James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I have joined with Congressmen LoBiondo, DeFazio, and Quinn to introduce the Air Traffic Control System Integrity Act of 2003, a bill to ensure that functions relating to the air traffic control system continue to be carried out by the United States Government. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by the Bush Administration's recent attempts to inch its way towards privatization or corporatization of our air traffic control system. First, on June 4, 2002, the President signed Executive Order 13264 to delete a phrase in Executive Order 13180 stating that air traffic control is an ``inherently-governmental function.'' More recently, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) placed air traffic controllers on its 2002 Commercial Activities list, which is an inventory of activities performed by government personnel that should be subject to the forces of competition. Although FAA Administrator Marion Blakey testified before the House Aviation Subcommittee that ATC is in a protected class of the OMB Commercial Activities list, there is nothing that prohibits the Administration from re-categorizing ATC in the future. The National Air Space system is not one well-defined piece of equipment. It is a complex, integrated arrangement of thousands of distinct systems, as well as regulations, procedures, and people, all interfacing with one another to accomplish one of the most intricate missions in the world--ensuring our country's ability to safely and efficiently move over 600 million passenger a year. On September 11th, we learned just how efficiently our 15,000 air traffic controllers and 6,000 technicians do their jobs. On that fateful day, at 9:45 a.m., the Department of Transportation gave the order to ground all aircraft in U.S. airspace immediately--an operation that controllers and technicians had neither been trained nor tested to accomplish. Within the space of two hours, the FAA's air traffic controllers safely landed 4,482 aircraft; 3,195 commercial, 1,122 general aviation, and 165 military--without one operational error. Following September 11th, our FAA technicians worked with the Department of Defense to staff Long Range Radar sites throughout the country as well as to provide additional radar surveillance data and voice communication capability to the military in support of ``Homeland Defense.'' The dedication and professionalism of all of our highly skilled government employees is unparalleled. Operation of ATC requires the cooperative, coordinated efforts of many divisions in FAA including those responsible for ATC services, facilities and equipment, safety certification and regulation, airport development, research and development and law. All of these divisions are required by law to have safety as their highest priority. Any plan to privatize or corporatize the ATC system contemplates that system users, principally the airlines, will be saddled with a fee structure to pay for the corporation. This means that the ATC system will be an expense for airlines, affecting their profit and loss. At the same time, airlines will play a role in setting policies for the new corporation and deciding how much the corporation will spend, and, very likely, deciding who will be winners, and who will be losers. Do we really want to have a relationship between airline profitability and ATC spending and other decisions affecting safety or security? To be blunt, when airline profit margins start to influence ATC practices, the safety margin may be eroded, and that would not serve the public interest. One of the main justifications advanced in support of an ATC corporation is that it would produce a system that is more responsive to airline concerns and would reduce airline costs. However, two of the most prominent countries that have privatized their ATC systems--Great Britain and Canada have had numerous problems. Both countries' systems are financially distressed and suffering from performance setbacks. The perceived gains by privatizing the ATC systems in these countries-- lower fees and increased efficiency--have actually translated into higher fees, numerous flight cancellations, delays, and very recently, a $250 million bailout of no privatized company by the British government. This is not a model that the U.S. wants to emulate. In the existing ATC system, the FAA and the Congress make decisions on safety issues in the overall best public interest, with input from system users. If there is any move towards privatization or some form of government corporation, how will the public be assured that ATC operations will be managed with a primary goal of protecting the interest of airline passengers and ensuring safety and security? The basic question that needs to be asked is whether we should risk the uncertainties of creating a new system to promote ATC safety and security when we already have in place a system with an outstanding safety record. The answer is simple: No. That is why we must act now to halt any efforts to privatize or corporatize our nation's air traffic system functions. This bill prohibits the Department of Transportation from authorizing the conversion of any FAA facilities, or the outsourcing of any work currently performed by FAA employees (including air traffic controllers, systems specialists, and flight service station employees), in the ATC system to private or public entities other than the U.S. government. Importantly, however, this bill would not impact the contract tower program, the safety benefits of which have been well documented. This bill would guarantee the continued integrity of our nation's air traffic control system. I urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers). This important ``Sense of the Congress'' amendment reaffirms the commitment of Congress in opposition to off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are a national and international treasure, serving both as the Nation's largest fresh water resource and one of the largest systems of fresh water on Earth--containing nearly 20 percent of the world's supply. Formed by the melting and retreat of mile-thick glaciers 10 to 12 thousand years ago, the Great Lakes contain 5,500 cubic miles of water and cover 94,000 square miles. In fact, if the six quadrillion gallons of water in the Lakes were poured over the continental United States, the entire landmass of the lower 48 states would be covered to a depth of nearly 10 feet. The Great Lakes Basin is also of critical importance to the economy of two nations. The Basin is home to more than one-tenth of the U.S. population and one-quarter of the Canadian population. One of the world's largest concentrations of economic capacity is located in the Basin--some one-fifth of U.S. industrial jobs and one-quarter of Canadian agricultural production. As a lifetime resident of the Great lakes community, I am keenly aware of the importance of the Great lakes to the surrounding region and the need to protect this vital resource for current and future generations. This great natural treasure deserves long-term protection from shortsighted exploitation. I support the amendment offered by my colleagues that encourages the States surrounding the Great lakes to either enact a ban on, or to continue to prohibit, off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas deposits. Off-shore drilling poses a serious environmental and economic risk to the Great lakes community. A large-scale spill, fire, or gas leak could despoil miles of beaches and fragile wetlands, pollute the ecosystem, and render the water unfit for drinking. It has been said that a single quart of oil can foul two million gallons of drinking water; imagine the potential impact of a massive oil or gas leak on a waterbody that currently provides drinking water to more than 10 million people. For a waterbody that takes more than 200 years to completely renew itself, such environmental risks are simply unacceptable. In addition, most scientific estimates show that extracting all of the oil and gas reserves under the Great Lakes would have little or no impact on the nation's energy supplies or prices. Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time Congress has spoken on the issue of oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. In 2001, and again earlier this year, Congress passed, and the president signed a prohibition on Federal or State permits or leases for new oil and gas drilling activities in or under the Great Lakes. This amendment takes the next step to encourage those States bordering the Lakes to either continue to prohibit this practice, or to enact similar provisions to protect the Great Lakes from further environmental degradation. On March 27, 2003, I, together with 18 Democratic colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced H.R. 1491, the Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act of 2003. That bill included a provision almost identical to the Reynolds/Rogers amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for myself and for the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). It is to put in place a program of retrofitting Federal Government buildings with photovoltaic cells to generate electricity to operate these Federal buildings. From the experience that we have gained over previous years, we know that not only can we supply all the electricity for Federal Government office buildings with photovoltaic rays, but also produce extra electricity that can be sold into the power grid and return some investment back to the Federal Government. This is not a new idea. It was one that I first offered, I would say to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, in 1979. It was enacted and it was put in place at a time when photoelectricity from photovoltaic cells was running about $1.75 per kilowatt hour. It is now down to 25 cents per kilowatt hour. With a huge cut in the program, it was literally terminated in the 1980s and into the 1990s. I think now is the time to, with further research, with more efficient cells, to get this program back on track and to save the government a huge amount of energy. Now, the Federal Government spends $8 billion a year on utility costs for the 500,000 Federal Government offices that it operates, and we could save a considerable amount of money by retrofitting Federal Government buildings with photovoltaic cells. I have proposed in this amendment $263 million a year, subject to appropriations over 5 years. That is about equal to the amount we were investing in research and development on renewables in 1979. So this is not a great leap forward, but it is an important step forward. I realize there may be some question about the total dollar amount per year, and that is a matter that can be subject to further discussion as the bill moves into conference. If the amendment would be acceptable here, perhaps some other number could be reached in conference, provided it is not a drastic reduction, but one that is a reasonable program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the consideration of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). He has raised some legitimate concerns. I think we can resolve those as the bill goes forward.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, a close read of this conference report provides for transportation infrastructure programs, little more than the status quo, $41.7 billion for the coming fiscal year. If that is what the majority is presenting to us, this report does nothing to begin to address the needs of highway and transit systems at a time when we have huge unmet safety and security needs, congestion is crippling our city, the economy has lost 2.5 million jobs. On a closer reading, though, there is a curious anomaly in the budget resolution's contingency procedure for surface transportation. Section 411 of this conference report provides contract authority for TEA-21 reauthorization for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009. For amounts above the levels specified for those years, Congress must pass legislation to increase receipts to the highway trust fund such as increasing the purchasing power of the user fee. If we pass such a highway user fee increase, the Committee on the Budget chairman, according to the language I have read, may increase the budget allocation to our committee. However, under the conference report before us, the chairman can increase that allocation only for years 2004 through 2008. No increase for 2009, even if we increase the user fee to provide for that additional infrastructure investment. That means you get no benefit from the increase in funding that our committee might enact. I do not think that that is what the Republican majority intended, Mr. Speaker; and I hope you are not going to vote for it.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 3, I had surgery to correct an injury I sustained during a bicycle accident in November 2002. As a result of this surgery, I was unable to cast my vote on the supplemental appropriations bill that the House considered on that day. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 103, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 104; I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 105; I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 106; I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 107; and I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 108.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I hosted an important Hometown Values tour in my district on March 31 and April 1 meeting with local educators, parents and students to discuss the numerous education needs and challenges in Pine, Chisago, and Isanti counties. I also hosted an important Hometown Values Forum to examine the opportunities to promote physical activity and public health by making our communities more accessible to walking and bicycling. As a result of these important meetings, I was unable to cast my vote on legislation that the House considered on those two days. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote 92, and I am pleased that the House defeated this unacceptable smallpox legislation; I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall Vote 93; I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall Vote 94; I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall Vote 95, and I am pleased that the House voted overwhelmingly to reject the proposed reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits and railroad retiree pensions. I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall Vote 96; and I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall Vote 97.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kinds words and his leadership in initiating this Special Order tonight to focus on transportation security, homeland security. We have made a great deal of progress on aviation security, thanks to the tough law with strong deadlines that this Congress passed, largely initiated by the Democratic Caucus on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; but we have made little progress in other modes by comparison. The administration has been unconscionably slow in proposing security measures and requesting the necessary funding to initiate and implement those measures. Case in point is maritime transportation. EPA has identified 123 chemical manufacturing facilities in the U.S. where toxic gases released by a terrorist attack could kill or injure more than 1 million people and 700 other chemical facilities where an attack could kill or injure 100,000 people. Most of those 823 facilities are along the navigable waterways of the United States. The Maritime Transportation Security Act, otherwise known as the port security bill, requires the Coast Guard to undertake a vulnerability assessment of each of those facilities and requires the owner to have the security plan approved by the Coast Guard and implemented by July 1 of next year. Good idea, good plan. Implementation in serious doubt. We have yet to see any plan from the administration for conducting vulnerability assessments of these chemical facilities, let alone a process to review and approve the security plans for these chemical time bombs. The Port Security Act also requires the Federal Government to undertake vulnerability assessments of every vessel, port and facility to assess security weaknesses. By July 1 of next year, the Coast Guard is required to review and approve a security plan for each port, facility and vessel. If it does not have a security plan, it cannot operate. Again, slow implementation. Only in the past week has Secretary Ridge agreed to accelerate the rate of port vulnerability assessments to ensure that assessment will be done at the Nation's 55 largest ports by the end of next year. There are 361 ports in the United States. When are they going to get serious about this? Then we have the Vessel Security Provisions Maritime Transportation Security Act. In the December 30, 2002, Federal Register, the Coast Guard stated it was going to accept the security certification, pay attention to this, issued by the foreign government where the vessel is documented. That means the U.S. Coast Guard will accept security certification by countries such as Liberia, Panama, Malta, Cyprus. We did not intend the security of the Nation to be placed in the hands of the country that runs those flags of convenience registers. We expect the Coast Guard to review the plans firsthand. They will have very great difficulty reviewing foreign security flag plans since the International Maritime Organization Standards allow those plans to be written in French and Spanish. The administration is supposed to support funding to secure our ports and facilities as required by the law. The Coast Guard estimates are it will cost $4.4 billion to provide port security over the next 10 years, and the administration to date has requested only $11 million. Congress has appropriated $350 million, but the administration has made available only $92.3 million of available port security funds. When the maritime administration asked for proposals for the ports, they received requests totaling seven times the amount of money available, and even though we have appropriated more funds, no further grants have been awarded. Last week, we passed a budget resolution that attempted to deal with this issue, but our side did not prevail. The other side did. It passed by one vote, but again, their budget proposal does not have enough in it to deal with the needs of port security. I do not want America's port security to be in the hands of a country like Liberia that cannot even protect itself, let alone our maritime interests. This administration is not taking the threat to port security or its responsibility seriously enough. Securing the Nation's ports and the cargo that moves through them is a Federal responsibility. All Americans, whether they live in a port city or in Boise, Idaho, will benefit from that security. The impact on our economy, on all Americans, if the Nation's ports are shut down, as the Nation's airports were in the aftermath of September 11 because of a terrorist attack, that aftermath, those consequences will be far greater than the consequences of September 11. Refineries will run out of oil. Factory lines will shut down. Stores will run out of goods. The economy will come to a screeching halt. We cannot let this happen. Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record the rest of my remarks: aviation security In aviation, the Transportation Security Administration has made major progress in enhancing security by securing cockpit doors, hiring and training a workforce of federal employees to screen baggage, and procuring and installing explosives detection and trace detection equipment to screen most checked baggage. However, at a few airports, not all baggage is being screened by detection equipment. TSA has been directed to have all baggage inspected with explosive detection equipment by December 31, 2003. We need to ensure that this deadline is met. We also need to work on other areas of aviation security such as cargo. Current Explosion Detection Equipment systems are too small and too slow to screen all cargo carried on aircraft. TSA relies on the ``known shipper'' program to screen most cargo but questions have been raised about how well shippers are known by the carriers accepting cargo from them. We also need to do much more work in securing the perimeters of our airports. amtrak's security needs We have to devote considerably more attention to security problems for passenger rail. Although there are unmet security needs of at least $140 million dollars, the Administration has not requested funding. Intercity rail passengers on Amtrak trains and the hundreds of thousands of others who use Amtrak stations and other facilities each day are also potential targets of terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks on crowded stations and on key elements of the infrastructure are a particular cause for concern. A preliminary estimate of the cost to secure Amtrak's facilities is $100 million. Amtrak has immediate security needs for its six New York area tunnels that connect New Jersey and Long Island to Penn Station. Amtrak, New Jersey Transit and the Long Island Railroad operate more than 1,180 trains through these tunnels each day. Although strapped for funding, Amtrak has begun engineering watertight doors to separate these tunnels from Penn Station. It is imperative that this work be completed as soon as possible to prevent catastrophic flooding of parts on NYC that are beneath the water table (including Penn Station, the Subway system and much of Lower Manhattan). Amtrak is trying to complete the work before the scheduled date of May 2004 and requires a $4 million reimbursement for this emergency construction. Amtrak also needs $40 million to develop redundant capacity for its train dispatching centers. Currently, Amtrak has three dispatching centers for the electrified Northeast Corridor (Boston, New York, and Philadelphia). Amtrak also has a consolidated National Operations Center in Wilmington, Delaware that monitors and manages all other train movements around the Nation. A successful attack on any one of the three locations controlling the NEC trains could prevent Amtrak from monitoring and dispatching train movements. Amtrak would have to shut down all train movements in the Corridor including all commuter operations. In addition, Amtrak is incurring additional security costs to respond to the Code Orange Threat Level. Each Code Orange day costs Amtrak an additional $18,000 in overtime cost for security personnel--roughly $500,000 for April alone. bus security I am particularly concerned with the Administration's poor performance in dealing with security in the intercity bus industry. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, over the road bus drivers and passengers in the United States have been the targets of many serious assaults, including one assault killing seven passengers and another assault injuring 33 passengers. In addition, there have been at least three other serious over-the-road security breaches. Over the same period, no other mode of transportation has experienced as many incidents of passenger attacks. These incidents occurred in states throughout the country, including Tennessee, Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Vermont. These violent incidents point to the immediate need to improve security measures for intercity buses and bus terminals. On August 2, 2002, the President signed into, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act which provided $15 million for grants and contracts to enhance the security of intercity bus operations. The FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act provided an additional $10 million for these purposes. Despite the timely enactment of funds, the Transportation Security Administration has yet to release a single penny. Furthermore, there are indications that these funds may not be released until June. The Administration's failure to make these funds available in a timely manner is inexcusable. Any further delay in releasing the funds risks the lives of thousands of Americans whose only mode of transportation may be travel by bus. The Administration must take immediate action to make the funds available. Furthermore, I am gravely disappointed that the Administration's recently released plan, Operation Liberty Shield, says nothing about buses, the most ubiquitous and, in many ways, the most vulnerable public transportation mode. What were the people who drafted Operation Liberty Shield thinking about, leaving out such an important mode of transportation? In light of the war and its associated security risk, the Administration must take action now to release the funds. Releasing the funds will allow the intercity bus industry to respond immediately to the elevated threat level precipitated by the war. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, only in aviation have we responded to the security vulnerabilities of our transportation system. We, in the Congress, must pursue vigorous oversight to ensure that we do not have another 9/11 tragedy in our ports, highways or railroads.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today, I have joined with Congressmen English, Ney, Hoyer, Dunn, Lipinski, Hart, Menendez, DeFazio and Weiner to introduce H.R. 1553, the Air Transportation Employees Assistance Act. I strongly support this legislation to ensure that workers in the aviation industry are not asked to bear a disproportionate share of the costs of fighting terrorism and the war with Iraq. These are national responsibilities and should be borne by the entire nation. We have already recognized this principle and granted financial relief to airline companies and their stockholders. Now we should grant some relief to the workers of these companies who have lost their jobs as a consequence of terrorism and war. The airlines were the weapons used by the terrorists of 9/11, and, as a consequence, the airlines have suffered serious financial damages-- from the groundings after 9/11, from the lost traffic which has never returned to pre 9/11 levels, from increased insurance costs, and from the loss of substantial revenues because of security limitations on the carriage of freight and mail. The war with Iraq is also having a significant impact on the airlines, producing increased fuel costs, loss of revenue from the reluctance of passengers to fly, and from the need of our military to use the airlines' aircraft to carry troops and equipment to the war zone. Shortly after September 11, Congress responded to the aviation industry's financial problems caused by terrorism, by passing a $15 billion package of direct assistance and loans. Now proposals are going forward to furnish $3.0 billion more to help the airlines meet the costs of a war with Iraq. While I have supported these efforts to aid the industry for the problems created by terrorism and war, I, and many of my colleagues, are deeply disappointed that there has not been the same fair treatment of aviation industry employees who have also suffered from terrorism and war. Even prior to the war with Iraq, the financial state of the airlines and the fate of their employees was deteriorating daily, as more than 150,000 industry employees were laid-off or furloughed. The situation has reached a crisis point and Congressional action is desperately needed to avert a total collapse of several air carriers and the elimination of thousands of jobs. The air carriers are now bleeding millions more each day as bookings plummet in the wake of the war. The airline industry predicts another 70,000 layoffs due to a severe drop in business resulting from the war. Moreover, Boeing, which already cut 30,000 workers due to aircraft order cancellations and deferrals following 9/11, says it will lay off nearly 1,000 more workers. The issue of aiding aviation employees is not new. When we passed the $15 billion assistance bill soon after September 11, many of my colleagues and I insisted that if the airline companies were to be afforded relief, so should employees who had lost their jobs. The Republican Leadership told us that there was no time to develop a consensus proposal on employee relief, but on the House Floor, Speaker Hastert promised prompt consideration of employee relief, including financial assistance, ability to retain health insurance, and training for new careers. Regrettably, the Leadership has not followed through, and the House has never considered assistance for displaced airline employees. Mr. Speaker, if the airline industry is entitled to special relief because it has suffered disproportionately from terrorism and war, its displaced workers are equally deserving of relief. Our bill will redress the imbalance, and help the industry's employees cope with difficulties arising from events outside their control. Our bill provides industry employees 26 additional weeks of unemployment benefits. Aviation industry employees were the first to be laid off after 9/11, and they were among the first to exhaust their state and federal jobless benefits. The current federal extension of those benefits as enacted earlier this year will soon expire, and it did not give any help to thousands of workers who had exhausted all their benefits. Aviation workers need and deserve our assistance as the war on terrorism causes a further contraction of the industry. I urge my colleagues to support the Air Transportation Employees Assistance Act. We hope that it can be included in the Supplemental Appropriations Act which will soon be considered by the House.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the ``Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act'' (the STREET ACT). This bill recognizes the close connection between transportation policy and energy policy. In many respects, transportation policy is energy policy. Our transportation energy needs are increasing, but we have not done enough to be able to meet these needs with new technologies and alternative fuels. As a result, our dependence on foreign oil continues unabated. Today, the transportation sector consumes a greater share of petroleum (66 percent) than it did in 1973 (50 percent). Each year for the past two decades, energy use in the transportation sector has increased by a rate of 1.5 percent. It is time, indeed it is long overdue, for the Federal Government to lead in the development and promotion of energy efficient technologies and alternative and renewable fuels. As the Nation's largest energy consumer, the Federal Government is in a unique position to promote energy conservation and efficiency, particularly in the transportation sector and in the operation of Federal buildings. The STREET ACT ensures that the Government does just that. The bill authorizes more than $2 billion to promote greater energy efficiency and further the development and use of alternative and renewable fuels on our highways, railroads, airplanes, ships, and in our Federal buildings. For example, the bill provides for the use of photovoltaic solar energy systems (photovoltaics) in our Federal buildings. Photovoltaics reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and offer distinct advantages over diesel generators and primary batteries. They are highly efficient and have no moving parts, so the need for maintenance is virtually non- existent. Over twenty-five Federal buildings throughout the country, from Boston, Massachusetts to San Francisco, California, already use photovoltaics to great effect. This bill seeks to fulfill the promise of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative of 1997 of having photovoltaic solar energy systems installed in 20,000 of our Federal buildings by 2010. In addition, the bill authorizes the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to make grants for the development of brightfield sites. Brightfields are brownfield sites, i.e., abandoned or contaminated property sites, which are redeveloped using solar energy technologies. Brightfields are being successfully developed across the country. This bill allows the EDA to contribute to this development by providing assistance to economically distressed communities so that they can redevelop contaminated or abandoned property. Making these properties viable for commercial use can significantly improve the economic opportunities in the area where the brightfield site is located. The bill also provides for the development and deployment of new technologies to create cleaner, more fuel-efficient engines for use in all modes of transportation including on rail, in water, and in the air. The bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to enter into public-private partnerships with universities and industry leaders to promote the development of cleaner, more fuel-efficient engines for our Nation's railroads, ships, and airplanes. These clean engines would help reduce ozone-forming emissions and would be especially significant in areas of nonattainment. Research on many of these projects has already begun, and this bill ensures that the Federal Government remains committed to the development and deployment of these promising new technologies. To promote the use of cleaner energy on our Nation's highways, the bill establishes a grant program by which the Department of Transportation can make up to ten grants for the development and demonstration of fuel cell-powered buses. Heavy-duty vehicles, which include buses, account for only 6 percent of the total vehicle population, but generate 60 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions and over 80 percent of all particulate matter emissions. Fuel cell buses would reduce pollution on our roads through the use of a clean, environmentally-friendly energy source and would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Further, we are falling behind other Nation's in the development of these technologies. While there are a few prototype buses currently being tested in this country, the European Union has stated its goal of deploying 30 buses for revenue use in ten European cities by the close of this year. We cannot cede another transportation technology to our foreign competitors. We should lead the world in the research, development, and deployment of fuel cell bus technology. In addition, the bill provides a $75 transportation fringe benefit to employees who commute to work by bicycling, carpooling or car-sharing. Currently, employees who drive to work can receive a $190 per month parking benefit and employees who use transit can receive up to $100 per month. This bill represents a first step in extending those benefits to citizens who choose to promote energy conservation while commuting to and from their jobs. Mr. Speaker, the war with Iraq has once again focused our attention on the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is time to make a real and lasting commitment to the development of these new technologies and the use of alternative and renewable fuel that can help make America more self-sufficient in meeting her energy needs. We have the means available; the place to begin is with the Federal government and with this bill. A detailed summary of the bill's provisions is attached. Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act of 2003 (The Street Act) The Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act (the STREET Act) recognizes the connection between energy policy and transportation policy and the importance of utilizing new technologies and alternative fuels to meet our transportation energy needs. The STREET Act promotes the Federal Government's leadership in the development and utilization of alternative and renewable fuels in the transportation sector and in the operation of Federal buildings. Our Nation's energy needs are increasing. Energy use in the transportation sector alone has increased by a rate of 1.5 percent each year for the past two decades. The vast majority of that energy (approximately 99 percent) comes from traditional fuels. Today, the transportation sector consumes a greater share of petroleum (66 percent) than it did in 1973 (50 percent). As the Nation's largest energy consumer, the Federal Government is in a unique position to promote energy efficiency and the use of alternative and renewable fuels. The STREET Act authorizes more than $2 billion in federal funds to promote greater energy efficiency in our transportation sector and our Federal buildings, and to further the development and use of alternative and renewable fuels in our highways, our railroads, our airplanes, our ships, and in our Federal buildings. economic development and public buildings Photovoltaic Solar Energy Systems for Public Buildings. Amends the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to authorize the Administrator of General Services to establish a photovoltaic energy commercialization program for the procurement and installation of photovoltaic solar energy systems for electric production in new and existing public buildings. The purposes of this section include a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and attainment of the goal of installing 20,000 solar energy systems in federal public buildings set forth in the Federal Government's Million Solar Roof Initiative of 1997. The bill authorizes approximately $1.3 billion over 5 years for this program. Capitol Complex Energy Efficiency. Authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to conduct a study to evaluate the energy infrastructure of the Capitol complex to determine ways to increase energy efficiency including the use of photovoltaic solar energy systems, district heating, and other unconventional and renewable energy resources. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary for this study. Brightfields. Amends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a demonstration grant program for the development of brightfield sites. Brightfield sites are defined as brownfield sites that are redeveloped using solar energy technologies. The bill authorizes $200 million over 5 years for this grant program. surface transportation Highway Fuel Conservation. Establishes a grant program through which the Secretary of Transportation may provide grants to States and local governments for projects designed to make operational improvements to reduce fuel consumption on Federal-aid highways and roads, including data collection and analysis for improved traffic signal timing, implementation of improved and coordinated traffic signals, and planning and implementation of freeway management systems. The bill authorizes $200 million over 5 years for this grant program. Fuel Cell Bus Technology. Amends Section 5308, Title 49 of the United States Code to allow the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to up to 10 recipients for the research and development of fuel cell bus technology. Preference is given to grant applicants who have an existing fuel cell bus technology program and have made investments in hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure. The bill authorizes $300 million over 5 years for this grant program. Conserve by Bicycling. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish a pilot program that would provide funding for up to 10 geographically dispersed projects to encourage the use of bicycles in place of motor vehicles. The bill authorizes $10 million for this program. Energy Impacts. Requires that environmental impact statements prepared for Federal-aid highway and transit projects quantify and consider energy impacts as an environmental consequence of the project. Currently, Federal Highway Administration guidelines state that energy impacts should be considered as one of 25 environmental consequences in an EIS. However, the guidelines state that ``except for large projects, a detailed energy analysis . . . is not needed.'' As a consequence, the energy impact of smaller-scale projects is often not quantified and not thoroughly considered. This section remedies that by requiring that all Federal-aid highway and transit projects quantify and consider energy impacts. Extension of Transportation Fringe Benefits. Amends section 1320(f) of the Internal Revenue Code to include as a transportation fringe benefit that is excludable from an employee's gross income, a $75 commuting allowance for employees who commute to work by bicycling, carpooling or car-sharing. Railroad Efficiency. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, in conjunction with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to establish a public-private research partnership to develop and demonstrate locomotive technologies that increase fuel economy, reduce emissions, and lower costs. The bill authorizes $105 million over 3 years for this program. aviation Clean Airport Bus Pilot Program. Directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a pilot grants award program for the acquisition of buses powered by alternative fuels and low-sulfur diesel fuel at public airports through airport bus replacement and fleet expansion grants. Grants are to be used to purchase buses powered by alternative fuels and low-sulfur diesel fuel to be used as part of the airport fleet for a minimum of 5 years and, to the extent possible, grants are to be awarded to ensure a broad geographic distribution with no State receiving more than 10 percent of the available grant funding. The bill authorizes $200 million over 5 years for this grant program. Clean Aircraft Engines. Authorizes the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to establish a public-private research partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, research universities, and members of the aero-propulsion industry to develop a clean ground demonstrator engine utilizing technologies developed by NASA and to focus on the development and certification of environmentally friendly manufacturing technologies, materials, and overhaul and repair. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary for the establishment of this public-private partnership. water resources Marine Efficiency. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish a public-private research partnership with the Federal Government, vessel operators, ports, terminal operators, shipyards, and equipment suppliers to develop and demonstrate technologies that increase fuel economy, reduce emissions, and lower costs of marine transportation and increase the efficiency of intermodal transfers. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary for the establishment of this public-private partnership. Improving Hydropower Capabilities. Directs the Secretary of the Army to study the potential for reduced fossil fuel consumption through an increase in U.S. hydropower capabilities at dams owned or operated by the Corps of Engineers. Encouragement of Prohibitions on Great Lakes Off-Shore Drilling. Contains a finding by Congress that environmental dangers associated with off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas outweigh the potential benefits of such drilling and encourages the Great Lake states to continue to prohibit off-shore drilling for oil and gas where such prohibitions already exist and to enact a prohibition of such drilling where one does not yet exist.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. A ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker, on the previous question will allow the House to vote on both the bill reported by the committee and the clean AMBER Alert bill passed by the Senate which can then go immediately to the President for his signature. I have heard the claim that the amendment on AMBER Alert developed by our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shows that there are, quote, serious flaws in the AMBER Alert provision in the Senate bill. That is simply not the case. I support our committee's amendment, but I believe the original provision is workable and could be the basis for prompt implementation of AMBER Alert as it has been initiated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The original AMBER Alert provision in the House and Senate bills authorized the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to develop a program in general terms. The amendment our committee adopted made two changes: First, it described the concepts of the program and the purposes for which grants would be made in very specific terms to track the criteria included in the DOT announcement of its AMBER Alert grants issued February 12 of this year. Secondly, the amendment changed the Federal share. These are good changes, a good provision in the amendment, but I also believe that if the original language is adopted, DOT could go ahead with the program announced on February 12 because the specific criteria for DOT's program fall within the general criteria of the Senate bill. DOT would not have to redo its criteria. I would be supportive of prompt passage of the Senate bill followed by further proceedings on the House bill, to include the technical changes in the AMBER Alert. We can do that at some other time. It is not necessary now. We do not have to gild the lily, if you will. A ``no'' vote on the previous question will allow consideration of both the committee bill and the Senate-passed bill. Let us get on with the substance of this issue.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President requested $74.7 billion for supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2003. Although $1.5 billion is requested for the Department of Homeland Security's Counterterrorism Fund, the Administration's proposal fails to address one of the major weaknesses in our national security strategy--port and maritime security. The Administration continues its abysmal track record of shortchanging our Nation's port security needs. The Supplemental Appropriations request includes no specific funding for assessing the security vulnerabilities of vessels and facilities along the navigable waterways of the United States. At current funding levels, the Coast Guard will not complete vulnerability assessments at the Nation's 55 largest ports until 2009. The Administration's request also includes no specific funding for port security grants. On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA). This landmark legislation is designed to improve security in our seaports, on vessels operating on our navigable waters, and in the entire maritime transportation system to protect our Nation from a security incident resulting in significant loss of life or economic disruption. Under MTSA, the Federal government is required to conduct a vulnerability assessment of each vessel, port, and facility to assess any security weaknesses. Moreover, by July 1, 2004, the Coast Guard must review and approve a security plan for each port, facility, and vessel. If a port or vessel does not have an approved security plan by this date, it cannot operate. I am extremely concerned that this Administration is not taking the potential threat to port security or this responsibility seriously. Pursuant to MTSA, on December 30, 2002, the Coast Guard published a Federal Register notice that detailed its cost estimates for ports and vessel owners to comply with security standards that the Coast Guard will prescribe under the Maritime Transportation Security Act. The Coast Guard estimates that it will cost approximately $1.4 billion to comply with the Act in the first year and $6 billion over the next 10 years, including: Facility security: $4.4 billion; Vessel security: $1.1 billion; and Port security plans: $477 million. The Administration has proposed nothing to address these enormous security needs. The Administration has neither requested nor provided adequate resources to conduct the Coast Guard vulnerability assessments quickly and secure our ports, facilities, and vessels. To date, the Administration has requested only $11 million for vulnerability assessments and not one dime for port security grants. Despite the Administration's unwillingness to provide any substantial resources for port security, Congress has appropriated almost $350 million for port security grants. Nevertheless, Congress has provided only six percent of the necessary funding and the Administration has awarded only $92 million, less than one-third, of the available funds. Mr. Speaker, we have a long way to go to secure out maritime system. To date, the Coast Guard has completed vulnerability assessments at only eight of our Nation's 350 ports. Moreover, the Coast Guard has conducted vulnerability assessments at only three of the top 25 ports. It has not conducted vulnerability assessments at any out largest ports, including Los Angeles/Long Beach, New Orleans, Houston, New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or Seattle/Tacoma. At current funding levels, the Coast Guard will not complete assessments at the 55 largest ports until 2009. In addition, the Administration proposes to transfer the responsibility for conducting vulnerability assessments from the Coast Guard to the new Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I am concerned about transferring these responsibilities for vital security plans to a DHS agency that has been in operation for just three weeks and has few staff members. The Administration must dedicate the personnel and financial resources to get these vulnerability assessments done quickly and efficiently. Moreover, the Administration must support funding to secure our ports and facilities. The Coast Guard has estimated that facility security will cost $4.4 billion over the next 10 years. To date, the Administration has only awarded $92.3 million of the available port security grant funds. When the Maritime Administration solicited requests for these grants, it received requests totaling seven times the available amount. Although Congress has provided an additional $254 million for port security, no further grants have been awarded. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives considered H. Con. Res. 95, the FY2004 Budget Resolution. Cong. Spratt, Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on Budget, offered a substitute amendment to H. Con. Res. 95 that included $1.5 billion specifically for port security grants. Regrettably, the Republicans defeated this amendment. However, in the Senate, Senator Hollings offered an amendment to its FY2004 Budget Resolution that would provide $2 billion ($1 billion in FY2004 and $1 billion in FY2005) to fund the security requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. It passed by voice vote. As the Budget Resolution goes to Page 4 conference, I urge this Administration and this Congress to strongly support Senator Hollings' amendment and ensure that we begin to provide the necessary resources to secure our national maritime system. I continue to believe that securing our Nation's ports and the cargo that moves through them is a Federal responsibility. All Americans, whether you live in a port city or whether you live in Boise, Idaho will benefit from that security. The impact on our economy and on all Americans if our Nation's ports are closed down for a few weeks because of a terrorist attack is simply too great. Factory lines will close down. Refineries will run out of oil. Stores will run out of goods. I urge this Administration and this Congress to act now to ensure that we provide the necessary resources to secure our ports, facilities, and vessels.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Unfortunately, this Republican budget is likely to force the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to slash the pensions of 34,000 Coast Guard retirees and 645,000 railroad retirees and their dependents and cut the relief provided to families of the victims of September 11. Who in this House believes that we should cut the September 11 Victims' Compensation Fund to finance tax cuts for the rich? As a Nation at war, who believes that the men and women of the Coast Guard protecting our shores, ensuring the safe passage of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf should be worrying that Congress might cut their retirement? This budget shows a callous disregard for the families of the victims of September 11, the men and women of the Coast Guard, railroad retirees, as well as the infrastructure needs of this country. The budget resolution directs the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to cut $3.7 billion for mandatory programs over the 10 years and to find savings from waste, fraud, and abuse and produce greater efficiency. Those platitudes may make for good rhetoric, but the policies will have devastating effect on the retirees and on the families of the victims of September 11. The Congressional Budget Office says 90 percent of the programs of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's mandatory accounts include the September 11 Victims' Compensation Fund, Coast Guard retirement pay, railroad retirement pensions, and unemployment compensation for railroad workers. Is that where we are supposed to find waste, fraud, and abuse? The Victims' Compensation Fund makes payments to the victims who were injured and the families of those who were killed in the September 11 attacks. Mr. Chairman, no one in this Chamber can possibly ever forget the tragedy of September 11, and I hope the families are beginning to put their lives back together again. How in good conscience can we retreat from the solemn commitment made on this floor to help them rebuild their lives? I commit to them that I will oppose this Republican budget plan that will cut their funding. Similarly, the 36,000 Coast Guard officers and their enlisted personnel and the 34,000 Coast Guard retirees, we pledge to them on our side that we will oppose this budget resolution and its cuts in Coast Guard retirement pay. Coast Guard cutters, as we debate this budget resolution, are on combat patrol with the U.S. Navy, securing the shipping lanes and the safe passage of Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. At home the Coast Guard continues to protect our shores and our ports. Just this week the Secretary of Homeland Security initiated Operation Liberty Shield, increased security at our ports, protect infrastructure, key assets. The Coast Guard under Operation Liberty Shield is increasing its patrols of waterways, escorts of ferries and cruise ships, sea marshals on board vessels of high interest. We get more out of our investment in the Coast Guard than virtually any other agency of the Federal Government. Why should we make them worry about this Republican effort to cut retirement pay? Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 95, the FY2004 Budget Resolution. Regrettably, this Republican Budget is likely to force the Transportation Committee to slash the pensions of 34,000 Coast Guard retirees and 645,000 railroad retirees and their dependents, and cut the relief provided to families of the victims of September 11th. Who in this House believes that we should cut the September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund to finance more tax cuts for the rich? With the Nation now at war, who in this House believes that the men and women of the Coast Guard, who are protecting our shores and ensuring the safe passage of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, should be worrying that this Congress may cut their retirement? This Budget displays a callous disregard for the families of the victims of September 11th, the men and women of the Coast Guard, railroad retirees, as well as the infrastructure needs of this country. Section 201 of the Republican Budget Resolution directs the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to cut $3.7 billion from its mandatory programs over the next 10 years. We are told to find these savings from ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' and to produce greater efficiency in our programs. While these platitudes of ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' make for good rhetoric, these policies will have a devastating effect on these retirees and the families of the victims of the September 11th attack. The Congressional Budget Office says that 90 percent of the Transportation Committee's funding of mandatory programs includes these three: The September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund, Coast Guard retirement pay; and Railroad retirement pensions and unemployment compensation for railroad workers. And this is where we're expected to find ``waste, fraud, and abuse''? The September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund makes payments to the victims who were injured and the families of those who were killed in the September 11th terrorist attacks. Mr. Chairman, no one in this chamber will forget the tragedy of September 11th. I can only hope that families of the victims of September 11th have begun to put their lives back together. How can we, in good conscience, retreat from our solemn commitment to help them rebuild their lives? I commit to them now that I will oppose this Republican plan that could cut funding from the families of the victims of September 11th. Similarly, I commit to the men and women of the Coast Guard, both the 36,000 Coast Guard officers and enlisted personnel and the 34,000 Coast Guard retirees, that I will strongly oppose this Republican Budget Resolution and its likely cuts in Coast Guard retired pay. As we debate this Budget Resolution, Coast Guard cutters are on combat patrol with the U.S. Navy to help secure shipping lands and the safe passage of Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. At home the Coast Guard continues to protect our shores and ports. On Monday, March 17, the Secretary of Homeland Security initiated Operation LIBERTY SHIELD to increase security at our Nation's borders and protect our critical infrastructure and key assets. Under Operation LIBERTY SHIELD, the Coast Guard is increasing patrols of major U.S. ports and waterways, increasing its escorts of ferries and cruise ships, providing armed Sea Marshals onboard every high interest vessel arriving at or departing from U.S. ports, and enforcing security zones in and around critical infrastructure sites in key ports and petroleum facilities close to large coastal communities. In addition to its military and homeland security missions, the Coast Guard continues its search-and-rescue mission--responding to nearly 37,000 calls and saving 3,654 lives in 2002--and many other missions. The Coast Guard has long been stretched thin, but has always been ready--``Semper Paratus''--to answer the call. I have always maintained that the public gets more out of its investment in the Coast Guard than virtually any other government service. The enlisted men and women and officers of the Coast Guard should not have to worry about this Republican effort to cut their retirement pay. The Republican Budget Resolution also is likely to result in significant cuts to railroad workers' retirement and unemployment compensation programs. Railroad workers, unlike other workers, are not covered by the Social Security system. They have their own retirement program. Last Congress, the bipartisan leadership of the Transportation Committee, with the strong support of rail unions, railroads, and rail retirees and their dependents, introduced H.R. 1140, a bill to revise the railroad retirement program to restore rail worker benefits and decrease railroad payroll taxes. The House overwhelmingly passed this legislation, by a vote of 383-33, and it became law. Today, the Republican Budget Resolution forces the Transportation Committee to consider changing this Act to cut railroad worker retirement benefits and unemployment compensation. I commit to the 248,000 rail workers and the 645,000 rail retirees and their dependents that I will fight any attempt to roll back the benefits so recently restored to you. Beyond these devastating cuts required by the reconciliation instructions, this Budget Resolution does little to meet our infrastructure investment needs. For the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee urged the Budget Committee to provide $50 billion in budget authority for highway, highway safety, and transit programs. In its letter to the Budget Committee, 74 of the 75 Members of the Transportation Committee stated that we must provide this level of funding in FY2004 to maintain our surface transportation systems and have any hope of improving the overall condition of the Nation's highway and transit systems. Regrettably, this Budget Resolution provides $39 billion for these programs--little more than the status quo for TEA 21 reauthorization. Through the vigorous efforts of the bipartisan leadership of this Committee, the Resolution also provides a reserve fund that would allow for additional allocations if this or other legislation includes increases in Highway Trust Fund receipts. Although this does provide the Transportation Committee with the opportunity to address this issue at a later date, this Resolution does nothing to address our enormous highway and transit infrastructure needs in the fiscal year ahead. Moreover, the Republican Resolution cuts the amount of highway and transit funding that actually may be obligated in FY2004 below the CBO baseline. Specifically, the Republican Budget Resolution assumes a cut in the transit program of $98 million in FY2004 and $2.5 billion over the next six years. This cut is directly contrary to TEA 21's goal of modal balance. Under TEA 21 we significantly increased transit funding by guaranteeing $36 billion for transit. As a result of this increased investment, transit ridership has added 1.6 billion riders--more than 900,000 new riders each day--over the last five years. This transit renaissance could be threatened by these cuts in transit funding. At a time when our Nation's infrastructure faces huge unmet safety and security needs, congestion is crippling our cities, and our economy has lost 2.5 million jobs in the past two years, the Republican Budget Resolution cuts these vital programs that could address infrastructure security needs and congestion problems and create family-wage jobs to grow our economy. Instead, it provides more than $1 trillion of new tax cuts. This Budget Resolution reflects more than misplaced priorities. It is an assault on working men and women from the Coast Guard to the Maintenance of Way railroad employees. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Republican Budget Resolution and urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the ``Aviation Industry Stabilization Act.'' The bill addresses the burdens placed on the industry by the terrorist attacks on September 11, the increased security required in response to the attacks, and additional burdens the industry will face if there is a war with Iraq. Although the events of September 11 were directed at our Nation as a whole, the airlines were used as the weapons of attack and, as a result, have incurred a disproportionate share of the costs of the attack. The effects of September 11 on the aviation industry were direct and far-reaching. Commercial airliners were totally grounded for several days and realized no revenues while incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses. Even after the industry resumed flying, passenger traffic has not fully recovered because of public anxiety that the airlines could again become a weapon for terrorists. The events of September 11 have also added to the industry's expenses, including a billion dollars a year in increased insurance costs, and loss of substantial revenues because of security limitations on the carriage of freight and mail. In addition, we have required increased security for the aviation system after September 11. Although it was our intent that the general public pay most of these added costs, and that the new Transportation Security Administration take over many security functions, we have not fully compensated the airlines for the added costs involved in functions they continue to perform, such as screening catering facilities, checking documents, screening passengers and persons with access to aircraft, and cockpit door retrofit. The costs of a war with Iraq will also fall disproportionately on the airlines. A war with Iraq is likely to add substantially to the industry's financial distress, including increased fuel costs (fuel is approximately 15 percent of the airlines' total costs), loss of revenue from the reluctance of passengers to fly--especially in the trans- Atlantic service--and the need of our military to use the airlines' aircraft to carry troops and equipment to the war zone. Shortly after September 11, Congress responded to the aviation industry's financial problems by passing a $15 billion package of direct assistance and loans. Even with this assistance, the Air Transport Association (ATA) states that passenger carriers reported over $10 billion in 2002 net losses. ATA forecasts $6.7 billion in net losses of 2003 if the United States does not go to war with Iraq. However, if the United States does go to war with Iraq, ATA forecasts that airline net losses for 2003 will be $10.7 billion to $13 billion. The costs of September 11 have fallen not only on airline creditors and stockholders, but also on their employees. Airline workers have suffered unprecedented job loss and economic uncertainty. Some 100,000 airline employees are out of work or facing imminent lay-off. The ATA forecasts another 70,000 layoffs if there is a war with Iraq. And, with two major airlines in bankruptcy, and more likely to follow, the staggering job losses may grow. Mr. Speaker, we must act now to stem the tremendous costs of September 11 that are continuing to be imposed on the airlines and their hard-working employees, and the even greater costs and revenue losses that are likely once the war with Iraq commences. The airlines have already shouldered, and are continuing to shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs of September 11. We must not force them to bear a disproportionate share of the direct and indirect costs of a war with Iraq. We must act now to provide airlines with stable, low cost war risk insurance from the federal government, relief from security burdens that are the responsibility of the entire country, and assistance in coping with any major increase in fuel costs and any loss of traffic, resulting from a war with Iraq. Specifically, my bill provides: war risk insurance A permanent limitation on airline liability for third party damages (i.e. injuries to people in a building or on the ground) from acts of terrorism to $100 million, and extends existing war risk policies until December 31, 2007 at premiums no higher than now. fuel prices Loan Guarantees: Reopens the federal loan program established by the Air Transportation and System Stabilization Act (Pub. L. 107-42) and dedicates $3 billion of the $10 billion program to federal guarantees for loans or for lines of credit, or direct lines of credit for carriers to purchase fuel. In other words, the program authorizes ATSB to issue a loan guarantee, or issue a line of credit directly to carrier or to guarantee a line of credit issued to a carrier by a third party. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Requires the Secretary of Energy to draw down not less than 500,000 barrels per day of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to offset dislocation or price spikes in the jet fuel market due to a possible war with Iraq. Air Carrier Reimbursement Air Traffic Losses: Authorizes the Department of Transportation to reimburse, subject to appropriations, an air carrier for any financial losses that the DOT determines are attributable to the loss of air traffic due to a war with Iraq. Security-Related Activities: Directs the TSA, within available resources, to reimburse air carriers and airports for screening related activities they are still performing, such as catering, document checks, and screening of passengers and persons having access to aircraft. In addition, directs the TSA to reimburse such entities for the provision of space. The bill also directs the TSA to reimburse air carriers for the costs of strengthening cockpit doors. Civil Reserve Air Fleet: Ensures that air carriers participating in the civil reserve air fleet program are compensated for positioning, de-positioning, and other ferry portions of such missions. During the gulf war, many air carriers performing CRAF missions lost revenue from the lack of return flight traffic. Mr. Speaker, my bill recognizes the ongoing plight of the aviation industry, for the costs imposed upon them by the terrorist attacks of September 11, the increased security necessitated by the attack, and the likely war with Iraq. National security is the responsibility of the entire nation; disproportionment costs should not be imposed on the industry that happens to be the means of terrorist attacks. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to pass this important legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful person and former member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff who passed away a few weeks ago, Mrs. Joy Bryson. Just one year ago, I rose to congratulate Joy on her retirement. Her retirement was all too short. As Joy's family returns from taking her home to North Carolina, I rise to honor Joy once again. Joy was a much-loved member of the T&I Committee Staff, and we all miss her very deeply. All of us, Member and staff alike, suffered with her through her long ordeal with breast cancer and its permutations, a struggle that I know all too well from my own experience, losing my late wife, Jo, after an eight-and-a-half year battle with the same disease. When in remission, Joy worked as an active advocate for breast cancer research and for cancer research and treatment. Joy was a very strong advocate for the work of the Breast Cancer Research, Treatment, and Education Center at George Washington University Hospital. She actively supported efforts in the private sector community to raise funds for the ``mammavan'' project of G.W. Hospital that helps provide mammograms for women in underserved areas of Washington, D.C., and the international community of the city. Joy dealt with her long struggle with cancer privately. She did not want attention brought to her, which, in a way, was unfortunate, because many of us wanted to comfort, support, and console her. But, she carried on, with her loving family by her side, a very private campaign that she ultimately lost. I ask all of you to keep her and her family--her husband, Lit, and her two children, Chris and Jeni--in your prayers. Keep those who are left behind in your prayers. They are the ones who need it most. Joy will be where her name suggests, in the joy of eternity, in the hands of our loving Father.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives considered several bills under suspension of the rules yesterday and my vote was not recorded on those measures. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 50, rollcall vote 51, and rollcall Vote 52.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Air Traffic Retirement Reform Act of 2003. This legislation will grant air traffic controllers, and more specifically air traffic controller supervisors, the same treatment that Federal firefighters and law enforcement officers (LEOs) receive under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Both the CSRS and the FERS provide early retirement benefits and require mandatory separation for safety-related occupations, including Federal firefighters, LEOs and air traffic controllers. Under both CSRS and FERS, firefighters/LEOs and controllers are eligible for retirement after 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years old and completing 20 years of service. Additionally, the annuities for firefighters, LEOs and controllers are higher than ordinary Federal employees under CSRS and FERS. However, the current definition of an air traffic controller in both CSRS and FERS is limited to people who are actively engaged in directing air traffic or their immediate supervisors. As a result, air traffic controllers who are promoted to staff specialists or second level managers before they are eligible to retire lose all benefits currently guaranteed controllers under CSRS and FERS. Yet, firefighters and LEOs that are promoted to management positions do not need to make a similar sacrifice. The Air Traffic Retirement Reform Act of 2003 amends the CSRS and FERS to provide a more expansive two-tier definition of air traffic controllers. The new definition will include both employees covered under the current definition of air traffic controllers and second level supervisors. Second level supervisors would be eligible for the same retirement benefits available to line-controllers. The Air Traffic Retirement Reform Act of 2003 provides fairness and parity between air traffic controllers and other Federal safety professionals.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, in the current international debate on Iraq, I have the very clear impression that the United States and France are talking past each other and not listening to each other. More particularly, that the United States is not listening to the very nuanced views expressed by the French. My assessment of the dialogue is that President Chirac and President Bush are in accord on the objective of disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deliver such weapons. The Bush administration, however, has concluded that the only way to achieve this objective is through military action. In contrast, the French and many other U.S. allies and friendly observers favor continued diplomacy in the firm belief that a vigorous, intensive weapons inspection program will attain the disarmament objective. It would be useful for the Bush administration to think more constructively about France's contributions to international dialogue and its distinguished record of multilateral peacekeeping as well as military intervention when justified. A few highlights would be instructive: France was a valuable partner for the United States during the Gulf War in 1991, deploying 10,000 troops and 100 aircraft in Operation Desert Storm. From 1991 through 1995, France was an active ally to secure the peace in Bosnia. During this important peacekeeping mission, 70 French soldiers were killed and more than 600 wounded. In 1999, France deployed the greatest number of aircraft and flew the largest number of sorties of any combatant in Operation Allied Force in Kosovo. France today is contributing the largest contingent of peacekeepers in the Balkans, more than any other nation, including our own. After September 11, French troops participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan where France continues to place its troops in harm's way to provide security in that critical region. French President Chirac was the first foreign leader to pay his respects to the United States in person following the September 11 attacks. This is a very significant record of valuable contributions that France has made where and when needed to combat terror and secure peace. Our foreign policy would be better served by respecting the historical reality of the U.S.-French relationship. We need to listen to the wise counsel of this longstanding friend of America which has learned how to deal with the Islamic terrorist threat from its own painful experience in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco and the large Arabic-Islamic population among its own citizenry. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a New York Times op-ed piece on this very subject. A Warning on Iraq, From a Friend (By Jean-David Levitte) Washington.--Reading the papers from both sides of the Atlantic, I sometimes wonder whether the impending war is not between France and the United States. I would like to strongly reaffirm what, in the heart of the French people, is a longstanding reality: the friendship between France and America began in the early days of your fight for independence and has endured throughout the centuries. America rescued my country twice in the last century-- something we will never forget. Today we stand side by side in many parts of the world, including Afghanistan. France is the largest contributor of troops to NATO operations. Our friendship is a treasure, and it must be maintained, protected, enhanced. However, the polls are clear: 78 percent of French people oppose a military intervention in Iraq. Polls are similar in most other countries, including in Eastern Europe. European governments may be divided over the use of force in Iraq, but public opinion is united. There are, in my view, three reasons the mood is so cautious. The first relates to our assessment of what is far and away the biggest threat to world peace and stability: Al Qaeda. French intelligence is clear that not since the Algerian war 40 years ago has my country been under such an immediate threat. Last May, 11 French citizens were killed in a suicide bombing in Karachi, Pakistan. In the fall a French tanker was attacked by Al Qaeda off Yemen. And in December, near Paris, we arrested several suspects who were suspected of close links to Al Qaeda and of planning terrorist attacks in France. Terrorist suspects have also been arrested elsewhere in Europe--in Britain, Spain and Italy--belonging to groups connected with networks active in Afghanistan, Chechyna, Algeria and Bosnia. Yet we haven't seen any evidence of a direct link between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. A second reason for the reluctance of the French people is that Iraq is not viewed as an immediate threat. Thanks to the determination of President Bush and the international community--and to the inspections that destroyed more armaments between 1991 and 1998 than did the Persian Gulf war itself, and which have now been reinforced with stronger means and bigger teams--Saddam Hussein is in a box. And the box has been closed with the inspectors in it. Europeans consider North Korea a greater threat. Imagine what a sense of security we all would feel if, as in Iraq, 100 inspectors were proceeding with unimpeded inspections throughout North Korea, including the president's palaces. A third reason for the cautious mood relates to the consequences of a war in Iraq. We see Iraq as a very complex country, with many different ethnic groups, a tradition of violence and no experience of democracy. You can't create democracy with bombs--in Iraq; it would require time, a strong presence and a strong commitment. We also worry about the region--considering that no peace process is at work for the moment in the Middle East, that none of the great powers seem able to foster one, and that a war in Iraq could result in more frustration and bitterness in the Arab and Muslim worlds. People in France and more broadly in Europe fear that a military intervention could fuel extremism and encourage Qaeda recruitment. A war could weaken the indispensable international coalition against terrorism and worsen the threat of Islamic terrorism. The inspections should be pursued and strengthened, and Saddam Hussein must be made to cooperate actively. War must remain the very last option.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to commend the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's (AOPA) for its contribution to the Airport Watch Program. General aviation and private pilots have a proud and patriotic history of working to keep America secure. During the Second World War, private pilots in the Civil Air Patrol were our eyes in the sky, watching over our coasts for Nazi Uboats and patrolling our borders for enemy saboteurs. As we fight this new war on terrorism, we must remember general aviation's proud history. We must make sure to employ the GA community as an ally, not to treat it with suspicion. The Airport Watch Program is contemporary example of general aviation worldng to keep this country secure. The Airport Watch Program is a collaborative effort between AOPA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to enhance security at our Nation's 5,400 public use airports. Airport Watch will enlist the help of those most familiar with airports and pilots to be our eyes and ears. Modeled after the highly successful neighborhood watch programs, Airport Watch will enlist the help of the more than 550,000 general aviation pilots by giving every pilot an important role to monitor community airports. Airport Watch also encourages pilots to report any suspicious airport activity to a TSA-sponsored toll free hotline (1-866-GA Secure) staffed by the federal government's National Response Center. Additionally, the program includes warning signs for airports, informational literature, and training videotapes to educate pilots and airport employees on how security of their airports and aircraft can be enhanced. This groundbreaking program is just one example of AOPA's leadership in promoting national security while preserving freedom of the skies. Further, this partnership between government and private citizens represents what can be achieved when we work together to address the security of the homeland. Again, I want to commend the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association for designing this proactive security program. I strongly support this resolution and urge its approval.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to restore protection from destruction and pollution to all of the Nation's waters, including wetlands. This bill will amend the Clean Water Act to reestablish the original intent of Congress in that 1972 law to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In January 2001, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that denies federal Clean Water Act protection for thousands of acres of waters that serve as habitat for migratory birds. Congress must approve this bill to overturn that decision--the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (The SWANCC case). This case was decided 5-4 contrary to the intent of Congress and against the grain of nearly 30 years of judicial and administrative precedent. Unfortunately, since the Court's decision, the Administration has done nothing to rectify this misguided and misinformed undermining of Federal protections over waters of the United States, including wetlands. Where the environmentally responsible position to limit the impact on our nation's environment would have been to narrowly interpret the SWANCC decision and to support Congressional action to overturn this decision, the Administration has, instead, proposed to explore amending its rules and regulations to expand the list of waters not covered by the Clean Water Act. Instead of supporting efforts to correct the damage, the Administration's action continues the abandonment of at least one-fifth of the nation's waters. This is unconscionable. Until the Supreme Court's decision in the SWANCC case, section 404 of the Clean Water Act served as the primary federal protection for wetlands that serve important habitat, flood control and water quality improvement functions. In the absence of section 404 protection, small, isolated waters, including wetlands, could be filled or drained without regard to the impact on the environment or human needs. The Supreme Court has adopted a very narrow reading of the intent of Congress in drafting the Clean Water Act and has determined that protection of small water bodies is beyond the reach of the Act. As is stated in the dissenting opinion, ``the Court takes an unfortunate step that needlessly weakens our principal safeguard against toxic water.'' I agree and would further observe that the Court's decision opens an opportunity for waters across the Nation to be destroyed and degraded-- and one which this Administration is all too willing to exploit. A bedrock objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 was to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. The legislative history and the statutory language of the Clean Water Act make it abundantly clear that Congress intended the broadest possible constitutional interpretation for the provisions of this precedent- setting law. The essence of the Supreme Court's opinion is that when Congress used the term ``navigable waters'' in the Clean Water Act, Congress intended that there be some nexus to actual navigation and commerce. Congress, in the Clean Water Act, was very deliberate and careful to define ``navigable waters'' as, ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.'' Likewise, the legislative history and court decisions prior to SWANCC have given the term ``navigable waters'' the broadest possible interpretation. The proposed legislation will eliminate the use of the term ``navigable waters'' throughout the Clean Water Act and replace it with ``waters of the United States.'' A definition of waters of the United States also would be added to mean coastal waters, territorial seas, all interstate and intrastate bodies of water (including tributaries) to the full extent that they are subject to the power of Congress under the Constitution; specifically including a river, stream, lake, natural pond, mudflat, sandflat, wetland, slough, prairie pothole, wet meadow, playa lake, natural pond, and an impoundment to any of these waters. The proposed definition is a combination of long-standing interpretations of jurisdiction by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers prior to the January 2001 decision. The bill restores Clean Water Act authority; the bill does not expand that authority. Trout Unlimited, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, American Rivers, Clean Water Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, U.S. Public Interest Group, Association of State Floodplain Managers, The Ocean Conservancy, the Izaak Walton League of America, and Clean Water Network support this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and to express profound appreciation to Gilda K. Beatty, my office manager of more than 33 years who took her retirement at the end of December last year. Gilda, best known to everyone who met her as ``Jill,'' began her service in my office when I was administrative assistant to my predecessor, John Blatnik, in December 1969, where she started as a classical secretary: gifted, talented, skilled, energetic, hard- working. But the day before she started her service in the office, our first daughter was born. From that day forward, until after I was elected to this House in 1974, and especially following the death of my wife, Jo, Jill has been a surrogate mother to our four children, a partner in all that I undertook as administrative assistant and as Member of Congress, counselor, advisor, keeper of my time, managing my schedule in Washington and with my district staff, my travels in the district and travels elsewhere throughout the country. Jill's good humor, good spirit, and her can-do attitude, made our office a joy to work in. I have always said of Jill Beatty that she had that exceptional ability to say no to people who could then leave saying ``thank you,'' a person of whom in another context it should be said she could sell ice boxes to Eskimos. She was able to bring people together in our office, visitors from our district to Washington, and though herself a Pennsylvanian, coming from the coal and steel country of Pennsylvania, she related to the iron ore mining area of the eighth district of Minnesota in a very special, unique way, so that folks always thought she was a Minnesotan, a northeastern Minnesotan, an iron ranger. She is, in spirit, certainly that. What was more important to me than the friendship, the professional association, the work, the undying work ethic that she portrayed throughout those 33 years, was her ability to grow in her work and to move from skill to skill; to understand the broader needs of our office, and of the relationship of this office to the committees on which I served, and now the committee, the single Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and to relate our Washington responsibilities to the Eighth District of Minnesota responsibilities so as to balance the time, the interest, the need, and put them all in appropriate proportion. That is an extraordinary balancing act and a challenge at which few succeed, but Jill succeeded in a very special way. Perhaps her ability to understand the complexities of running a congressional office in the computer age, in the era of instant communications, compared to the time when she began, when first we did not even have fax machines; but when the first one came in, there was that old onion skin fax, and no multiple letter production capability; to transition from that era to the present takes a very special person of adaptability, the willingness and ability to adapt to change, to changing circumstances. To embrace change and to move ahead of change, that is Jill's greatest skill and ability, and it gave me the greatest pleasure to see her grow through the stages of evolution of technology that are so important for us in the Congress to maintain communication with the people in our districts who we represent here in this House. Personally, it is her ever-ready good humor; her ability to laugh, to laugh at herself, to laugh with others, and to make people feel so welcome. Every person who walked in our office, who met with or worked with Jill on whatever purpose it was felt as though he or she were the only person in the world, the only person in Washington, at that particular moment. That is a rare and special gift for which I will always be grateful, because she made our office in Washington the home in Washington for the people from the Eighth District of Minnesota who came here to visit. We all miss her terribly. We miss her good humor, her creativity, her willingness to move to the next horizon. I particularly have appreciated her sort of gentle tap on the wrist saying, you are doing too much. It is time to back off. You need a little more time. You can't do all these things at the same time. I know you would like to do all that, but it is not possible, and I am not going to let you do it. She was sort of an auntie who takes care of those who need supervision. Jill, we are grateful to you for all that you have contributed and done, and I particularly, and I know the entire staff joins in, wish you all the very best of good health, happiness, and long life after Congress.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in opposition to the rule. By prohibiting a motion to strike the imprudent and fiscally irresponsible language in the continuing resolution concerning the housing of the new Department of Homeland Security, this rule circumvents fair, deliberative legislative process. This language in the CR authorizes the government to enter into a long-term lease for a building in Virginia to house some of the employees of the new department. The Bush administration and the House Republican leadership have thereby created a Department of Homeland Security that itself is not secure. This was a backdoor deal done without participation from House Democrats, and frankly very little participation by House Republican leadership and members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Here is how: the CR says that the prospectus to lease the property is deemed approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We have not even considered it. We have not even seen it in open committee hearing process. In fact, it was not approved by our committee or any other relevant committee of either the House or the Senate. We did not have a chance to meet and discuss it. The prospectus was signed on Christmas Eve and delivered through the mail slot in our door the day after Christmas when people were on leave. The new department and the security of the people who work there, frankly, are far too important for this kind of gimmickry; and in the process, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been marginalized and trivialized. This secretive process avoids answering questions by the administration, such as does the commercial office space that they have chosen meet basic security standards, such as a 100-foot setback to protect against truck bombs? Does it have shatterproof windows? Neither of these issues is addressed in the prospectus, nor in the CR. At the signing of the Homeland Security Act, President Bush said, ``Our objective in creating this department is to spend less on overhead and more on protecting neighborhoods, borders, waters and skies from terrorists.'' Well, this lease is going to cost the government a quarter of a billion dollars over 10 years, and in addition the government is going to have to spend tens of millions of dollars to make necessary security enhancements to the building. That is not keeping overhead costs down. Furthermore, they have got a leased building. After investing all the money, the Bush administration is clearly prepared to walk away from that investment and stick the taxpayers with the bill. A better solution is for the Federal Government to build a new facility to house the department. We proposed that solution last year in committee. The House passed it in July as part of the Homeland Security Act. It did not continue in the final legislation, but nonetheless there is a longstanding provision of Federal law that requires Cabinet-level offices to be built in the District of Columbia. Common sense tells us it is better to own your house than rent it, and this building is not going to hold the 17,000 employees of the new department headquarters. At most it is going to hold 2,200 people on a 10-year lease that if they try to cancel they are going to pay a huge price. This is fiscally irresponsible. It is a disrespect to the people, it is a disrespect to the public discussion and legislative process, and under the rubric of security, secretive process is not appropriate. Vote against the rule and against the CR.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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