James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, which would repeal a section of the law that requires the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) to obtain special legislation to be eligible to receive airport project grants and to impose passenger facility fees. No other airport is required to seek such congressional approval. While this procedure may have been justified in the early days of MWAA, it has outlived its usefulness. Until 1986, the National and Dulles airports were run by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). When the airports were transferred to a regional authority in 1986, there were concerns that the regional authority would be unduly influenced by local interests, and not carry out federal objectives for the airports serving our Nation's Capital. To ensure that Federal concerns were considered, the 1986 legislation established Federal oversight over MWAA's activities, including Federal representation on its Board of Directors, special requirements in MWAA's lease agreement with the Department of Transportation, and requirements for audits of MWAA by the General Accounting Office (GAO). In 1996, Congress further strengthened its oversight by requiring that new legislation would have to be passed for MWAA to be elible for AIP grants or PFCs, after October 1, 2001. The FAA reauthorization act of 2000, known as AIR-21, continued MWAA's eligibility, but required new legislation for eligibility after October 1, 2004. These provisions are unique to MWAA; no other airports operator has such restrictions on its eligibility for funding. It is my understanding that although MWAA enjoys an excellent bond rating, the fact that they must continually come to Congress to receive grant monies or charge a PFC has caused concerns in the bond community. Continuing to place MWAA's funds in a different status from those of other airports could negatively affect its current high bond rating, resulting in higher interest charges, and possibly higher rents and fees at the airports. I believe that MWAA has done an outstanding job in developing National and Dulles Airports, carrying out the objectives of the 1986 legislation. We no longer need to treat MWAA differently than all other airport authorities. The Federal directors on MWAA's Board, this Committee's continuing oversight, and GAO audits will ensure that Federal interest in the airports continue to be respected. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I concur in the remarks of the ranking member of the subcommittee. I would add that the manager's amendment does include two very important provisions offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to promote intermodalism. The first requires airports that undertake major construction projects to share their planes with MPOs, and the second requires the FAA to clarify, consolidate, and publish its current policy for PFC for ground transportation projects that provide access to airports. These are long-standing issues that we attempted to deal with going back to the beginning of the PFC era in 1990, and this a very important clarification. Just to expand on the point raised by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the flight attendants self-defense training provision will require carriers to provide all flight attendants with the basic security training program, and those who opt for more advanced training to do so under the auspices of the TSA. There is a very interesting provision borrowed from our experience in the Federal Aid to Highway program that allows AIP funds to pay interest on debt incurred for AIP-eligible projects. We will expand under this manager's amendment that provision from select small airports to a very limited number of larger airports. I think that is indeed a very good measure that will accelerate development of airport capacity where we urgently need it. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman to work with us to include those provisions.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's remarks. I am delighted that we will be able to work in conference to assure that both controllers and systems specialists remain Federal employees. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I, too, of course rise in support of H.R. 2115, Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. It is appropriate that we apply that title to the bill in this year; it is the 100th anniversary of flight. When you think how far the world has come in aviation in just 100 years, it is really extraordinary. No other technology in the field of transportation can match the speed with which we have advanced the cause of aviation in this 100 years. We have worked in a very diligent and bipartisan manner over many weeks and months; and I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, for the frequent and thorough and intensive conversations we have had to shape this legislation, come together in agreement on the many sticky issues that we had to confront in shaping this bill, and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who has always been available and readily available to discuss and iron out the many complex issues. I want to compliment the ranking member on our side, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), whose 18-plus years, 20 years of intensive work in the field of aviation have paid off in his current position as the leader on our side on aviation issues. He has done a splendid job in shaping this legislation, which will put America on the course it needs to be to continue investment in our aviation airside infrastructure, in the modernization of the air traffic control system, and in ensuring we have the finest professionals in the world to manage that air traffic control system in the form of our air traffic controllers and those who support and maintain the technology of aviation. Though emplanements dipped after September 11, they are on the rebound. We are seeing flights return to something approaching pre- September 11 numbers. Something like 71 percent load factors are returning, but yields are down. On average, they are down 4 cents to 5 cents per revenue passenger mile from what they ought to be to sustain the level of revenue we saw in the pre-September 11 era. But that, too, will come back. That will return as our economy gains in strength. I know that the FAA is projecting over the next 6 years a return to 600-plus million passengers a year, and 696 million was the level we had prior to September 11. Now, when we think that in a world that emplaned 1 billion passengers in 2001, and 696 million of those were in the United States, it means that this Nation boards two-thirds of all the people who travel by air in the entire world. So if we are to position ourselves to accommodate that growth in the future, then we have to make the investments now in the air side capacity of our airports. We have to prepare the taxiways, runways, and the air side improvements to accommodate that future growth so we will not be left behind, struggling, trying to catch up when it is too late and flights have rebounded. In that respect, this bill provides $14.8 billion for the Airport Improvement Program funding. That is $1.2 billion more than the FAA's request. We have $12.3 billion for facilities and equipment over the life of this legislation, $200 million of which is specifically designated for the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System, STARS, that handles 70 million airport operations a year throughout this country. That is a staggering amount and requires a vast capacity that this new system will provide. We also maintain a level of funding to accommodate the air traffic controllers, $31.3 billion for FAA operations over the life of this legislation. We have done a good deal to accommodate the needs of small airports with essential air service improvements in this bill. I recall so very vividly in 1978 sitting on this committee when we considered the deregulation of aviation. The question was raised whether we would have service to small communities. I offered the amendment for essential air service, with the concluding remark to the chairman of the Committee, that if we do not pass this amendment, there are towns in my district where the only way to get there will be to be born there, and I do not want to see that happen again. So we have done a good job with those issues. Before concluding, I want to engage the chairman in a discussion. But I want to thank on our side the staff, Stacie Soumbeniotis, Giles Giovanazzi, Ward McCarragher, and, on the Republican side, David Schaffer, who have done superb professional work in crafting these extremely complicated provisions of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the bill does not go as far as I would have liked it to do in guaranteeing that our air traffic control system remains the safest in the world dealing with the privatization of air traffic controllers. It does not deal with the certification and related maintenance of equipment used by air traffic controllers. So I think that we did not address this issue in the bill. I think we will come to that point in conference. I know the chairman is amenable to working towards a solution on this issue, and will work with us in conference to ensure that both controllers and air systems specialists are protected in the bill Congress sends to the President.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) manage the balance of the bill in general debate on our side, including authority to yield time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would just take a moment to express my appreciation for the recognition by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) that it has been the Committee on Appropriations that has been the obstacle on EAS. It has been the Committee on Appropriations that has time and again put legislative limitations on the use of EAS funds. Now, if we have an advocate over there in the Committee on Appropriations in the form of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), maybe we can get all of this straightened out and make sure that those dollars do flow. Because we can write the authorizations; but if the appropriations do not flow or if there are further limitations on it, then all this good work we do in our committee is undercut.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. We have worked with the chairman and the chairman of the full committee on this EAS program, and I talked about it in my remarks during general debate about how important it is for small communities, but I just want to make it clear that the committee really made significant effort here to protect EAS cities. And it should be noted that we expanded the program, a 10 percent local share for cities that are less than 170 miles from a large or medium-hub airport or less than 75 miles from a small-hub airport. And out of concern that small communities might not be able to pay that share, the chairman and the chairman of the full committee worked with us and the ranking member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), to include a hardship provision, to allow the Secretary to waive that local share if the community is unable to pay and can demonstrate that inability to pay. So we did not ignore these needs. We addressed them I think in a very appropriate and thoughtful fashion. I want that to be stated in concert with the chairman who expressed those concerns. And I think by increasing the funds we have made it a lot easier to get service to EAS airports.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. I just want to raise a cautionary note, that in doing so we do not scare business away from the United States from foreign manufacturers. I am very strong on Buy America, I insist on it in the Federal aid highway program on steel, but there was a time in which 70 percent of the value and the parts of Airbus aircraft were manufactured in the United States. As we got into the wars over agriculture with the European community, the Airbus consortium pulled back from its placing of business in the United States, and we have lost ground in the manufacturing of Airbus parts in the United States, and the same is occurring in other areas. I just want to be sure in the process we are not scaring away business from the United States while legitimately protecting our own interests. I know the gentleman from Illinois has those concerns at heart.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, which would clarify the measurement of highway mileage for purposes of determining essential air service (EAS) eligibility. Under current law, communities are not eligible for the EAS subsidy if they are less than ``70 highway miles'' from the nearest large or medium hub airport. Congress first imposed this 70-mile standard in the FY1992 Transportation Appropriations Act, and renewed it every fiscal year until the FY2000 Appropriations Act, which made it a permanent restriction. In AIR 21, Congress gave the Department discretionary authority ``to provide assistance with respect to a place that is located within 70 highway miles of a hub airport if the most commonly used highway route between the place and the hub airport exceeds 70 miles.'' Nevertheless, despite its discretionary authority, the Department generally employs the ``most direct route'' standard. This issue has created controversy and even litigation between local communities and the Department, including litigation that involves Lancaster Airport in the gentleman's district. The gentleman's amendment would require the Department to use the ``most commonly used route standard'' in measuring mileage for EAS eligibility. Additionally, the amendment would require local input in determining the ``most commonly used highway route.'' Specifically, the amendment would require the Secretary of Transportation to consult with the Governor of the State in which the airport is located as to the most commonly used highway route between that airport and the nearest hub airport. Further, the amendment requires the Secretary to promulgate by regulation a consistent standard for calculating the most commonly used route. It will bring into the EAS program deserving eligible communities that have otherwise been cut off arbitrarily by current law. This is a common sense change. If we are to have a mileage standard for EAS it should be based on the miles people will actually drive, not a theoretical route, which probably takes longer than the actual route. The gentleman's amendment will make the law reflect reality. For these reasons, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 763, a bill to designate the federal building located at 46 East Ohio St. in Indianapolis as the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' This bill has strong bipartisan support and each member of the Indiana delegation is a co-sponsor. The bill was also introduced during the last Congress, but unfortunately, it stalled at the end of the last term. I urge the 108th Congress to enact this legislation so that we may properly honor Birch Bayh. Birch Bayh was born on January 22, 1928, in Terre Haute, Indiana. He attended public schools in Indiana and joined the Army in 1946. In 1954, he was elected to the Indiana House of Representatives where he served for eight years, including terms as Minority Leader and later, as Speaker of the House. He is a graduate of both Purdue University and the Indiana University School of Law. In 1962, when he was only 34 years old, Birch Bayh was elected to the first of three terms in the U.S. Senate. Senator Bayh quickly became a leader on issues of education, equal rights, and Constitutional law. As Chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Bayh authored two amendments to the Constitution: the 25th Amendment, which sets forth the order of Presidential succession, and the 26th Amendment, which lowers the voting age from 21 to 18 years of age. It should go without saying that authorship of two constitutional amendments is a remarkable achievement. In addition, Senator Bayh was a strong supporter of two landmark pieces of legislation--the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He was also highly instrumental in enacting the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates the separation of juvenile offenders from adult prison populations. Throughout his career, Senator Bayh was a strong champion for the rights of women, children, and minorities. He authored Title IX to the Higher Education Act, which ensures equal opportunities for women students and faculty in our Nation's schools. One result of this legislation is that women's sports teams have been given unprecedented opportunities to excel. To give just one example, the University of Minnesota-Duluth women's hockey team has excelled in the sport and has won the past three consecutive NCAA championships. It is proper that, as we honor Senator Bayh today, we should remember his commitment to equal opportunity and ensure that the Title IX funding mandates remain strong, especially in light of recent proposals to undercut this important piece of legislation. Since leaving the Senate in the 1980s, Senator Bayh has continued his commitment to public service. He serves as a member of the William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, and the University of Virginia's Miller Center Commission on Presidential Disability and the 25th Amendment. I urge my colleagues to support S. 763 and to honor the contributions of Senator Birch Bayh to his home state of Indiana and to our Nation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 330, a bill to protect and recognize veterans' memorials. These memorials honor those brave men and women who have served in the military. They can be found in nearly every city and town across the country and it is important that Congress ensures that they are properly recognized and protected. I'd like to direct my comments to one particular section of the bill. Section 3 of S. 330 allows a veterans' cemetery to be identified by a supplemental guide sign on any Federal-aid highway. It is my understanding that this section is not intended to circumvent the safety regulations governing the design and placement of highway signs as set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (the Manual). Sections 109(d) and 402(a) of title 23 of the United States Code provide authority for the Manual, which serves as the national standard for all signs, signals, pavement markings, and other traffic control devices used on all streets and highways in the United States. The Manual provides regulatory, warning, and guidance information to motorists and is vitally important to the promotion of safety on our Nation's highways. Among the provisions in the Manual are standards for sign design, sign size, letter size, letter style, retroreflectivity, sign location, and other characteristics that are crucial to ensuring highway safety. It is my understanding that the wording in Section 3-- ``Notwithstanding the terms of any agreement entered into by the Secretary of Transportation and a State under section 109(d) or 402(a) of title 23, United States Code''--is not intended to remove the Manual's requirements regarding sign design, sign size, letter size, letter style, retroreflectivity, sign location and other characteristics that are important to promote the safety of motorists. Rather, S. 330 merely provides for the identification of a veterans' cemetery by a supplemental guide sign, one that complies with the Manual's requirements, on a Federal-aid highway. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 330.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1018, a bill to designate the court of international trade building at 1 Federal Plaza in New York City as the ``James L. Watson United States Court of International Trade Building.'' The House passed legislation regarding this designation in the 107th Congress, unfortunately, the other body never acted. I am glad that the House is acting on this bill early in the session so that there will be ample opportunity for the other body to complete action on it during this Congress. Judge Watson, a native New Yorker, was born in Harlem in 1922 and lived and worked his entire life in New York. During World War II, he served with the legendary Buffalo Soldiers Division in the 371st Infantry Regiment, 92nd Division in World War II. After being wounded during service in Italy, he was decorated with a Purple Heart, the Battle Star, the Combat Infantry Badge, and a U.S. Army Commendation. After the war, Judge Watson graduated from New York University in 1947 and from Brooklyn Law School in 1951. He was elected to the New York State Senate in 1954. In 1962, President Kennedy selected him to accompany then Vice-President Johnson to the Jamaican Independence celebration. In 1963, he was appointed to the Civil Court of New York and hired our colleague Charlie Rangel as one of his staff attorneys. Congressman Rangel has said: ``Judge Watson was my friend and constituent for many years; he was the Judge for whom I clerked after completing law school; and the man who contributed with all of his heart to his family, his community and our Nation.'' President Johnson appointed Judge Watson in 1966 to what was then known as the United States Customs Court, now known as the United States Court of International Trade. During his years on the Court of International Trade, he worked to help modernize the Court and facilitated the introduction of computers into the courtroom. After 36 years on the bench, Judge Watson took senior status in 1991. He passed away at his home in Harlem in 2001. Mr. Speaker, Judge Watson was the Nation's most senior ranking African-American Federal judge and enjoyed a national reputation for handing or fair and just sentences. He was a sought-after public speaker, who served on both the Board of Visitors of Fordham University and the board of the Harlem YMCA. Judge Watson's life serves as a model of diligence, hard work, and fairness. Many, many people, including colleagues, politicians, and other lawyers, sought the wise advice and sage counsel of Judge Watson. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1081 and honor Judge Watson by naming the building in which he served with distinction for over three decades in his honor.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from Florida, if the gentleman from Colorado would yield to the gentleman from Florida, I hope he will concur in our consideration.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on this first major bill under his leadership on our side on the Subcommittee on Aviation. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) for their bipartisan cooperation in fashioning this bill, working it through subcommittee and full committee, and bringing it to the floor today. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) said just a moment ago, the NTSB has been without an authorization for the last year. That is not appropriate. We have to do our job. We were delayed in getting there by the events of the last Congress; but we now bring this bill, very proudly and appropriately, to the floor for the agency that I consider to be the Nation's premier, definitive authority on safety in transportation. We are very fortunate to have a great many Federal Government agencies for whom the public gets full value of its investment in the support funding. But we get more than full value out of the National Transportation Safety Board. Its recommendations, its vigilance on safety result in improvements in the way we conduct the business of transportation in all of the modes: maritime, railroading, trucking, automotive vehicular transportation and, of course, pipelines and aviation, which gets perhaps the greatest visibility for the NTSB when there is a tragedy in aviation. But that should not overshadow nor cause anyone to forget the very significant and important work done in the other modes of transportation. Time and again, the NTSB's recommendations that are written for changes in safety oversight by agencies and conduct of safety by the private sector as well as by public entities are written into practice and result in saving lives, preventing property damage, and making transportation more dependable, safer all throughout this vast land of ours. The new Chair, Ellen Engleman, comes to this position from another safety responsibility as the head of the Research and Special Projects Administration, RSPA, of DOT, where she had primary responsibility for pipeline safety and was the subject of NTSB recommendations for improvements in pipeline safety and responded very well, very thoughtfully, and very appropriately. I look forward to Ms. Engleman's tenure as Chair of the NTSB where I know she will bring the same dedication and vigor to that responsibility as she did to RSPA. The unique role of the National Transportation Safety Board in its conduct of investigations of transportation accidents, after evaluating the evidence, making findings of fact is then to make recommendations that are normative, not determined by cost-benefit analysis, not driven by one or another interest group; but to do what, in the best judgment of its seasoned safety professionals, is in the best public interest for the conduct of safety in that particular mode. It is then for the modal administrations to evaluate benefits and costs and to make judgments in the rulemaking afterward; but it is up to the NTSB to be above the fray to be normative, to set standards that in its judgment are in the best public interest. And that it has done. In the last 5 years, there have been 8,124 accident investigations in aviation alone, 166 highway accidents, 82 railroad accidents, 41 pipeline accidents, 24 maritime accidents; and a total of 881 safety recommendations have been issued. Unfortunately, not all of those safety recommendations have been implemented by the modal administrations of the Department of Transportation, and that is without regard to which party has been in charge of the executive branch. There is a very serious problem here. When our premier investigative agency looks at an accident, then relates it to a class or category of accidents and prescribes a remedy for it, the modal administrations ought to respond forthwith. The FAA has the best record of any of the modal administrations in responding, but that is a record that is not good enough. This legislation requires an annual report from DOT on the status of regulations to implement all of the significant safety recommendations from NTSB, which is widely known as its Most Wanted list. We will get that report. We will evaluate each year the progress of the modal administrations; and then, through our oversight responsibility and authority on the committee, we will bring those administrations up to our committee and grill them on why they have not been compliant, or compliment them for being so if, in fact, they are. But this will put a lot of pressure on those modal administrations to clean their slate and respond to and comply with these recommendations of the NTSB. In 2000, our committee authorized the transfer of investigative priority from the safety board to the FBI in the event of an accident caused by intentional criminal act. What we overlooked at the time was a mechanism to transfer responsibility for dealing with the families of victims of accidents in the event of an intentional criminal act. Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the Safety Board now believes the FBI would be the best entity to handle that responsibility, and this legislation provides for transferring of family affairs responsibility from NTSB to the FBI in the event of a finding of an intentional criminal act and, of course, of an accident investigation. One of the best initiatives undertaken by the NTSB in many years is to develop a training academy to teach the state-of-the-art investigative techniques for transportation accidents. The Safety Board has always worked hard on training and improving the caliber and quality of its investigative personnel, a very lean staff, a very small staff, but one that works extremely well, very creatively, but can always benefit from improved training. And this new training academy will be a huge benefit for the NTSB. I would like to mention another matter, and that is also one that is not generally or widely recognized, and that is that the NTSB serves as a model for other countries throughout the world to establish civil investigative agencies. Time and time again the NTSB has been asked by other, especially emerging, democracies and those emerging from the end of the Cold War in the former Soviet Union to help them in formulating the establishment of a transportation safety board. Again, the NTSB stands as the world standard for safety investigation, for honesty, integrity, for quality of investigation, and for the quality of its recommendations for improvements of safety. Finally, I would like to make a note of a matter of aviation history. Yesterday it was reported that L. Welsh Pogue died at the age of 103. Welsh Pogue was asked by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, as the allies were nearing the end or could see the end of World War II, to convene the meeting of all nations of our allies who would have an interest in a postwar aviation regime, to set up a process by which agreement could be negotiated in the new world to follow World War II. It was Welsh Pogue who recommended that the conference, known as the Chicago Conference, in November 1944, establish an open skies aviation trading regime. The other countries convened at that meeting felt that the United States emerging relatively unscathed from the war and with a very strong domestic, but still emerging, commercial aviation sector would dominate the world marketplace. It was in the end L. Welsh Pogue who negotiated the idea of individual bilateral agreements that would be in the mutual interest of the two negotiating parties. Don Phillips of the Washington Post 3 years ago wrote, ``When L. Welsh Pogue was born, the Wright brothers were running a bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. But as Franklin D. Roosevelt's aviation pointman in 1944, Pogue cobbled together the compromise regulatory scheme that governs international aviation to this day.'' On Monday of 1999, of May 1999, the 100-year-old Pogue, aided only by a cane, walked to the podium in the same hotel ballroom where the world's fledgling aviation nations reached their historic agreement on December 7, 1944. He brought down the house with his wry memory of 1944 and his vision for aviation future. At the end of his remarks, Pogue predicated the world would divide itself into regions for air traffic purposes. It will be slow, he said, but do not give up in despair. Turn to those things that are possible. L. Welsh Pogue taught us all what was possible in the field of aviation. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. It was my great privilege and honor to come to know L. Welsh Pogue over the many years I had served as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation and subsequently in my current position on our committee. I revere and love this man who is a legend in their field of aviation.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman raises very valid points, the rail safety. The impact of rail on both rural and urban communities is very significant. The appropriate place for such a study for this issue to be raised would be in the successor legislation to TEA-21, which our committee will be considering.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the flight surgeon of the FAA has over a period of 20 years conducted studies of the appropriateness of the age 60 rule. The conclusion of the FAA is that it is best left in place as it is. The NTSB does not have the personnel expertise to conduct a study of the magnitude the gentlewoman is proposing. The appropriate venue is the FAA, which does continue to monitor this issue, and we will be glad to continue to discuss with the gentlewoman her concern about this matter in another venue. (By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue before us at this time and in this context. And as the chairman of the subcommittee has indicated already, there is a problem of germaneness. But there is nothing ungermane about the point the gentleman makes. Years ago, during debate in committee, in this body and in conference with the other body, on the termination of the ICC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, I tried to do this very same thing, something very similar to this, to require a commercial driver's license for those drivers who would pilot these 15-passenger vans. We were not able to reach agreement on that in the conference. There was resistance from the other body to moving in that direction. I subsequently appealed to the NTSB to undertake an inquiry into the stability of this caliber of vehicle, and the board is working on a report to address the issue of passenger van stability and whether those vehicles are more likely to roll over and cause passenger injury. A year ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, issued a cautionary warning to users of these vans because of increased rollover risk.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that there is a serious safety problem here. It cannot be ignored. We are in the process of crafting the successor to TEA-21. There will be an opportunity I hope in the safety provisions of that legislation to address the gentleman's concerns, and I look forward to working with him and the majority on the committee to address this matter; and I appreciate him raising the issue here before us.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a national leader in civil aviation. Robert J. Baker, an executive with American Airlines and its parent, AMR Corp., for some 35 years, died April 20, at the much-too-young age of 58. In his three-and-a-half decades of service with American, Bob Baker rose from marketing trainee to Vice Chairman. He joined the airline in 1968. By 1985, he was running its operations. He was named Vice Chairman of AMR in 1998, and held that title until he retired last year. Bob Baker served his country by sitting on several national commissions and advisory panels. President Clinton appointed Mr. Baker to a special commission on aviation management. Bob Baker also chaired a Federal panel on the concept of ``free flight'' as a remedy to airway congestion. In the dark hours following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush tapped Bob Baker for the ``rapid response team to analyze and revamp the nation's airline security.'' When American Airlines bought TWA, Bob was named chairman of TWA and operated that airline until it could be integrated with American, forming the world's largest airline. Bob Crandall, long-time chairman of AMR, noted that Bob Baker was born into the American Airlines family. His father was a station manager and headquarters executive at the airline. ``Bob was the kind of guy who came to work early, stayed late and understood the old saying that 99 percent of genius is perspiration,'' Crandall told the Fort-Worth Star-Telegram. Crandall's successor, Donald Carty, worked closely with Baker since the late 1980's. Carty said, ``We have lost a true aviation pioneer. Bob helped shape our company, and, in fact, our entire industry.'' Mr. Speaker, aviation has lost a premier professional; an objective, seasoned, thoughtful voice of reason and balance in this contentious market sector; and an uncompromising, persistent advocate for safety. Bob was both a friend and counselor, I shall miss him greatly, as will all of aviation. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our heartfelt sympathy to his wife, Marty, his four children and six grandchildren.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for taking this special order, and I join him in paying tribute to the University of Minnesota Gopher men's hockey team back-to-back championships. The gentleman made a splendid case. We are proud of the men's hockey team. But I also want to point out that the University of Minnesota-Duluth women's hockey team for the third consecutive year has won the NCAA hockey championship, trumping the men. It is a great tribute to our State that in the final frozen four in both the women's and men's hockey, our University of Minnesota teams have prevailed. That is a tribute to the great tradition of hockey in the northern part of our State, as well as in the gentleman's part of the State, an area that he now represents in Anoka County, that has a splendid four or more hockey rinks training the future champions.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2003, more than 1200 students from across the United States arrived in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by an act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the class from Duluth Central High School from Duluth will represent the State of Minnesota in this national event. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The three-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricula materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curricula not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, but it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary for students to become active, responsible citizens. Independent studies by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) revealed that students enrolled in the We the People program at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.'' Another study by Richard Brody at Stanford University discovered that students involved in the We the People program develop greater commitment to democratic principles and values than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. Researchers at the Council for Basic Education noted, ``[T]eachers feel excited and renewed. . . . Students are enthusiastic about what they have been able to accomplish, especially in terms of their ability to carry out a reasoned argument. They have become energized about their place as citizens of the United States.'' The class from Duluth Central High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, D.C. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People national finals.