James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois on the splendid work that he has done since becoming the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. He has devoted himself heart and soul and invested countless hours in the shaping of this legislation, and I really appreciate the splendid professional service he has rendered to the Nation and to the Congress. And to the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), no more judicious, thoughtful Member serves in this body. His contribution is always one of openness, inclusiveness, and willingness to listen and work to reach the compromises necessary for the legislative process to work. And to our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, again, as he has said, we have spent a great deal of time together working out the complexities of this measure. Were it up to us alone, we would have had this bill on the floor in the last Congress, but that was not possible because of a California problem, and maybe some other issues of lesser significance. But as the chairman said, we have together reasoned with the Members from California directly involved in the project in the Sacramento and American Rivers, and that matter is now resolved and is included in this legislation, and we will move forward. The gentleman from Alaska has been a splendid partner and leader in shaping this legislation. Mr. Chairman, we move with this bill to not only build but rebuild the Nation's water infrastructure, to expand international trade by improving our coastal ports and the inland navigation system. Through flood control and hurricane storm damage reduction, we will meet critical needs to protect lives and property. We have a bipartisan solution to the complex issue of independent review of corps projects, and I compliment the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), on the time they have invested, together with the chairman and me and with the corps, in resolving long-standing issues that span several Congresses. I am a long-time supporter of the corps, an advocate for and admirer of the Corps of Engineers for the valuable service it does this country. The Nation needs the Corps of Engineers, but the corps also needs to be sure that its proposals can withstand the strictest scrutiny; that its proposals are as rock solid as the foundations of the most secure dams that the corps builds. And that is why we needed to craft this independent review process, to validate and give substance to and authority to the process by which the corps recommends projects for our committee to act upon. This independent review process will help restore the confidence that Congress has long put in the Corps of Engineers but which has been shaken in recent years by outside critical review of the corps' process in evaluating major, multimillion dollar and multibillion dollar projects. The corps is not a static entity, and it does not do this work all by itself. The corps, truthfully, does nothing that the Congress does not authorize it to do and direct it to do. Every water resources bill has clear direction for the Corps of Engineers, what to do and how to get to that goal. And several times we have acted to make commonsense reforms to improve the way the corps does its business. Our committee instituted cost sharing. We established mitigation requirements. In fact, going back to 1977, the gentleman from Minnesota, then on the Republican side, Mr. Quie, and I, had an innovative proposal for the corps to do mitigation and reconstruction concurrently. We gave the corps a no-net loss of wetlands goal. We made environmental restoration a mission priority for the Corps of Engineers. We instituted floodplain management. We eliminated barriers to nonstructural flood damage reduction, allowing rivers to connect with the natural floodplain. This committee has initiated all of these activities and the corps has carried them out, but we always need to review and to move that process further. Over the past 200 years, the Congress and Presidents have given the Corps of Engineers responsibility for a wide variety of critical military and civilian needs and have made this agency the world's premier water resource manager, the Corps of Engineers, the envy of other countries around the world who come to study the corps and try to emulate it in some fashion in their own back yard. In the over 200 years since the Corps of Engineers was formed, that organization has served the Nation with great pride and extraordinary results. Throughout the 19th Century, it was the Corps that mapped the coastal fortifications, supervised the construction of those coastal fortifications, that went out and mapped the West in the aftermath of Lewis and Clark, constructed lighthouses, built jetties and piers for harbors, and carefully mapped the navigation channels of this country. Its most important legacy, perhaps, was the work on canals, on rivers, and on roads. The Corps built those paths of commerce. Out of treacherous streams, the Corps built safe waterways, water highways for inland navigation and coastal safe harbors for a growing Nation that was founded on the water. Congress expanded the Corps's responsibilities in 1826, authorizing the President to have river surveys made to clean out and to deepen selected waterways and make other river and harbor improvements that extended to the river basin of the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Missouri River systems. The Corps shaped this Nation as it entered the 20th Century. Chief of Engineers, Henry M. Robert, who is also and perhaps better known as the author of Robert's Rules of Order, oversaw the planning of the Galveston Seawall, a major engineering project that has protected that area from destruction by numerous hurricanes since his pioneering work. I would like to point out Hiram M. Chittenden, an engineer officer, who supervised the construction of roads, bridges and aqueducts we know today as Yellowstone National Park, wrote a report on his survey of reservoir sites in Wyoming and Colorado that contributed to the establishment of what we now today know as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Corps of Engineers had responsibility for the welfare of restoring Yosemite Valley and was the protector of our natural resources until the creation of the National Park Service. In fact, it was John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, who in the 1880s said, ``Thank God for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They have saved and restored Yellowstone Park.'' I will conclude by saying that this extraordinary agency is today at work not only at home, but in Afghanistan and in Iraq, ever protecting the long-range best interests and needs of the United States. This bill will assure that the Corps will continue to do that work in a manner of great credibility for the public. George W. Goethals' early work at Davis Island and Muscle Shoals created the skills and management expertise needed to successfully finish the Panama Canal. Although the Panama Canal was not built by the Corps of Engineers, through the efforts of engineer officers such as Goethals, who were detailed to the Panama Canal Commission, some of the most difficult construction obstacles were overcome. If the Corps' original recommendations on the size of locks had been followed, there would be no need to expand the canal today. The Corps' military and civilian functions have always been mutually supportive. Thousands of engineers troops served in France in 1917 and 1918, contributing to both front-line and rear-support efforts. The combat engineers constructed bridges, roads, and narrow-gauge railroads at or immediately behind the front. Other engineer troops enlarged French port facilities, constructed more than 20 million square feet of storage space, and built 800 miles of standard-gauge rail lines, plus an equal distance in yards and storage tracks. These types of contributions continued through World War II. After World War II, the Corps developed and maintained new navigation systems such as the American portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway. At the same time, modernization of existing waterways became a growing concern. Heavier tows, barges, and other vessels plied the nation's major rivers. Locks such as those on the upper Mississippi, built mainly in the 1930s, were no longer adequate to handle the traffic. Lock and Dam 26 near Alton, Illinois, was the principal bottleneck on the upper Mississippi system until a new lock was constructed in the 1980s. Corps' construction activities since World War II have been further expanded. The Corps built Veterans Administration hospitals; Nike, Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman missile sites; NASA facilities, including the massive vehicle assembly building at Cape Kennedy; post offices and bulk mail facilities; and armed forces recruiting centers. Successes at home were matched by the Corps' accomplishments abroad. The Corps provides technical assistance in conjunction with economic aid in an approach that came to typify many American foreign assistance programs. Since the 1950s, the Corps has engaged in major engineering studies and projects in many countries. Under terms of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Corps began work in reimbursable programs through the State Department's Agency for International Development (AID). Today, the Corps is active in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In foreign affairs, we need instantly available, in-house capabilities to address the Nation's strategic needs. Domestically, only the Corps has the experience to balance economic development with environmental stewardship. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, and to continue the quality work of the Corps of Engineers in service to the Nation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Hulshof], and my distinguished colleagues, in introducing the Renewable Fuels and Transportation Infrastructure Enhancement Act of 2003. A companion bill entitled, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Act of 2003, has already been introduced in the Other Body. I have long been a supporter of ethanol, which blended with gasoline, results in a cleaner automotive fuel that reduces harmful vehicle emissions. In addition, ethanol is generally made from corn; it is produced domestically; and it provides our farmers with an additional market for their goods. Further, and perhaps most importantly, the production and use of ethanol and other alcohol-blended fuels help reduce our country's debilitating dependency on foreign oil. Ethanol production has increased steadily over the past several years. Today, there are 68 ethanol production facilities in 20 states. In 2002, these facilities produced 2.13 billion gallons of ethanol--a 45 percent production increase within the last three years. And there are proposals currently pending in the Conference Committee on the Energy bill to increase that production amount to 5 billion gallons of ethanol over the next decade. These ethanol successes are due in large part to the various tax incentives that encourage ethanol production and use. To promote the use of ethanol-blended and other alcohol-blended fuels, these fuels are taxed at a lower rate than gasoline. It appears, however, that we have become a victim of our own success. As the production and use of ethanol has increased, it has had a deleterious effect on the Highway Trust Fund. Without the change authorized by this legislation, the current system is projected to cost the Highway Trust Fund more than $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 and more than $25.7 billion over the next ten years. This bill provides the needed ``ethanol fix.'' By providing an alternative tax credit system to the current system of reduced excise taxes for gasohol, the bill continues to encourage the production and use of ethanol, while at the same time protecting the revenues of the Highway Trust Fund. Currently, ethanol-blended fuel receives a partial exemption from excise taxes. The current excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon. In contrast, ethanol- and other alcohol-blended fuel (10- percent blend) receive a 5.2-cent exemption from this tax. As a result, the excise tax on these fuels is 13.2 cents per gallon. Tax receipts deposited into the Highway Trust Fund are further reduced because 2.5 cents of that 13.2 cents is transferred to the General Fund. This combination of a partial excise tax exemption and transfer of 2.5 cents into the General Fund severely reduce the amount of funds coming into the Highway Trust Fund, challenging our ability to provide necessary maintenance and improvement to our Nation's highways and bridges. Not only does the current system of taxation have a detrimental effect on the Highway Trust Fund, but it also disproportionately hurts those states--mostly the Midwestern states--that are the largest producers and consumers of ethanol. The minimum guarantee formula is based in part on a state's contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. Because states that use large amounts of ethanol under the current system contribute less to the Highway Trust Fund than states that use comparable amounts of gasoline, the states' apportionments are comparably reduced. This bill addresses these issues by eliminating the current reduced excise tax rate for alcohol-blended fuels and introducing a tax credit for ethanol- and other alcohol-blended fuels. Under this proposal, alcohol-blended fuels would be taxed at the same rate as gasoline (18.4 cents per gallon), however producers of these fuels would receive a tax credit of 52 cents per gallon. Amounts claimed for the tax credit would be deducted against General Fund revenues--not Highway Trust Fund revenues. Therefore, the bill continues to provide alcohol-blended fuel producers with the same economic incentives they have under the current tax system, while protecting the receipts of the Highway Trust Fund. The bill also eliminates the 2.5-cent tax transfer to the General Fund and directs all tax revenue on these fuels to the Highway Trust Fund. Further, the bill introduces a credit for biodiesel fuels. Like ethanol, biodiesel is derived from farm products, most often soybeans. Although biodiesel provides many of the same benefits as ethanol, there currently are no tax incentives for the production and use of biodiesel fuels. This bill would remedy that omission by instituting a 50-cent credit for producers of biodiesel fuel. Accordingly, under the bill, biodiesel fuel would be taxed at the same rate as diesel fuel (24.4 cents per gallon), but producers of the fuel would be eligible to receive a tax credit of 50 cents per gallon of biodiesel fuel. By substituting these tax credits for the current scheme of varying rates of excise taxes, this bill establishes a simpler, more straightforward approach to providing important incentives for the production and use of ethanol and biodiesel fuels. At the same time, it protects the revenues of the Highway Trust Fund. Highway Trust Fund revenues are dedicated revenues that go directly to pay for the maintenance and improvement of our Nation's highway system. At a time when we should be investing more funds in the improvement of Nation's highways--funds that will improve safety and reduce congestion--we can not afford Highway Trust Fund revenues to be adversely effected by the current system of varying excise tax rates. As we move forward in crafting the successor to the landmark Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century legislation, this bill is particularly important to ensure that those states at the forefront of producing and promoting the use of these cleaner, alternative fuels are not punished by receiving reduced highway funds from the Highway Trust Fund, and to ensure that the Highway Trust Fund continues to receive the funds necessary to maintaining and improving our Nation's highway system.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on September 1, we celebrated Labor Day, a day to honor America's working men and women. On that same day, America's most respected journalist, Walter Cronkite, wrote a newspaper column reminding us all of the millions of Americans who are unemployed and the need to put them back to work. Mr. Cronkite recalled how public investment in our national infrastructure, through programs such as the Works Progress Administration, once created jobs by building new public facilities: highways, bridges, airports, libraries, schools, courthouses, even New York's Lincoln Tunnel and the Overseas Highway linking the Florida Keys. ``The W.P.A. built what in many ways is the America we know today,'' Mr. Cronkite wrote. I salute Mr. Cronkite for once again reminding us who we are, where we came from and how we got here. I further commend him for recognizing that the same approach that helped America recover from the worst economic disaster in its history, the Great Depression, can and will work today. Mr. Speaker, a few short weeks ago, I joined the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello, and the rest of my Democratic colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in introducing H.R. 2615, the Rebuild America Act of 2003. This bill is designed to put Americans back to work now--within 90 days of the bill's enactment. It invests $50 billion in our national economy by building and improving roads, bridges and transit systems, expanding airport capacity and enhancing safety, rebuilding wastewater systems and treatment plants, upgrading beds for high-speed service and many other projects. Over the 10-year life of this bill we can generate $310 billion in economic activity and, most importantly, create 2.3 million jobs. The Rebuild America Act is built for speed. It gives priority to projects that are ready for construction, thereby creating jobs immediately and giving our economy a quick jump-start. Mr. Speaker, if we were to enact this bill by the end of September, we could be putting Americans to work by Christmas. And next Labor Day, Mr. Cronkite can write about all the new jobs we created. I call upon my colleagues to bring up and pass the Rebuild America Act without any further delay, and I commend to you all the complete text of Mr. Cronkite's column, as published in the Sioux City Journal, and I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a summary of the Rebuild America Act: Little to Celebrate for Unemployed So Labor Day comes again. Many will celebrate this annual recognition of the dignity of our American labor force. But there is little to celebrate for 9 million Americans on the unemployment rolls and somewhere around 1 million others, our invisible unemployed, who we are told have yielded to soul-searing despondency and no longer even seek work. Maybe we should make them visible. We could put yellow ribbons on their homes in the same manner we recognize our heroes, for those civilians who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on outrageous fortune. As they get jobs, the yellow ribbons would be removed. Perhaps that would make it harder for administration representatives to disguise how serious the unemployment problem really is. We might note here that the frightening number of unemployed does not include the tens of thousands of others who have lost good jobs in industry and commerce and have only been able to find work in menial or low-paying temporary jobs. At the same time, we see a rise in the U.S. productivity data, an important economic indicator. However, that improvement is in part because thousands of jobs have gone overseas, where wages are lower. A few days ago, the Labor Department reported that the number of persons filing new unemployment claims last month was the lowest in six months. Good news that things aren't getting worse, but the numbers still leave millions unemployed, an unacceptable figure in a caring society. With that and some other favorable economic indicators, the Bush administration finds cause to boast. It sees justification of its contention, when it was negotiating its $1.6 trillion tax cut, that the rich who immediately benefited eventually would put their tax savings back into the economy and thus feed its recovery and gradual re- employment. This trickle down theory might work in time, but the thousands of unemployed don't have that time as their families do without life's essentials--food, clothing and shelter. To speed their re-employment, there recently have been suggestions, mostly by Democrats, that what is needed is the resurrection of Franklin Roosevelt's formula to deal with the Great Depression he inherited in 1933. Roosevelt's brain trust believed in ``trickle up'' rather than trickle down--give people work, and the vast payroll spread widely across the country would speed recovery from the Depression. His program, called the Works Progress Administration, almost instantaneously put one-third of the country's unemployed back to work--some 8.5 million people. The WPA built what in many ways is the America we know today. In the eight years of its existence (until wartime demands created a labor shortage), the government-subsidized workers built 116,000 buildings--including schools, libraries, hospitals and courthouses--78,000 bridges and 651,000 miles of highways, and improved 8,000 airports. Among the WPA's other monumental achievements: the Golden Gate Bridge, New York's Lincoln Tunnel, Virginia's Skyline Drive and the Florida Keys' Overseas Highway. A similar project today could answer the urgent need to repair and upgrade the nation's crumbling infrastructure--our electric power grids, our bridges and highways, our dams and waterways, our schools. Such a program would cost billions of dollars, which our Treasury does not have, thanks to the Bush tax cut and disastrous underestimation of the costs of the Iraq war and reconstruction. What is required now is political leaders courageous enough to defy the maxim that no one ever gets elected proposing higher taxes. They would call for repeal of the Bush tax cut and the imposition of the new taxes that will be necessary not only to put our unemployed to work but to begin reducing the national debt, that financial burden that we are unconscionably about to unload on future generations.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. If there had been a simple regulation in place in December 1988, Pan Am 103 likely never would have happened, and that is passenger bag match, an issue that later, the Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism appointed by President Bush on which I served and my good colleague at the time, John Paul Hammerschmidt from this body, recommended. But it was recommended earlier in hearings that I had chaired as Chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight that we have passenger bag match. Because when the aircraft arrived from Malta at Frankfurt, Germany, for the beginning of the Pan Am 103 trip and a bag was transferred from the Malta aircraft to the 727 of Pan Am to go on to London, the bag went on, but the passenger did not. If we had the rule in place that if the passenger is not on, the bag comes off, that bomb would never had been on board that plane. Today, we have passenger bag match at American airports as a result of the Transportation Security Act that we passed in the aftermath of September 11. A much tougher bill, it did the things that our commission recommended in 1990. So today, we have a situation where the TSA screeners at the Nation's airports know what is in the carryon, they know what is on your body, and if you have replacement parts, they know what is in your body; but they do not know what is in the box that goes in the cargo hold on that airplane, and they need to know that. Known shipper cargo match is a good idea, but screening that box as well is a better idea, and that is what we need to know. In addition, I think unfortunately, while the committee and the chairman and the ranking member did all they could with the money available, the amounts provided in this bill for port security are grossly inadequate to meet the threat of international terrorism, which is moving to the new level of port security problems. The House-passed bill had $150 million for port security grants, the Senate had $100 million for port security grants. The Coast Guard has told our committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, that it will cost ports and port operators $1.6 billion in the next 2 years to comply with the security standards this body already voted and put into law. In the last round of security grants, there was $150 million available and $1 billion worth of applications. One does not have to think too far back to the USS Cole with a small boat loaded with explosives ramming into the side of a U.S. naval war ship, blowing it to pieces, to imagine the same scenario in an offshore oil port in the Gulf of Mexico or in one of our busy ports on the east coast, the west coast, the Gulf Coast ports, or on one of the Great Lakes. Neither the House nor the Senate Homeland Security Appropriation Act includes any funding for conducting foreign port security assessments for the Coast Guard. We learned a lesson in aviation that we have to have American security personnel overseas, foreign airports, looking into their security arrangements and making independent assessments, and coming back and reporting to the FAA, to the Department of Transportation, and to the Congress. And we have the authority to say, if you do not do the security right overseas, your airplanes do not land in this country. So we have a hammer on them, and we can make them comply. But in maritime, as a result of failure to have the funding for foreign port security assessments, those great maritime nations of Malta, Cyprus, Liberia, Panama, great Third World flag, third flag nations, are going to be the places that are going to conduct the security assessments and self-certify and say, everything is okay. It is not okay until we say so, until our Coast Guard is there with security personnel looking those ports over and assuring that they have put in place the measures that we require; and we have to do a better job on this side as well. Those Third World countries do little to enforce safety and security. We have to do it here, and we should do it in this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. This amendment is designed to eliminate virtually all of Amtrak's long-distance train operations. If enacted, it would mean the end to our national system of intercity rail passenger service. The nation would be left with an unconnected collection of corridor-type services and whole regions of the nation would lose access to this mode of travel. The amendment calls for eliminating any passenger train route where operating expenses are twice operating revenues as determined by the Amtrak Reform Council in its Final Report. At first blush, this might not seem all that unreasonable. The reality is, however, that what this amendment would accomplish is highly unreasonable. The gentleman from Texas ignores the fact that hardly any passenger train service in the world comes close to covering its cost. Most rail transit operators, for example, would be thrilled to have a 50 percent cost recovery factor. Let's look at the impact of adopting this amendment. Intercity rail passenger service between New York City and Chicago would be eliminated, as Amtrak would have to drop its Lake Shore and Three Rivers services. Service between Washington, D.C. and Chicago likewise would disappear with the termination of the Capitol Limited and Cardinal trains. There would be no more rail passenger service from the East Coast to Amtrak's hub in Chicago, as the Pennsylvanian service between Philadelphia and Chicago would also be eliminated. Service between Chicago and San Francisco on the California Zephyr would be history. As a result, rail travel through some of the most scenic parts of North America would be no more. Gone, too, would be the fabled City of New Orleans, as all service between Chicago and New Orleans would have to crease. Service between Chicago and Los Angeles via St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, and San Antonio would end with the elimination of the Texas Eagle. Service between Florida and Los Angeles on the Sunset Limited through New Orleans and Houston would also be axed. Amtrak's popular and scenic train along the West Coast between Seattle and Los Angeles, the Coast Starlight, also would be cut, as would Amtrak's Crescent train between New Orleans and New York via Atlanta and Washington. With the exception of Amtrak's Silver services between New York and Florida and the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles via Arizona, there would be no rail passenger train service in the Southern half of the nation. In fact, the only other long distance train that would survive would be the Empire Builder between Chicago and Seattle. And the cuts are not limited to Amtrak's long-distance train operations. Under the route elimination criterion established by this amendment, passenger train services between Chicago and Milwaukee, Chicago and St. Louis, and Chicago and Pontiac, Michigan, also would have to be discontinued. These are critically important components of the Midwest High-speed Rail Initiative. It makes no sense whatsoever to stop service today when these corridors are leading candidates for significant upgrades for high-speed service. If this amendment were to pass, many of America's largest cities would be left without any intercity rail passenger service including: Birmingham, Alabama; Little Rock, Arkansas; Phoenix, Arizona; Denver, Colorado; Atlanta, Georgia; New Orleans, Louisiana; Omaha, Nebraska; Reno, Nevada; Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Toledo, Ohio; Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio, Texas; and Salt Lake City, Utah. And to what purpose? If this amendment were to pass, little, if anything, would be saved. Moreover, once these routes were gone, the remaining services would have to share a greater part of the cost burden. Another round of cutbacks would be sure to follow. There is a cascading effect as the connecting revenues lost from these services affect the financial performance of the remaining trains. It also should be clear that once these routes are eliminated, they will be gone forever. The nation's freight railroads will be quick to take steps to ensure that passenger train services will not be reinstated. The freight railroads have long only grudgingly accommodated Amtrak's operations. The loss of the long-distance train affects many who rely on these trains for trips between online city pairs. It is true that relatively few people use the trains for transcontinental travel, but millions of riders each year use them to travel between places other than the terminal cities. This travel will be lost and we will lose forever the ability to develop these intra-route corridors. Finally, the approach taken by the Amtrak Reform Council to measure the route losses, is, in itself, flawed. Amtrak and the Federal Railway Administration have developed a more accurate measure of train performance, which takes into account downstream effects of route eliminations. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the Amtrak Reform Council repeatedly erred in both assumptions and facts in its reports. In fact, each year of the ARC's existence, the House cut the ARC's budget to indicate its overwhelming displeasure with the ARC's clear agenda to attack Amtrak. Therefore, this amendment must be rejected. It arrives at the wrong solution through flawed analyses. We need positive approaches to rebuilding and expanding our nation's intercity rail passenger system. We need to find ways to give Amtrak President, David Gunn, and his staff the resources needed to correct the years of neglect from a lack of funding. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, a centennial is an occasion for celebration, in which spirit it is my pleasure to congratulate the International Brotherhood of Teamsters on the occasion of their 100th anniversary. Founded on September 6, 1903, the Teamsters union has grown to become one of the largest and most diversified labor unions in the United States. Originating as a group representing the men who drove horse-drawn wagons to deliver freight, the Teamsters have grown and changed with the times. In the early decades of the 20th Century, the Teamsters adapted by also representing the drivers of motor trucks. By the beginning of the 21st Century, the Teamsters had diversified to represent truckers, airline workers, building material and construction trades, dairy and food processing employees, parcel and small package workers, public employees working for local governments, and a variety of other workers. With a membership of 1.4 million, one out of every ten union members in the United States is a Teamster. The Teamsters have served as a model for improving working conditions and wages for the American worker. In 1900, the typical Teamster worked 12 to 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for an average wage of $2.00 a day. Worker benefits that did not exist 100 years ago--the 40-hour work week, a retirement pension, paid holidays, and employer-sponsored healthcare--have become the norm for most of American labor, in large part because of the work of the Teamsters. I congratulate the Teamsters organization on their 100-year long effort to continually improve the quality of life for millions of American workers. To each of their members and their General President, Jim Hoffa, I extend my thanks for their contributions to a strong and productive economy. The Teamsters have my best wishes for their second century.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Petri-Olver amendment. We are here today to discuss one of the cornerstones of ISTEA and TEA-21 of our current transportation program, a cornerstone that our current Secretary of Transportation not only supports, the administration supports it, the bill to extend the life of TEA-21, but our current Secretary of Transportation was chair of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in 1991 when we fashioned the enhancements provisions of ISTEA. And what we did in 1991 was landmark legislation. We had come to the end of the interstate era, and now the debate focused on the future of transportation in America. What would be the face of transportation in the post-interstate era? How would we best invest our dollars? We assessed the quality of transportation and the quality of life in America in a long series of hearings, some of which I conducted as Chair of the Oversight Investigations Committee, as Chairman Mineta did in the surface subcommittee, as the gentleman from Wisconsin participated in, now the Chair of that subcommittee. And what we found was that Americans wanted more out of their transportation experience than simply getting from point A to point B. They wanted to use the interstate system to get to their destination, but then to enjoy a quality of life, to enjoy more of America's historic, archeological, cultural and scenic treasures, and the way to do that was to open a new vista within our transportation program, to use some of their dollars that those very travelers and visitors have invested in the Highway Trust Fund to improve and enhance the quality of life, projects that would initiate from the community, from the grassroots up, projects that had been proposed and undertaken, but frustrated because the dollars were not there to do them over a period of the previous series of transportation programs. But those are highway programs. What we fashioned was a transportation concept; not only highways and not only bridges, but transportation. Part of that transportation experience is scenic America, the quality of life, the issues the gentleman from Illinois spoke about, of jogging and hiking, and bicycling, as the gentleman from Oregon spoke to, and things that I enjoy as a cyclist. But those issues come from the people. The choice of how to invest those transportation dollars come from the people themselves, from all throughout America. And you can see the upwelling of spirit that has followed the issuance of this transportation appropriations bill, when the enhancements community, a wide spectrum of Americans, rose up and said, please, do not make this change. There is a compact here between the citizens of America, between the people who use our highways, our transit ways, our enhancement ways, and our Federal Government and the States. State governments now have opted into this program. They have become partners. Citizens have taken control of their destiny and the quality of life that they want to see in America. Enhancement programs makes that possible. We can cite the thousands of projects, but what really counts is those decisions that were made in each and every community to take a piece of that Highway Trust Fund and invest it in the future of America, in the quality of life in America, to enhance the life of those who come after us. And that is what enhancements does. That is what this program does. It is a citizens' bottoms-up investment in the quality of life of our transportation program. It is not enough just to roll over the highways and roll over the bridges. It is more important to enhance the life of every community in America, and that is what the enhancements program has given us the opportunity to do. Without the set-aside, it would not have happened. In the 20 years before ISTEA we invested only $40 million in building bicycle facilities across America. Since then we have invested $3.8 billion and enhanced the quality of life in America. Pass the Petri amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Petri/Olver amendment to strike Section 114 from the bill. Section 114 is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to kill the Transportation Enhancements Program initiated in 1991 under ISTEA and continued in 1998 under TEA 21. This boldfaced attempt to kill one of the most popular Department of Transportation programs ever enacted is reckless and misguided, and should be soundly defeated. Section 114 would eliminate the mandatory requirement that each State use up to 10 percent of its Surface Transportation Program funding for the Transportation Enhancement program. Under existing law, States must use that 10 percent of STP funds for alternative transportation projects such as bike and pedestrian trails, streetscape renovations, rail-to-rail conversions, and other surface transportation-related activities that contribute to the revitalization of communities and local and regional economies. Continuation of the existing Transportation Enhancements Program, as enacted in ISTEA and continued in TEA 21, is supported by more than 70 national organizations that make up the Transportation Enhancements Coalition. These include: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors, Institute of Transportation Engineers; League of American Bicyclists; Rails to Trails Conservancy; and a wide variety of other environmental, preservation and recreational organizations. Transportation, like all human activity, affects our communities and the environment. The Transportation Enhancements Program enables us to balance transportation improvements with the need to protect the environment and the character of our communities. Although Section 114 does not make enhancements ineligible for funding, it removes the requirement that 10 percent of STP funds must be used for these purposes. It is clear that without the set-aside, many State Highway Departments would shift money now going to enhancements to larger traditional projects. Before a set-aside was established in ISTEA in 1991, enhancements were eligible for funding, but States did not fund them. In the 20 years before 1991, only $40 million was spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects. From 1991 through 2002, however, with the set-aside in place, over $2.2 billion was spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects, with 75 percent of the funds coming from the Transportation Enhancements Program. The total amount of funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects jumps to $3.8 billion for 8,526 projects nationwide when projects in the pipeline, as well as completed projects, are included in the totals. For all types of transportation enhancement projects nationwide, the grand total programmed since 1991 is an impressive $8.4 billion for 17,920 projects, less than $500,000 per project nationwide. Clearly, these kinds of results could not have been achieved in the absence of a dedicated Transportation Enhancements Program. The enhancement program requires less than 2 percent of the entire program for surface transportation. This is a modest amount to spend on these projects, which bring substantial transportation benefits and are supported by a wide constituency. Any Member who doubts the importance of the Transportation Enhancements Program need only look at the projects completed in his or her congressional district. If Section 114 is enacted, future enhancement projects in your congressional district will clearly be placed at risk. None of us should take that risk. I urge Members to vote for the Petri/Olver amendment to strike Section 114.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. OBESTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the extraordinary accomplishment of Lance Armstrong in winning five consecutive Tours de France. I have with me the principal newspaper in Paris that follows athletic events, Le Journal de Paris, whose headline says, ``les Parisiens etaient la a l'arrivee du Tour,'' `Parisiens were there when the tour arrived in Paris', and so was I. I made it my point, a long-held dream, to be on the Champs Elyssees for the final stage of the Tour de France, as an avid cyclist, to cheer and support Lance Armstrong, whom I have known for quite some time. I also got to ride the last leg of the tour, as this newspaper shows 11,000 other cyclists, wearing yellow jerseys with the logo ``La randonnee du centenaire'' (The Centennial Ride), riding the Champs Elyssees over the last 40 kilometers of the Tour de France; and not only that, but I was interviewed on French national television just quite by accident, I will say to my friend and my colleague from Texas, in French, and represented the United States I think very appropriately. It is impossible to understand the accomplishment of Lance Armstrong unless one follows the events of cycling and understands the technical intricacies of the Tour de France. To say that it is like running a marathon every day for 3 weeks is in itself an understatement of the athleticism and the strength and the mental toughness that it takes to lead the tour, to win it five times in a row. And only one other cyclist in the 100-year history of the Tour de France has done that, Miguel Indurain of Spain. Three others have won it five times, though not consecutively; only two have won it consecutively. Lance Armstrong represented the very best of America, the very best of athleticism, the very greatest in accomplishment in athletic history in winning five consecutive Tours de France, and all of America's proud of him, and I must say that all of France acknowledges his accomplishment. They recognize great accomplishments and great achievements on the athletic field and in other arenas as well, but for this one, Lance stands on the pedestal of history alone.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this legislation to the House floor to so appropriately honor Steve Horn. I thank the gentlewoman from California for allowing me to precede her in my remarks. I join in the Chairman's eloquence on Steve Horn, whom I came to know personally on our committee, whom I have the greatest personal as well as professional respect for.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Living Well with Fatal Chronic Illness Act of 2003'', a bill to build the capacity to meet the challenge of growing numbers of people living with serious chronic illness for some time before death. I am joined in introducing this bill by my colleague, Representative Jim Ramstad. The early ideas for this legislative initiative came from conversations around the dinner table with my wife, Jean. We have both lost spouses, who succumbed at an unusually early age to cancer, and we have tended to disabled and frail parents. Many citizens have been personally touched by the experience of caring for disabled and frail parents or for spouses and children as they lived out their final days. My experience in these difficult situations has been that our health care system is a patchwork quilt of mismatched services that carry with them substantial expense. So, the challenges faced by those nearing the end of life, as well as by those caring for loved ones, are particularly meaningful to me. Just in the last half-century, the way that most Americans come to the end of life has changed dramatically. Today, most people live for many months with a serious chronic illness before they die. In fact, statistics show that, on average, Americans will be unable to care for themselves for the last two years of their lives. However, the services that our health care system makes readily available were designed to cope with short-term threats, such as accidental injuries and heart attacks. Our nation's health care system has not been adapted to meet the needs of people facing the final phase of life or the many challenges faced by their caregivers. Problems associated with end-of-life care are deeply rooted in federal policy. Unfortunately, we have been slow to see that these lapses are not just personal calamities and challenges, but rather, are built into federal policy. For example, while Medicare coverage makes operations and emergency services readily available to the elderly, services more appropriate for serious disability and dying are not easily found. Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's coverage do not provide for continuity in care, advance care planning, family support, or symptom relief for long-term fatal illnesses. Further, end of life care uses a large portion of funding allocated to health care services. Those last few years of life are tremendously expensive, with the last year alone using 28% of the overall Medicare budget. It is estimated that half of Medicare costs--and even more of Medicaid for the elderly and Veteran's health care--go toward care of those who are very sick and will die, rather than get well. Although taxpayers spend money on end-of-life care, they do not get reliability and quality from that care. This is a problem that will only increase in the coming years. The numbers of people facing serious illness and death will double within a quarter century, as the Baby Boomer generation reaches old age. Our nation must not only arrange and pay for services that can support the unprecedented number of people who will need care, but we must also learn how to support family caregivers. Facts show that a family member will spend nearly as many years--seventeen--caring for an elderly parent, as raising children--eighteen years. Further, a family caregiver can expect to lose more than one-half million dollars in net worth, (from having a lower pension, more time not covered by health insurance, and lost wages.) The ``Living Well with Fatal Chronic Illness Act of 2003'' will meet the challenges faced by a growing number of people who must live with serious chronic illness for some time before death. This comprehensive legislation addresses three key initiatives--one affects caregivers, two relate to improving end-of-life care. First, the legislation proposes a $3,000 per year refundable tax credit for the primary caregiver of a spouse or those they can claim as dependents, and certain other low income individuals, who have long- term care needs. This is important, because the United States is the only developed nation that does not support family caregivers. There is no federal government program to help improve skills, provide respite; indeed, we do not generally demonstrate that we honor caregivers' love and loyalty. The tax credit we propose is admittedly not enough to pay for the financial sacrifices of caregivers who provide long-term care, but it will demonstrate support and respect for the significant commitment and contributions made by those who help loved ones to live well despite serious illness. We have been so focused on learning how to prevent and cure diseases that we have all but abandoned interest in what occurs as those possibilities run out. Most people now die of long-term irreversible conditions like dementia, frailty, heart failure, emphysema, cancer, and stroke; yet there is very little reliable evidence about serious illness and the end of life. This legislation will help provide guidance that the medical community needs to respond more effectively to unique end-of-life challenges. In order to begin laying the foundation for evidence-based reforms to health care, the second section of the bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to establish research, demonstration, and education programs to improve the quality of end-of-life care across multiple federal agencies. Third, the bill authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement programs to improve the delivery of appropriate health and support services for patients with fatal chronic illness. The Veterans Health Care System has been a leader in end-of-life care delivery and innovation, especially in advance care planning and pain management. This bill aims to support continued excellence through enhanced education and service delivery for this important care system that now serves so many disabled and elderly veterans. Our nation will face major challenges in the next quarter century as baby boomers approach old age. We must ensure that people suffering from fatal chronic illnesses live out their lives in a dignified, comfortable, and meaningful way, and we must support and honor the invaluable work of caregivers.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210, because it unjustifiably turns the Head Start program--one of the most evaluated and successful federal antipoverty programs--into an unproven experiment. The very strength of the Head Start program lies in the comprehensive services it provides. Consistent with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the program improves academic achievement only because it addresses basic health and mental health, nutritional, dental and other social needs of low-income children. These needs must be met in order to facilitate learning. H.R. 2210 discards Head Start's comprehensive approach and curtails parent involvement. It troubles me that proponents of this bill believe that we can expect children to excel academically, along with their privileged peers, when, in fact, their learning is seriously impeded by the devastating effects of poverty. Pediatric dentists are rare in rural areas. In Blossburg, PA, the local Head Start program makes several trips each year to Scranton with children who needed so much dental work that local dentists will not treat them. Parents do not have the means to drive 180 miles to access dental treatment, so Head Start provides the transportation. John Holdsclaw, who worked with the National Head Start Association and was a Head Start student himself, would not be the successful adult that he is now without the program. When he entered Head Start at the age of four, he was called ``Thick John,'' because he never responded when asked a question. Head Start employees found that he had an inner ear problem; had this problem not been corrected, John would have entered school unable to hear his teacher and unable to learn. There are eleven Head Start agencies, including five tribal programs, serving families in my Congressional District. Over the past 5 years, these programs served 12,683 children ages 0-5. In my district, 50 percent of eligible children go unserved by Head Start and Early Head Start. In recent weeks, I have received numerous expressions of support for this vital program from Early Childhood experts, Head Start teachers, and Head Start families in my district. They all state the obvious: Head Start has yielded countless success stories, and it should not be restructured in the name of ``reform.'' Recently, I heard from Susan Woidyla, a Head Start teacher who serves children in two counties in my district. She described the success of the Early Head Start program's curriculum for prenatal woman. The program currently serves ten pregnant women, many of whom are teenagers who will be first-time mothers. Woidyla spoke about one teenage mother who is homeless and in an abusive relationship. As the only social service program in her life, Head Start is not only providing her with critical information about the brain development of her fetus and the potential effects of periodontal disease, but the program is helping this young woman find the services she needs to care for herself and her developing child. Julia Kicker, another constituent of mine, shared her family's experience with Head Start. Although Julia and her husband knew that their first son, Jacob, was lagging behind other children in his social development, they were told differing information from local day care providers. Some day care providers insisted that he was fine; others believed he needed to be medicated; and still others suggested parenting classes for the Kickers. Then Jacob began Head Start. The staff identified his needs, and they encouraged special education professionals to become involved with assessments and other services for Jacob, who is now enrolled in kindergarten. He has a one-on-one para-professional helper in the classroom and has been diagnosed with sensory delay and emotional behavior disorder. Not only did the program assist Jacob, but it assisted Julia as well. It was the support that the Head Start program routinely gives parents and families that gave Julia the self-confidence to run for and be elected to the Policy Council for Head Start, the Board of Directors of the Community Action Council, and the City Council. I will not vote for legislation that guts Head Start's comprehensive services and parental involvement and unravels a successful program that HHS itself has said is working. Instead, Head Start should be adequately funded to meet the needs of all eligible children. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2210.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment and in opposition to H.R. 2110. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In my district, 11 Head Start agencies, five of which are tribal programs, have served 12,683 children up to 5 years of age over the past 5 years. Yet, due to inadequate funding, half of all eligible children in my district are not served by Head Start and Early Start. Ever since people began hearing about this bill, there has been an out-pouring of support for Head Start from early childhood experts, Head Start teachers, and Head Start families throughout my district. They all say the same thing: Head Start has produced countless success stories; it should not be restructured in the name of so-called reform. Listen to Susan Woidyla, a Head Start teacher who serves children in two counties in my district. She described the success of the Early Head Start program's curriculum for prenatal women. The program serves 10 pregnant women, many of whom are teenagers who will be first-time mothers. Woidyla wrote to me about one teenage mother who is homeless and in an abusive relationship. As the only social service program in her life, Head Start is not only providing her with critical information about the brain development of her unborn child and the potential effects of periodontal disease, but the program is also helping this young woman find the services she needs to care for herself and her developing child. Julia Kicker, another constituent of mine, shared her family's experience with Head Start. Although Julia and her husband knew that their first son, Jacob, was lagging behind other children in his social development, they were told differing information from local day care providers. Some day care providers insisted that he was fine; others believed he needed to be medicated; and still others suggested parenting classes for the Kickers. Then they enrolled Jacob in Head Start. The staff identified his needs, and they encouraged special education professionals to become involved with assessments and other services for Jacob, who is now enrolled in kindergarten. He has a one-on-one para-professional helper in the classroom and has been diagnosed with sensory delay and emotional behavior disorder. Not only did the program help Jacob, it helped Julia as well. It was the support that Head Start has routinely offered parents and families that gave Julia the self-confidence to run for and be elected to the Policy Council for Head Start, the board of directors of the Community Action Council, and the City Council. The very strength of Head Start is in its comprehensive services. Head Start improves academic achievement in very large part because, in addition to academics, it also addresses basic health, mental health, nutritional, dental, and other social needs of low-income children, which facilitate learning. We cannot expect underprivileged children to thrive academically along with their privileged peers, when their learning is seriously undermined by the devastating effects of poverty. I will not for legislation that guts Head Start's comprehensive services and parental involvement and unravels a successful program that HHS itself has said is working. Instead, Head Start should be adequately funded to meet the needs of all eligible children. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2210.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to congratulate the American Political Science Association on the 50th anniversary of its congressional fellowship program. The APSA Congressional Fellowship Program is a highly selective, non- partisan program that provides invaluable opportunities for fellows to obtain legislative working experience. Since 1953, over 1800 journalists, federal government professionals, political scientists, Robert Wood Fellow health policy fellows, Native American Hatfield fellows, and international scholars have participated in this program. The congressional fellowship program is beneficial for both congressional offices and the fellows. Congressional offices gain from the expertise of these professionals, and the congressional fellows learn the legislative process on a firsthand basis. I can speak from experience about the value of this program. I currently have on my staff an outstanding APSA fellow who has made great contributions to my office. Margaret Connelly came to my office from the USDA Forest Service. Since the beginning of this year, Margaret has assisted my Washington and District staff with the implementation of my Hometown Values legislative agenda, and she has also coordinated a number of high-priority transportation and natural resource projects. Margaret has brought to my office her considerable talents and professional experience with the Forest Service, and I am very pleased that she has gained new skills and valuable experience in my office. For those of you not familiar with the fellowship program, fellows work for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents as members of personal staff or committee staff while on the Hill. In addition to their office assignments, these congressional fellows attend educational seminars throughout the program. A field trip to Annapolis, Maryland is included to gain a better understanding concerning state government operations. For a comparative dimension, some fellows travel to Ottawa, Canada to meet with high-ranking Canadian officials and gain insight into the Canadian Parliament. In exchange, Canadian Parliamentary interns travel to Washington for a week to gain a better perspective on the U.S. Government. After these various experiences, fellows return to their previous jobs or new jobs, bringing with them new insights and knowledge of the legislative process. I hope they will continue to utilize their experience on the Hill for the rest of their lives and share this knowledge through discussions with friends and coworkers. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to congratulate the American Political Science Association for their outstanding contributions through their fellowship program. I would encourage my colleagues to participate in APSA's superb program which brings immeasurable benefits for the House of Representatives and for these dedicated professionals.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2328, a bill to name the U.S. Postal Service facility located at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the ``Robert A. Borski Post Office Building.'' I had the privilege of serving with Bob Borski on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for twenty years. I know him to be a true public servant, dedicated to the welfare of his constituents in Pennsylvania's 3rd District, and a steadfast friend. This designation could not be more well-deserved, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. First elected to the 98th Congress, Bob Borski served on the Transportation Committee for two decades until his retirement at the end of the 107th Congress. Throughout his distinguished career, Congressman Borski exemplified the great bipartisan tradition of the Transportation Committee. From 1995 to 2001, he served as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment where he and Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert spearheaded the Committee's efforts for bipartisan solutions to some of the Committee's most difficult issues, such as clean water, brownfields, and superfund issues. The Committee's good work on these issues and its ability to pass bipartisan legislation was due in large part to Congressman Borski's perseverance, patience, and willingness to find common ground. In the 107th Congress, Congressman Borski served as Ranking Member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee. In that position, he and Subcommittee Chairman Petri did much of the groundwork for the upcoming reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), holding more than a dozen hearings on issues related to the TEA 21 reauthorization. Last year, Congressman Borski received the ``Distinguished Person of the Year Award'' from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) at its annual conference. It is not often that an association, with a major reauthorization bill just around the corner, honors a retiring Member of Congress. The fact that APTA honored Bob Borski is a tribute to him and the work that he has done to ensure that our communities have safe, affordable transportation choices. H.R. 2328 is a fitting tribute to the distinguished career of Congressman Borski. I urge my colleagues to support it and to honor the contributions of Bob Borski with this well-deserved designation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee, on the roadless rule. We have debated this general issue repeatedly in this chamber over a number of years. Amendments have been offered by well- intentioned members who are not informed about the specifics of the highly diverse units of the national forest system and the unique circumstances which characterize access in each of those forests, as well as the composition of the forestry resources in each unit. The Superior and Chippewa National Forests, which are located in my congressional district, have undergone extensive study, review, adjustment in status and addition of acreage to roadless or not-cut status. Over the last forty years, these two national forest units, which represent well over 3.6 million acres of federal lands, have been subjected to the Wilderness Act of 1964, the RARE I and RARE II inventories, the old growth inventory, the passage of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978, the result of which, in each case, has been removal from timber harvesting of tens of thousands of acres of forested land to be reserved for wilderness status, protected from timber harvesting and in which motorized travel is precluded in all but a very few instances. In the aftermath of these actions to remove vast acreages from timber harvesting, and in light of management plans that the U.S. Forest Service is required to produce every five years, each of which has resulted in reduction of the allowable timber harvest, or some further complete withdrawal of land from timber harvesting, I see no need arbitrarily in the context of this straight jacket-like approach to which we are limited in the appropriation process, to impose further restrictions in a one-size-fits-all process. Furthermore, the mapping required of these public lands has not been fully accurate, as evidenced in a ruling just this week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, situated in Wyoming, that the maps produced by the Forest Service were flawed, the process was rushed and the end result wrong. The court found that in developing the rule: ``The Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act.'' The court further found that the promulgated rule was an ``aggrandizement of power by the Forest Service in violation of an unequivocal Act of Congress and the United States Constitution.'' I can assure my colleagues that, in the Superior and Chippewa National Forests, there are well over a million acres devoted to wilderness, vast areas for those who seek solitude and the restorative quality of the water and lands set aside from mechanized intrusion. Furthermore, the non-wilderness areas of these two national forests are well and carefully managed in a most professional and responsible manner in an open, public process by the U.S. Forest Service and I see no compelling case for converting additional thousands of multiple-use acres to wilderness in these two forests.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2195, a bill to provide additional space and resources for the national collections held by the Smithsonian Institute. I commend the Gentleman from Ohio, Congressman Regula, for introducing the bill, which is co-sponsored by two of our colleagues, Congressmen Johnson and Matsui, who also serve on the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents. The bill authorizes the Smithsonian's Board of Regents to plan, design, construct, and equip additional special use storage and laboratory space for the museum support facility in Suitland, Maryland. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which I serve as Ranking Member, has jurisdiction over these activities of the Smithsonian, and the Committee will review and approve any design plans for this facility once they are completed. The bill also clarifies and refines the role of the Smithsonian in the renovation of the Patent Office Building, while retaining the appropriate roles of the National Capitol Planning Commission and the Commission on Fine Arts. This building houses the Smithsonian's American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery and is currently closed for extensive renovation. It is scheduled to reopen in 2006. In addition, the bill brings the Smithsonian into line with other executive branch agencies regarding competitive procedures for awarding contracts. As is current practice, the Smithsonian will continue to submit its construction projects to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for approval buy Committee resolution. I support H.R. 2195 and again thank the bill's sponsors for their attention to these matters.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this motion would instruct the conferees to insist upon not less than the House-passed total of funding of $59 billion for the next four years for the Federal Aviation Administration's airport improvement, facilities and equipment and operations programs. The funding in the House bill, Flight 100, will ensure that we continue to invest in badly needed airport infrastructure and air traffic control modernization. This is imperative to the future of aviation. Although air passenger traffic has decreased significantly since September 11th, the FAA expects that by 2006 total passenger enplanements will reach the 2000 level of 696.3 million. The United States is the only nation that enplanes over 600 million passengers annually. No other nation comes anywhere close to FAA's responsibility for managing approximately 200,000 take-offs and landings each day of the year. FAA and its air traffic controller's achieve this great feat with the assistance of impressive technology, but technology that is nonetheless aging. We must ensure that we have a robust aviation program to meet all of our future challenges, including accommodating larger aircraft; addressing airport access issues and terminal expansion; and dealing with environmental issues. Flight 100 provides more than $59 billion over the next four years of system capacity enhancements, technology modernization and operation of the air traffic control system. The Senate passed bill authorizes $43 billion for these purposes for the next 3 years. Flight 100 provides substantial increases in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding to meet anticipated capacity needs. In total, the House bill provides $14.8 billion for AIP over four years, $1.2 billion more than the FAA's request. The three-year AIP funding levels in the Senate bill are $300 million less than funding provided by the House bill for the corresponding years. Flight 100 provides $12.3 billion for FAA facilities and equipment (F&E) to maintain and modernize our air traffic control system, which is more that the Administration's requested level of funding. Moreover, $200 million is specifically designated for critical terminal automation system replacement, which has recently experienced deployment delays due to budget cuts. The three-year F&E funding levels in the Senate bill are $267 million less than funding provided by the House bill for the corresponding years. The bill also provides the Administration's requested level of $31.3 billion for FAA operations. Flight 100 maintains the guaranteed funding provisions enacted in AIR-21 that will ensure that the revenues paid into the Aviation Trust Fund by users of the aviation system are invested in that system. These guarantees ensure stable and predictable funding for technology modernization and airport capital development. Accordingly, I urge the House to approve this motion to instruct conferees to insist upon the higher levels of FAA funding in Flight 100, as passed by the House. We must continue to make the needed investments in our nation's airports and air traffic control system. The American traveling public deserves no less. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2657 appropriates nearly $295 million to the Architect of the Capitol for fiscal year 2004. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on which I serve as Ranking Democratic Member, is the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over the Architect's activities relating to the Capitol, the House and Senate Office Buildings, and the Capitol Grounds. Let me state at the outset that I have great respect for the Architect, Mr. Alan Hantman. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the release of anthrax in some of the House and Senate Office Buildings, Mr. Hantman's office did a tremendous job in ensuring the safety and security of the Congress, those working in the Capitol buildings, and the visiting public. He has rightly made the security of everyone who works in and visits the Capitol his number one priority. In addition, Mr. Hantman has initiated a program to maintain and renovate the Capitol building and has promoted the construction of the Capitol Visitor's Center--a place where the American people can come and learn more about the inner workings of their government. The U.S. Capitol, and all that it represents, is the citadel of democracy, and the Architect has done a fine job of caring for it. However, the knowledge of these accomplishments only serves to heighten my great disappointment in the Architect over the manner in which his office has proceeded with unauthorized construction activities, specifically and most recently the demolition of the Tip O'Neill House Office Building. The Architect of the Capitol never sought a specific Committee authorization for the demolition of the O'Neill Building. Moreover, in December 2002, then-Economic Development and Public Buildings Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerry Costello and I wrote to the Architect to express our concern that the Architect's office was not authorized to demolish the O'Neill Building and to request a description of the demolition project and specific cost estimates for the project. The Architect has never answered our letter. Whether it is regarding the demolition of the Tip O'Neill House Office Building, cost overruns of the Capitol Visitor's Center, or the construction and maintenance of the Capitol buildings, the Architect has a responsibility to be responsive to all Members of this Body, including Democratic Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I understand that earlier this year, the Architect wrote to Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young and stated that with regard to the O'Neill Building site, the Architect of the Capitol will make no further changes to the site ``without the authorization and approval from the appropriate governing authorities.'' I take that to mean that he will seek the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's approval before undertaking any new construction on the site, and I continue to expect a full response to the inquiry that Ranking Member Costello and I made last December. Moreover, I will urge the Subcommittee on Economic Development and Public Buildings of the Transportation Committee to conduct an oversight hearing on the Architect's construction program.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today Cong. Jerry Costello, Lincoln Davis, other Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I have introduced the ``Rebuild America Act of 2003''. In the 107th Congress, the Democrats on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced similar legislation to invest in the safety and security of the Nation's infrastructure. At that time, we were alarmed by the negative effects that the policies of the Bush Administration were having on our Nation's economy. Now, almost two years later, our concerns have been proven correct. Figures released earlier this month show that the national unemployment rate has increased from 4.2 percent in January 2001 to 6.1 percent, the highest level since July 1994. Further since January 2001, the number of people unemployed has increased from 5.95 million to 9 million--an increase of more than 3 million, or more than 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. In the past two years, the number of workers who have been unemployed for longer than six months has increased by 1.3 million to nearly 1.9 million--an increase of more than 216 percent. One-half of the unemployed are out of work for more than 10 weeks and one in five have been out of work for more than six months. The response of the Bush Administration has been tax breaks for the wealthy. And once those are enacted into law, pass more tax breaks for the wealthy. The Administration could have developed a bipartisan plan to use the surplus it inherited to invest in our Nation's infrastructure, shore up the Social Security Trust Fund, and pay down the national debt, however, it has squandered each of those opportunities. Instead, the Administration continues to pursue policies that favor only a small portion of the population (the ultra-wealthy) and push our economy further and further into debt and recession. As the economy continues to founder, the need for legislation that will create jobs has become even more apparent. Unlike the Republican ``trickle down'' approach to the economy, the Rebuild America Act of 2003 stimulates the economy by creating jobs-- especially jobs in nonresidential construction--and rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. This bill provides $50 billion to enhance the safety, security, and efficiency of our Nation's infrastructure, including improvements to rail, highway, transit, aviation, maritime, water resources, environmental, and public building infrastructure. By leveraging Federal infrastructure investments, the 10-year cost to the Federal Treasury would be less than $34 billion. Moreover, the bill fully offsets this $34 billion cost to the Treasury by cracking down on abusive corporate tax shelters (e.g., Enron), preventing American corporations from avoiding paying U.S. taxes by moving to a foreign country, and extending customs user fees. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new infrastructure investment creates 47,500 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. The bill will create more than two million jobs-- virtually eliminating the job losses that have occurred since the Bush Administration came into office--and restore more than $310 billion to our economy. Moreover, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the bill gives priority to infrastructure investments that focus on enhanced security for our Nation's transportation and environmental infrastructure systems. By ensuring that the funds are invested in ready-to-go projects, the bill will provide a much-needed jumpstart to our economy. The bill provides funds for each of the critical areas of our Nation's transportation and environmental infrastructure, including: $8 billion for highways and transit; $3 billion for airports; $21.5 billion for rail including high-speed rail, freight rail, and Amtrak; $13 billion for environmental infrastructure including wastewater, drinking water, wet weather, and Corps of Engineers projects; $2.5 billion for port security; and $2 billion for economic development and public buildings. In addition, this infrastructure investment will increase business productivity by reducing the costs of producing goods in virtually all industrial sectors of the economy. Increased productivity results in increased demand for labor, capital, and raw materials and generally leads to lower product prices and increased sales. Also, the bill takes into account the fiscal crises that the states are currently facing and allows recipients of the funds an extended period of time to meet their state and local match requirements. Simply put, this bill will strengthen the fabric of our Nation's infrastructure while creating jobs for the millions of people who have lost their jobs under the Bush Administration. This investment will specifically help unemployed construction workers. The number of unemployed private construction workers is 715,000--an 80 percent increase over the comparable period in the last year of the Clinton Administration. The unemployment rate for construction workers is now 8.4 percent, more than 68 percent higher than the rate in May 2000. A recent national survey found that transportation construction contractors hire employees within three weeks of obtaining a project contract. These employees begin receiving paychecks within two weeks of hiring. By giving priority to those projects that can award bids within 90 days of enactment, the bill ensures that this money is readily dispersed to needed projects that will get people working again. This investment will also help address the disproportionate effect that the increase in unemployment has had on people of color. The rate of unemployment for African Americans is 10.8 percent--twice the rate for whites. The unemployment rate for Hispanic Americans is 8.2 percent--more than 50 percent higher than the rate for whites. Under the existing highway, transit, and aviation laws, as a general rule, states, cities, and transportation authorities are required to provide at least 10 percent of the amounts made available to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, including minority- and women-owned businesses. There are thousands of projects that are ready to begin construction in all sectors of our transportation and infrastructure systems. For example, a survey of the state Departments of Transportation by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials found that, as of April 2003, the states have 2,710 projects, totaling $17.1 billion, that are ready to go to construction within 90 days if additional funding is made available. Accordingly, the bill provides $5 billion in additional authority for Federal-aid highway capital investments and gives states the authority to obligate $5 billion of existing budget authority (contract authority) in state highway accounts. This proposal would create more than 237,500 jobs and $31 billion of economic activity. Similarly, a survey of transit authorities by the American Public Transportation Association found that public transportation authorities have $12 billion in projects that are ready to go to construction within 90 days if additional funding is made available. Accordingly, the bill provides $3 billion in transit and operating grants and would create more than 142,500 jobs and $18.6 billion of economic activity. In aviation, an Airport Council International survey of airport authorities estimates that $5 billion is needed to install explosive detection systems at U.S. airports. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration has deferred millions of dollars for airport capacity and safety projects because of the diversion of airport improvement program (AIP) funds to security projects. To address these issues, the bill provides $3 billion for airport development projects, including $2 billion for AIP grants to enhance airport safety, efficiency, and capacity, and $1 billion for airport security grants to reconfigure airports to accommodate explosive detection systems. This proposal would create more than 142,500 jobs and $18.6 billion of economic activity. In the area of high-speed rail, there are currently several corridors that are completing environmental analyses of high-speed rail projects and are ready to go to construction. The bill provides funding for these projects through the issuance of $14 billion in tax credit bonds for construction of infrastructure and the acquisition of rolling stock for two high-speed rail corridors. This proposal would create more than 665,000 jobs and $86 billion of economic activity. For passenger rail, Amtrak has identified approximately $8 billion of capital needs for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Northeast Corridor and other station upgrades and for the acquisition and rehabilitation of rolling stock. With regard to the infrastructure needs of short line and regional railroads, a recent study concluded that it will take approximately $7 billion of capital investment to rehabilitate the track, bridges, and other elements of their infrastructure to enable them to carry the 286,000-pound railcar that is becoming the industry standard. In order to address these needs, the bill provides $7.5 billion for capital investment for passenger and freight rail, including: $2.5 billion for capital investment for Amtrak; $500 million for direct grants to short-line and regional railroads to improve their infrastructure; and $250 million for grants to provide the credit risk premium for at least $5 billion in loans and loan guarantees for freight railroad infrastructure projects under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. This proposal would create more than 356,000 jobs and $46.5 billion of economic activity. Our Nation's environmental and infrastructure also has a backlog of important projects in need of funding. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that there is an annual investment need of between $11.6 billion and $20.1 billion to ensure a safe, clean supply of drinking water, and an additional need of an annual investment of between $13 billion and $20.9 billion in wastewater treatment. Further, a survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies found that, in just 58 communities, wastewater treatment facilities have more than $4 billion of wastewater treatment projects that are ready to go to construction if funding is made available. This bill provides a total of $11.5 billion for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure investment, including: $10 billion to construct, rehabilitate, and restore the Nation's wastewater and drinking water infrastructure through the existing State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs ($8.5 billion for the Clean Water SRF and $1.5 billion for the Safe Drinking Water SRF), and $1.5 billion for wet weather overflow grants for planning, design, and construction of treatment works to address combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows. This proposal would create more than 546,000 jobs and $71 billion of economic activity. In the area of marine transportation, the Coast Guard estimates that it will cost approximately $6 billion over the next 10 years for ports and vessel owners to comply with security standards that the Coast Guard will prescribe under the Maritime Transportation Security Act. To date, only $370 million has been appropriated to fund port security grants. In 2002, ports and marine facility operators submitted 712 proposals, totaling more than $600 million, which were denied funding because of the lack of available resources. The requests for port security funding were seven times greater than the available funding. This bill begins to address this funding shortfall by providing $2.5 billion for port security grants to ports and marine facility operators for their costs to implement facility and port security plans pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. This proposal would create more than 118,000 jobs and $15.5 billion of economic activity. The Nation's water resources are also in need of investment to both protect and improve the quality water related infrastructure services, such as hydropower facilities, ports, dams, and water supply facilities. The Corps of Engineers has identified a need to assess and improve security at 372 critical infrastructure projects, and those efforts have not yet been completed. The Corps also has an unfunded operation and maintenance backlog of more than $1 billion. To address these needs, the bill provides $1.5 billion to fund investment in currently authorized water resources infrastructure projects. This proposal would create more than 71,000 jobs and $9.3 billion of economic activity. There is also considerable unmet need in the area of economic development. Certain communities and regions of the country suffer from chronic economic distress. These communities and regions often have unemployment, poverty, and outmigration rates that are more than 150 percent of the national average. These economically distressed communities and regions rely on federal investments to complete basic transportation and public infrastructure projects. The Economic Development Administration and existing regional commissions have no shortage of requests for assistance, but are woefully underfunded, and face drastic budget cuts under the Administration's FY2004 budget proposal. This bill addresses this severe underfunding by providing $1.5 billion in grants to economically distressed communities for economic development infrastructure projects. Grants are administered through the Economic Development Administration ($1 billion), the Appalachian Regional Commission ($150 million), the Delta Regional Authority ($150 million), and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission ($150 million). This proposal would create more than 71,000 jobs and $9.3 billion of economic activity. Further, the General Services Administration (GSA)-controlled inventory of 1,860 existing Federal buildings is aging and requires extensive repair and renovation to ensure that Federal employees are housed in safe, modern facilities. GSA estimates that it needs $5 billion over the next five years to fund the necessary repair, alterations, and rehabilitation of Federal buildings and it currently has approximately 5,500 work items pending for repair and alteration. The bill provides $500 million for repair and alteration of Federal buildings and would create more than 23,000 jobs and $3.1 billion of economic activity. This package of infrastructure, transportation, and environmental investment and security enhancement makes sound economic sense. It provides funds where they are needed most and will get America working again. Our Nation needs an economic stimulus program that creates jobs in hard hit sectors of our economy, rehabilitates our basic infrastructure to allow us to remain competitive in world markets, addresses the infrastructure security needs of our transportation and environmental systems, and helps to revive our stagnant economy. Let us start by passing this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, Medicare, the most successful social service program since Social Security, will be dramatically transformed and, in the long run, unraveled by this Republican bill we are debating tonight. Their plan will convert Medicare from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution voucher plan. In plain English, it means that seniors will lose the guaranteed coverage and the security of knowing which benefits are covered. Instead of having predictability about Medicare premiums and copayments, seniors will essentially receive a voucher for services to cover the lowest-cost private insurance plan. 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. As a result, this untested, speculative health care experiment threatens to abandon all seniors, especially rural seniors. The Republican bill replaces Medicare with an illusory promise that private health insurance companies will offer health insurance polices in rural America. Under current law, health insurance companies have found it unprofitable to offer policies in rural America; worse, the Republican plan does not guarantee that rural seniors will have access to the same benefits as seniors in metropolitan areas enjoy. Not only does this bill undermine Medicare, it fails to provide an affordable prescription drug benefit. I don't understand how the majority, on the one hand can justify trillion dollar tax cuts, and in the other hand, impose an arbitrary limit on Medicare and prescription drug benefits. To comply with this artificial limitation, the Republican plan offers a complicated and untested prescription drug benefit, with an enormous gap in coverage. The Republican plan is difficult to explain, but let me try: it begins with uncertain private health insurance premiums; then, seniors must pay a $250 deductible before they receive any assistance, and there is a large coverage gap, the ``hole'' in the doughnut, where seniors will be paying premiums but receiving no assistance at all. Seniors first have to spend $250 a year, then they will pay 20 percent co-insurance for up to $2,000 in drug costs. However, no assistance would be provided between $2,000 and $5,100 in drug spending, forcing seniors to pay $3,100 out-of-pocket in drug costs. This plan is as unfair as it is complicated and costly to older Americans living on fixed incomes. In contrast, the Democratic plan is guaranteed, defined, dependable, and understandable. It sets a premium of $25 a month; a $100 per year deductible; a 20 percent co-insurance payment for beneficiaries, with Medicare paying 80 percent; and a limit of $2,000 in out-of-pocket costs per beneficiary per year. Health care is essential in greater Minnesota. The hospitals in many small communities throughout northern and northeastern Minnesota are the major employer in town, and the health care they offer is critical for economic development and tourism. The Rangel/Dingell bill offers a substantial improvement in payments to the hospitals and doctors in rural Minnesota who provide those critical health care services. In particular, I am please that the Democratic Substitute includes numerous provisions to improve reimbursement for rural providers. The increased funding for low-volume, ``critical access'' and ``sole community'' hospitals, rural home health and ambulance providers, and rural physicians adds up to very significant improvements for hospitals in my district, and will assure their continued viability for years to come. To be specific, the Democratic bill eliminates the 35-mile rule presently in place for Critical Access Hospital ambulance services. That improvement would save the hospital in Ely, Minnesota, and would strengthen ambulance services at nine other Critical Access Hospitals in my district. The Democratic plan would provide an additional $6 billion for all rural ambulance providers by increasing payments for ambulance services. The increases we propose would ensure the financial solvency of St. Mary's Life Flight, enabling it to continue assisting, for example, people who are injured while vacationing in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. On the whole, rural health care providers plan are better served, better funded, and treated more fairly under the Democratic plan, which also has the advantage of preserving Medicare. For that reason, I will be supporting the Rangel/Dingell bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, the University of Minnesota--Duluth women's hockey team achieved something truly extraordinary in the history of collegiate athletics in winning the NCAA hockey championship for the third year consecutively. It is a great tribute to the skill and stamina and determination of the women who have devoted themselves to this team and to each other and displayed an extraordinary kind of cooperative spirit that is characteristic of college athletics. It is notable that the report in the Duluth News Tribune on the championship game was written by a female reporter, and I will include the report on the game, the championship game, for the Record at this time. [From the Duluth (MN) News Tribune, Mar. 24, 2003] Bulldog Women Claim Third Title (By Christa Lawler) The forgotten game puck was tucked in the back of the net while the Minnesota Duluth women's hockey team celebrated its third consecutive NCAA Frozen Four title. While streamers and confetti dropped from the rafters of the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center, University of Minnesota Duluth goalie Shannon Kasparek crawled to the back of the goal to retrieve the pesky puck that, for one overtime and more than four minutes, refused to settle anywhere. UMD beat Harvard 4-3 Sunday night when Bulldog sophomore forward Nora Tallus, wide open, took a few strides and sent the puck low past the Crimson's goalie Jessica Ruddock, who had skated out to meet her. The game lasted 84 minutes--the longest in the history of the women's NCAA-sanctioned event. There were 5,167 fans at the game, largely pro-Bulldogs. There were quite a few Harvard supporters and some who said they just wanted to see a great game. ``It couldn't have been better for women's hockey,'' UMD fourth-year coach Shannon Miller said. ``I talked to (Harvard coach) Katey Stone before the game. I gave her a little hug and said `Let's put on a show. Raise the bar for women's hockey.' '' The Bulldogs won the tournament in Durham, N.H., last year with a 3-2 win over Brown. The previous year, they beat St. Lawrence 4-2 in Minneapolis. No other team in the country has ever owned the NCAA women's Frozen Four title. Tallus, a slight, Finnish player, was mobbed by her teammates, who created a mound of maroon on the ice on top of her. It was Tallus' eight goal of the season, and followed her game-high four penalties earlier in the game.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 4, I attended an important announcement at the U.S. Department of Labor concerning the funding of a vital initiative to assist dislocated workers and retirees in Minnesota pay for their health care expenses. As a result, I was unable to cast my vote on the rule (H. Res 257) for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 236 because I strongly supported the need for the House to consider this important pro-life legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her persistence and continuous leadership on this capacity issue, as well as many other transportation matters within the jurisdiction of our committee. Resources for airport growth is an essential feature of this legislation. The gentlewoman has worked very hard and reminded the committee of these capacity requirements over the coming years. The bill specifically improves those funding measures substantially over even AIR 21 and previous legislation. Five years ago, Congress provided only $1.9 billion for the airport improvement program (AIP). In AIR 21, we substantially increased AIP funding. Flight 100 builds upon the success of AIR 21 and continues to grow the program to meet anticipated capacity issues. In total, the bill provides $14.8 billion for AIR over 4 years, $1.2 billion more than the Administration's request. Airport development funding will grow from the current level of $3.4 billion to $4 billion in FY 2007. Moreover, these funds are guaranteed under flight 100. With Flight 100, we will continue to make headway toward addressing our enormous airport development needs.