James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 598) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago I had returned to Minnesota from a human rights inquiry trip with the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee in El Salvador, where we inquired into abuses of human rights visited upon Salvadorans and the four American women, three church women and one lay woman. We visited the blood-spattered streets of San Antonio Abad, the site of La Matanza, the massacre outside of San Salvador. We met with numerous victims of violence by the government and resolved to take action in the Congress on our return to the United States. On my return, I was asked by the President of the student body of Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, to come and address the students on the experience that I had just encountered. It was an overwhelming response. The place for the meeting was filled to overflowing, and students wanted to gather afterward. They asked me if I would come and join them at the home of one of the professors, which I did. Of course, at that meeting, it was very animated and intense questioning that came from the host, a young professor, who impressed me with his deep sense of caring, his feeling about this issue, his desire to do justice. I was not quite sure of his name, and I asked again: Paul Wellstone. I said, Professor, you ought to think about running for public office. He said, indeed, I am. I am considering running for State auditor. Well, that was hardly a place from which to make statewide policy, but it was something that he wanted to do to get into the public arena, and he felt there was a message that he could convey. As was later revealed, however, his dyslexia prevented him from really grasping numbers in the way that other folks do. Nonetheless, he conducted a spirited campaign, and lost to a gentleman named Arnie Carlson, who served as auditor for several years, and then later ran for Governor and won in the same year that Paul Wellstone ran for Senator and won: 1990. In between those two dates was a very high level of spirited activism by Paul Wellstone, most notable of which was leading the resistance to construction of a power line across the State of Minnesota to be built by a generation power company of the rural electrification system which had really lost touch with its member cooperatives and the people that the co-op was to serve. Paul Wellstone called them to accountability, called them and mounted a movement across the State to hold hearings, to have public sessions to explain the necessity for this power line running through the backyard of homes and through farms, and what possible adverse side effects there might be from the construction of this power line. It was characteristic of Paul Wellstone's role in public service that when people got too big, when organizations got too big for their own good, he called them to account. In Scripture, I find the roots of Paul Wellstone's drive for public service. The prophet Isaiah, Chapter 11, Verse 4, under the rubric ``the Rule of Immanuel'' writes ``But he shall judge the poor with justice;'' and again, in Chapter 12, Verse 1, ``Woe to those who enact unjust statutes and who write oppressive decrees depriving the needy of judgment and robbing my people's poor of their rights.'' Nothing disturbed, distressed, angered Paul Wellstone more or motivated him more to action than unjust statutes, oppressive decrees depriving the needy of their day in court, so to speak, or robbing the poor of their rights. Whether we read into those verses of Scripture the Legal Services Act, redlining in urban housing, the need for surveying the homeless, providing adequate housing for poor and middle-income Americans, or food stamps or Meals on Wheels, we read the keystone of Paul Wellstone's career of public service: A burning mission, anchored in Scripture, expressed in public acts to improve the lives of the least among us; to be a stirring voice for those who either have none, or who have lost their voice. At the memorial service honoring Senator Wellstone in Virginia, Minnesota, in my district a young campaign worker, Ida Rukavine, spoke of the inspiration that young people felt about Paul Wellstone, saying that her classmates, her contemporaries, were looking for someone to be a role model. At a time when, as Ida implied, young people are indeed looking for role models, I would pin this image on our hearts: Paul and his wife, Sheila, walking wherever they went hand-in-hand in all that they did, wherever they traveled. We should take their hands symbolically and take each other's hands and feel the strength of the spirit of Paul Wellstone that still moves among us. There were two votes that I would characterize as bookends for Paul Wellstone's career of public service, both of which I discussed with him at some length. The first was early in 1991, when we were voting in the Congress on whether to approve military action against Iraq, and the last was the most recent vote in the Congress, again to approve of a resolution giving authority to the President to use force at a time of his choosing of his determination against Iraq. Paul's no vote was recognized as a vote of courage, a vote of principle, a vote that marked his character in public service and all that he stood for. It was my vote, but it was his vote of deep conviction unashamedly expressed, unabashedly carried out; a role model for young people. Whether one agreed with the vote or not, one had to agree that this was indeed a man of great strength, personal character, and of deep conviction. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, as we return home to our Congressional Districts, I believe that each of us should ask our constituents a slightly modified version of the question made famous by former President Ronald Reagan: ``Are you better off than you were two years ago?'' Clearly, we are not. The economy, under the stewardship of the House Republican Leadership and the Bush Administration, is faltering. In just two short years, we've gone from creating millions of new jobs to losing our many gains; from enjoying a budget surplus to projecting mounting deficits; from addressing the backlog of infrastructure needs to losing more ground. And we should expect our constituents to ask us: What are your plans to revitalize our economy and solve the most pressing domestic problems facing our Nation? The response of the House Republican Leadership and the Bush Administration can be summed up simply: tax breaks for the rich. And when that doesn't work, more tax breaks for the rich. House Democrats have a different economic plan, one that takes proactive measures to protect existing jobs and create new family-wage jobs. Today, I would like to talk about the state of the economy and a Democratic economic renewal plan. In particular, how one element of the Democratic plan, infrastructure investment, could undo much of the damage that the House Republicans and the Bush Administration have done to the economy and how the House Republican Leadership has prevented action on legislation to make new investments in our Nation's infrastructure and create family-wage, construction jobs. Current State of the Economy Increasing Unemployment While most of today's headlines focus on the stock market collapse, the market's performance is only symptomatic of the more fundamental decline in our Nation's economic well being during the past two years. For many Americans the macroeconomic problems of stock markets, budget deficits, and Social Security funding issues can be beyond comprehension because the numbers are simply too big to seem real. Also, the consequences, while scary, are uncertain and perhaps not immediate. But one measure of economic performance that virtually all Americans can relate to, arguably the most important measure, is the loss of a job. In January 2001, when President Bush took office, there were fewer than 5.7 million Americans unemployed. Less than two years later in the summer of 2002, after adjusting for seasonal variations, roughly 7 million Americans were looking for jobs--a 23-percent increase in the number of Americans unemployed. During the eight years of the Clinton Administration, our economy created more than 22 million new jobs. During just one year of the Bush Administration, our economy lost 2.4 million jobs. And as new jobs become more difficult to find, the periods of unemployment are getting longer, resulting in dire consequences for many American families. Roughly 1.5 million Americans have exhausted their state unemployment compensation benefits. Mortgage foreclosures are at an all-time high, as both middle class and working class Americans watch the dream of home ownership slip away. Economic dislocations are never evenly distributed around the Nation. Some regions and some groups are always more severely affected than others, and it is usually the working class that suffers most. The current situation is no exception. I want to focus on one area of economic activity where many Americans have been particularly hard hit--nonresidential construction. The Commerce Department recently reported that spending for new construction fell 0.4 percent in August as nonresidential construction activity hit a six-year low. Unemployment in this construction sector has swollen by more than 50 percent from roughly 540,000 unemployed construction workers in January 2001, to 824,000 in July 2002. Stock Market Collapse The most widely reported element of the current economic malady is, of course, the collapse of the stock market. The loss in value is unprecedented--40 percent of the market's value, $4.5 trillion, has been wiped out. Many people who were planning to retire based on savings in their 401(k) accounts and other investments made in the eight years of prosperity under the Clinton Administration have now had to abandon those plans. Perhaps most disturbingly, despite the stock market collapse, the House Republican Leadership and the Bush Administration continue to tout privatization of Social Security and a greater reliance on individual investments in the stock market as the key to reforming the Social Security System. The folly of placing the social safety net that millions of older Americans rely on in the stock market should now be evident even to the most ardent supporter of privatization. Yet the Republicans persist. The Republicans have several plans for privatizing Social Security. However, to make their plans work they must either cut benefits or divert trillions of dollars from other programs--other programs that, in all likelihood, are targeted to benefit poor and working class Americans. According to one study, senior citizens, surviving spouses, and people with disabilities would see benefit cuts of between 30 and 46 percent annually under the Republican proposals. Republican Leadership and Bush Administration Response: Tax Breaks for the Wealthy The Administration's response to the declining economy has been the usual Republican panacea of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and hoping it trickles down to the rest of the population. While many Americans got a check for $300 last year, the true beneficiaries of the Republican tax cut are those households making more than $370,000 per year, who will get an average benefit of more than $50,000 per year. These are not modest tax breaks. The long-term size of the Republican tax break package is more than double the entire long-term Social Security shortfall. The present value of the Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years is $3.7 trillion--less than one-half of the $8.7 trillion that the Republican tax breaks will cost the Treasury. A recent Brookings Institution assessment of the Republican tax break package concluded that it would reduce the size of the future economy, raise interest rates, and make taxes more regressive. The assessment concluded that the Bush tax package was fiscally unsound and unsustainable even before the economic downturn and the September 11 terrorist attacks--so much for Republican fiscal discipline. At the same time, President Bush, in his fiscal year 2003 Budget Request, proposed an $8.6 billion, or 27 percent, cut in our Nation's highway infrastructure investment, which would cost the economy more than 360,000 good-paying jobs. Impact on the Federal Budget: Eliminating the Surplus Instead of surpluses, the Republican Leadership and the Bush Administration are running ever-larger Federal deficits as far as the eye can see. Under the Bush Administration, the projected Federal budget for the next decade (2002-2011) is in the midst of a $5.3 trillion swing in the wrong direction. A projected $5.6 trillion surplus has dwindled so that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now forecasts only a $336 billion surplus--all of which is in the Social Security Trust Fund. Excluding Social Security surpluses, CBO projects a $2 trillion budget deficit over the decade compared to the $3.1 trillion surplus projected just last year--and that is before the long- term consequences of President Bush's tax breaks or increased defense spending are factored into the equation. If we add these additional expenses to current budget estimates, the Federal budget will show a cumulative deficit of $3.2 trillion for the coming decade. The Republicans pledged that they would protect Social Security--but they have violated that pledge. The Republican Leadership has passed an economic plan that diverts $2 trillion from Social Security into other non-Social Security initiatives. If Congress continues these Republican policies, over the next decade, we will consume the entire Social Security Surplus, all of the Medicare surplus, and add at least a trillion dollars to the national debt. A Democratic Economic Plan: Infrastructure Investment Instead of passing tax breaks for the wealthy, the Republican Leadership and the Bush Administration could have developed a bipartisan plan to use the surplus to invest in our Nation's infrastructure, shore up the Social Security Trust Fund, and pay down the national debt. In less than two years, the Republican Leadership and the Bush Administration have squandered each of those opportunities. Unlike the Republicans and their ``trickle down'' approach to the economy, the Democrats have proposed a program to stimulate the economy by creating jobs--especially jobs in nonresidential construction--and rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. One year ago today, the Democrats on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced H.R. 3166, the Rebuild America: Financing Infrastructure Renewal and Security for Transportation Act (``Rebuild America FIRST Act''). The Rebuild America: FIRST Act would have provided $50 billion to enhance the security of our Nation's infrastructure, including improvements to rail, highway, transit, aviation, maritime, water resources, environmental, and public building infrastructure. Moreover, by leveraging Federal infrastructure investments, the 10-year cost to the Federal Treasury would be less than $32 billion. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new highway infrastructure investment creates 47,500 jobs and $4.5 billion in economic activity. The Democratic infrastructure investment and security bill would have created more than two million jobs-- virtually eliminating the job losses that have occurred since this Administration came into office--and restored more than $200 billion to our economy. Moreover, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the bill provided that priority would be given to infrastructure investments that focus on enhanced security for our Nation's transportation and environmental infrastructure systems. Our infrastructure investment package called for investments in ready-to-go projects in each of the critical areas of our Nation's transportation and environmental infrastructure: $23 billion for rail including high-speed rail, freight rail, and Amtrak; $10.4 billion for highways and transit; $9.2 billion for environmental infrastructure including wastewater, drinking water, wet weather, and Corps of Engineers projects; $3 billion for airports; $2.5 billion for marine transportation; and $2 billion for economic development and public buildings. This package of infrastructure, transportation, and environmental investment and security enhancement made economic sense. It provided funds where they were most needed. It directly addressed unemployment problems. It directly addressed the Nation's security interests. The Republicans defeated it. On October 24, 2001, the House considered H.R. 3090, the Republican Economic Stimulus bill, and Mr. Rangel, Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, offered a Democratic Substitute amendment to the bill that included H.R. 3166. The Republicans defeated it, on a largely party-line vote, to accelerate their tax breaks for the rich. Even in those cases where Democrats and Republicans have worked together to design legislative proposals to invest in America, the House Republican Leadership has thwarted those bipartisan efforts. For example, on June 12, 2001, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure unanimously reported H.R. 1020, the Railroad Track Modernization Act of 2001, by voice vote. The bill authorized $1 billion of grants to short-line and regional railroads to help them upgrade their railroad tracks and bridges to be able to carry safely the 286,000-pound railcars that are becoming the standard in the railroad industry. One study found that the Nation's smaller railroads need $7 billion in new capital to make their necessary upgrades. Our failure to help keep these smaller railroads viable could have dire consequences for those in the industry and much of rural America. Despite these facts, for the past year and a half, the House Republican Leadership has refused to schedule the short-line railroad infrastructure bill for consideration by the House. Another, even more dramatic case in point, was the proposed legislation to provide funding for the development of high-speed rail. Republicans and Democrats spent more than a year working together to craft bipartisan, compromise legislation that effectively blended the best elements of two high-speed rail bills, one bill originally advanced by Mr. Young, the Chairman of the Committee on the Transportation and Infrastructure, and another bill advanced by a bipartisan group of 190 Members and me, the Committee's Ranking Democratic Member. The proposed compromise legislation, H.R. 2950 (``RIDE 21''), as favorably reported by the Subcommittee on Railroads, would have provided $79 billion over 10 years to finance the construction of high-speed rail in America. By using a combination of tax credit bonds, tax-exempt bonds, loans, and loan guarantees, the bill's cost to the Federal Treasury would have been significantly less than $79 billion. However, the Republican Leadership made clear that, like the short-line railroad bill, it would not let the House consider the bill and it died in Committee. Similarly, on March 20, 2002, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously ordered reported H.R. 3930, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2002. The bipartisan legislation authorizes $20 billion to invest in our Nation's wastewater infrastructure and helps ensure the protection of our Nation's steams, lakes, and coastal areas for generations to come. H.R. 3930 increases wastewater infrastructure investment and provides increased flexibility for local communities to tailor their programs to meet local water quality needs. Such investment is necessary if our communities are ever going to meet many of the goals of the Clear Water Act. However, the House Republican Leadership made clear that the House would not be allowed to consider this legislation, placing at risk this Nation's 30 years of effort to ``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' What has frustrated these efforts to invest in our Nation's infrastructure, stimulate the economy, and create family-wage jobs? Why has the Republican Leadership opposed virtually every attempt to invest in America? The answer is simple. The Republican Leadership opposes Davis-Bacon. Specifically, it opposes Davis-Bacon provisions in these infrastructure investment bills and refuses to schedule any bill containing these provisions for consideration by the House, despite the fact that these bills would create good-paying jobs for American workers and would stimulate the economy. Davis-Bacon ensures that construction projects financed by Federal tax dollars pay those who work on such projects the prevailing wage in the area where the construction takes place. Davis-Bacon provisions have been a part of infrastructure bills since the 1930's, but they are anathema to the House Republican Leadership and reflect a fundamental, philosophical difference between the Republican Leadership and, I believe, the majority of this House. The Republican leadership wants to roll back the clock. Prior to the 1930's, Federal contracting practice required that ``the lowest reasonable bill'' be accepted. While this may sound like an innocuous money-saving measure, in practice this meant that projects would be undertaken without any regard for the wages paid to workers or the conditions under which the work would be performed. In effect, this made the Federal government a collaborator with unscrupulous firms that sought to gain government contracts by exploiting workers. In 1931, Republican President Hoover signed the Davis-Bacon Act, so-named for its two Republican sponsors, to help stabilize the construction industry and secure fair wages for construction workers. Today, the Davis-Bacon Act prevents cutthroat competition from ``fly- by-night'' firms that undercut local wages and working conditions and compete unfairly with local contractors. Davis-Bacon also helps stabilize the industry to the advantage of both employers and employees alike. In addition, Davis-Bacon assures the contracting agency of higher quality work as the employers are likely to hire the most competent and productive workers if they are required to pay the prevailing wage. As a result of Davis-Bacon, contracting agencies get better craftsmanship, less waste, more timely completion, reduced need for supervision, and fewer mistakes requiring corrective action. Thus, Davis-Bacon has the potential for actually saving the taxpayers' money on public construction projects. It is irresponsible for the House Republican Leadership to refuse consideration of these infrastructure investment bills simply because they include Davis-Bacon provisions. Members of Congress deserve the opportunity to vote for or against these bills on the merits of the legislation. Moreover, I encourage the House Leadership to schedule these bills under an open rule that allows all Members an opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. If the Republican Leadership or any other Member wants to offer an amendment to strike the Davis-Bacon provisions from these bills, so be it--let the votes be counted. That is our democratic system. Our Nation needs an economic stimulus program that creates jobs in hard hit sectors of our economy, rehabilitates our basic infrastructure to allow us to remain competitive in world markets, addresses the infrastructure security needs of our transportation and environmental systems, and helps to revise our stagnant economy. In response to these immediate needs, the Republican Leadership and the Bush Administration have provided tax breaks for the rich and renewed threats to the Social Security Trust Fund and have prevented Congress from even considering real economic stimulus legislation. The American people deserve better. As the people's representatives, we must do better. I call on the House Republican Leadership to give this House the opportunity to consider these bills to reinvest in American and its infrastructure.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I and 28 of my colleagues from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have introduced the ``Airline Worker Relief Act,'' legislation to deal with inequities in our treatment of companies in the aviation industry, on the one hand, and their employees on the other. While we have given $15 billion of financial assistance to the aviation industry to help them recover from the impact of September 11, we have not give any relief to industry workers who lost their jobs as a result of September 11. Now legislation is being developed to help the aviation industry to weather the difficulties it will face if there is a war with Iraq. Regrettably, the bills which have been developed do not include relief for displaced aviation industry workers. My bill will establish a framework for providing this relief. Although the events of September 11 had effects throughout our economy, the effects on the aviation industry were direct and far- reaching. The airlines 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 was slow to recover because of public anxiety over security. The events of 9/11 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. A coming war with Iraq is also likely to have a significant impact on the industry, including increased fuel costs, loss of revenue from the reluctance of passengers to fly, and from 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. More recently, legislation has been reported by the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to provide airlines with low cost war risk insurance from the federal government, enhanced opportunities to carry freight and mail, and loan guarantees to assist the carriers in coping with any major increases in fuel costs resulting from 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. Aviation industry workers, including employees of airlines, aircraft manufacturers and suppliers, and airports, have suffered unprecedented job loss and economic uncertainty. Some 100,000 airline employees are out of work or facing imminent lay-off Another 30,000 Boeing workers have been laid-off, along with 51,000 additional aerospace employees. And with bankruptcies looming large, the staggering job losses may grow. The issue of aiding aviation employees is not new. When we passed the $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. 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 My bill will help to redress the imbalance, and help the 'industry's employees cope with difficulties arising from events outside their control. My bill provides unemployment benefits, training, job search assistance, and healthcare assistance for airline workers displaced from their jobs as a result of reductions service by air carriers and closures of airports caused by the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, security measures taken in response to the attacks, or a military conflict with Iraq authorized by the Congress. Benefits would be extended to employees of airlines, airports, commercial aircraft manufacturers and airline suppliers. To summarize the benefits in greater detail: Unemployment Benefits: This bill would extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of March 2002 and provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits for eligible aviation workers who have already exhausted their initial 13 weeks of benefits. Training: In the present economy, many laid off aviation workers will be unable to return to the industry in which they are employed. Under my bill, individuals who would not be expected to return to their jobs within the aviation industry would be eligible for retraining benefits and adjustment allowances. Individuals who would not be expected to return to their jobs, but who may find some alternative job within the various sectors of the aviation industry, would also be eligible for training. Health Care: COBRA coverage, which continues health insurance for displaced workers, is prohibitively expensive and beyond the ability of many workers to pay. My bill requires the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to establish a program under which 75% of the premium for COBRA continuation coverage shall be provided for a displaced aviation employee. Payment of such premium assistance may be made through appropriate direct payment arrangements with a group health plan or health insurance issuer. Individuals who do not qualify-for COBRA and are otherwise uninsured might be able to benefit from a state option to provide temporary Medicaid coverage. Furthermore, a state could provide temporary coverage under Medicaid for the unsubsidized portion of COBRA continuation premiums. Hiring Preferences for Laid Off Workers: Thousands of federal security screener jobs remain unfilled at the Transportation Security Administration. Title III of my bill establishes a preference for displaced airline workers for TSA airport security screening jobs. Additionally, the Under Secretary of Transportation Security is directed to develop a program of performance incentive awards to Federal Security Managers, to encourage the hiring of eligible airline employees for TSA positions. Mr. Speaker, my bill is designed to furnish assistance to aviation industry workers who have suffered severe economic damage from the terrorist attacks of September 11, and those who may suffer as a result of a war with Iraq. This assistance can tide them over the initial period of economic distress, and help them find new jobs. just as we found it appropriate to recognize the plight of our airlines as economic victims of a terrorist attack on our entire nation, we should also recognize the plight of that industry's employees. I urge my colleagues to Join me in working to pass this important and equitable legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an American hero. Deputy Brad Anderson, a member of the St. Louis County Sheriff's Department, died on Labor Day, September 2, 2002, while answering a call in rural northeastern Minnesota. Deputy Anderson, of Aurora, Minnesota, was tragically killed in the line of duty when his squad car collided with another vehicle. He leaves behind his wife Gale and two sons, Kyle and Conrad. Deputy Anderson's co-workers described their fallen colleague as ``tenacious'' and ``extremely dedicated.'' If you were the victim of a crime, Deputy Anderson was the type of law enforcement professional that you wanted to have working on your case. He was thorough and never quit on any of his investigations, and he came to work every day with the belief that he was protecting and serving the public. Deputy Anderson shared a deep concern for the children of the community, and he dedicated himself to keeping them safe. Many a young person is alive today because Deputy Anderson took the time and made the effort to take action when he saw that they were in trouble and needed guidance. I know that there are many parents who are grateful for his dedicated and timely actions. In addition to his duties as a deputy sheriff, Brad Anderson taught firearms safety courses to students of all ages. He was also a member of the Iron Range Disaster Committee and spent many dedicated hours working with fire departments, ambulance services and public safety organizations. Those whom he worked with always appreciated his experience and skills. His knowledge in handling large-scale emergency situations will be greatly missed. Deputy Anderson was dedicated to his country and its armed services. He was extremely proud of his service in the U.S. Air Force and later the U.S. Air Force Reserve. He was honored to be an American and an American Veteran. Northeastern Minnesota has indeed lost a true professional with the death of Deputy Sheriff Brad Anderson. Our region will profoundly miss this dedicated hero.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Did the gentleman hear my distinction of the funding at the $31.8 billion level until August of next year at which point it crashes; and is that inaccurate?

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I would hope that we solve the problem. But I want to point out in all fairness, what we agreed to with the gentleman was $31.8 billion. The $27.7 billion language was added later. I do not know where it came from.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that is what I said. I did not politicize it. That is simply a statement of fact.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That was an OMB insistence which I hope has been fixed.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, for those who heard the debate last week, I would like to come somewhere between Turkish and Russian, although I can probably do this in French, in Creole, in Italian, and a few other languages; but let us try English, and explain that under the first two continuing resolutions, Congress provided for all programs to continue ongoing activities at a pro rata share of the fiscal year 2002 funding level, October 1 through October 11. We clearly intended the Federal aid highways program to continue at the level of $31.8 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office scored the resolutions accordingly.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, last evening in the main hearing room of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we held a reception honoring eight Members who are retiring from the House at the end of this Congress. In the spirit of bipartisanship that so truly characterizes our committee, Chairman Don Young and I joined voices in tribute to these eight men--three Republicans and five Democrats--who are moving on to new challenges: Brian Kerns of Indiana, John Thune of South Dakota, Steve Horn of California, John Baldacci of Maine, Frank Mascara of Pennsylvania, Jim Barcia of Michigan, Bob Clement of Tennessee, and Bob Borski of Pennsylvania. Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to recognize the leadership of Chairman Young and call attention to some of the accomplishments of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee during the 107th Congress: The Railroad Retirement Act, the Kennedy Center Act, and the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, represent what our Committee does best-- moving bipartisan bills to the President's desk. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the 108th Congress on TEA 21 reauthorization, AIR 21 reauthorization, RIDE 21, and water and other critical infrastructure investment legislation, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in the majority. Mr. Speaker, on the Republic side, the Committee is losing three of our colleagues, Cong. Brian Kerns, Cong. John Thune, and Cong. Steve Horn. Cong. Kerns (Indiana) joined the Committee last year with a fresh perspective on our Committee's issues that will be missed. Cong. Kerns and I share a common background: we both served as Administrative Assistant to the Member we replaced. Of course, Cong. Kerns was also a TV reporter, so our work histories diverge there. Cong. Thune represents the state of South Dakota and he has been a consistent advocate for rural America and the Great Plains. I have had the opportunity to share an occasional workout with Cong. Thune in the Members' Gym. Let me tell you, when Cong. Thune approaches the weight machines, the machine start to shudder. Cong. Steve Horn has not only effectively advocated the interests of the Long Beach and Los Angeles ports, but he has also spent the last decade in Congress working to improve the accountability and management of the Federal government and its agencies. His thoughtful, academic approach to these issues will be greatly missed by our Committee and this institution, as will his historical perspective on the legislative process, reading back to his service on the staff of California's highly respected Senator Tom Kuchel. On the Democratic side, we are losing five colleagues, each of whom has contributed enormously to the work of our Committee. Cong. John Baldacci--Cong. Baldacci was elected in 1994--a real accomplishment for a Democrat in a year when the Republicans were sweeping to control of the House and Senate--and joined our Committee in 1998. He has served as an active Member of our highway and aviation subcommittees. Cong. Baldacci has been an aggressive advocate on behalf of Maine. Whether it's ensuring that the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act includes funding for the Essential Air Service program or clarifying that the Committee's airline antitrust immunity bill does not adversely affect small communities, Cong. Baldacci has actively worked to help Maine keep its air service. Cong. Frank Mascara--Cong. Mascara is another one of the rare Democrats elected in 1994 and joined our committee at the beginning of his tenure. Prior to being elected to the House of Representatives, Cong. Mascara served as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. As this Committee developed TEA 21, we called upon Frank Mascara's planning expertise and seasonal understanding of highway issues to help ensure that our Federal highway, transit, and highway safety policy would achieve the intended objectives. Cong. Jim Barcia--Cong. Barcia joined our committee in 1993. As a Member from Northern Michigan, whose district runs along the shores of Lake Huron, Jim has played an active role in water resources issues throughout his service. He spent the last several years aggressively working on a program to improve our Nation's wastewater infrastructure and authorize grants to states and cities for combined sewer overflow and sanitary sewer overflow projects. In the 106th Congress, his efforts paid off and we included his bill (H.R. 828) in the omnibus Labor-HHS appropriations act at the end of the Congress. The Wet Weather Quality Act authorizes $1.5 billion to control overflows from combined and sanitary sewers and $45 million in EPA assistance for an urban wet weather watershed pilot program. Cong. Bob Clement--Cong. Clement, elected in 1988 and currently Ranking Member of the Railroads Subcommittee, has worked on a bipartisan basis with his counterpart, Subcommittee Chairman Jack Quinn, to rebuild our Nation's railroad infrastructure. They have worked together to move the Shortline Railroad Infrastructure bill, the Amtrak Reauthorization bill, and RIDE 21. Although movement on those bills has stalled, Bob Clement hasn't given up and continues to work to improve our Nation's rail infrastructure. In addition, Cong. Clement and Chairman Quinn have had numerous meetings with the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Transportation regarding the Administration's failure to approve any rail loans or loan guarantees under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Financing (RRIF) program. Cong. Clement has also aggressively worked on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority and commuter rail. His bill (TRAIN 21) would help resolve a growing problem in Nashville and throughout the Nation--the ability of commuter railroads to get access to freight railroad rights- of-way. He leaves us to seek a seat in the Other Body, and I pass onto him the advice I received many years ago when I myself heard the Sirens' call to that body: There are more bleached bones scattered along the path between the House and Senate Office Buildings than there are on the Old Chisholm Trail. Cong. Bob Borski--Bob Borski has spent two decades serving this Committee. From 1995 to 2001, Cong. Borski served as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Bob Borski was raised in the great bipartisan tradition of this Committee and he brought that willingness to work together to the Clean Water, Brownfields, and Superfund issues of the Subcommittee--the issues that are often the most difficult for our Committee to bridge the partisan divide. He spent countless hours working with then-Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert, then-Chairman Shuster, EPA Administrator Browner, and me to bridge the divide on the Superfund bill. In the end, this Committee passed a Superfund bill (H.R. 1300) that reauthorized the program; provided for the redevelopment of brownfields; provided exemptions and limitations on Superfund liability for small businesses, innocent landowners, and recyclers; and called for funding the program with a reauthorization of the Superfund Trust Fund taxes. Our committee approved the bill on a vote of 69 to 2--a tribute to Cong. Borski's perseverance, patience, and willingness to find common ground. In this Congress, Cong. Borski has served as Ranking Member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee. He and Subcommittee Chairman Petri have held more than a dozen hearings on TEA 21 reauthorization and Cong. Borski has aggressively worked to ensure that we have a balanced transportation system. Earlier this week, Cong. Borski attended the American Public Transportation Association's annual conference where he received its distinguished person of the year award. How often does an association, with a major reauthorization bill just around the corner, honor a retiring Member of Congress? It is a tribute to Cong. Borski that APTA rightly recognized the role that he has played in ensuring that our communities have transportation choices, like transit rail systems, pedestrian walkways, Amtrak, and bike paths. I will miss him, not only for his policy expertise but also for his friendship. I have always considered Bob a close friend and a kindred spirit. I know his heart and home are in Philadelphia but I hope he will often come back to see us here. And that sentiment is true for each of our departing colleagues. On behalf of all Democrats on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I thank them for their distinguished public service and wish them well in their new careers.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution entrusts to Congress alone the power to declare war, a power we should invoke with great care on evidence of a clear and present danger to our country. President Bush has asked Congress to cede that power to him to be wielded against Iraq at a time of his choosing, with or without United Nations support, in a unilateral, preemptive strike of his own determination of the level of threat Iraq poses to our national security. I will not surrender our constitutional authority. I will not vote for the committee resolution which confers upon the President fast- track war-making power. The President should first win U.N. Security Council approval of a new, more rigorous round of arms inspections in Iraq. If Iraq resists the international inspectors and the mandated inspections fail, the President should then obtain a Security Council authorization of force, as was done in 1990, following which he should ask Congress for approval to wage war against Iraq. The resolution offered by the gentlewoman from California respects the Constitution and the American people and will give renewed diplomacy a chance. The Committee Resolution grants the President a new foreign policy and national security tool that charts us on a fundamental departure from historic U.S. foreign policy toward a dangerous precedent of first strike military authority for future Presidents. Once established, this resolution has enormous global consequences and will set the standard for other nations to attack preemptively, without restraint. This policy is contrary to our entire national tradition. The United States did not pursue a policy of first strike military authority against the Soviet Union during the Cold War when the Soviets had nuclear weapons directed at U.S. cities and military targets. Nor did the United States strike first against Iraq in 1990-1991. For most U.S. citizens, the real threat to the nation is our deteriorating domestic security: unemployment, the loss of retirement income, access to affordable prescription drugs, and corporate misfeasance and malfeasance that are eroding workers' retirement and health care security. Our domestic economy is in serious decline. Congress and the President should, as our top priority, mobilize investments in infrastructure and job training to put the unemployed back to work. We have to mount new strategies to counter unfairly-traded imports that undermine our national security through loss of jobs and income. Earlier this year, the President made important recommendations in this Section 201 Steel Remedy plan. Since then, however, he has backtracked, granting numerous exemptions to allow significant subsidized steel imports to pour into our nation undermining our domestic steel and iron ore industries. These are essential national security issues. Our national security begins with domestic security, expressed in a living wage, job security, livable communities, investments in education, health care, and transportation that will ensure a better future for our nation. The Administration's obsession with Iraq has deflected our national energies from the need to shore up domestic security. We must not allow the pursuit of terrorists at home and abroad, nor vigilance over the threat from Iraq divert our attention from critically urgent domestic priorities.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 5422, the ``Child Abduction Prevention Act.'' I opposed a similar version of this bill, the ``Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act'' (H.R. 2146), which was considered by the House earlier this year. Because H.R. 5422 contains some of the same provisions that I found objectionable in H.R. 2146, 1 must also oppose H.R. 5422 today. Although these bills have laudable goals of protecting innocent children from child molesters, the mechanism by which those offenders would be punished is unacceptable to me. First, H.R. 5422 seeks to expand the type of homicide that can be punished by the death penalty. I believe that we must have stiff penalties for those who commit violent crimes, but I do not feel the death penalty should be one of the options. It has always been my strong belief that the government has no right to selectively take life away from one of its citizens. Because I adamantly oppose the use of the death penalty in all situations, I cannot support this bill. Further, I oppose H.R. 5422 because it would have an unintended and disproportionate impact on the Native American population. The legislation would mandate life imprisonment for a second sex crime involving a child. However, the bill is limited to cases falling under federal jurisdiction, such as Native American reservations, national parks and forests, and U.S. territorial waters. Statistics indicate that approximately 75 percent of the cases that would be covered by this bill involve Native Americans. Therefore, H.R. 5422 would apply primarily--and disproportionately--to Native Americans on reservations. Unlike the federal ``three strikes, you're out'' law, H.R. 5422 does not allow tribal governments to opt out of the provisions of the law and apply their laws for handling such matters. Yet, there is no evidence that tribal governments have failed to address the problem this bill seeks to remedy. While I believe we must harshly punish sexual predators, I do not believe this bill succeeds in applying such punishment in an equitable, proportionate manner.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5427, a bill to designate the federal building in Roswell, New Mexico as the ``Joe Skeen Federal Building''. Congressman Skeen has ably represented the citizens of the 2nd district of New Mexico for 22 years. He was first elected to Congress in 1980 as a write-in candidate, becoming only the 3rd person to be elected to Congress in this manner. With his most recent reelection in 2000, he became New Mexico's longest serving member of the United States Congress. Throughout his career, Joe Skeen has fought consistently for local land management, for the rights of miners and farmers, and the ranching industry. He has also been a champion of popular federal nutrition programs such as food stamps and school lunches, and he has labored tirelessly to obtain defense funds for New Mexico's defense industry. Congressman Skeen's long career in this Body is perhaps most distinguished by his service on the Appropriations Committee. In 1995, he was appointed as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, a position he held until the end of the 106th Congress. At the beginning of this Congress, Congressman Skeen was appointed as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior. Joe Skeen's voting record is truly impressive. In 2001, as he has done in years past, Congressman Skeen voted in 100 percent of the votes called on the House floor. But Joe Skeen will be remembered not only for his notable voting record, but also his good humor, loyalty, and his sense of decency. Both sides of the aisle will miss the gentleman from New Mexico when he retires at the end of this Congress. H.R. 5427 designates the federal building in Roswell, New Mexico, in honor of Congressman Joe Skeen. It is a fitting tribute to a long and distinguished career, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5335, a bill to designate the federal building in Dayton, OH, in honor of our former colleague Tony Hall. Tony Hall was elected to his first term in the U.S. Congress in 1978. He went on to serve 11 consecutive terms. Congressman Hall's long career in public service is distinguished by his unwavering commitment to humanitarian causes, in particular to combating hunger in this country and around the world. I witnessed the commitment first hand in 1983 when I traveled with Congressman Hall and two other colleagues to Kansas City. At a time of high unemployment in our country, the Federal Government was storing surplus milk, butter and cheese in Kansas City. Congressman Hall was determined to focus national attention on this issue and press for the release of this surplus food into general distribution. He even went on a hunger strike to compel the government to release the stored food. As a result of these efforts, the stored food was eventually distributed to homeless shelters and the general public. Throughout his career, Congressman Hall focused on helping those in need. He promoted economic development that created jobs, championed efforts to ease food-stamp reductions, and in 1997, he spearheaded the ``Hunger Has A Cure'' campaign. In the international arena, Congressman Hall visited numerous countries around the world in an effort to focus attention on the problems of world hunger and to promote international aid. He was part of the first congressional delegation to Ethiopia in the 99th Congress, and he traveled to Bangladesh to observe disaster relief programs in the 100th Congress. Congressman Hall also helped create the Select Committee on Hunger, which focused on the problem of hunger both domestically and internationally. He served as chairman of that Select Committee from 1988 until its elimination in 1993. Congressman Hall continues to work to banish world hunger and promote developmental assistance. In 2002, President Bush appointed him Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture. This bill to designate the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and U.S Courthouse.'' is a fitting tribute to the compassion and humanity with which Ambassador Hall conducts his public service. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5335.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5083. H.R. 5083 honors Judge Santiago Campos by designating the United States Courthouse at South Federal Place in Santa Fe, New Mexico, the courthouse where Judge Campos served for more than 22 years, as the ``Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse.'' Judge Campos was born on Christmas Day in 1926 in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. A life-long resident of New Mexico, he received his law degree from the University of New Mexico, graduating first in his class. His distinguished career in public service began in 1944, when he served in the U.S. Navy as a seaman first class. In 1954, he joined the New Mexico State Attorney General's Office as an Assistant Attorney General and, in 1971, became a state district court judge in New Mexico's First District. President Carter appointed him to the Federal bench in 1978. Upon his appointment, he became the first Hispanic to sit on the Federal district court in New Mexico. Judge Campos served as a U.S. District Court Judge from his appointment in 1978 until his death in 2001. He served as Chief Judge of the Court from 1987 through 1989. Throughout his career, Judge Campos was an outstanding role model and mentor of other jurists and lawyers. Well liked and admired for his sense of humor and outgoing manner, Judge Campo's dedication to public service served as an inspiration to his colleagues. Indeed, the naming of this courthouse after Judge Campos has received wide support from those who knew him. The New Mexico State Legislature passed a joint memorial declaration requesting that Congress name this Federal courthouse in Judge Campos's honor. In addition, the United States district and appellate judges who reside in New Mexico have expressed their unanimous support for this designation. This bill is a fitting tribute to Judge Campos. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5083.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2672, a bill to honor the former Senator from Oregon, Wayne L. Morse by designating the new courthouse in Eugene Oregon in his honor. From 1931 until 1944, Senator Morse served as the dean and professor of law at the University of Oregon at Eugene. In 1944, he was elected to his first term in the United States Senate as a Republican Senator. He was reelected in 1950. In 1956, Senator Morse ran for election to the Senate as a Democrat. He won that election and was again reelected in 1962. Senator Morse lost his bid for a fifth term when he was defeated in 1968. However, by 1974 he had won the Democratic Senate nomination and was actively engaged in campaigning when he died in Portland, Oregon, in July of that year. Senator Morse was known as a gifted and principled lawmaker and a dedicated public servant. His tireless advocacy of the rights of organized labor and the collective bargaining process, and his unshakeable belief in the rule of law contributed to Senator Morse being called the ``conscience of the Senate''. He championed equal access to education and was an outspoken defender of the Constitution's system of checks and balances. Senator Morse's political philosophy was simply to promote the welfare of the American people. To use his own words: ``If you want to understand my political philosophy, here's the basic tenet--I think the job of a U.S. Senator is to seek to translate into legislation values that promote the welfare of people Because the keystone of the Constitution is the general welfare clause and the wealth of America is its people, not in materialism''. Senator Morse broke with the Republican Party in the 1950's when he led the filibuster against the Taft-Hartley bill, which threatened to erase nearly every fundamental employment right he had secured while on the War Labor Board. In the years preceding the Vietnam War, Senator Morse fiercely opposed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. He declared that Article I of the Constitution would be violated if Congress surrendered to the President its Constitutional authority to declare war. Throughout the War he took great issue when the Johnson Administration and its handling of the war. Senator Morse had the courage to speak and vote his convictions during one of the most tumultuous times in our Nation's history. He knew his opinions would be controversial and that they could, and ultimately did, cost him his seat in the U.S. Senate. But Wayne Morse had the strength to look beyond politics and do what he believed to be in the best interest of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the consideration of H.R. 2672 is particularly timely. As we begin debate tomorrow on a resolution that would authorize the President of the United States to use military force against Iraq, I hope that we could all follow the example of Wayne Morse and have the courage to speak our minds--whatever our particular beliefs--and that this Body will engage in a open and honest debate that will ultimately determine the best course for the American people. H.R. 2672 is a fitting tribute to a true public servant. I thank the Gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, for introducing this legislation, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 567, which recognizes the importance of surface transportation infrastructure to interstate and international commerce and the traveling public, and recognizes the contributions of the trucking, rail, and passenger transit industries to the economic well being of the United States. The Nation's surface transportation industries, and the workers they employ, have made immense contributions to the quality of life in our communities, the nation's economy, and our competitiveness in the world marketplace. Each day, the American people and American businesses benefit from reduced travel times, increased productivity, and improved safety as a result of their efforts. Throughout our Nation's history, economic growth, prosperity, and opportunity have followed from the development and operation of the Nation's infrastructure. From the ``internal improvements'' of the early 1800s--such as canals, locks, and roads--to the Interstate Highway System of today, infrastructure improvements have been the foundation of our economic growth. To take just one example, between 1980 and 1991, almost one-fifth of the increase in productivity in the U.S. economy was attributable to investment in highways. Our Nation's highways, transit and rail systems not only provide the backbone of our economy by moving people and goods, they also employ millions of workers and generate a significant share of total economic output. In 1999, transportation-related goods and services generated 11 percent of our total Gross Domestic Product. In addition to facilitating economic growth, our transportation system has a significant impact on the daily lives of nearly all Americans. Americans rely on safe and efficient modes of transportation in their day-to-day activities. The average household spends about 18 percent of it income on transportation, more than any other expense except housing. Surface transportation industries, and the workers they employ, have accomplished a great deal. But their work is not finished. We hope their achievements will inspire a renewed dedication to keeping America's transportation system the finest in the world.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Appropriations met to craft this package, it denied Amtrak's request for $1.2 billion for the coming fiscal year. The chief executive officer of Amtrak, David Gunn, said they cannot operate a national system of intercity passenger trains for less than $1.2 billion; maybe $1.1 billion, but certainly not much less than that. The Inspector General of DOT and other individual observers have said, clearly, Amtrak needs that $1.2 billion simply to continue existing operations. More is needed to bring the system up to a state of good repair; yet the Committee on Appropriations approved $762 million, far short of what is needed. In addition, the committee included language that limits the amount of funding to operate a national network of long-distance trains to $150 million. Now, that is micromanaging Amtrak; and that is less than half of what is needed and what was available for fiscal year 2002, the just-concluded fiscal year. That means that a dozen long-distance trains are going to be shut down in this coming fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, 13 of 18 long-distance trains will be shut down in order to reduce the deficit to $150 million. That means 2,300,000 passengers will lose service: the Sunset Limited from Orlando to Los Angeles, the California Zephyr from Chicago to Oakland, the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles, the City of New Orleans from Chicago to New Orleans. In fact, nine of those 13 have service running through Chicago, the heartland of America's rail sector, for well over a century. The only remaining long-distance trains will be one operating on the West Coast, the Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago, and the New York-Florida service. We will no longer have a national intercity passenger rail system. If we simply remember and recall back to September 11, when all air service was shut down, the only way people moved, apart from personal cars and Greyhound and other intercity bus service, the mass transit system was our Amtrak system. And when these trains are gone, they are gone forever. The cost of bringing them back up will be prohibitive. That is not what this country needs, that is not what the public wants, and we should not be a Third World Nation when it comes to intercity passenger service. We ought to be a first- rank Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge the committee to go back, do its serious business, restore these funds. We have now a president of Amtrak who really understands railroading who, given the money, will do the job right and put our system back on its feet and make it operate appropriately.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, last night the Congressional Coalition on Adoption institute celebrated the fourth annual “Angels in Adoption” program. It was a remarkable celebration of the many heroes throughout the nation who have advanced the cause of adoption. I had the great privilege to present to Lana Corbi, President and CEO of the Hallmark Channel, one of the 2002 National Angel Awards to recognize the Hallmark Channel's outstanding contributions to promote adoption through their television programming. There are many who made the “Angels in Adoption” event such a tremendous success, among whom I would like to commend my Congressional Coalition on Adoption Co-Chairs, Senator Larry Craig and Senator Mary Landrieu for their leadership and advocacy. I would also like to thank Maxine Baker and the Freddie Mac Foundation, and Paul Singer and the Target Corporation for their generous sponsorship of the “Angels in Adoption” celebration. I want to add a special word of thanks to Kerry Hasenbalg, the Executive Director of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, and her marvelous and dedicated staff (Wendy Cosby, Lynnette Cole, Katie Richardson, Jenni Byrd, and summer interns Kaitlin McNew and Emily Bonhoff) who gave so tirelessly of their time and talent to make this event such a success. I also wish to thank Chip Gardiner of my staff, Brooke Roberts of Senator Craig's staff and Kathleen Strottman of Senator Landrieu's staff for their significant contributions to adoption advocacy. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to enter in the Record my remarks from last evening's “Angels in Adoption” program. Representative Oberstar's Presentation of the 2002 National Angel in Adoption Award to the Hallmark Channel Tonight, we celebrate the men, women and children who have made profound contributions to adoption in their communities. Each Angel in Adoption has been deeply moved by this life- changing and life-affirming experience. For the Members of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, tonight is our opportunity to recognize their story, their experience. We are a better nation, and the lives of countless children and families have been touched in a powerful manner through adoption. I have seen many families in my congressional district in Minnesota that have been touched by adoption, and I am delighted to recognize one of my constituents, Linda Forde from Deerwood, Minnesota for sharing her personal experience with adoption with me. Ms. Forde is an adoptive parent of two wonderful children who were born in Vietnam. Because of her concern regarding the treatment of U.S. families seeking to adopt from Vietnam, she contacted me to voice her support for these families. Through her advocacy, Ms. Forde has demonstrated that motivated citizens can make a difference to promote adoption. It is for this reason that I am pleased to recognize Ms. Forde for her dedication to orphans who seek their forever families. Adoption changes lives—it changes families, neighborhoods, and communities. Adoption has also changed attitudes and beliefs. Through the advocacy and dedication of adoptive families and professionals, adoption has changed our nation and our world. My colleagues and I have seen adoption officials of other nations, upon experiencing the joy of the young children whom their government and people have allowed to be adopted by U.S. families, spontaneously make unexpected proclamations to expand their nation's adoption programs. I have heard powerful testimony of children in our foster care system describe their heart-moving desire for a forever family. As an adoptive parent, I also know the thrill and excitement of receiving “The Call” that told us that our son Ted would soon be with us. The Nobel Prize Chilean poet, Gabriella Mistral wrote: “We are guilty of many errors and faults, but our worst crime is abandoning children, neglecting the fountain of life. Many things we need can wait; the child cannot. To the child, we cannot answer: ‘Tomorrow’. The child's name is ‘Today!’&thnsp;” Those words have particular meaning for the more than 117,000 children in foster care who are available for adoption, and to whom we must say: “TODAY”. Until recently, the wonderful adoption experiences that we celebrate this evening were unreal and intangible to those unfamiliar with adoption. The Hallmark Channel travels into the households of 45 million subscribers around the globe. Thanks to Hallmark, families in the United States and throughout the world now have the opportunity to see the real stories of adoptive families. In June of this year, the Hallmark Channel initiated their first original series entitled “Adoption” which is a non-scripted, reality program, that captures the journey and real life experience of birth parents, adopted children and adoptive parents. I want to commend and congratulate the Hallmark Channel for your leadership and vision to bring these great stories to life. With the premiere of “Adoption,” Hallmark Channel has dedicated the network's inaugural national corporate outreach initiative to supporting and creating grassroots programs dedicated to positively impacting awareness of adoption in the U.S. By providing the tools that enable viewers to make a difference in their communities, Hallmark Channel hopes to dispel the myths surrounding adoption, and shed a positive light on the process. The Adoption initiative encompasses several elements that can be tailored to a variety of needs, including: turnkey promotions, public service announcements, educational tools, and programming elements to allow select markets to reach out and highlight relevant adoption stories in their community. This fall, as part of their corporate initiative, Hallmark will unveil a special ornament that celebrates adoption. They have generously included in each of your gift bags coupons that may be redeemed by mail for one of these ornaments. At this time, I would like to direct your attention to the video monitors to see a short excerpt of the Hallmark Channel's programming from their wonderful “Adoption” series. We are delighted to have Lana Corbi, President and CEO of Hallmark Channel, with us this evening to accept the 2002 National Angel in Adoption Award for the Hallmark Channel. Lana is a remarkable woman who has recently been named one of the “50 Most Powerful Black Executives in America” by Fortune Magazine. The Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute is very pleased to present this award to Lana Corbi in recognition of the Hallmark Channel's outstanding contributions to raise adoption awareness through leadership in television programming.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration and respect that I offer congratulations to my constituent, Marjorie A. Creen, of Chisago City, Minnesota. Majorie, a senior at Chisago Lakes High School has been named winner of the VFW 2002 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. She is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Dennis and Judy Creen and was sponsored by VFW Post 7267 in Lindstrom, Minnesota. The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary conduct a Voice of Democracy audio/essay competition designed to give high school students the opportunity to voice their opinion on their responsibility to our country. The theme of this year's audio/ essay contest was ``Reaching Out to America's Future.'' Marjorie, on behalf of a very proud constituency: ``Congratulations on a job well done.'' Reaching Out to America's Future (By Marjorie Creen) Will is a small boy. He is in first grade and is 6 years, 8 months old. Besides playing tetherball and riding bikes, Will's favorite thing to do is color. He draws pictures for his mom and dad, and for his grandma and grandpa. Recently, Will was coloring a picture of an American flag when he noticed that he didn't have a red crayon. Will is a smart young boy and knew that he needed red to finish his drawing. He searched through his pack of crayons, then on the table, and finally looked to the floor. Low and behold. there was his crayon. Will was quite happy to see it lying a few feet from his desk. He reached out for it, but it was too far away. Frustrated he stretched even more to get it, but still, he could not pick up his red crayon. As odd as it may seem, the United States is much like Will. Just like the young boy, we are trying to create something beautiful and perfect for all of us to enjoy. However we too are missing something that we need to make our dream come true. This child has one up on us, though. Will knows what he is missing, therefore he can reach out in order to achieve it. What exactly are we missing? I figured out what I thought we were missing by looking at what the finished drawing should look like. When I think of what the United States should be, I think of a place where racial differences do not exist. I see a place where there are no ``bad streets'' in major cities and where people can feel safe to walk alone at night. I want a place where people are less self-absorbed and when a cashier says, ``Have a good day!'' she actually means it. I see a place where the veterans of World War II, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf are praised and honored for protecting the rights that many people today don't realize we have. What all of these things add up to is respect. I feel that that is something major our beautiful country lacks. The reason I think respect is so crucial is because it leads to other effects. Once a country has respect, it then has unity, pride, love, happiness, harmony--;the list is endless! To show respect, people could stop swearing at each other, gain more patience in rush hour, allow someone with less items to go in front of them at the grocery store, and remember to stand when the National Anthem is played. Respect is America's red crayon. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen fought hard to give their children, and their children's children the freedoms we have. It is hard for us to appreciate these things because we have never seen what is like to not have them. My generation has never known a time where we couldn't voice our opinion, sue someone we were unhappy with, or practice the religion of our choice. These freedoms we enjoy have always been there, and hopefully WILL always be there. I just pray that in the future, my fellow peers will learn the true value of the things that we take for granted. Perhaps we need them to be taken away from us, so then one day we can realize what we had and how truly great it was. Sadly, that will be the day that we finally give the veterans of war the respect they deserve. Respect for the fine soldiers who worked hard to preserve our freedom is a giant leap in the right direction. I think that once we show respect for these brave men and women, we will understand the meaning of the National Anthem. The words will no longer be a simple song that is played before the start of a basketball game, it will be the heroic hymn that defines what people have sacrificed to give us our liberty. We need to be like Will, the young boy who needs a red crayon. We, the people of this great country, must reach out with arms stretched to the future. Not only must we reach, but we need to stand up, proud and strong, and show respect for the people who fought and died to give us our rights. Respect is what this country needs. Respect for all who live in it, and respect for all who fought for it, so that we could live with freedom, rights, and pride.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the John F. Kennedy Center has long been envisioned and has been created and established as a living memorial to the late President Kennedy. It is also the Nation's premier cultural institution for the performing arts. The chairman of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Kennedy Center, and we both know from our participation in the deliberations of the board that the center is this vibrant and dynamic institution that it was envisioned to be. Every year over 5 million people visit, attend, enjoy, and are enriched by performances at the Kennedy Center, particularly the Millenium State performances that are free to the public and operate 365 days a year. They are innovative performances that are available to all the people who come to our Nation's capital for whatever purpose, travel or business, leisure, and people come to enjoy those Millenium State performances in ever-increasing numbers. But, unfortunately, the Kennedy Center is sort of cut off from the rest of Washington, D.C. The original design of the center does not envision the structure situated as it is today. I can remember when I was working teaching language in Haiti in 1959 and 1960 through 1962, reading, admittedly, with three weeks' delay, the news from Washington and reading this grand design plan set forth by then-President Eisenhower or by his administration for a center for the performing arts in Washington, D.C., and this magnificent sweep of the structure out over the Potomac River and looking back towards monumental Washington. And, of course, the part east of the current location of the Kennedy Center was then dilapidated buildings, all envisioned to be torn down, no roadway where we now have one, and it was intended that this would just connect Washington, D.C. and this new center for the performing ars. That is not the way it worked out. Funding constraints limited the original scope. The connection with downtown Washington was not realized. The center's problems have multiplied over the years. Attending nighttime performances means that patrons either add to the District of Columbia's notorious rush hour traffic jams or are reduced to a functional but not fully acceptable and adequate shuttle system. There are over 200,000 vehicles a day that use the complex series of ramps and roadways that are adjacent to the Kennedy Center. There is no pedestrian or bicycle access to the center from the east or from the southeast, from the Washington, D.C. mall. In many a time I have been driving along that avenue and watched as pedestrians risk their lives running across 4 to 5, 6 lanes of traffic at even heavy traffic times. That is just simply not acceptable. The closest Metro stop to the Kennedy Center is the Foggy Bottom Metro stop a half mile from the center, too far for a good many people to walk comfortably and perhaps not entirely safe either. The center runs a very successful shuttle bus, but there is a lack of frequency, a lack of adequate signage to make it comfortable for walkers to find the center. And, furthermore, this is a very historic neighborhood and people ought to be able to enjoy it in some fashion other than rushing to get from wherever they are parking to the Kennedy Center. In 1998, the former chairman of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Congressman Shuster, and I worked together to secure funding in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, to provide funds for the Department of Transportation to analyze methods to improve access to the Kennedy Center. That study has been completed. It has identified a number of proposed design and access improvements. In particular, the study proposes going back to the original concept of connecting the Kennedy Center with monumental Washington, as I call it, that is the historic sweep of structures and monuments that are testimony to the Nation's history and its evolution with the Kennedy Center. This plan would build a plaza over the spaghetti bowl of freeways, particularly the Potomac freeway, and would create 8 new acres of public space, would connect E Street and 25th Street to the plaza and reestablish the city grid; E Street to be changed at the western terminus to link the center and the core of the city, and there are proposed new connections between Rock Creek Parkway and the Potomac freeway. There would be pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, transit improvements to link the center to the heart of Washington, D.C. That is how it should be. That is how this national cultural center should function. Based on this study, the bill we bring to the floor today, the Kennedy Center Plaza Authorization Act, authorizes a cooperative venture between the Kennedy Center, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the District of Columbia to improve access to and from the Kennedy Center. It authorizes, as the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) said a moment ago, $400 million to plan, design and construct the proposed plaza in order to undertake the necessary highway improvements to create this access to the center. The Kennedy Center itself has offered to undertake the cost of constructing the new buildings to be constructed on the plaza, buildings that will house rehearsal halls, classrooms, and be an open invitation to the public to actually come and see how rehearsals are conducted. It would be a great opportunity for the public who come to enjoy the arts in our Nation's capital. And I invite any of our colleagues to come to the center or ask the Kennedy Center staff to come and give them a presentation, a showing of the artists' rendition of these structural changes because I think once Members see it, they will be enthralled, captivated and excited by it, as I am, as the members of the board of trustees, and as is the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman not only for his kind remarks but also for his very thoughtful summation. In his ever-judicious manner, he has summed up the issue before us and stated the case so well. I not only urge unanimous approval of the legislation in this body, but I also urge the other body to move expeditiously on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore