James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I am somewhat bemused by the quaint reconstruction of history to which we have been treated by the chairman of the subcommittee, reconstruction of what took place in the House-Senate conference that met for 1 day July 24 and has not met since. The gentleman also said there was only one issue, only one amendment offered. It was a conceptual amendment that I offered to a concept to which we had been treated but for which we did not have paper. And so since we did not have, and contrast every conference I have previously participated in over 24 years, I offered an amendment in concept, and we had a cursory discussion of the subject matter which was to reinstate the Senate language, and that was voted down. We were notified of votes in the House and in the Senate. The conference adjourned with a reference by the chairman of the conference that we might meet again, if we could somehow get together, but it was urgent and important to get this bill through conference, to the House and Senate floor, so that it could be passed before the August recess. The reason there was only one subject discussed was that is all that we were given time to discuss. There are at least four major issues. One, the air traffic control privatization which has been said time and again in this Chamber and the House voted clearly to prohibit the privatization of the air traffic control system; the other body did the same. And yet the conference report that appeared the next day, after this very urgent, important meeting that we had to conclude the work of the conference and never met again that night, magically a document appeared, and the item that had been voted on and recorded votes in the House and Senate, just disappeared, vanished. We never had, in the conference, an opportunity to discuss other issues such as mandatory training of flight attendants. We never had an opportunity to discuss the cabotage issue in Alaska, and we never had an opportunity to discuss the matter that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), the day before yesterday, so forcefully brought up on this floor, which was essential air service and requiring small communities to pay for air service, never had that discussion in that conference, and this document appeared full blown from the head of Zeus, magically. Why we could not have documentation at the conference 24 hours earlier is beyond me, but that did not happen. So then 94 days expired without that urgent bill being brought to the House floor, and then finally the majority decided that either there were not the votes in the Senate or there were not the votes in the House to pass the document as reported from the committee of conference. So they came back to the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules brought a bill to the floor. We all voted, recorded vote, unanimous on both sides, urged all Members on our side, vote for it. This is exactly what we had asked for to go back to conference, and we had a gentlemanly discussion about conference and then it did not happen. That is unprecedented in our committee, and I think an insult to the Members of the House, and I take it personally. I have served 40 years on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Never have I seen this happen. Voices were stifled. I see the gentleman from Illinois who presided at the event honoring the previous minority leader with the words, The greatest speaker who never was, Mr. Mica, who said at that ceremony, I never felt in the minority that I was excluded because the rules of the House protect the voice of the minority. The rules of the House were suppressed, absconded with when they the majority failed to reconvene the conference as the rules of the House require. That is what is wrong.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have got my seat belt in place, tray table is up, waiting for a real conference. The points the gentleman from Florida raised are the kinds of issues that we should be discussing in the conference. We did not have that kind of discussion before, and if you go back to the report of the Inspector General and, as verified by, as reviewed further by GAO, you find that the selection of air traffic control towers was arbitrary, did not follow a consistent pattern, was flawed in the number of towers selected. Furthermore, there are 63 million operations a year run by our FAA control towers. The contract towers handle a fraction of that amount, and they handle different kinds of traffic. And those are the kinds of issues I say to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) that we should be discussing in the House-Senate conference. That is where we ought to have that debate, not here in 1-minute sound bites. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida cited 7\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration not doing anything. That was because I, with the support of Republicans in the House, vigorously opposed the Gore reinventing government proposal to privatize air traffic control. We took it on head-on and stopped them dead in their tracks. I say to the gentleman, keep that in mind.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we are finally going forward with the rule to commit the conference report back to conference, and I will vote for that motion. But I am concerned that going back to conference simply will repeat the sham we had the first time that there was a conference. I have served for 24 years on conference committees, and this is the first time I have been to a conference that did not have legislative language. We had concepts. So at a certain point I was allowed to offer a conceptual amendment to a concept that had been presented. And after some discussion, there was a vote, the concept that I offered was defeated on a voice vote, the bells rang for a vote in the House, and Senators were notified of a vote in their body. The conference dissolved and, the next thing I knew, the next day, miraculously, legislative language appeared and it contained a number of items that we were expecting; but we did not have it the day before, and it was an urgent matter to get this conference completed. That is 94 days ago. I marvel at the urgency that suddenly vanished along with the legislative language which also then miraculously appeared the next day. There is a lot of good in this bill. We need to provide funding for the airport improvement program, facilities and equipment account for the operation air traffic control system. There are three issues that are very critical to the future of aviation. The first the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from Massachusetts on our side have discussed at some length, and that is privatization of the air traffic control system. This is not the first time this issue has been raised before our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. When I chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation, it was raised by the first Bush administration and we had a discussion about it; and my colleague, the ranking member on the Republican side, Mr. Clinger, and I both agreed that was a bad idea and it went away. Then it came back during the Clinton-Gore administration and it was more fully refined and defined, and I said it was a terrible idea and vigorously opposed it, with great support on the Republican side. Now that the idea has surfaced for a third time from a Republican administration, my colleagues, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, suddenly have had a change of heart, or maybe many of them were not here in the House when the first two attempts were made. The fact is, this is just a very bad idea. The second issue is to establish training guidelines for flight attendants. The House bill said, you ``shall'' establish these training guidelines. We were all agreed on that. We marched arm in arm together in subcommittee, in full committee, and to the House floor, and through the House. And then a one-word change in Senate floor debate from ``shall'' to ``may'' makes the whole thing speculative. We were all agreed that it was important. If you are going to arm the flight deck crew, have guns on the flight deck and you are going to have the sealed door, the bullet proof, bomb-proof door protecting the flight deck crew, the flight attendants say, what about us? Should we not have training? Should that not be mandatory? We say yes. This body voted ``yes.'' But somehow, miraculously in conference, or in Senate floor debate, the White House said, no, we do not want it mandatory. The question we have to raise is, are we a three-party government or are we a parliamentary system in which the legislative is merely an extension of the executive branch? This body has time and again stood up against the executive branch for what we believe, the people's elected representatives, is the right thing for the best national interest; and we made that decision here in an overwhelming vote, not to privatize, to train the flight attendants on board aircraft; and all of a sudden, that just vanished, succumbed. Then the third issue is that of training cabin crews, I mean of cabotage, which we have never permitted previously to allow foreign airlines to ferry goods between cities. Well, that is, as the gentleman from Oregon said, the beginning of dissolution of another major sector of the American economy that other countries protect. Why should we let our guard down now just because that exchange of goods will take place in Alaska? I think that is just dead wrong. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has very well expressed a fourth issue requiring small communities to underwrite essential air service. That was an issue that was fundamental to deregulation in 1978. I sat on the committee. I voted for deregulation because it had protection for essential air service for small communities that they would not have to pay for. Now we are going to bring that concept back and make it almost a certainty that some communities in my district, if they do not have air service, the only way to get there is to be born there. Well, I do not want to see that happen; the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not want to see that happen; and we must not let that happen. Then the thing that I find, the step that I find very unpalatable, two steps, one is we will just remove the offending language when we recommit this bill to conference about the 69 towers and go back to current law. That is the poison pill. The current law is the President's executive order stating that air traffic control is not an inherently governmental service. That then opens the whole system up for privatization. I know there is language that says the rest of the air traffic control until 2007 cannot be privatized; but once we start down that road, the whole chain becomes unraveled. Then there is the second effort that we have been hearing about and reading about in news accounts of trading towers: if you agree to vote for this, we will take your tower out. Well, I find if you take this to its logical conclusion, eventually all the Members who have their tower in their district voted taken out of the privatization will have protected themselves against privatization, but they will be voting for the privatization system. So all of those who voted against privatization will have privatized towers. Those who want to vote for privatization will have their towers removed from the privatization requirement. I do not understand how anybody can take that home and sell that to their constituencies. Let us commit this bill to conference. I appeal to the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee to have a real conference, not a sham. Let us gather the members together. Let us have full debate. Let us have a discussion of the merits of the issues. Let us have real give and take on this issue as we have done time and again historically in House-Senate conferences on aviation legislation. Let us do it the right way, not this back-door sham way.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2535, as amended by the manager's amendment, a bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration (EDA). In 1965, I was present when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Works and Economic Development Act creating EDA. In fact, I still have the pen he used at the signing ceremony. Since its inception, I have been a strong supporter of EDA and now, nearly 40 years later, I continue to believe in EDA's core mission--to create economic opportunity for those living and working in economically distressed communities. EDA's mission--to create economic opportunities for all--remains as vital and necessary today as it was four decades ago. As our economy continues to struggle, the importance of EDA becomes even more apparent. Since January 2001, the national unemployment rate has risen to 6.1 percent, the highest level in 9 years. Further, in that time, the number of unemployed workers has increased from 5.9 million people to almost 9 million--an increase of more than 3 million unemployed workers, or 50 percent. Moreover, workers who have lost their jobs are having more trouble finding new jobs. The average length of unemployment is now almost 20 weeks, the longest it has been in nearly two decades. Within the last 2 weeks, the number of workers who have been unemployed for longer than 6 months has increased by more than 1.5 million to more than 2.1 million--an increase of 218 percent. One-half of the unemployed are out of work for more than 9 weeks and more than one in five have been out of work for more than 6 months. As in every recession, it is the people living in our Nation's economically distressed communities--the very people who are served by EDA--that are hardest hit by the economic downturn. Mr. Speaker, EDA works. I know it works because I've seen it work-- providing jobs, job training, and real economic opportunities in distressed communities across the country. A recent series of Rutgers University studies found that every $1 million in EDA public work funding creates 325 jobs; leverages $10 million in private sector investment; and increases the local tax base by $10 million. EDA grants are particularly vital for many smaller, rural communities where deterioration of infrastructure facilities is especially prevalant. Deterioration in infrastructure is often part of a downward cycle that contributes to erosion of human and financial resources. For these rural communities, EDA grants are critical to improve their economic condition. This bill enhances the agency's ability to deliver economic development services to those who need it most. The bill authorizes EDA for 5 years and provides the agency with the financing levels necessary to affect real growth and development in economically distressed communities. To that end, the bill authorizes $400 million for the agency in fiscal year 2004, increasing to $500 million in fiscal year 2008. Further, the bill moves the agency forward by building on a solid base of good administrative practices. It requires comprehensive economic development planning at the State and local level. Such planning is essential for state and local governments to tackle effectively the tremendous economic development challenges they face and to take full advantage of EDA's program. EDA planning grants, which are reauthorized under the bill, provide a vital tool for state and local governments to undertake this important planning. There are also many new, innovative programs in the bill. For example, the bill authorizes EDA to award performance incentive awards to high performing grantees. Grantees can use their performance award money in any manner consistent with the Act. The bill also authorizes an EDA brownfields program and establishes a demonstration program for brightfields, which are brownfields developed through the use of photovoltaic solar energy systems. The ability to invest in these areas and technologies provides communities with the tools needed to reap further benefits. When EDA was last reauthorized in 1998, this House and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee took the lead in enacting that legislation. I am proud that we are again leading the efforts to reauthorize EDA with this bill. It is a true bipartisan product, and I extend my thanks to Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman LaTourette, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Norton for their hard work and diligence on this bill. I urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the most solemn and weighty power conferred by our Constitution upon the Congress is the power to declare war and the power of the purse. Last year, Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility by approving a deeply-flawed resolution that gave the President the power to initiate a preemptive war against Iraq, which, in my judgment, expressed at that time, did not pose a clear and present danger to the United States. I opposed that resolution in the strong belief that Congress should have required the President to seek a formal declaration of war because the President had failed to demonstrate a link between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11, failure to prove the presence in Iraq of chemical, biological weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear capability, or the capacity to deliver such weapons against the United States. After September 11, our Nation was united in common purpose to combat terrorism, and the United States enjoyed near universal support among the community of nations for our actions to destroy the al Qaeda terrorist bases and their Taliban protectors in Afghanistan. While this Administration has not yet been able to achieve many of the goals for Afghanistan, I support the funding in this legislation for continued support to complete our mission there. Our military campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban enjoyed strong bipartisan support, and Congress moved quickly to appropriate the necessary funds to carry out this important mission. In the aftermath of the U.S. lightening military strike that toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, the President maneuvered fervently to muster support at home and abroad for a preemptive war against Iraq. Even though these efforts failed to mobilize the support of many of our key allies, the Administration launched this unilateral war against Iraq, with the result that, we squandered the moral high ground and the support of the international community. The Administration finds itself in this uncomfortable position, and also has retreated from presidential candidate Bush's pledge not to engage the United States in nation-building during his presidency. Now staring in the face of the reality of a long-term, debilitating military occupation of Iraq, the President has asked Congress to approve a second supplemental payment for the ongoing military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, without providing to Congress and the American people a full accounting of how the previous billions of taxpayer dollars were used, nor a detailed plan for how this money will be utilized. On that point, Congress must assert its constitutional responsibilities to ensure that this spending request is consistent with our national and international budget priorities. Because of the President's misguided economic and foreign policies, this $87 billion request represents money that we will have to borrow, which will increase the national debt, and this spending also represents dollars that could have been utilized to meet urgent needs at home. It is very troubling that this Administration has expended considerable time and energy to advance a divisive agenda at home and abroad that has not improved our national security. Recently, Congress approved the first appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which provides $30 billion for that agency to fulfill its critical responsibilities. The money in this supplemental package that we will spend in Iraq over the next several months is roughly equal to funding the Office of Homeland Security for three years--which raises the question, which is the more appropriate use of $87 billion to promote our national security. The policy option the President and his team have set before the Congress and the American people will add $87 billion to our already exploding national debt while refusing to ask the wealthiest of the wealthy to forego a portion of their tax breaks in order to help finance this war. At a time when our brave men and women in the armed forces have made significant sacrifices for their nation, and some have made the ultimate sacrifice, it is unthinkable that the President has not asked wealthy Americans to make a modest sacrifice to pay for this war. It is further shameful that the Administration has failed to deliver on its pledge to restore Iraq's oil exports to pay for its own reconstruction. Because the President failed to win broad international support for this war, the U.S. taxpayer must shoulder the costs of this ill-advised military campaign. It is quite clear, as well, that this $87 billion spending package will not be the final payment, as Congress will be asked to approve billions of additional dollars for Iraq, for many years to come, if this Administration remains in office and on its chosen course. This supplemental request for Iraq, like all spending bills, reflects our national priorities. In the current budget environment, we must be ever mindful that every dollar that we borrow and spend in Iraq is a dollar that is added to the national debt and denies funds that we need to educate our children, heal the sick, and improve our infrastructure in this country. With this spending request, the President has made clear that he supports massive deficit-spending that will burden working families in this country, and opposes shard sacrifice for the rich or international burden sharing. In short, this $87 billion spending bill is fiscally irresponsible, fundamentally unfair, and ignores our urgent domestic needs to finance a failed foreign policy. Congress has already provided a blank check for the President to initiate war; Congress must now reassert its constitutional responsibility and deny President Bush a blank check to continue this misguided mission. I cannot vote for this policy of ever- spiraling failure.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Davis Helberg's leadership with the Northeast-Midwest Institute. Davis has been an Institute director for the past eight years and ably led the board's nominations committee. With his effortless management style, he ensured that the Institute balanced the region's needs for economic vitality and environmental quality. But this should surprise no one. If there is one word I could use to describe Davis, it is ``passionate.'' A native Minnesotan who grew up on a family farm in a small Finnish community where hard work was considered a hometown value, Davis has been a passionate worker and leader throughout his varied careers. Living near Lake Superior, it's not surprising that in 1959, at the age of 17, Davis worked his first paying job as a deckhand on a lake steamer. After a few years as a newspaper reporter, he returned to his maritime career, working as a vessel agency employee, port public relations director, president of a stevedoring company and, until his retirement earlier this year, Executive Director of the Seaway Port Authority of Duluth. For more than forty years, Davis has tirelessly, served Duluth, the broader Great Lakes community, the national maritime industry, and the northeast and midwest States. It is said that Davis Helberg's name is synonymous with the Great Lakes maritime industry in many national and international circles. I couldn't agree more. Might I add that I believe he is the most passionate Finn I have ever met. I have known Davis for almost three decades. During that time, I have been the recipient of much of his passionate maritime advocacy. But his many accomplishments are attributable to more than just passion. Davis succeeded in his many endeavors because of solid leadership, vast knowledge, unparalleled experience and energetic dedication, not to mention his legendary storytelling ability. He served 24 years as executive director of the Duluth Seaway Port Authority--the longest serving in the Great Lakes, and he has been a frequent chairman of the American Association of Port Authorities. After eight years, his invaluable service at the Northeast Midwest Institute will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, I was a founder of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition. The Coalition and the Institute long have provided valuable analysis on an array of economic and environmental issues. They have worked hard to ensure bipartisan cooperation among Midwestern and Northeastern lawmakers. Davis Helberg, with his unique talents and unwavering passion, has improved that tradition. He made a difference. His contributions to the Northeast-Midwest Institute are much appreciated.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of the Clayton, Jackson, McGhie Memorial that will take place in Duluth, Minnesota on October 10. The memorial commemorates the lives of three young black men who were murdered in a mob riot in Duluth in 1920. In the early morning hours of July 15, 1920, police in Duluth arrested six young black men employed with the visiting John Robinson Circus for the rape of a local white woman. That night a mob numbering between five and ten thousand people broke into the police station, dragging all six prisoners from their cells into the street. After a mock trial that lasted only a few minutes, the mob pronounced Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson, and Isaac McGhie guilty. Clayton, Jackson, and McGhie were then beaten with bricks, had lengths of rope fitted around their necks, and one by one they were lynched from the crook of a lamppost on a nearby street corner. These three young men died in the largest city in my district, for charges that were later found to be false. Those who carried out this shameful act were never prosecuted for murder or assault. Three men from the mob served the only penalty resulting from the lynching: less than a year each for ``rioting.'' Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson and Isaac McGhie were then quickly forgotten. They will not be forgotten again. The Clayton, Jackson, McGhie Memorial will feature three, seven-foot bronze sculptures surrounded by walls inlaid with quotations from philosophers. The memorial pays tribute to these innocent young men, murdered by a mob filled with hatred, fear and intolerance. This memorial will serve as a site for remembrance and reflection; a reminder to all who visit of the horrible events of that summer's night 83 years ago. It is fitting and proper that the city of Duluth acknowledges the three circus workers who died and recognizes the catastrophic error of the thoughts and feelings that led to their deaths. This memorial will serve as a lasting reminder of the devastating consequences resulting from this senseless vigilante and provides an opportunity for us to think about society's ultimate penalty: capital punishment. I am deeply troubled that the death penalty is still considered an appropriate form of punishment in this country. The principles enshrined in the sentencing guidelines of the 38 States that authorize the use of the death penalty are antithetical to the principles of respect, compassion and atonement to be enshrined Friday in downtown Duluth. Capital punishment legitimates violence as a response to violence, but as Dr. Martin Luther King wrote in 1967, ``The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy . . . Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.'' I am very pleased to offer my strong support for the Clayton, Jackson, McGhie Memorial in Duluth and for the principles for which this memorial stands. I want to congratulate Henry Banks and Catherine Ostos, the co-chairs of Clayton, Jackson, McGhie Memorial Committee, for their tireless efforts to make this memorial a reality, and to the artist Carla Stetson and writer Anthony Peyton Porter for their impressive creative work. These dedicated individuals have created a powerful statement that publicly proclaims that racism and violence have no place in Duluth, in Minnesota, in the United States, or in this world. It is important for the Duluth community to acknowledge this shameful past event, but it is even more impressive that Duluth has created a vision for the future that celebrates the vision of a more perfect union of tolerance and social justice.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this is a landmark day for those who, for more than 30 years, have worked to reduce the number of abortions performed in America. With today's vote on the Conference Report to accompany S. 3, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, we are finally closing in on the first statutory restriction on abortions--that is, other than appropriations restrictions--since the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. I urge our colleagues in the other body to join the House in quickly passing the Conference Report and sending it to the President for signature. This is also a good day for the legislative process, the art of compromise. Today we set aside our differences on various nuances of abortion and move by a decisive vote to ban a particular procedure, which--regardless of our differing views on the findings of Roe v. Wade--most of us find repugnant. Because of what we do here today, there will be fewer abortions, more adoptions, and more healthy births in years to come in the United States. I take great comfort in that knowledge. I am distressed, however, that so much of our legislative action the past 30 years in this body on the question of abortion has not had that result, but has instead polarized the views of those on both sides of the issue, while the number of abortions has continued to climb. Today we take a step in the opposite direction. Instead of dividing, we have come together and have agreed that there should indeed be fewer abortions, at least with respect to this procedure. I sincerely hope that the comity we have achieved on partial birth will extend, in the future, to other aspects of the abortion issue. Today I am proud of this body and proud of the process by which we serve our constituents.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join Chairman Young in introducing, by request, the Administration's Amtrak ``reform'' legislation. It is a common practice for the Chairman and Ranking Member of a Committee to jointly introduce an Administration's bill, regardless of which political party controls the White House or Congress or the specifics of proposed legislation, and I do this as a courtesy to the Administration. However, introducing a bill ``by request'' should not be interpreted to imply endorsement. In fact, in the current instance, I am vehemently opposed to the direction the Administration has chosen for intercity rail passenger service for our nation. For nearly two years we have awaited the Administration's legislative proposal for the future direction of Amtrak. Time and again we have heard that the vision would be revealed ``any day now.'' The Administration revealed the outline of its plan last year and now has given us the final product. It wasn't worth the wait. The Administration's proposal is little more than a rehash of the widely discredited proposals of the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC): separate ownership of the Northeast Corridor infrastructure from operations; allow entities other than Amtrak to compete for franchises to operate service over potentially profitable routes; and replace the current national network with regional systems that shift the costs to the states. These are all ideas promoted by the ARC. The bill would also phase out Federal operating support for all intercity passenger trains over a four-year period. As a result, the proposal would eliminate nearly all long-distance train service by the end of the third year. The bill places numerous restrictions on Amtrak management's discretion in running the Corporation--it even forbids Amtrak from using authorized funds for developing high-speed passenger train service. In short, Amtrak is to have no future. In addition, this bill also makes it clear that the Administration believes that labor is a large part of Amtrak's problem. The bill requires that Amtrak negotiate substantial operating cost reductions with its employees as the price of receiving its Federal operating grant. The Administration is apparently placing its trust in the magic of privatization and decentralization to solve Amtrak's problems. These changes were at the heart of the ARC proposals. Those proposals missed the point when they were advanced more than 1\1/2\ years ago, and time has not transformed them into valid solutions. Amtrak's problem has one root cause: money! From the outset back in 1971, the Corporation has been on a starvation diet. Its opponents insinuate that successive Amtrak managements have somehow conspired to misappropriate funds and not run a profitable operation. The truth is that a succession of hardworking and dedicated management teams could not do the impossible--that is, operate intercity rail passenger service in America and generate an accounting profit. Even under more favorable conditions, no nation in the world has operated intercity passenger trains profitably. But many in Congress have insisted on the impossible, and Amtrak's previous leaders have tried to demonstrate progress toward this illusive and ill-advised goal. Now we have new leadership at Amtrak, and this Amtrak team has abandoned the long-standing defensive practice of telling Congress what Congress wants to hear. Amtrak's new President, David Gunn, has told Congress what is needed if we want to have decent and reliable intercity passenger rail service in this nation, and he says that this can be achieved without the dismantling of Amtrak as suggested by the Administration's legislative proposal. We should heed his advice and give him and his team a chance. President Bush has begun naming a new Board of Directors, as well. I have met with the new Chairman, David Laney and he, too, is impressed by the efforts of David Gunn and his management team and their successes to date. Therefore, while I join in introducing this bill as a traditional courtesy to the Administration, I want to be clear that I support none of its initiatives. I strongly support both H.R. 2572, the Amtrak Reauthorization Act of 2003, and H.R. 2571, the Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (RIDE 21), recently reported with near unanimity by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I am hopeful that the House will soon consider this bipartisan legislation and begin to provide the necessary investment for our nation's intercity passenger rail system.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today Congresswoman Norton and I have introduced the ``Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act.'' A detailed summary of the bill's provisions is attached. The bill organizes four regional commissions under a common framework, thereby providing a more uniform method for distributing economic development funds throughout the regions most in need of such assistance. It reauthorizes the Delta Regional Authority and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority and creates two new regional commissions: The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. Both of these latter commissions have been proposed in legislation introduced in this Congress and are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and chronic underdevelopment in those regions. Every county or parish that is currently included in a commission through enacted or proposed legislation is similarly included in that same commission under this bill. While the bill follows the successful organizational model of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), it does not include the ARC or the Denali Commission (a wholly intrastate commission) in its framework. Regional commissions provide vital assistance to the development of the Nation's most chronically poor and distressed regions. They are true Federal-State partnerships, bringing together Federal, State, and local governments to expand the economic and development opportunities of a chronically distressed region. These regions typically experience rates of poverty and unemployment that are more than 150 percent of the national average. Further, some of these areas lack the transportation and basic public infrastructure necessary to support business development, and importantly, create jobs in the region. The regional commissions are designed to assist areas in overcoming chronic economic distress by focusing on the distressed region as a whole. By recognizing that systemic economic distress follows geographic and natural resource realities, rather than arbitrary State or political subdivision borders, the commissions are able to concentrate their efforts over the entire region--regardless of State lines. One way that federally designated regional commissions work within the region to overcome the effects of chronic underdevelopment is through investment in infrastructure, including transportation, telecommunications and other basic public infrastructure. The commissions also assist the region in obtaining job skills training, entrepreneurship, technology, and business development. Through these efforts, commissions work to improve the economic development of these systemically distressed regions. Regional commissions also supplement the state share of other Federal programs to ensure that areas that do not even have the economic means of meeting a required State or local funding share are not denied the opportunity to participate in these programs. Regional commissions assist in local development planning by helping provide local development districts with the resources and expertise necessary to formulate and follow a comprehensive, strategic regional development plan. Often it is the local development planning that is the key for the successful implementation of economic and infrastructure development programs. The Regional and Economic Infrastructure Development Act is modeled after the statute authorizing the ARC. The ARC has demonstrated that regional commissions are successful in fighting chronic underdevelopment and poverty. Since the ARC's creation in 1965, employment in the 13-State region has grown by nearly 66 percent. In contrast, in the decade preceding its creation, employment in the region had declined by 1.5 percent. Further, the poverty rate of the region has been cut by more than one half--from 31.1 percent in 1960 to 13.6 percent in 2000. As the Nation continues to suffer through a weakened economy, the need for these commissions becomes even more important. Figures released this August show that the national unemployment rate has increased to 6.1 percent, the highest level since July 1994. Further, since January 2001, the number of people unemployed increased from 5.95 million to 8.91 million--an increase of almost 3 million, or 50 percent. Moreover, workers who have lost their jobs are having more trouble finding new jobs. The average length of unemployment is now almost 20 weeks, the longest it has been in nearly two decades. Within the last 2 years, the number of workers who have been unemployed for longer than 6 months has increased by more than 1.3 million to nearly 2 million--an increase of almost 200 percent. One-half of the unemployed are out of work for more than 9 weeks and more than one in five have been out of work for more than 6 months. As the economy continues to founder, it is these historically depressed regions--the regions that have already been struggling--that suffer a disproportionate share of the burden. Now, perhaps more than ever, there is a greater need for these regional commissions. This bill recognizes the importance of the regional commissions to these chronically distressed areas. The bill strengthens the commissions by establishing a uniform organizational structure, under which an affirmative vote of a commission requires a majority of State members plus the affirmative vote of the Federal cochairperson. With this voting structure, the bill ensures that the Federal and State roles in a commission are equal and interdependent, thereby promoting a true Federal-State partnership. In addition, the bill establishes a coordinating council for the regional commissions consisting of representatives from all the commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Denali Commission. The coordinating council is directed to meet biannually to discuss issues facing regions that suffer chronic distress and successful strategies for promoting regional development. While the council will assist the commissions in promoting regional development, it has no decision-making authority over any of the commissions. Finally, the bill authorizes sufficient funds for each commission so that a commission will have the means available to fulfill its mission of promoting economic and infrastructure development. The bill authorizes $30 million for each commission in fiscal year 2004 (the amount currently authorized for the Delta and Northern Great Plains Regional Authorities) and increases that authorization by $5 million for each successive year through fiscal year 2008. Frankly, I am concerned about this administration's lack of funding for existing regional commissions. In its fiscal year 2004 budget proposal, the administration slashes the budgets of the regional commissions--proposing only $2 million for the Delta Regional Authority and no funding for the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. If these budget proposals were to be enacted, the commissions, and their grant-making authority, would be rendered essentially ineffective. Providing the commissions with the funds necessary to carry out their purpose is crucial to the economic development of these regions. It is time that we affirm our commitment to regional economic development by authorizing these commissions and providing the funding necessary from them to break the cycle of chronic distress in these regions. I believe this bill will help us do that. Summary of the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act organizes four regional commissions under a common framework, thereby providing a more uniform method for distributing economic assistance throughout the regions most in need of such assistance. It reauthorizes the Delta Regional Authority and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority and creates two new regional commissions: the Southeast Crescent and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. Both of these latter commissions have been proposed in legislation introduced this Congress and are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and chronic underdevelopment in those regions. Every county or parish that is currently included in a commission through enacted or proposed legislation is similarly included in that same commission under this bill. While the bill follows the successful organizational model of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), it does not include the ARC or the Denali Commission (a wholly intrastate commission) in its framework. Purpose To organize the regional commissions in the lower 48 states (with the exception of the Appalachian Regional Commission) under a common framework, providing a more uniform organization structure among the commissions and a more uniform method for distributing economic assistance throughout the country. Commissions The bill reauthorizes the Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission, and creates the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. The Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission are composed of the same states, counties, and parishes included in the existing Delta Regional Authority and Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and the Southwest Border Regional Commission are composed of the same states and counties proposed in legislation introduced in the 108th Congress to create a Southeast Crescent Regional Authority and a Southwest Border Regional Commission. Each commission is authorized to receive appropriations of $30 million for fiscal year 2004; $35 million for fiscal year 2005; $40 million for fiscal year 2006; $45 million for fiscal year 2007; and $50 million for fiscal year 2008. Currently, some counties qualify for membership in more than one regional commission. The bill does not change that. However, the bill provides that an individual county may only receive economic assistance from one regional commission. Therefore, if a county is eligible for membership in more than one commission, it must select one commission in which it would like to participate and be eligible to receive funds. A county or parish can change its selection 90 days before the start of the fiscal year. The Denali Commission and the Appalachian Regional Commission are not included in this statute. Composition Each commission includes a Federal cochairperson and a state cochairperson, who is selected from among the state members. Like current law, the Northern Great Plains Commission also includes a tribal cochairperson. An affirmative vote of a commission requires an affirmative vote of the federal cochairperson plus a majority of state members. Like the current laws authorizing regional commissions, the bill sets forth provisions for the salaries of commission members, the appointment of alternatives, and the hiring of additional staff, including an Executive Director. The bill establishes a coordinating council for the regional commissions consisting of representatives from all the commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Denali Commission. The coordinating council is directed to meet biannually to discuss issues facing regions that suffer chronic distress and successful strategies for promoting regional development. The council has no decision-making authority. Also like current law, each state must develop a comprehensive economic development plan and each commission must develop an economic and infrastructure development plan. Commissions are required to designate distressed, transitional and attainment counties, and isolated areas of distress within attainment counties, within their region and must allocate at least 50 percent of the appropriations made available to the commission to projects in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress. Economic and Community Development Grants Commissions have the authority to make grants to State and local governments, and public and nonprofit organizations, for economic development projects, with an emphasis on infrastructure projects, including transportation, basic public, and telecommunications infrastructure projects. The bill provides for a commission share of 50 percent of the costs of projects; that percentage increases to up to 80 percent for distressed counties. These shares are increased by 10 percent (to 60 percent and 90 percent, respectively) for those projects that have a significant regional impact. Commissions have the authority to make grants to local development districts to assist in the payment of the administration of the district. The commission of these grants is limited to 80 percent of the administrative expenses of the local development district receiving the grant. Commissions have the authority to supplement part of the basic Federal contribution to projects authorized under other Federal grant programs and to increase the Federal contribution above the fixed maximum part of the cost. The federal share is the same for projects (50 percent and 80 percent for distressed counties, with a 10 percent bonus for regional projects), with the stipulation that the total federal contribution cannot exceed 80 percent.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we must quickly enact a multiyear surface transportation bill to provide the assured and continuing funding of transportation programs that is so vital to the Nation, to the States, and to our local communities. But, we must also ensure that the bill that we pass adequately addresses the Nation's transportation needs. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is crafting a bipartisan bill to do just that: to provide the necessary infrastructure investment ($375 billion over six years) to begin to improve our Nation's highway and transit infrastructure. Our country's economic strength, out ability to create jobs and improve business productivity, and out desire to create a safe, efficient, and secure transportation system are all dependent upon increasing investment in our Nation's infrastructure. We are fortunate to have a strong surface transportation system today. But that system is being challenged by a continuing growth in passenger travel and an ever-increasing demand for fast, efficient movement of freight. As a result, highway travel is growing at 2.3 percent per year and is now 2.8 trillion vehicle miles traveled per year. Commercial trucks alone move 14,000 ton-miles of freight each year for each person in the country. The demand for transit has increased exponentially. In recent years, transit ridership has increased by almost one million trips per day. Congestion in our surface transportation system, especially urban congestion, is worsening as demand continues to outstrip the ability to add capacity. In the Nation's largest 75 large urban areas, an average commuter encountered 62 hours of delay in the year 2000. In that same year, congestion costs for these 75 urban areas totaled a whopping $67.5 billion--3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel consumption. The challenges of travel growth are compounded by the overwhelming investment needs of our transportation systems. Just a few months ago, the Department of Transportation (DOT) submitted its report on the conditions and performance of our Nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems. DOT's Conditions and Performance Report estimates that all levels of government should be spending a combined average of $127 billion per year to maintain and improve these transportation systems. Based on the historic Federal cost share, the needs assessment suggests a Federal highway and transit program of $51 to $76 billion per year. This level of funding is in marked contrast to the Administration's proposal to spend just $37 billion on highways and transit in 2004 and only slightly higher levels in subsequent years. Regrettably, this Administration has thrown up roadblocks to increased infrastructure investment at every turn. The Administration's proposed $247 billion six-year reauthorization bill (SAFETEA), has a great name, but little else--it dose not even begin to provide the level of funding necessary to address our infrastructure needs. Moreover the Administration, which has presided over the loss of an astonishing 3.3 million jobs, has sent repeated signals that it opposes any effort to increase infrastructure investment. We cannot afford 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 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has proposed a highway and transit program to invest $375 billion in our Nation's highways and transit systems over the next six years. There are stark contrasts between our Committee's proposal and the Administration's proposal. First, the Committee's proposal meets the investment needs identified in DOT's Conditions and Performance Report to maintain and improve our highways, bridges and transit. The Administration's proposal does not meet those needs. Second, the Committee's proposal will provide badly needed economic stimulus and do so much more extensively than the Administration's proposal. According to the Administration's own statistical models, the Committee's proposal will create millions of new, family-wage construction jobs. 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. Moreover, a recent study found that the Committee's bipartisan proposal to invest $375 billion in surface transportation over the next six years would add $290 billion more to the Nation's Gross Domestic Product than the Administration's proposal. 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! Third, the across-the-board increased investment of the Committee's proposal will help us stem the highway death toll that grows ever higher. Last year, 42,850 people died and almost three million more were injured on our highways, the highest number of highway deaths since 1990. In addition to the enormous personal toll of these accidents, the economic cost is a staggering $230 billion a year! To stern this tide, our Committee's bipartisan TEA 21 reauthorization bill significantly increases, and provides more overall funding, for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), motor carrier safety, and highway safety construction programs than does the Administration's proposal. Mr. Speaker, Congress must act on a full, six-year reauthorization as quickly as possible. Doing so will create jobs and stimulate economic growth, both badly needed in today's economy. We can effectively reduce congestion, increase safety, and improve mobility throughout the Nation if we invest in our Nation's highways and transit systems in an amount that is sufficient to meet our Nation's growing needs. I look forward to working with Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman Petri, Subcommittee Ranking Member Lipinski, and all of the Members of our Committee and of this House, to invest in our Nation's transportation future.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his statement about the diligent work of the committee and in addressing the resource issues in a very comprehensive manner. Of course, there is always more that can be done, but we have created a platform and a structure within which this program can be improved. The reference of the gentleman from Wisconsin to concurrency of mitigation efforts with construction is a matter that the former Member from Minnesota, Congressman Quee, Republican from southeastern Minnesota, and I crafted into a water resources bill in 1977, but it has taken years to get the corps to actually carry out that responsibility. So it is evidence that we need to proceed further. But the discussion of the gentleman from Wisconsin sets the stage and lays the groundwork for this committee to continue to address this matter in future legislation and future form.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I reserve the right to object for the purpose of establishing the concurrence of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the unanimous consent request to strike the language referred to in the gentleman's amendment does not create legislative history on the subject and is not indicative of legislative intent; and, further, any prior or subsequent discussion of this provision does not constitute legislative intent.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I just want to point out, in support of the committee position, that during the House-Senate conference on the port security bill last year, we were attempting to negotiate a fee proposition that would provide funding for the needs of ports to conduct the security measures that were required under the Port Security Act, and we hit upon this idea of a container fee. It was discussed between a Member of the other body and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and me. And we revised and revised this language down so we had it very narrowly honed to fit the definition of the Office of Management and Budget that a fee is a charge for a service directly related to the purpose for which the charge is imposed. That language proved to be unacceptable to the Office of Management and Budget, not on its merits, but on policy grounds that they did not want to fund port security with a container fee. At the request of the President, Senator Hollings and I, and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) agreed to drop that language. Now, while I am very much in sympathy with the purposes for which the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) wishes to generate this source of revenue, we tried a much more narrow application and ran aground on the rocks of OMB. We shoaled, if you will, on this issue. And I fear that there will be the same response were we to take a wider view. And I think that the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Duncan) wise injunction let us put this aside, let us come back to work on the issue together, constructively, and find a way that we can reason together with the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to include in the Record the statement I referred to earlier of March 9, 1998 on our previous TEA 21 legislation. I just want to underscore the importance of what we are doing. A very short-term extension, a very short leash on this program. And to also point out how critically important it is going to be for us not only to do our work in the committee which I am confident, absent external pressures, we can accomplish, but also to move that bill through this body and get into conference with the other body and resolve what will be clearly differences between the two Houses; that is going to take considerable amounts of time and effort. I would ideally like to see in the balance of this year, not just, I am not just talking about the legislative session, but the balance of this calendar year, that this body will stay in session, so that when we do, and I am confident that we will, complete work in our committee on a bill, a 6-year extension, we could bring it to this floor and pass it to this body before the end of this calendar year, so that we are ready to go at the beginning of next year with conference. But absent that, look at this time frame. We will convene in January. Typically, the House, then exhausted from its holiday recess, will recess again to await the message of the President on the State of the Union. And then having heard that message on the State of the Union, exhausted from the burdens imposed on us by the President, we will recess again and not come back until the beginning of February. Now, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is smiling but he has been here 2 years longer than I, and he knows exactly what happens in this body, and that is exactly what will happen. So then we will come back here some time in February and hope we can escape from under the burden of the Presidents' Day recess and then pass that bill. And then we will have the blink of an eye in which to conference with the other body and bring a bill back before the end of February. I am afraid if we do not get this bill done, through this body by the Christmas recess, then we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring. So our responsibility is serious, is substantial. We have a big job to do. I am confident we can get it done in our committee. I am just not confident about the overall structure and the time frame remaining in this session. I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out. Time Is Running Out for a New Highway Bill (By James L. Oberstar) Time is running out in our effort to reauthorize our federal highway, mass transit and other related transportation programs. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1992 expired last September 30, and the fund provided by the six- month extension approved in the waning days of the 1997 session will run out by May 1. Without new Congressional action, states will have to face the summer construction season without an assurance of federal transportation funds. It is imperative we move as soon as possible on a new, multiyear surface transportation bill, but we also need to ensure that the bill we produce adequately addresses the nation's transportation needs. In the House, H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (BESTEA), is pending in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This bill, I firmly believe, provides the level of funding necessary to build, repair and maintain our crumbling infrastructure, improve mass transit and other alternative modes, enhance safety, and protect the environment. The bill has strong bipartisan support and is a testimony to Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster's (R-Pa.) leadership. In recent weeks, the Senate has moved ahead on its ISTEA successor, and I applaud my Senate colleagues for that. I also applaud their efforts to increase funding, especially for mass transit programs, and bring the spending levels in their bill closer to those in BESTEA. However, the Senate bill's funding levels rely heavily on budget authority, promises that may or may not lead to actual funding. In the House, we are working to overcome the spending restrictions imposed by last year's balanced budget agreement. While I support the effort to eliminate the budget deficit, recent projections by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office have shown that the budget deficit will actually be eliminated this year, years ahead of the schedule anticipated by the budget agreement. Still, Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R- Ohio) and others insist on strict adherence to the conservative spending limits contained in that agreement. To his credit, Speaker Newt Gingrich has formed a task force to look into the issue. The Speaker himself chairs the task force, which also includes Chairman Shuster, Kasich, and Surface Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Thomas Petri (R- Wis.). This task force has been charged with finding a way to make more funds available for transportation programs without violating the integrity of the budget agreement. This is a difficult task, and I wish them success. In some quarters, this issue is being characterized as an effort to take funding away from education, defense, agriculture and other discretionary programs and spend that money on roads, bridges and mass transit. That is not true. Funding for transportation is drawn from a trust fund dedicated to this purpose. Federal fuel taxes (currently 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel) are collected from motorists, truckers and other road users for maintenance and enhancement of our transportation infrastructure. These taxes are deposited in the Highway Trust Fund. The budget agreement, however, maintains a high surplus in the trust fund in order to cover overspending elsewhere in the budget and present the illusion of balance. The Highway Trust Fund was never intended to cover deficits in other programs or to act as a bank for the rest of the government. To allow such an enormous surplus to accumulate in order to spend more money on non-transportation programs is a major breach of faith with users to pay the fuel taxes and expect-- and deserve--these funds to be spent for transportation purposes. As we work to eliminate our federal budget deficit, this country also faces a huge and growing infrastructure deficit. Almost 254,000 miles of highway pavement are in poor condition. One of every three bridges is structurally deficient of functionally obsolete. Nearly one of every two transit rail yards, stations and bridges is in poor condition. Yet, every year federal, state and local governments spend $17 billion less than the amount needed simply to maintain these facilities at their current condition and capacity. BESTEA would help overcome this infrastructure deficit, authorizing $179.8 billion, a 48 percent increase over ISTEA, for highway programs and $36.7 billion, a 15 percent increase, in transit funding through 2003. Reauthorization of ISTEA will set our national transportation priorities well into the 21st Century. Chairman Shuster, Chairman Petri, Subcommittee Ranking Democrat Nick Joe Rahall (D-W.V.) and I believe BESTEA continues and improves upon the transportation policies and programs set forth in ISTEA. We will continue to work together and are determined to bring BESTEA to a vote on the House floor in time to rescue the states from the transportation-funding limbo in which they will find themselves in six weeks if we do not act quickly. Time is running out. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the issue the gentlewoman has raised. It is identical to the issue the gentleman from Oregon addressed in the well just moments ago. Although the bill allows States to transfer funds among programs during this 5-month period where they deem necessary, the restoration of any funds borrowed will begin upon enactment of any subsequent law reauthorizing the program, whether a short-term additional extension or a multiyear reauthorization. The restoration of funds is specifically required by section 3(c) of the pending bill. I further want to make clear that I will not support efforts to change the effect of section 3(c) of the bill to allow the transfer authority to be extended beyond February 29, 2004. I thank the gentlewoman for her vigilance and the gentleman from Oregon similarly.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 3087, to extend our highway safety motor carrier safety programs for the next 5 months. I extend my commiserations to our chairman, who had the honesty and the integrity to say we really should be here doing a 6-month extension. He knows, I know, and we both agreed, and 74 members of our committee agreed in cosponsoring the 6-month extension, that is the right policy to do for this country, and he has labored mightily with the other body, as we affectionately say in this House, to reason, rightly and properly, to get the right policy. But it could not be done, unfortunately. The bill before us will extend to February 29 the funding for our transportation programs at 5/12ths of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. I want to specify those dollar amounts: Highways, $14.73 billion; transit, $3.04 billion; motor carrier safety and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, $266.32 million; for a total of $18.04 billion. Members and the State transportation departments that they represent should have no concerns about the continued flow of dollars for our highway and transit programs. We are assuring that those dollars move forward, because we also extend the landmark legacy of TEA-21, which is the budget firewalls guaranteed account, which assures that the dollars collected at the pump will be translated into highway and transit projects on the other side, and that all of those dollars will be invested in the Nation's surface transportation infrastructure, and not to mask the growing size of the Federal deficit. But this stopgap is no substitute for the long-term bill. We need to work together, as the chairman has said, to fashion the 6-year bill that will be the successor to TEA-21, and that, in my expectation and every reasonable assessment of the Nation's congestion problems, transportation needs in urban, suburban and rural areas, adds up to $375 billion in needs over the next 6 years, a 60 percent increase over TEA-21. We have the formula with which to do that. We have the Member understanding, the Member resolve and the staff expertise to craft that legislation, get it done, and move forward, lest we come to a point where this statement has yet again to be made: ``Time is running out in our effort to reauthorize our Federal highway, mass transit and other related transit programs.'' That is taken from a statement I made on this floor, together with then Chairman Bud Shuster, March 9, 1998. We had just come to the end of a 6-month extension of our transportation program, of ISTEA. We had crafted a bill in committee known as BESTEA. We were ready to bring that bill to the House floor. But, because of obstructions from the other body, problems with the House leadership and problems with the executive branch at the time, we were bottled up. So we came to this floor at that point to extend those programs 2 more months. They would run out May 1, so we extended it to June 11, and on June 8, President Clinton signed TEA-21 into law. We have always done our work in this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We work together. We did our job. But there were others who did not do theirs. I went on to say, ``If we do not pass this extension, funds will run out by May 1. States will face the summer construction season without assurance of Federal transportation funds.'' We are here recounting the same story. ``We have to move on a multiyear surface transportation bill, but we need to ensure that the bill we produce adequately addresses the Nation's transportation needs. The bill we have crafted in committee provides the level of funding necessary to build, repair and maintain our crumbling infrastructure, to improve mass transit and other alternative modes, enhance safety, protect the environment, and the bill has strong bipartisan support and is a testimony to Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster's leadership.'' I would say the same, the bill that we can craft in this committee will be a tribute to the leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and that of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri) and our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski.) We are at the point we were 6 years ago. We are resolved to move ahead, move ahead resolutely, to do the right thing for public policy, to provide the funding levels that we know are needed by this country to move our transportation system ahead, to attack congestion at its source and to sustain the mobility of this great Nation of ours. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.