100 billion to modernize their airports, build six new airports, modernize 35 existing airports, build regional airports, to move goods and people more efficiently and effectively and to compete in the globalized marketplace. Japan, 10 years ago, launched a $1 trillion infrastructure investment program to upgrade the Shinkansen high-speed rail that carries 256 million passengers a year at speeds of nearly 200 miles an hour; upgrade their ports; build a new airport in the ocean as they have already done, extend that; and improve their existing international airport in Tokyo. Why are they doing that? Because they want to compete in the global marketplace more effectively, more efficiently; and every investment they make is a disadvantage to us if we do not keep up, if we do not make our infrastructure investments at home to keep America productive. Time is running out. I said that 7 years ago. I was on this floor saying time is running out on us. We need to extend this bill, but we need to pass this bill. This was then BESTEA in 1997, and we did, we extended; but we did get a bill passed. So last fall we were here for the expiration of TEA-21; and I said in this well on this floor, I am afraid we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring. I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out, end of quote; but here we are, once again, not because we cannot get a bill accomplished in this committee. I want it said on the record. We have had a very, how shall I say, competitive negotiation in committee, competing ideas, competing thoughts, competing policies; but we have worked them out. We have the major policy issues agreed upon largely, a few things yet to be done; and we will get those done in the historic bipartisan spirit of this committee and practice of this committee. What we cannot get done is the funding side. We cannot do that alone. We need the executive branch to participate with us. We need the Committee on Ways and Means to participate, and they will if they are released. Free the Committee on Ways and Means. Let them go ahead. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) will agree with us that we need a robust bill. What we cannot have is a reverse option. We started off with $375 billion. Do I hear $350 billion? Do I hear 325? Do I hear 318? Do I hear 311? Do I hear 300? Auctions are supposed to go the other way. We are going in the wrong way, not for lack of effort by our chairman, by members of the committee on both sides. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) has stuck his neck out and said it time and again. He has led the way. He has told the White House what we need to do. He has told his Republican conference what we need to do. He has told every user group in America what we need to do. He sent us out on the road as missionaries advocating for a robust bill; and nowhere that I have been, nowhere the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri) has been, nowhere that the gentleman from Illinois (Ranking Member Lipinski) has been, nowhere the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) has been has anyone said we should not do five cents for America. This investment in the highway trust fund is the best investment America makes. We have an anti-deficiency provision in the highway trust fund law that says you cannot run a deficit and never have in the nearly 50 years of the highway trust fund, never have, never will; and the users of the system understand that. That is why they are willing to pay the five cents. Yesterday, OPEC announced that they are going to cut back on production of oil to drive the price of fuel up so that they can continue to generate profits in the face of an eroding American dollar. We are going to sit here and let them do that and say, oh, we cannot burden the American public with five cents? Thirty-six dollars per capita in America to get a better highway system, to get a better investment in transit. If we were to pass this bill at $375 billion now and the President sign it into law in the next 2 months, we would have 475,000 people in the construction trades working in America by Labor Day, $60 billion of economic activity, putting America back to work. How can that be wrong? How can that be partisan? It is the best investment we can make in America. Get this country moving again, create the jobs. We did it under TEA-21, created 1.3 million jobs in construction trades. No one was sitting on the benches of America. Today we have 800,000 construction workers out of a job and can put half of them to work in the next four months if we pass our bill, our committee bill, and leave a legacy for the chairman, leave a legacy for America. That is what we have got to do, do the right thing for America, not sit around here and fritter away our future and be subject to globalization. We have seen textiles move offshore. We have seen leather goods move offshore. We have seen steel production move offshore. We now even have call centers moving offshore. We are bringing people from India into universities, community colleges in Indiana, Ohio, Iowa to train them with speech therapists in a Midwest accent so they can go back to India and run call centers. That is actually happening. Well, one thing they cannot build in China is the Alameda Corridor. They cannot build CREATE in Tokyo for Illinois, for Chicago. They cannot build Anchorage roadways in Taiwan. You build them in America. You create those jobs in America, right here. This is an American program. This is an investment for the future of this country. Why are we quibbling around with five cents? Get over it. We could have 200 Democrats voting for that bill if we could get it on the House floor, and how can that be a liability for the President if we all stand together and do the right thing for America? Right now, we are going to kick the can down the road a little bit and hope the people come to their senses, do the $375 billion bill so we do not have to be here another 3 months saying, well, sorry, we could not do it, folks; sorry, America, we could not put you back to work; sorry, we cannot do the right thing for this country, we will wait till next year. Well, if that is what it comes to, we will wait till next year; but I want to do the right thing, want to do it now. We are going to join in partnership to get there. We have got to make the right investments. We have got to do the right thing. For the time being, the right thing is to pass this extension.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former Cook County Commissioner Wesley Hedstrom, who passed away on November 7, 2003. Wes Hedstrom was born in 1924 in Grand Marais, Minnesota, the youngest of thirteen children. After graduating from Grand Marais High School in 1942, Wes joined the U.S. Army and served during World War II. Returning to Minnesota, Wes, along with five of his brothers, took over operation of their father's business, Hedstrom Lumber, and he was company president from 1986 to 2000. In 1984, Wes was elected to the Cook County Board of Commissioners, on which he served for the next 16 years. Except for the few years he was in the Army, Wes lived his entire life in Grand Marais, a small fishing town along Minnesota's north shore. Many people say that Wes was largely responsible for the enormous growth of his family's lumber business, turning it into one of the region's largest and most successful companies. For Wes, however, it was more than a business; it was a way of life. He had extensive knowledge of lumber and the woodlands. I learned more from Wes about forestry, forest management and sustainable yield forestry than from any other source. Wes understood the need for balance between the lumber industry and protections for the environment. He applied that fair-minded attitude to all the projects he worked on in the community, both as a County Commissioner and as a civic volunteer. From the renovation of a local hospital, to the creation of a new airport, to the advocacy for education funding, Wes worked to nurture people, find a consensus, and do what was in the public's best interest. That was his signature and his trademark. Some called him an activist. Others said he was a pioneer. All who crossed his path considered him a friend. I knew Wes since he worked on my first Congressional campaign in 1974, and over the years, I marveled at his friendliness, magnanimity and selflessness. To me, Wes was a teacher, counselor and partner in ventures for the Northland, and he was a good friend to me. He was one of those rare people who truly made a difference in his community. I know my colleagues join me in honoring Wes Hedstrom for his many years of dedicated service to his town, his State and his country.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is the most successful health initiative in American history--improving the quality of life for America's senior citizens, extending their longevity, and relieving their anxiety about affording the health care they need. For the past several years, Democrats in Congress have worked tirelessly for affordable, comprehensive, and guaranteed coverage for prescription drugs under Medicare. This week, the Republican majority in Congress is poised to pass legislation that will require seniors to pay significant out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, will eliminate employer-provided health care coverage for 2.7 million retirees nationwide, and will ultimately undermine the entire Medicare program. Simply put, the Republicans brokered a deal that prioritizes the pharmaceutical and the insurance industries over providing a comprehensive benefit to seniors and the disabled. i. effects on medicare beneficiaries I am particularly concerned with the inclusion of ``premium support,'' a misguided proposal that will undermine Medicare. Instead of providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors, congressional Republicans have embarked on a radical and untested social experiment that threatens the future of Medicare. The final Medicare bill clearly takes the first step toward privatizing Medicare by implementing a ``premium support demonstration project'' in six metropolitan areas. The bill threatens traditional Medicare because it includes provisions designed to stack the deck in favor of the health insurance industry. The legislation allots $17 billion to HMOs to lure them into the market to provide senior citizens with taxpayer-financed health and drug benefits. As the Washington Post recently pointed out, if Medicare ``privatization is such a good idea, why do the private insurance companies need such big subsidies to enter the Medicare market? . . . That's not capitalism or competition. That's corporate welfare.'' Rather than divert $17 billion from Medicare to prop up private sector competition, it would be far better to invest that money in Medicare's future. Seniors will essentially receive a voucher for services to cover the lowest-cost private insurance plan, if such plans are offered, which is not at all certain. If this plan does not pay for the services they need, seniors will have to cover the difference--which could be a big figure--out of their own meager income. Masquerading as increased efficiency, this concept disproportionately benefits healthier seniors and leaves seniors with more costly health care needs paying an estimated 25 percent more for traditional Medicare. Seniors living in different regions will also pay different prices for the exact same benefit. I believe America's seniors deserve a guaranteed drug plan that is available for all Medicare beneficiaries--regardless of where they live. ii. improved medicare reimbursement for rural health care providers I have strongly supported efforts to eliminate disparities in Medicare reimbursement for rural areas, and I am very pleased that the conference report contains significant improvements for rural health care providers. Health care is essential in greater Minnesota. The hospitals in many small communities throughout northern Minnesota are the major employer in town, and the health care they offer is critical for economic development and tourism. It is encouraging news that 31 hospitals in my congressional district would receive $39 million over 10 years under this bill in improvements in Medicare reimbursement, including fourteen Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) and 12 Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs). Other notable changes in the policies for CAHs--albeit not attached to a dollar amount--would improve the delivery of mental health services in rural northeastern Minnesota by permitting 10 beds to be used for psychiatric or rehabilitative services. Physicians would see a payment increase of 1.5 percent rather than a 4.5 percent decrease. Teaching hospitals would each receive $183,000 spread out over 10 years in additional payments for Indirect Medicare Education, which would greatly assist the training of medical students at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, as they prepare to serve rural Minnesota. iii. prescription drug benefit Seniors will be eligible for drug coverage only through private insurance companies that will have wide latitude in setting premiums and deductibles. Private insurance companies will also be able to make decisions about which drugs are covered, as well as which pharmacies seniors can use. The plan is difficult to explain, but let me try: it begins with uncertain private health insurance premiums, estimated to be $35 per month, but not specified in statute; then, seniors must pay a $250 deductible before they receive any assistance, after which they will pay a 25 percent co-insurance for up to $2,250 in drug costs. However, there is a large coverage gap where no assistance is provided between $2,250 and $5,100 in drug spending, the ``hole in the doughnut,'' where seniors will be paying premiums but receiving no assistance at all. Those seniors with $5,100 in drug costs annually will still pay $4,020 under this bill. This plan is as unfair as it is complicated and costly to older Americans living on fixed incomes. iv. importation/cost issue I firmly believe that in order to ensure the continued affordability of Medicare benefits for seniors, greater efforts must be made to address escalating health care costs, particularly the price of prescription drugs. Yet this bill does precious little to contain the cost of prescription drugs in the future. The legislation once again deceptively appears to permit drug importation from Canada, while including a poison pill that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services must certify to the Congress that its implementation does not present a health risk. During the Clinton Administration, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala refused to make such a certification, as has the current Secretary, Tommy Thompson. When Americans are paying 30 to 300 percent more for prescription drugs than Canadians or people in other industrialized countries, there must be a concerted effort to fix the safety concerns in the legislation rather than jettison the entire effort with this poison pill. Despite claims that this legislation introduces free market principles and competition, I am deeply troubled that the Republican Medicare plan prevents federal cost-saving efforts that would reduce prescription drug costs for seniors. At a time when many seniors must pinch their pennies to afford the basic necessities, this bill-- incredibly--explicitly prohibits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of America's seniors. Unlike the Department of Veterans Affairs, which does have such authority, the Secretary of HHS would not be allowed to leverage the market power of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to reduce prices. In my view, the big winners are the drug and insurance companies, at the expense of our nation's seniors. In addition to providing $17 billion to HMOs and prohibiting the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prices, the final Medicare bill will eventually undermine community pharmacies. Pharmacy benefit manages (PBMs), charged with administering the prescription drug benefit, will be able to contract out and establish an unequal playing field whereby mail order companies can sell larger quantities for lower co-pays than community pharmacies can. There is no transparency for PBMs--just a conflict of interest; PBMs are not held responsible to report rebates or kick-backs they might receive from the pharmaceutical industry for selling specific drugs--that provision was stripped from the conference report. I am continually dismayed that Republicans go to great lengths to serve special interests rather than the public good. I have voted many times this year in support of a strong prescription drug program that would strengthen the Medicare program. However, I am not willing to cast a vote to undermine a program that seniors and the disabled have trusted for nearly 40 years, in exchange for an atrocious prescription drug benefit that directs formidable sums of money to special interests. Congress can do better; our seniors certainly deserve better.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3181, the Predisaster Mitigation Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill makes a limited number of necessary amendments to the Stafford Act. The Stafford Act governs the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) responsibilities to help communities prepare for and respond to disasters. Many of the FEMA's functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security's Directorate of Emergency Prepareness and Response when that Department was created last year. Over the last 25 years, this country has had nearly one thousand presidential disaster declarations in the United States and the Insular Territories. These disasters have cost our Nation billions of dollars and taken an untold number of lives. The Stafford Act authorizes programs that not only provide funding for post-disaster recovery, but also provide funding for importance pre-disaster hazard mitigation projects. In October 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA), which reauthorized the Stafford Act and created several new programs. One of those new programs was a pre-disaster mitigation program that allowed FEMA to award grants to States on a competitive basis to implement pre-disaster mitigation plans. Although authorized to begin in fiscal year 1999, the program began in earnest only a few months ago. No competitive grant applications have yet been received by FEMA, and none of the competitive grants have been awarded. In light of this, H.R. 3181 extends the authorization of this program for another three years in order to give FEMA the time to implement the program and to give Congress the time to fairly evaluate it. In addition, the bill redirects the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to conduct a study on the program's effectiveness. Further, the bill reaffirms our support for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) that seeks to substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, or loss in any area affected by a major disaster. This program has a proven record of success. It is successful in large part because it funds hazard mitigation projects immediately after a disaster strikes, when the public and local governments are most focused on mitigation measures. In addition, it has the strong support of State and local governments. Finally, this bill would allow the Undersecretary to provide additional home repair assistance for a homeowner upon the homeowner's showing of an inability to make the necessary repairs by other means. Not being able to properly repair a home after a disease can add further distress to an already devastating situation. While current law provides for a $5,000 cap on home repair assistance for individuals who have been impacted by a disaster, there is a significant percentage of homeowners who continue to struggle with unmet needs. This bill remedies that concern. Madam Speaker, I'd also like to thank my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman LaTourette, and Subcommittee Democratic Ranking Member Norton, for their work on this important bill. I believe this bill provides a balanced approach to mitigation by providing for both pre- and post-disaster mitigation programs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 579, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Reauthorization Act of 2003. The bill is substantially the same as the NTSB reauthorization passed by the House on May 15, 2003, by voice vote. Passage of the Senate bill will enable the bill to go to the President. In the last 5 years, NTSB has investigated 8,124 aviation accidents, 166 highway accidents, 24 marine accidents, 41 pipeline/hazardous materials accidents, and 82 railroad accidents. In addition, the NTSB has issued a total of 881 safety recommendations: 374 aviation; 188 highway; 24 intermodal; 112 marine; 51 pipeline; and 132 railroad. To maintain its position as the world's preeminent investigative agency, it is imperative that the NTSB has the resources necessary to handle increasingly complex accident investigations. The NTSB has recently broken ground for its new training academy that will teach state of the art investigative techniques for transportation accidents. The NTSB now needs sufficient funding to sustain budget and personnel for both its Headquarters operations as well as the academy. Accordingly, S. 579 authorizes increased funding over the next 4 years: $73 million in fiscal year 2003; $79 million in fiscal year 2004; $83 million in fiscal year 2005, and $87.5 million in fiscal year 2006. The bill also authorizes approximately $5 million per year for the training academy. This funding is critical to ensure that the Agency has the necessary resources to hire additional technical experts as well as to provide better training for its current workforce. In 2000, Congress authorized the transfer of investigative priority from the NTSB to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the event of an accident caused by an international criminal act. However, there was no mechanism for the transfer of family affairs responsibility. Since the events of September 11th, the NTSB now believes that once the FBI has been transferred investigative responsibility for an aircraft accident, the family affairs responsibilities should transfer as well. S. 579 provides for the transfer of the family affairs responsibility when investigative authority has been relinquished in aviation accidents. S. 579 also addresses another matter of great import; that is, the DOT's notoriously slow response to NTSB's safety recommendations. The bill requires an annual report from DOT on the regulatory status of safety recommendations on NTSB's ``most wanted list.'' The bill also requires DOT to report biennially on NTSB safety recommendations concerning 15-passenger van safety, railroad grade crossing safety, and medical certifications for a commercial drivers license. These reports will enable the Committee to keep tabs on the progress of these very important recommendations. Having a well funded, well-trained NTSB workforce is of the utmost importance for the American traveling public. I urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation, and I compliment Chairman Young, Chairman Mica, and Ranking member DeFazio for their efforts. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, for most of the 20th Century, the primary focus of surface transportation policy was constructing a safe, efficient highway system, the Interstate and Defense Highway System, to connect our cities, farms, and defense bases. We invested more than $114 billion in constructing the 42,800-mile Interstate system and that investment has paid phenomenal returns in mobility, productivity, and economic growth. It is an unparalleled success: 1 percent of highway miles carry 24 percent of traffic. Today, the vision of that system is complete. As the Interstate era came to a close, a new vision of transportation began to emerge--shifting from a focus on moving vehicles to providing transportation choices. The early framing of this vision was embodied in Congress' passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991. The ``highway bill'' became more than that as we focused new efforts (and funding) on transit, congestion mitigation, intelligent transportation systems, and transportation alternatives such as pedestrian and bike paths. The landmark achievement of ISTEA was its vision for transportation policy: moving beyond where highways now lead us, to where it is people want to go and how we can give them choices to get there. In 1998, Congress built upon ISTEA by ensuring that we would begin to make the necessary infrastructure investment to achieve this vision. With passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), we authorized $218 billion for our highway, transit, and highway and motor carrier safety programs--the highest surface transportation funding levels in U.S. history and 44 percent more than ISTEA. However, we knew too well that increased ``authorization levels'' meant nothing if they did not become a reality. We unlocked the Highway Trust Fund and codified a principle: the highway user fees collected from the traveling public will be invested in our surface transportation infrastructure each and every year. That is the landmark achievement of TEA 21 and, over its life, we invested $214 billion in our Nation's surface transportation infrastructure--$100 million more in that 6-year period than in the 40 years of building the Interstate. On the first anniversary of TEA 21, I joined our Committee Leadership (then-Chairman Shuster, Chairman Petri, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Rahall), then-Senator Chafee, Senator Voinovich, and Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and said: ``Although the legacy of the surface transportation system of the 21st Century is far off, we have begun the journey of writing that legacy here and now. ISTEA and TEA 21 have set the framework for the beginning of the new century. Nevertheless, we must continue to develop innovative solutions if we are to overcome our Nation's many transportation problems.'' The journey of writing that legacy continues here today. The ``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' bill builds upon the vision of ISTEA, maintains the guaranteed funding principle of TEA 21, and outlines its own landmark achievement: providing the investment levels necessary to maintain and begin to improve our Nation's highway and transit infrastructure. The bill provides a 72 percent increase in funding over TEA 21. We increase investment in highway and highway and motor carrier safety programs from $177 billion under TEA 21 to $306 billion under this bill. Similarly, for transit, we almost double the investment over 6 years: growing from $36.2 billion guaranteed under TEA 21 to $69.2 billion under the introduced bill. Although these funding levels are significant increases over current levels, it is important to note that they are not our numbers, they are the Department of Transportation's own estimates of the Federal investment necessary to maintain and begin to improve our Nation's surface transportation system. These funding levels recognize what the Texas Transportation Institute has repeatedly told us: congestion is beginning to cripple our largest cities, the primary engines of our Nation's economic growth. In 75 large metropolitan areas alone, the cost of congestion is $69.5 billion--including 3.5 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel consumption. The average annual delay for every person in these cities has climbed to 26 hours. While these statistics are startling, the average American family does not need them recited--they are stuck in traffic on their way home from work, picking up the kids at daycare, or running the endless errands that seem a part of today's society, and they lose what precious little time they have together. More importantly, our Nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems are not as safe as they need to be and the highway death toll is unacceptably high. Over the past 25 years, 1.2 million have died on our roads. Last year, 42,815 people died and 2.9 million more were injured on our highways. Highway fatalities remain the leading cause of death of our youth (people ages 4 to 33). In addition to the personal tragedy of each of these deaths and many of the injuries, the economic cost of these accidents is more than $230 billion per year. Considering the congestion and highway safety impacts of insufficient investment in transportation alone, our economy is losing $300 billion per year because we are not investing the necessary resources to maintain and improve our Nation's transportation systems. We cannot afford to continue to shortchange our Nation's transportation systems. To effectively reduce congestion, to increase mobility, to truly improve highway safety, and to achieve continuing long-term increases in productivity and economic growth, we must invest in our Nation's transportation future. And we must do it now. That is why we join together today to introduce this bill to authorize $375 billion over 6 years. The bill increases the minimum guarantee rate of return from 90.5 percent in FY2003 to 95 percent in FY2009. The bill also provides significant increases for the core highway programs. The National Highway System increases from $27.4 billion under TEA 21 to $39 billion under this bill. In addition, after a portion of the minimum guarantee funds are distributed to the core highway programs, NHS funding increases to $49.3 billion over the next 6 years. Similarly, the Bridge program grows from $19.3 billion under TEA 21 to $34.3 billion with the redistributed minimum guarantee funds. Finally, the CMAQ program almost doubles--growing from $7.9 billion to $13.9 over the next 6 years. Moreover, the bill provides similar increases for transit. Guaranteed transit funding increases 92 percent to $69.2 billion. The core transit formula programs increase to $34 billion and the transit capital program (new starts, rail modernization, and bus capital invesment) increases to almost $30 billion over the 6 years of the bill. Beyond building upon the success of ISTEA and TEA 21, as I said at the TEA 21 anniversary, we must continue to develop innovative solutions if we are to overcome our Nation's many transportation problems. Let me touch on a couple of new programs included in the bill that propose new and different way to address transportation issues. As I have traveled the country over the last several years to review the condition of our Nation's infrastructure, I have noted that, despite the significant funding increases of TEA 21, current levels of surface transportation investment are insufficient to fund critical high-cost transportation infrastructure facilities that address critical economic and transportation needs. These projects, whether it is Alameda Corridor East or Chicago's CREATE, have national and regional benefits, including facilitating international trade, relieving congestion, and improving transportation safety by significantly improving freight and passenger movement in critical transportation bottlenecks. The bill creates a $17.6 billion Projects of National and Regional Significance program to enable the Secretary of Transportation to competitively select such projects of national significance (project cost of more than $500 million). I also want to touch on a much smaller, but equally important, new program: Safe Routes to School. Several years ago, I began working with two communities, Marin County, California and Arlington, Massachusetts, to develop a program to enable and encourage children to walk or bike to school. These two pilot projects have been incredible successes. With this experience in hand, the bill creates a new $1.5 billion Safe Routes to School formula program to enable and encourage children to walk or bike to school; to make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; and to improve safety and reduce traffic, wasted fuel, and air pollution in school neighborhoods. Finally, the Committee's proposal will provide badly needed economic stimulus. The Federal Highway Administration reports that every $1 billion of federal funds invested in highway infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. When enacted, the Committee's introduced bill will create and sustain up to 3.6 million family-wage construction jobs, including 1.7 million new jobs. Moreover, a recent study found that the Committee's bipartisan proposal to invest $375 billion in surface transportation over the next 6 years would add $290 billion more to the Nation's Gross Domestic Product than the administration's proposal to invest only $247 billion. The Committee's proposal would also lead to an additional $129 billion of household disposable income and. an additional $98 billion in consumer spending--millions of new, good-paying jobs, billions of dollars of new consumer spending: now that's the way to get the economy growing again. I join with Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman Petri, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Lipinski, and the Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, in introducing this bipartisan bill today. We will continue to work together on the journey of writing the legacy of our surface transportation future.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the recent U.S.-China maritime agreement, the result of successful U.S.- China maritime negotiations that concluded in August of this year. The agreement, which is now under final review by the Departments of Transportation and State, is the most significant maritime pact with China in the last 15 years, and represents a major breakthrough in U.S.-China maritime relations. Its conclusion is a testament to the will of both governments and the importance of U.S.-China bilateral relations. The recently announced framework agreement between the U.S. and China is significant because it addresses a number of longstanding impediments to expanding maritime trade between our two nations. The agreement achieves a long overdue goal, which I have supported, of ensuring a level playing field for both countries. While the specific details of the agreement are yet to be released, the fundamental issues of concern for the U.S. involved market access issues such as: bonding for Non-Vessel Operating Commercial Carriers, opening branch offices, and provision of logistics services. Issues for China included the filing of confidential freight rates and controlled carriers, among others. The commitment of lead U.S. negotiator Captain William Schubert, U.S. Maritime Administrator and his Chinese counterpart, Su Xiang, Director General of the Department of Water Transport, was significant in reaching this agreement. Captain Schubert and Director General Su reflected the newfound will of their governments since the expiration of the last agreement in 1998. Since 1998, the policies of the government of China on international maritime trade have evolved from protectionism, to an acceptance of the benefits of competition and open access for consumers and shippers of both countries. In January 1999, I met with Vice Minister of Communications Hong Shanxiang in Bejing. Minister Hong referred to China as a developing country whose maritime interests needed protection. I pointed out that in maritime it was the United States that was in the position of a developing country, with our fleet declining from 3,000 vessels in 1945 to 450 in 1999, making us the smallest maritime nation. China, meanwhile has become a maritime power. I am pleased that the government of China has now recognized that in the maritime field, their industry is capable of meeting the challenges, and gaining the benefits, of a competitive system. With this agreement, both governments committed to making the concept of a more open and economically successful bilateral maritime relationship a reality. The China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) was an important force behind the U.S. China Maritime agreement. COSCO is the 5th largest shipping company in the world and the principle maritime carrier between Asia and the United States. I wish to applaud COSCO's leadership in both Beijing and Washington, notably Mr. Gao Weijie, who kept all of us informed and helped to forge a consensus among the maritime parties involved. Much work remains once the agreement is officially signed. Both sides must take completing actions to ensure that the discriminatory policies are dismantled, as provided for in the agreement. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and an active maritime policy participant for over two decades, I want to commend Captain Schubert and Bruce Carlton of MARAD, Minister Hu of China, Mr. Gao of COSCO, and all maritime agreement participants who worked so hard to ensure that this U.S.- China Maritime agreement would become a reality.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Energy Conference Report. As a Member of the Energy Conference, I am exceedingly disappointed that the Conference was not conducted in a bipartisan fashion. Instead, conference meetings were held behind closed doors with only a select group of Republican House and Senate Members in attendance. As a result of this secretiveness, the Conference squandered an opportunity to craft meaningful, forward- looking energy legislation that could be supported by both sides of the aisle. House and Senate conferees at long last met yesterday evening, although it was more for show and tell than for a substantive debate on the conference report. Amendments to the report were offered by Democrats and were defeated strictly on party-line votes. The conference meeting was an event patently designed for Republicans to be able to say that they held a meeting of conferees and that they made an attempt--no matter how hollow--at bipartisanship. While the argument that conferees did meet might be persuasive to those unfamiliar with the legislative process, I have served on many conference committees and I know how a true conference is conducted. A conference of real inclusiveness is one in which Members from both bodies and from both sides of the aisle meet to discuss ideas, exchange views, and make adjustments to their respective positions. Proceeding title-by-title, section-by-section, and line-by-line, conferees adapt the legislation to reflect a broad consensus of views that serve the entire country in ways that neither the House nor Senate bill standing alone would have done. The Energy Bill was never subjected to that test of a true conference. Instead, the bill was crafted by a very small number of partisans in both the House and Senate who, it seems, did not even include a majority of conferees from their own side of the aisle. The result is a bill that tilts egregiously on the side of corporate America and the already privileged. The number of offensive provisions littered throughout the bill are simply too many to enumerate, so I will highlight just a few examples. Section 328 of the Conference Report exempts the oil and gas industry from complying with the Clean Water Act's stormwater permitting requirements for construction activities. This provision makes oil and gas exploration the only construction activity not subject to Clean Water Act requirements. It is a complete, unprecedented end-run around one of our Nation's most successful environmental laws, and was written into this legislation without the benefit of public hearings or testimony on the provision. Section 756(c) of the conference report allows a 250-pound increase in the weight of some heavy trucks, purportedly to provide incentives for trucking companies to utilize a certain type of idle reduction technology. While I support the environmental benefits of reducing truck idling, I cannot support an increase in truck weights that will inflict further damage upon the highway infrastructure and threaten the safety of the driving public. At a time when states are searching for the funds necessary to fix roads that are worn to the point of being unsafe, this provision will increase the stress on our Nation's highway infrastructure, costing taxpayers approximately $300 million each year in increased highway damage. Further, this exemption is unnecessary. The industry's own figures show that idling reduction technologies pay for themselves in reduced fuel costs in approximately two years. Section 1502 provides special protection for MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) producers from liability associated with clean up costs and damages caused by MTBE contamination of groundwater. MTBE is a gasoline additive that helps make gas burn cleaner and reduces air pollution, but it also becomes a suspected carcinogen that can contaminate groundwater and surface water. As a result of this special interest provision, taxpayers will be forced to pay the estimated $29 billion cost of cleaning MTBE-contaminated water across the country. Section 326 establishes a dangerous precedent under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by authorizing the federal government to reimburse oil and gas companies for the costs of undertaking environmental impact analyses relating to oil and gas leasing. This provision, in combination with a similar provision for geothermal energy, is estimated to cost taxpayers $165 million over the next ten years. The Conference Report does nothing to increase the average fuel economy standards. One way to ensure that we decrease our dependence on foreign oil it to increase the number of miles per gallon achieved by our cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles. However, this massive legislation does nothing to address this issue and simply leaves in place the status quo. The Conference Report contains tax subsidies of approximately $23.5 billion to energy industries--over half of that amount ($119 billion) goes to oil and gas companies. At a time when our country is facing debilitating deficits, there are no offsets to pay for the cost of these enormous tax breaks for energy industries. These provisions demonstrate the dangers of writing such an expansive bill without allowing participation by all parties. But as we know, not all conferees were allowed to participate in conference meetings. It is a shame that the Republican majority chose to proceed in this manner because there are some promising provisions in this bill that could begin to move this country in the right direction, such as a provision to equip public buildings with photovoltaic solar energy systems and a provision to promote fuel conservation by encouraging bicycling instead of driving. Not surprisingly, these provisions were adopted from Democratic amendments that my colleagues and I offered on the floor of the House during consideration of H.R. 6 last April. If the conference process had been open to Democrats, I am confident that we could have seen more of these forward-looking provisions in the bill. But the few positive provisions in the conference report are overwhelmingly outweighed by the many special interest provisions in the bill designed to benefit some large energy corporations at the expense of the American public. When the voice of the Minority is silenced, as it has been these past few months, the result is a misguided policy that benefits the few, not the broad national energy policy that this country needs and which the American people deserve.