James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the proposal to create a new Select Committee on Homeland Security interestingly does not make any changes in the legislative jurisdiction of the committees outlined in rule 10 of the rules of the House. For instance, in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure we have handled complex aviation security issues for 28 years. We have held dozens of hearings, classified briefings on aviation security. We have monitored security at U.S. and foreign airports. We have passed landmark legislation like the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 in response to the terrorism attack on Pan Am 103, and in the aftermath of the September 11, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. We have a great body of expertise on aviation security issues and the legislation to improve security. Now, I am puzzled that a moment ago the Speaker said the ``select committee will be our eyes and ears of the House. The standing committees will maintain their jurisdictions and will still have authorization and oversight responsibilities.'' Now I take that to mean that nothing in the package would deprive the House of the American people of the expertise of the committee and the members and staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. But it is not clear, the legislative proposal on the select committee includes ``matters that relate to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.'' As I read the proposal, the new committee would not have primary jurisdiction over legislation involving programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security. The explanation offered a moment ago by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules does not clarify that jurisdictional question. Now, let me pose an issue. Title 14 of the Homeland Security Act, entitled Arming Pilots Against Terrorism, establishes a program to deputize airline pilots as Federal law enforcement officers and enables them to carry firearms on board a plane. That provision was based upon a bill developed in our committee which passed the House. The question is, if a new bill were introduced to repeal that rule, would that bill be primarily referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or to the Committee on Homeland Security? I would ask the gentleman that. Would the gentleman respond?

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express congratulations to a former colleague, Congressman Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania, for an honor he recently received. Earlier this week, Bud Shuster was named the ``Transportation Person of the Century'' by the Associated Pennsylvania Constructors (APC) in honor of the tremendous contributions he has made to the nation's transportation and infrastructure systems. It is a tribute to Bud that APC rightly recognized the role that he played in ensuring that our communities have transportation choices, such as transit, rail systems, pedestrian walkways, Amtrak, and bike paths. Bud Shuster spent his career building America. Bud served in the House of Representatives for 28 years, six of those as Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the largest and most productive committee in Congress. His perseverance, patience and willingness to find common ground made him one of the greatest committee chairmen we have seen in recent years in the House. His extraordinary achievements as Chairman speak for themselves, and he has the respect of his former colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Part of the joy of working on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is the way in which we work together to develop bipartisan bills. As a committee, we worked extraordinarily well over the six years of Bud's leadership. I had the pleasure of working with him on many major pieces of legislation to improve the nation's transportation and infrastructure systems, including TEA-21 and AIR-21. Throughout his service on the Transportation Committee, Bud Shuster demonstrated effective bipartisan leadership in showing that transportation, infrastructure and environmental programs make a real difference in all Americans' lives. He retired from this body at the beginning of the 107th Congress, and since that time, I have missed him, not only for his policy expertise, but also for his friendship. I commend and congratulate Bud Shuster on his distinguished career as a public servant.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3429, the Max Cleland Over-the- Road Bus Security and Safety Act of 2002. I am pleased that the House is moving forward with this important piece of transportation security legislation. Since reporting the bill in June, the Committee has worked aggressively to bring the bill to the Floor. Unfortunately, every Committee effort to advance the bill was blocked by the Republican Leadership. I am pleased, therefore, with the Leadership's recent change of heart, even at this late date, to allow the Committee to advance this important piece of legislation. The bill has been worked out with our counterparts on the Commerce Committee in the Other Body and has the strong support of our side of the aisle. We expect both bodies will clear the bill for the President's signature. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, over-the-road bus drivers and passengers have been the targets of many serious assaults, including two assaults killing a total of nine passengers and another assault injuring 33 passengers. As recently as September 30, 2002, a bus driver was attacked with a knife while transporting 49 passengers on a Greyhound bus in California. As a result of the attack, the bus went off the road and ended up on its side. Although the driver survived, two of the 49 passengers died. 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 law the FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-206). The Act provided $15 million for grants and contracts to enhance security for intercity bus operations. However, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has not released a single penny of these funds. In fact, DOT has not even established an application process by which entities can apply for these security funds. The Administration's failure to make these funds available is inexcusable. The recent California attack was the fourth attack on an intercity bus driver in the past year. Any further delay in releasing these funds risks the lives of thousands of low-income Americans whose only mode of transportation may be travel by bus. The Administration must take immediate action to make these funds available. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3429, as amended, moves us in the right direction. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program for making grants to private operators of over-the-road buses for system- wide security improvements to their operations, including constructing and modifying terminals, garages, or over-the-road buses to assure their security; protecting the driver; training employees in recognizing security threats; hiring and training security officers; installing camera and video surveillance equipment; and establishing an emergency communications system linked to law enforcement and emergency personnel. Since September 11, the intercity bus industry has spent millions on enhanced security measures. The funds provided by the bill will supplement measures already undertaken by the industry to increase the security of the bus system and restore the public's confidence in traveling by bus. H.R. 3429, as amended, authorizes $99 million in fiscal year 2003 to allow the Secretary to make grants to private bus operators for system- wide security improvements to their operations. The federal share of the cost of any grant is 90 percent. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3429.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3609, the Pipeline Safety and Improvement Act of 2002. This evening, the House finally will be able to enact pipeline safety legislation that is worthy of the name. It is has been a long and difficult journey to reach this point. Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Dingell and I introduced strong pipeline safety legislation in this and the last Congress, while at the same time we fought to forestall the passage of much weaker legislation. Although it has required two more years of difficult negotiations on pipeline safety, I am pleased to say that nearly all the areas that Congressman Dingell and I wanted to address are covered in the bill. Is this bill perfect? No, but it has come a long way from the version that was introduced last December. My primary criticism of this compromise bill is that it does not go far enough in giving citizens information about the status of pipelines serving their communities-- the so-called community right-to-know issue. However, in the current security-focused environment, we were unable to arrive at language that a majority of our colleagues could agree upon. Notwithstanding that limitation, this is a very good bill deserving of your support. Let me share with you some highlights of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. First and foremost, this bill establishes specific timeframes for inspecting all natural gas transmission pipelines serving high consequence areas (e.g., high population areas). These pipelines must all be inspected within ten years of enactment of this legislation. Moreover, at least 50 percent of these pipelines must be inspected within the first five years. Pipeline operators must prioritize their facilities based on risk factors and ensure that assessments with the highest risks are given priority and inspections are completed within this first five-year period. Subsequently, these pipelines must be re- inspected no less frequently than ever seven years. At first, the natural gas pipeline industry strenuously opposed any periodic inspection requirements. When it became apparent that they couldn't win that position, they suggested inspection timeframes of up to 20 years and the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) appeared to agree with them. Fortunately, the interests of safety prevailed over the interests of the bottom line. The bill also includes a requirement that pipeline operators provide training to ensure that individuals have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their tasks in a safe manner. The bill specifically excludes the mere observation of an employee's on-the-job performance to decide whether or not he or she is qualified to perform the task to which he is assigned. The bill also requires OPS to establish a pilot program to certify pipeline employees who operate computer systems for controlling pipelines. This pilot program will help us determine whether we should require pipeline operators to certify all pipeline employees in safety-sensitive positions. In addition, the bill raises the civil penalties for each violation from $25,000 to $100,000, and the maximum civil penalty from $500,000 to $1 million. These penalties are significantly higher than the penalties included in H.R. 3609, as reported. The bill also contains meaningful protections for employees who provide information about violations of Federal law governing pipeline safety or refuse to participate in any illegal practices relating to pipeline safety. The bill allows for the coordination of environmental reviews for pipeline repair projects. It limits the instances where discretionary administrative environmental reviews might be minimized or eliminated to repair projects that would result in no more than minimal adverse effects on the environment and requires that an Interagency Committee of Federal agencies with responsibilities relating to pipeline repair projects unanimously agree that the environmental impact would be minimal. This bill contains a number of other provisions that also should greatly advance the goal of improving pipeline safety. However, I must offer a word of caution. Simply because we enact a good, strong pipeline safety bill is no guarantee that its provisions will be vigorously carried out. In 1988 and 1992, Congress passed pipeline safety laws that required significant pipeline safety improvements, only to watch OPS basically ignore the law. Likewise, the Office of Pipeline Safety has been unresponsive, or slow to act, on safety recommendations made by the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and the National Transportation Safety Board. The current leadership at OPS and at its parent agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration, has promised to do a better job. Nevertheless, the Administration needs to know that we in the Congress are watching to make certain that the provisions of this pipeline safety act are being carried out faithfully. Two years ago, I helped lead the effort in the House to defeat a Senate-passed, pipeline safety bill. That bill was too weak, especially in light of the then-recent tragedies in Bellingham, Washington and Carlsbad, New Mexico. We defeated that bill, believing that no bill was better than a weak one. That was the right thing to do. Now, we finally have a strong bill--one that will significantly improve pipeline safety and protect those who live near them or work on them. It is sad that it took so long to do the right thing for the American people. I urge my colleagues to support the Senate amendment to H.R. 3609, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5604 is a bill to designate the federal building located at 46 East Ohio St., Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' This bill is sponsored by the entire Indiana delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Birch Bayh was born on January 22, 1928, in Terre Haute, Indiana. He attended public schools in Indiana and joined the army in 1946. In 1954, he was elected to the Indiana House of Representatives where he served for eight years, including terms as Minority Leader and later, as Speaker of the House. In 1962, when he was only 34 years old, Birch Bayh was elected to the first of three terms in the U.S. Senate. Senator Bayh quickly became a leader on issues of education, equal rights, and Constitutional law. As Chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Bayh authored two amendments to the Constitution-- the 25th Amendment setting forth the order of Presidential succession, and the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 years of age. During his time in the Senate, Senator Bayh also served on the Appropriations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Bayh was a champion of equal rights for women and minorities. He authored Title IX to the Higher Education Act, which mandates equal opportunities for women students and faculty in our Nation's schools. Further, Senator Bayh was a strong supporter of two pieces of landmark legislation--the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He was also instrumental in enacting the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates the separation of juvenile offenders from adult prison populations. Since leaving the Senate in the 1980s, Senator Bayh has continued his commitment to public service. He serves as a member of the William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, and the University of Virginia's Miller Center Commission on Presidential Disability and the 25th Amendment. It is entirely fitting and proper to honor the contributions of Senator Birch Bayh with this designation and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5604. Discharged From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Passed H.R. 5611, to designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty- Fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the ``James V. Hansen Federal Building''.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5611 is a bill to designate the federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden, Utah as the James V. Hansen Federal Building. Congressman Hansen began his career in public service in local government in Farmington, Utah. He later served four terms in the Utah House of Representatives, where he served as Speaker of the House in his final term. In 1980, he was elected to the United States Congress from Utah's First Congressional District, and has served 11 consecutive terms. During his service in the House, Congressman Hansen has been an active member of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman of the Ethics Committee, and most recently, Chairman of the Resources Committee. He has fought for legislation to revise the private mortgage insurance program to benefit American homeowners, and has been instrumental in the development of environmental and natural resources policy. After 22 years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Hansen has decided to retire. It is both fitting and proper that on this, the last day of the Session for this Body in the 107th Congress, we honor the career of Congressman Hansen with this designation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5611. Discharged From the Committee on Ways and Means and Passed H.R. 5728, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide fairness in tax collection procedures and improved administrative efficiency and confidentiality and to reform its penalty and interest provisions.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference Report on S. 1214, the ``Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002''. Last year, Congress enacted landmark legislation to help protect the aviation industry from terrorist attacks. Today, we finalize legislation to help secure U.S. ports, vessels, and our intermodal transportation system from terrorist attack. More than six million containers arrive in the United States each year from foreign ports carrying goods that are vital for consumers and manufacturers. Virtually all of the oil imported into the United States arrives by ship. We are a nation dependent upon international shipping. Yet this transportation system can also be used as a means of delivering a weapon of mass destruction to the heartland of America. It is far easier for a country to put a nuclear bomb in a container and ship it to the United States and have it detonated by a Global Positioning System receiver than it is to build a missile system to deliver a nuclear warhead. Securing America's seaports and the cargo we import from being used by a terrorist is a daunting task. There are more than 95,000 miles of coastline in the United States. One only has to look at the volume of drugs imported each year by sea to see just how porous our borders are. However, it is a challenge we must address. The Conference Report on S. 1214 is modeled after the successful Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). OPA established a strong command and control system--and clarified that the Coast Guard has the ultimate authority to determine how best to clean up an oil spill. S. 1214 establishes a similar system to develop and implement plans to deter terrorist attacks on our ports and on vessels operating in and out of our ports. The system includes development of national plans, area security plans, facility security plans, and vessel security plans. To help ports, local governments, and facility operators pay for these security improvements, S. 1214 establishes a port security grant program to provide a 75 percent matching grant for security measures that are implemented to address vulnerabilities identified by the Coast Guard. Many ports and facilities in the United States have made security improvements since September 11, 2001. S. 1214 allows the Secretary to make grants to reimburse these entities for any security improvements they have made since that date that are consistent with their facility security plans. However, protecting the United States must begin overseas. By the time that a weapon of mass destruction in a containership reaches a U.S. port, it is too late. S. 1214 requires the Secretary to review security standards in foreign ports and intermodal transportation systems. If foreign governments do not address their vulnerabilities and provide adequate security for cargoes that are being shipped to the United States, the Secretary may prevent ships from those countries from entering the U.S. S. 1214 also helps protect our marine terminals by establishing a transportation security card system for those individuals that have ``unescorted access'' to secure areas of marine facilities (e.g., areas with open containers or areas where individuals have access to cargo manifests). The Department of Transportation currently envisions four levels of security access that can be granted by the card. For example, Level 1 Access identifies a person as someone who has unescorted access to the unsecure areas of a terminal. A Level 4 Access means that person has had a security background check to ensure that he or she is not a ``terrorist security threat'' and may have access to areas in a terminal that could cause a transportation security incident. On vessels such as a passenger vessel, the bridge and engine room areas may be designated as secure areas to ensure that passengers do not try to take over the control of the vessel. Other security provisions in S. 1214 include: Directing the Secretary to develop enhanced standards for identifying crewmembers on foreign-flag vessels entering the United States and urging the Secretary to undertake the negotiation of a new international agreement on seafarer identification. Directing the Secretary to implement a new system to collect, integrate, and analyze maritime intelligence concerning vessels operating on or bound for U.S. waters. Requiring all self-propelled commercial vessels more than 65 feet in length to carry position-indicating transponders and electronic charts to make it easier to track their movements in U.S. waters. Authorizing the Secretary to develop a long-range vessel tracking system using the satellite communication system on all ships. Expanding the Deepwater Port Act to allow for the licensing offshore facilities for offloading of Liquefield Natural Gas (LNG). This provision will help ensure that new LNG offloading facilities are built offshore--not in coastal cities such as Boston and Charleston. Allowing Coast Guard personnel to be assigned as sea marshals on vessels that pose a risk to U.S. communities such as tankers. Establishing a port security training program at the U.S. Maritime Academy, the six state maritime academies, and the Appalachian Transportation Institute to help provide training and standards for maritime security professionals. Requiring the Secretary to develop and maintain security standards related to cargo identification, tracking, screening, and the physical security of containers including standards for seals and locks. S. 1214 also contains the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. After a three-year struggle, we have reached agreement with the Other Body to reauthorize the Coast Guard and enact many changes to improve maritime safety and the quality of life for the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard. These changes include: Extending Coast Guard Housing Authorities from 2001 to 2007. Allowing the Secretary to grant extra leave to Coast Guard personnel serving at isolated duty stations. Allowing for the accelerated promotion of officers when a selection board finds to be of particular merit. Increasing the amount that the Coast Guard may borrow from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to pay for the removal cost of removing oil from a spill from $50 million to $100 million. Requiring tug boats escorting vessels though facilities owned by the U.S. Government to be U.S.-flag vessels. Establishing standards for working conditions and hours-of-service limitations for Coast Guard personnel working in Search and Rescue Centers. Requiring the Commandant to ensure that all Coast Guard personnel are equipped with adequate safety equipment, including hypothermia protective clothing, when performing search and rescue missions. Allowing mortgages and other financial instruments used to finance ships to be filed with the Coast Guard electronically. Establishing whistle-blower protection for seamen on board vessels when the seaman believes that a serious injury may occur if he performs his duties as ordered by his employer. Extending the period of time during which the Coast Guard can issue a recall for a recreational vessel from five years after the date of construction to ten years after that date. Requiring the Coast Guard to publish on the internet all major marine casualty reports immediately and all other casualty reports within two years. Allowing the Secretary to suspend the payment of retired pay of former Coast Guard personnel if the person has left the United States to avoid criminal prosecution or civil liability. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, S. 1214 establishes a new transportation worker biometric security card system including background checks, an appeals process, and protection of an individual's private information from his or her employer. Many of these security enhancement and worker protection provisions were not included last year in the USA Patriot Act that requires all commercial truck drivers who haul hazardous materials to undergo a criminal background check before receiving their Commercial Drivers License hazmat endorsement. Because the provisions enacted in the Patriot Act leave behind a vague and confusing regime, many states have not begun to implement the requirements. Even the U.S. Department of Transportation has acknowledged that a problem exists in Section 1012 of the USA Patriot Act and has advised state motor vehicle departments that these provisions ``cannot be implemented without rulemaking by DOT.'' I believe that the provisions in S. 1214 that provide an individual with the right to appeal the denial of a security card and the protection of information collected during that person's background investigation should be extended to commercial truck drivers that are subject to the Patriot Act. These standards have been developed on a bipartisan basis with the support of labor and employers. If the Department of Transportation fails to include these standards in the regulations they prescribe to implement the Patriot Act by the end of the year, we should move forward with legislation to correct these problems early next year. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Young, Mr. LoBiondo, and Ms. Brown for the cooperative effort that they have put forth to develop this bipartisan port security legislation. Together, we have succeeded crafting meaningful legislation to improve the security of the marine transportation system against terrorist acts. I urge my colleagues to support the Conference Report on S. 1214.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the homeland security bill has a number of problems with it that invite my opposition. First, it has aviation provisions that will diminish security and safety. It will give inequitable benefits to airlines and private security companies. It extends the current deadline for screening all checked baggage for explosives, with the most modern explosive detection systems. Rather than encouraging delay, we ought to be pushing the Transportation Security Administration to meet existing deadlines. We should force TSA to use equipment that is now sitting in warehouses and give them the funding they need to acquire that equipment and meet the deadline rather than extend the deadline. The bill requires TSA to allow unlimited numbers of pilots to carry guns. The Bush administration, their Secretary of Transportation, the Transportation Security Administration agree with me that there are many unanswered questions about widespread arming of pilots, whether that would create more safety hazards than security benefits. There should be no more than a trial program until these issues are resolved with a very small number of pilots. The bill gives much needed relief to the airline from insurance costs. Yes, I am for that. But it provides no help, no assistance to airline workers who lost their jobs, lost their health insurance, deserve better from this Congress, were promised better by this Congress from this very well. The bill limits the liability of private security companies, including foreign-owned companies, for the tragedy of September 11. That is an abomination. That should not be permitted in this legislation. The bill continues to have the Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. It allows all of the Coast Guard's homeland security missions, however, to be transferred from the Coast Guard, an agency that has defended our shores for over 200 years. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The aviation provisions in the bill will diminish security and safety, and give inequitable benefits to airlines and private security companies. In particular, H.R. 5710 would extend the deadlines for installing explosive detection systems (EDS) to screen checked baggage at airports; provides the airlines with $1 billion in relief from insurance costs, while providing no assistance to those airline workers who have lost their jobs and their health insurance; limits the liability of private security companies, including foreign owned companies, for their roles in the tragedy of September 11th; and requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to allow unlimited numbers of pilots to carry guns. Screening of checked baggage is a major building block in the comprehensive security program we need--a program with redundancies similar to the redundant safety systems, which have resulted in our airlines' outstanding safety record. Extension of the December 31 deadline will do great harm. It will take all the pressure off TSA and the airports, and we will fail to install many explosive detection machines that could have been in place by December 31. This will increase the risk that we will fail to detect an explosive device in baggage checked by a suicide bomber. Rather than encouraging additional delay, we should be pushing TSA to make every effort to meet the existing deadlines. We should force TSA to use equipment now sitting in waterhouses, and give them the funding they need to meet the deadline. Existing law allows TSA to deal with cases where a brief delay is needed. The Aviation Security Act requires that all baggage that cannot be inspected by EDS must be either matched with a passenger on the aircraft, or inspected by another means, such as a manual search, or canine detection in combination with other means. Before we extend any deadline for EDS deployment, we should ensure that such extension requires the TSA to improve the interim program by mandating positive bag match for connecting passengers, and by requiring that more bags be subject to direct inspection. The American traveling public wants to feel secure when they fly, and part of that security is knowing that their bags have been thoroughly screened for explosives when they board an aircraft. As to extending the war risk provisions for another year, I support legislation to give the industry relief from the extraordinary problems created by September 11th and those that will arise from a war with Iraq. The Aviation Subcommittee has reported out legislation to deal with many of these problems; increased costs for insurance against terrorism, the loss of freight and postal business because of security restrictions, inadequate compensation to the airlines for some extraordinary security costs, and the implementation of passenger screening programs that unnecessarily inconvenience passengers who do not threaten security. But there is a dark cloud hanging over our efforts to help the industry. While H.R. 5710 gives the airline industry financial relief from problems created by terrorism and war, the bill does not extend the same fair treatment to industry employees, who have also suffered disproportionately from terrorism and war. I and my colleagues on this side of the aisle insist that there must be balance in any relief package for the airline industry. H.R. 5710 does not remedy this problem, and therefore I am unable to support it. This is not a new issue. When we passed a $15 billion assistance bill soon after September 11, I, and many of my colleagues, 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. Aviation industry workers, including employees of airlines, Boeing and aerospace suppliers, and airports, have suffered unprecedented job loss and economic uncertainty. Some 100,000 airline employees are out of work or facing imminent layoff. Another 30,000 Boeing workers are laid-off along with 51,000 additional aerospace employees. And with bankruptcies looming large, it is easy to conclude that the staggering job losses will only grow. If the airline industry is entitled to special relief because it has suffered disproportionately from terrorism and war, its displaced employees are also deserving of relief. Moreover, H.R. 5710 includes a special interest provision to immunize airport screening companies whose negligence may have contributed to the September 11 terrorist hijackings. In the Aviation Security Act, we expressly decided that private screening companies should not be relieved of liability for any of their security deficiencies that played a part in the September 11th tragedies. However, H.R. 5710 would extend this protection to firms such as Globe Aviation Services and Huntleigh USA Corp., the security companies responsible for providing staff at Logan Airport on September 11th and that continue to contract with TSA today. This provision is nothing more than a special interest provision that protects negligent airport screening companies at the expense of the victims of the September 11th tragedy. Further, the bill requires TSA to allow unlimited numbers of pilots to carry guns. The Bush Administration agrees with me that there are many unanswered questions as to whether widespread arming of pilots would create more safety hazards than security benefits. Until these issues are resolved, there should be no more than a trial program with a small number of pilots. I am also opposed to the bill because of provisions which threaten the ability of the Coast Guard and FEMA to carry out all of their important responsibilities, some of which involve security, and some of which do not. For example, in addition to security, the Coast Guard has responsibilities for maritime safety, environmental protection, and drug interdictions and FEMA has responsibilities for aiding recovery from natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. The bill now before us divides these agencies and threatens their ability to continue to fulfill all of their responsibilities. Although the bill continues to have the Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, it allows any or all of the Coast Guard's Homeland Security missions to be transferred from the Coast Guard--an agency that has defended our Nation's shorelines for more than 200 years. Under the bill, only non-homeland security missions of the Coast Guard may not be transferred from the Coast Guard. We have been told that the intent was to keep the Coast Guard intact. How can you do that if you allow their homeland security missions to be transferred out of the agency? Similarly, the bill splits the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in two by transferring and consolidating FEMA's Office of National Preparedness into a new Office of Domestic Preparedness, which is under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security, and transferring the remaining portion of FEMA to the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response. By splitting FEMA in two, we threaten the effectiveness of one of our Nation's most effective and most respected agencies. Moreover, this is essentially the same scheme that this Body rejected in July when, during consideration of the Homeland Security bill, the House unanimously adopted an amendment to ensure that FEMA would be kept intact within the new Department of Homeland Security. In view of these and other deficiencies ion the bill now before us, I am convinced that the bill will do more harm than good. I urge defeat of the bill. aviation H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security bill, includes aviation provisions that will diminish security and safety, and give inequitable benefits to airlines and private security companies. The bill extends the current deadline for screening all checked baggage with explosive detection equipment. Rather than encouraging additional delay, we should be pushing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to make every effort to meet the existing deadlines. We should force TSA to use equipment now sitting in warehouses, and give them the funding they need to meet the deadline. Existing law allows TSA to deal with cases where a brief delay is needed. The bill requires TSA to allow unlimited numbers of pilots to carry guns. The Bush Administration agrees with me that there are many unanswered questions as to whether widespread arming of pilots would create more safety hazards than security benefits. Until these issues are resolved, there should be no more than a trial program with a small number of pilots. The bill gives the airlines $1 billion relief from insurance costs, while providing no assistance to those airline workers who have lost their jobs and their health insurance. The bill limits the liability of private security companies, including foreign owned companies, for the tragedy of 9/11. coast guard Although the bill continues to have the Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, it allows any or all of the Coast Guard's Homeland Security missions to be transferred from the Coast Guard--an agency that has defended our Nation's shorelines for more than 200 years. Under the bill, only non-homeland security missions of the Coast Guard may not be transferred from the Coast Guard. We have been told that the intent was to keep the Coast Guard intact. How can you do that if you allow their homeland security missions to be transferred out of the agency? fema Similarly, the bill splits the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in two by transferring and consolidating FEMA's Office of National Preparedness into a new Office of Domestic Preparedness, which is under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security, and transferring the remaining portion of FEMA to the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response. By splitting FEMA in two, we threaten the effectiveness of one of our Nation's most effective and most respected agencies. Moreover, this is essentially the same scheme that this Body rejected in July when, during consideration of the Homeland Security bill, the House unanimously adopted an amendment to ensure that FEMA would be keep intact within the new Department of Homeland Security. In addressing the issue of our Nation's homeland security, we must get it right and this bill does not begin to achieve that objective. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I greatly appreciate the remarks delivered with sincerity and passion by the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). We did have this conversation just prior to the election. We did have a discussion of what would be the level of funding for the Federal Aid Highway Program in the continuing resolution. We were assured by the Committee on Appropriations leadership, by the leadership of the House, the gentleman from Alaska had specific assurances from the Office of Management and Budget that funding would be at the level of $31.8 billion through the beginning of the year and would continue at that level until probably August, if there were no further changes made in the appropriation bill, underlying appropriation bill itself, and at that point then the funding level would drop down to $27.1 billion. The resolution before us breaks all of those agreements, discards all of those understandings, throws it all aside. The reality is today this is a raid on the Highway Trust Fund. We have a $15 billion surplus in the Highway Trust Fund today. That surplus was anticipated in 1998 when the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure wrote what we know today as TEA-21, moved it through conference and back to the House, with a commitment of increased levels of funding. We knew the trust fund was going to grow because of increased revenues into the trust fund. We anticipated and we provided for in that authorization legislation a $15 billion surplus to be drawn down and invested in highways, not to offset a deficit, and that is what is happening here. Money is being held back. In 1998, at the beginning of the year when we crafted TEA-21, there was a $29 billion surplus in the Highway Trust Fund, which our committee agreed to yield for debt reduction. And when the bill was signed into law, I am sure everybody felt a great lift off of their shoulders of that debt, because that $29 billion went to reduce public debt. But the commitment was that in exchange for giving up the surplus and giving up interest on revenues paid into the Highway Trust Fund year-to-year, that we would have a guaranteed account, a dedicated revenue stream with which to invest in highways and bridges and transit systems in America. And we did it, and it worked wonderfully for 5 years. In those 5 years we invested $120 billion of Federal funds in the Federal Aid Highway Program. By comparison, in the 42 years of the Interstate Highway Program, we invested $114 billion of Federal funds in the interstate system. It took 42 years because we had a dedicated account, a guaranteed revenue stream. This breaks that commitment. This resolution draws it all down. We will lose millions, billions of dollars in investments and thousands and thousands of jobs. If you want to come to the desk, I have a list of what each State will lose if this resolution passes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for those wonderful remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for those truly heartfelt, heart rending remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority whip.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for those remarks. I again want to express my appreciation to our Democratic whip for her call immediately following the tragedy expressing her deep sympathy and condolences through me to the family and to the close friends of Paul Wellstone. It is characteristic of the gentlewoman from California that she would call and express that profound feeling. I am grateful that she mentioned the memorial service. I know that the family will be most appreciative. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those stirring heartfelt, powerful remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for those heartfelt remarks and thoughtful comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for those thoughtful comments. They were much appreciated, and I know that the Wellstone children will be most grateful and again for his ever academic and thoughtful presentation. General Leave

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would conclude by observing that Paul Wellstone was more than a Senator, more than an advocate for ideas, for issues, for causes. Paul Wellstone was himself a movement, a movement for justice. I pray that his movement will continue in the spirit in which he lived his life of public service.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act of 2002, and I acknowledge with great gratitude the splendid leadership of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the subcommittee chairman, who is always judicious, thoughtful, considerate, supportive, has a grasp of the issues, and proceeds with great confidence and vigor in pursuing the committee's work. I also want to acknowledge the splendid and persistent initiative of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who always brings his scientific bent to the work of the committee and particularly the work of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and for whose great commitment to cleaning up the waters of the Great Lakes and keeping them clean I have sincere admiration and appreciation. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) already indicated, we have worked out relatively minor differences that existed between the House version and the version of the other body, and our approval today clears the bill for the President. I grew up in the watershed of the Great Lakes, not along the shores of Lake Superior but along the waters that drain into Lake Superior, and much of my service in the Congress has been concerned with both my work as a staff director for my predecessor and staff director of the then Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and as a member, I have made protecting this extraordinary resource of freshwater one of my very top priorities and commitments. We have to remember that the Great Lakes, all five of them, represent one-fifth of all the available freshwater on the face of the Earth. We do not count the frozen freshwater at the poles. And the magnitude of Lake Superior is such that the bottom 125 feet of Lake Superior are 125 feet below sea level. That is an immense body of water. It turns over once in 500 years. Whatever we put into that lake is going to be there for a long time. We have to be careful, extremely careful, not only about what directly goes into Lake Superior because it then goes into all the other lakes but Lake Michigan, because the effect will be so persistent and so long lasting. We also have to be careful about what comes in from the air. Air depositions into Lake Superior come from as far away as Central America. DDT can be found on the shores of Lake Superior and other Great Lakes carried by the upper atmospheric winds, as can Toxaphene, which is used as an agent to suppress the boll weevils in cotton country, and that atmospheric deposition has been found in a lake on Isle Royale above the level of the waters of Lake Superior. I mentioned these because the persistent toxic substances that are found in the Great Lakes, both in the bottom sediments, in the plants, taken up by the benthic organisms, eaten by the fish, then consumed by people, those toxic substances move up the food chain, and it is simply a tragedy that 100 percent of the near shore waters of the Great Lakes and their connecting tributaries are under fish consumption advisories for PCBs, dioxins, mercury. Studies continue to show, as they did years ago when I chaired the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and held hearings on the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Great Lakes Water Quality Act, that if one lives anywhere in America, one probably has five parts per billion PCBs in their body, but if one lives within 20 miles of one of the Great Lakes and eat fish once a week, they most likely have 440 parts per billion PCBs in their body. That is 20 times the average outside of the Great Lakes. Dr. Waylon Swain, researcher at the University of Michigan, the home State of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), testified at hearings that I held reporting on tests he conducted on his 16-year-old daughter. He analyzed her fatty tissue, calculated the level of PCBs, and then did a computer projection on her progeny to determine how long it would take just for natural processes without further introduction of PCBs into the food chain of that daughter and her offspring. It would take six generations for the PCBs to disappear from the bloodline. That is such a sobering thought that as we go about taking action on this legislation, this should not be considered just another bill that we pass. This is legislation we are passing that fully applied, vigorously enforced, vigorously carried out, will vastly improve quality of life for future generations. Twenty years ago we, the U.S. and Canada, identified 43 areas of concern in the Great Lakes. Thirty-one of those are wholly or mostly in U.S. waters. And even though we have removed 1,300,000 cubic yards of bottom sediment, mostly from the harbors, those are mostly harbors, and have remediated that sedimentation, the challenge is still there. The challenge is huge. We have not resolved the problem yet. And there are 36 million people living along the waters of the Great Lakes and in the watershed; therefore, far more responsibility on us to be more careful with these waters and with the bottom sediments. I was very encouraged when then President Clinton included in his budget request $50 million for remediation of contaminated sediments, and I introduced legislation to authorize a program to vigorously advance the remediation. Unfortunately the 50 million did not get appropriated, the bill did not pass. What we have today is an advanced version of that legislation for which again I am very appreciative of the gentlemen from Michigan and of Tennessee. We do in this legislation provide that $50 million annual authorization for EPA to carry out projects to address sediment contamination. Priority will go to projects that actively address contaminated sediments that have been identified in the remedial action plans for those areas of concern and for innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for dealing with contaminated sediments. I have been very keenly interested in one that has been used on the bottom sediments in the Duluth harbor using mining technique in nonmagnetic ore beneficiation. A process is used called media flotation where the nonferrous material settles out and the lesser material is carried off, they can do this work for on the order of a dollar to $2 a cubic yard. Early prices on remediation of bottom sediments in the Great Lakes centered around $400 to $600 a cubic yard. I thought if we could bring mining and environmental technology together, we could make an advance and in fact did. It is not the dollar or $2 a cubic yard but $30 or $40 which is still a factor of 10 less than early estimates. We have now succeeded in cleaning up large volumes of toxic substance-containing sediment, and this cleaned material is now being used for parkland and for beach nourishment and is being used in reclaiming areas along the waterfront in Duluth for other activities that are in fact environmentally friendly. I expect this project to continue with great success as more is learned about the mechanics of separating toxic substances out from bottom sediments, and I have no doubt that the legislation before us will move vigorously in the direction that we appointed with this bill and that EPA should have no reticence whatever in moving ahead so long as we provide the appropriation to follow up on the funding authority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Tennessee for his kind, thoughtful remarks, and to the gentleman from Michigan for his thoughtful comments as well, and to say that this is the finest example of how legislation ought to be done, where two parties get together and put aside partisanship and do things that are good for the country. We have a great tradition of doing so in our committee, and I look forward to continuing that tradition in the balance of this session and in the coming Congress. I reexpress my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young). Probably he is happy to see this bill passed so we stop badgering him about getting it to the floor and getting it moving. I do want to join in observing that the additions made by the other body dealing with Lake Champlain and its cleanup are very important and very useful, but it should be emphasized that Lake Champlain is a good lake, it is not a Great Lake, with all respect to our colleagues in the other body who at one time tried to make it one of the Great Lakes by legislation. Now, that is kind of a reverse on the marriage injunction, that what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Let no man create what God has not done. In this respect, we are happy to help out with Lake Champlain, and it is important, more important historically, I think, than geologically. But this is good legislation. Let us now all resolve to work together to make sure we get the appropriations to carry out this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I express my great appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for moving this legislation, and, of course, to the Chair of the full committee for moving the bill through subcommittee, the full committee and getting it to the floor today. This legislation bears a rather disarming title, the Real Interstate Driver Equity Act. The title itself belies the rather intense feelings that accompany this legislation and generated it, in fact, and that we are able to bring the bill to the floor today is something of a marvel in itself, because it really has meant bridging some very serious differences among States. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the subcommittee; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), all have had a role, as has the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), all of whom have had a hand in resolving this issue. Under current law, for-hire limousines can be regulated by numerous local jurisdictions while operating in pre-arranged interstate commerce. Service usually involves short distance transportation between neighboring States. To avoid unnecessary duplication, the bill prohibits a State, a local government or an interstate agency, from enacting or enforcing any rule, whether a law or regulation, that requires a license or a fee on a motor vehicle with a seating capacity not to exceed 15 passengers, including driver, in providing prearranged ground transportation services. However, the State or local jurisdiction is not prohibited from requiring a criminal background investigation prior to the driver picking up a passenger within its jurisdiction. That was one of the points of contention I am glad we were able to get resolved, particularly in this era of concern about terrorism. The gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) raised an important issue during committee consideration of the bill. To meet those concerns, nothing in the bill will restrict the rights of a State or locality from regulating limousine operators who enter competition with local taxicab operators. States and localities retain the right to regulate those kinds of operations. The bill provides that at intermediate stops, interstate limousine drivers must not perform any transportation service for an additional passenger or group of passengers while waiting to carry their first passenger to his or her destination. There are other provisions to reflect the Senate amendment that adds clarifying language consistent with the legislative intent in the House report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2546, the Real Interstate Driver Equity Act of 2001. I want to thank the chairman of our full committee, Mr. Young, the Chairman and Ranking Member of our Subcommittee, Mr. Petri and Mr. Borski, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, and the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Berkley, for their support of this legislation. The committee worked on this bill for well over 2 years and, finally, we have an agreement that has the support of Members on both sides of the Capitol. Under current law, for-hire limousines can be regulated by multiple local jurisdictions while operating in prearranged interstate commerce. This service generally involves short distance transportation between neighboring states, and dual regulation has created confusion and difficulties for the operators. To avoid unnecessary duplication of regulation of these operations, this bill prohibits a State, local government, or interstate agency from enacting or enforcing any rule, whether it is a law or regulation, that requires a license or fee on a motor vehicle with a seating capacity not exceeding 15 passengers, including the driver, that is providing prearranged interstate ground transportation service. However, a state or local government may not be prohibited from requiring a criminal background investigation prior to any driver picking up passengers within its jurisdiction for interstate transportation. I believe that this is a sound approach, and I support the bill. The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley, raised an important issue during committee consideration of the bill. To meet her concerns, nothing in the bill restricts the rights of a State or locality from regulating limousine operators who enter into competition with local taxicab operators. States and localities retain the right to regulate these kinds of operations. The bill provides that at intermediate stops, interstate limousine drivers must not perform any transportation service for an additional passenger, or group of passengers, while waiting to transport the first passenger to his or her destination. To deal with other concerns that have been raised, the bill does not prohibit airport, train, or bus terminal operators from providing preferential access or facilities to one or more providers of pre- arranged ground transportation service. In addition, the bill makes it clear that taxicab services in a vehicle having a capacity of not more than 8 passengers, including the driver, are exempt from the economic and minimum liability regulations of the Federal Government. The Senate amendment to the bill primarily adds clarifying language consistent with the legislative intent expressed in the House report. The only major substantive change involves pre-licensing drug testing. The House passed bill reserves the right of a State or local government to require a criminal background check of the driver. The Senate amendments adds pre-licensing drug testing of drivers to the same provision and provides that both are to be conducted by the State where the driver is licensed, or by the motor carrier providing the service. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Senate amendments improve the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support final passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.