Passenger Van Safety Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes, and I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, fortunately we have before us today legislation that is the model of bipartisanship and should be the standard for legislation considered by this body. Unfortunately, this bill is the exception and not the rule. Most of the time our colleagues on the other side of the aisle treat bipartisanship as a sign of weakness, as something to be avoided if at all possible.

Last week, for example, the majority forced one of the most important bills that will be debated this year, the $550 billion tax cut for the wealthy, through this body without even allowing the Democrats the traditional substitute. This bill, by contrast, is thoughtful, sensible, and bipartisan. I would only say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, this is not that hard.

By adopting this rule, the House will be able to consider H.R. 1527, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act. This bill was reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is not controversial and I am confident that the House will approve it with broad bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I had the great honor of serving on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure prior to my appointment to the Committee on Rules; and during my time on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I had the privilege of working with the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I have always believed that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is one of the most collegial, bipartisan panels in the Congress; and I know firsthand the good work that this committee is capable of producing, and this is one of those bills.

Having said that, there is still much work that needs to be done before the Memorial Day work period. Over 6,100 people in my home State of Massachusetts have lost their jobs in the past month and almost 168,000 have lost their jobs since President Bush took office. Unemployment continues to rise, and if this body does not act, millions of workers will lose their unemployment compensation at the end of May.

We must extend unemployment insurance for these workers, and we must do it now. There are families all across this country who are struggling very, very hard; and this House should do the right thing. I would urge my colleagues to join me in urging the Republican leadership to bring to the floor legislation extending unemployment insurance as soon as possible.

At the end of the debate on this rule, I will move the previous question; and if the previous question is defeated, I will call to the floor legislation extending unemployment insurance. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question. Unemployed Americans cannot afford to lose this assistance.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1527, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003 is, simply stated, a good bill for an important agency that serves a critical public service. The NTSB is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with the authority to investigate and determine the likely causes of transportation accidents, including all civil aviation accidents and selected accidents occurring in other modes of transportation.

It is perhaps most often recognized as the agency that coordinates all Federal assistance to the families of victims of catastrophic airplane crashes. In the midst of these tragedies, the NTSB has demonstrated time and again its unique and expert ability to mobilize top-notch investigators to search and find answers, and accordingly, to provide some measure of comfort to the haunting questions that will come with all such fatal accidents.

Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 114,000 aviation accidents and 10,000 surface transportation accidents; and as a result of their diligence, the NTSB has earned the reputation as one of the world's foremost accident investigative authorities. They are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, prepared to go anywhere, at any time, to perform the difficult job we have assigned to them.

We are grateful to the NTSB for the service they provide, and this bill and the corresponding funding levels reaffirm our collective confidence in their performance.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps not as well known is the significant role that they play in shaping national transportation safety policies. In addition to its investigative function, the NTSB conducts numerous safety studies and issues recommendations designed to prevent future transportation accidents. In fact, the NTSB has issued more than 11,600 such safety recommendations in all modes of transportation.

Since 1990, the NTSB has refined these recommendations and published a Most Wanted list of safety improvements to highlight certain issues; and despite its lack of regulatory authority, the NTSB has actually succeeded in seeing 80 percent of its safety recommendations adopted in some fashion or another.

This success rate is no doubt due in large part to the credibility and respect the NTSB commands among Federal transportation agencies, Members of Congress, and the transportation industry.

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of the NTSB's sterling reputation that I am concerned that they have not done more comprehensive analysis around the issue of the size and weight of big trucks on our Nation's highways.

As I have already expressed, I have high regard for the NTSB. However, while they have published several safety studies on individual and discrete components of big trucks, it has not fully addressed the more pressing issue of truck size and weight. In my estimation, the absence of truck size and weight on the NTSB's Most Wanted list of safety improvements is a glaring omission.

There are few transportation safety issues that represent a greater threat to public safety than the need to freeze the size and weight of trucks on our roadways. Five thousand people die each year and another 100,000 are injured in crashes with heavy trucks. In my home State of Massachusetts, 31 people died and another 385 were injured in 2001 in crashes with heavy trucks.

I shudder to think how these numbers will climb if the trucking industry succeeds in convincing Members of this body that still bigger trucks are somehow necessary, that 120-foot triple-long trailer trucks on our Nation's highways are actually a good idea.

The alarming statistics I have just cited only begin to describe the human cost of bigger trucks. They do not even begin to describe the economic devastation that bigger trucks will also cause to our Nation's roads and bridges which are already in deplorable conditions. In Massachusetts, more than 50 percent of the bridges have been determined to be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The U.S. DOT has estimated that longer combination vehicles could cause Americans as much as $319 billion in total. This is a cost we cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of truck size and weight deserves the expert analysis of the National Transportation Safety Board; and most importantly, the American driving public deserves to be protected from the danger of bigger trucks on our roads and highways.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. We need to bring up the issue of unemployment compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), has been a leader on this issue of extending unemployment benefits to struggling workers.

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The silence on the other side of the aisle is really quite incredible. The Republican majority here is turning this Congress into a place where important and urgent issues not only do not get a chance to be voted on by Members of this House but they do not even get debated. There are millions of people in this country who are unemployed. There are millions of people who are struggling right now. They deserve their day on this House floor. That is what we are struggling to try to achieve here so we can vote on something that really makes a difference to the American people, that is more than just a soundbite but something that is real.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will call for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment provides that immediately after the House passes the National Transportation Safety Board reauthorization, it will take up H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act. This bill will extend Federal unemployment benefits by 26 weeks and will give an additional 13 weeks to those unemployed workers whose benefits have been exhausted.

Mr. Speaker, unemployment rates continue to rise. They increased to 6 percent in April, the third month in a row that the economy has lost jobs. For every one available job, there are three Americans looking for work. Of the 8.8 million unemployed, nearly 2 million have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. This does not even count those who are working part time or those who have simply given up looking. These Americans need relief, and they need it immediately. Current Federal unemployment benefits run out at the end of May, in only 2\1/2\ weeks. Republicans in the House have voted against extending these critical benefits three times in the last 10 days. Three times. Do not let unemployed Americans down a fourth time. Bring this badly needed relief to the floor for an up-or-down vote today. Let us show American workers that we intend to stand by them in their time of need.

Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the NTSB reauthorization, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on both H.R. 1527 and on H.R. 1652. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from passing the desperately needed extension of Federal unemployment benefits to our unemployed workers.

I want to point out that this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to vote on extending Federal unemployment benefits. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is very, very simple. Members either believe that we should help unemployed struggling workers or they do not believe we should help unemployed struggling workers. I think the majority of Americans want us to vote on this issue. The workers of this country who are unemployed, they need our help and they need it now. They do not need excuses. They do not want us to hide behind procedural smoke screens; or they do not want the leadership, the Republican leadership, protecting their Members from having to vote up or down on this issue. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

If the gentleman will yield, they will expire in 2\1/2\ weeks.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on this first major bill under his leadership on our side on the Subcommittee on Aviation. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) for their bipartisan cooperation in fashioning this bill, working it through subcommittee and full committee, and bringing it to the floor today.

As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) said just a moment ago, the NTSB has been without an authorization for the last year. That is not appropriate. We have to do our job. We were delayed in getting there by the events of the last Congress; but we now bring this bill, very proudly and appropriately, to the floor for the agency that I consider to be the Nation's premier, definitive authority on safety in transportation.

We are very fortunate to have a great many Federal Government agencies for whom the public gets full value of its investment in the support funding. But we get more than full value out of the National Transportation Safety Board. Its recommendations, its vigilance on safety result in improvements in the way we conduct the business of transportation in all of the modes: maritime, railroading, trucking, automotive vehicular transportation and, of course, pipelines and aviation, which gets perhaps the greatest visibility for the NTSB when there is a tragedy in aviation. But that should not overshadow nor cause anyone to forget the very significant and important work done in the other modes of transportation.

Time and again, the NTSB's recommendations that are written for changes in safety oversight by agencies and conduct of safety by the private sector as well as by public entities are written into practice and result in saving lives, preventing property damage, and making transportation more dependable, safer all throughout this vast land of ours.

The new Chair, Ellen Engleman, comes to this position from another safety responsibility as the head of the Research and Special Projects Administration, RSPA, of DOT, where she had primary responsibility for pipeline safety and was the subject of NTSB recommendations for improvements in pipeline safety and responded very well, very thoughtfully, and very appropriately. I look forward to Ms. Engleman's tenure as Chair of the

NTSB where I know she will bring the same dedication and vigor to that responsibility as she did to RSPA.

The unique role of the National Transportation Safety Board in its conduct of investigations of transportation accidents, after evaluating the evidence, making findings of fact is then to make recommendations that are normative, not determined by cost-benefit analysis, not driven by one or another interest group; but to do what, in the best judgment of its seasoned safety professionals, is in the best public interest for the conduct of safety in that particular mode. It is then for the modal administrations to evaluate benefits and costs and to make judgments in the rulemaking afterward; but it is up to the NTSB to be above the fray to be normative, to set standards that in its judgment are in the best public interest. And that it has done.

In the last 5 years, there have been 8,124 accident investigations in aviation alone, 166 highway accidents, 82 railroad accidents, 41 pipeline accidents, 24 maritime accidents; and a total of 881 safety recommendations have been issued.

Unfortunately, not all of those safety recommendations have been implemented by the modal administrations of the Department of Transportation, and that is without regard to which party has been in charge of the executive branch. There is a very serious problem here. When our premier investigative agency looks at an accident, then relates it to a class or category of accidents and prescribes a remedy for it, the modal administrations ought to respond forthwith. The FAA has the best record of any of the modal administrations in responding, but that is a record that is not good enough.

This legislation requires an annual report from DOT on the status of regulations to implement all of the significant safety recommendations from NTSB, which is widely known as its Most Wanted list. We will get that report. We will evaluate each year the progress of the modal administrations; and then, through our oversight responsibility and authority on the committee, we will bring those administrations up to our committee and grill them on why they have not been compliant, or compliment them for being so if, in fact, they are. But this will put a lot of pressure on those modal administrations to clean their slate and respond to and comply with these recommendations of the NTSB.

In 2000, our committee authorized the transfer of investigative priority from the safety board to the FBI in the event of an accident caused by intentional criminal act. What we overlooked at the time was a mechanism to transfer responsibility for dealing with the families of victims of accidents in the event of an intentional criminal act.

Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the Safety Board now believes the FBI would be the best entity to handle that responsibility, and this legislation provides for transferring of family affairs responsibility from NTSB to the FBI in the event of a finding of an intentional criminal act and, of course, of an accident investigation.

One of the best initiatives undertaken by the NTSB in many years is to develop a training academy to teach the state-of-the-art investigative techniques for transportation accidents. The Safety Board has always worked hard on training and improving the caliber and quality of its investigative personnel, a very lean staff, a very small staff, but one that works extremely well, very creatively, but can always benefit from improved training. And this new training academy will be a huge benefit for the NTSB.

I would like to mention another matter, and that is also one that is not generally or widely recognized, and that is that the NTSB serves as a model for other countries throughout the world to establish civil investigative agencies. Time and time again the NTSB has been asked by other, especially emerging, democracies and those emerging from the end of the Cold War in the former Soviet Union to help them in formulating the establishment of a transportation safety board. Again, the NTSB stands as the world standard for safety investigation, for honesty, integrity, for quality of investigation, and for the quality of its recommendations for improvements of safety.

Finally, I would like to make a note of a matter of aviation history. Yesterday it was reported that L. Welsh Pogue died at the age of 103. Welsh Pogue was asked by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, as the allies were nearing the end or could see the end of World War II, to convene the meeting of all nations of our allies who would have an interest in a postwar aviation regime, to set up a process by which agreement could be negotiated in the new world to follow World War II. It was Welsh Pogue who recommended that the conference, known as the Chicago Conference, in November 1944, establish an open skies aviation trading regime.

The other countries convened at that meeting felt that the United States emerging relatively unscathed from the war and with a very strong domestic, but still emerging, commercial aviation sector would dominate the world marketplace. It was in the end L. Welsh Pogue who negotiated the idea of individual bilateral agreements that would be in the mutual interest of the two negotiating parties.

Don Phillips of the Washington Post 3 years ago wrote, ``When L. Welsh Pogue was born, the Wright brothers were running a bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. But as Franklin D. Roosevelt's aviation pointman in 1944, Pogue cobbled together the compromise regulatory scheme that governs international aviation to this day.''

On Monday of 1999, of May 1999, the 100-year-old Pogue, aided only by a cane, walked to the podium in the same hotel ballroom where the world's fledgling aviation nations reached their historic agreement on December 7, 1944. He brought down the house with his wry memory of 1944 and his vision for aviation future.

At the end of his remarks, Pogue predicated the world would divide itself into regions for air traffic purposes. It will be slow, he said, but do not give up in despair. Turn to those things that are possible.

L. Welsh Pogue taught us all what was possible in the field of aviation. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. It was my great privilege and honor to come to know L. Welsh Pogue over the many years I had served as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation and subsequently in my current position on our committee. I revere and love this man who is a legend in their field of aviation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue before us at this

time and in this context. And as the chairman of the subcommittee has indicated already, there is a problem of germaneness.

But there is nothing ungermane about the point the gentleman makes.

Years ago, during debate in committee, in this body and in conference with the other body, on the termination of the ICC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, I tried to do this very same thing, something very similar to this, to require a commercial driver's license for those drivers who would pilot these 15-passenger vans. We were not able to reach agreement on that in the conference. There was resistance from the other body to moving in that direction.

I subsequently appealed to the NTSB to undertake an inquiry into the stability of this caliber of vehicle, and the board is working on a report to address the issue of passenger van stability and whether those vehicles are more likely to roll over and cause passenger injury.

A year ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, issued a cautionary warning to users of these vans because of increased rollover risk.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the flight surgeon of the FAA has over a period of 20 years conducted studies of the appropriateness of the age 60 rule. The conclusion of the FAA is that it is best left in place as it is. The NTSB does not have the personnel expertise to conduct a study of the magnitude the gentlewoman is proposing. The appropriate venue is the FAA, which does continue to monitor this issue, and we will be glad to continue to discuss with the gentlewoman her concern about this matter in another venue.

(By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am very deeply touched by the words of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our committee chairman. We have worked closely together on shaping this legislation.

In a time when the image of the U.S. Congress to the rest of America is one of divisiveness and partisanship, this committee may well have set a model for how a legislative body ought to work, an interplay of ideas coming at the same issue, toward the same objective, with different viewpoints, openly debated, intensively discussed, thoroughly explored and a resolution that is in the public interest. It has been inclusive. It has been partnership rather than partisanship on this committee.

That is a great tribute to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who have put their best efforts forth, and to our respective professional staff who have carried the burden of the day time and again on what to others might be an arcane aspect of very complex issues but which are vitally important.

So, as the Chairman said, we come to the floor with a bill that serves the best, broadest interests of transportation in America. It is a bipartisan product. It is one that should be $100 billion more, as the Chairman alluded to, without using that number, but we all know where we need to be, and to the gentleman from Alaska's (Chairman Young) great credit, Mr. Chairman, he has advocated openly, vigorously in every venue, in this body, with the executive branch and in the public, as I have, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) have done for a more robust funding which we need, which we all know is necessary to address the transportation needs of America, keep our economy mobile, growing, productive and competitive in the world marketplace.

We do in the political arena what we can do, and what we can do here today under the circumstances is bring a bill at $275 billion that is good policy, sound policy for America, will move America forward.

Congestion is clogging the arteries of transportation in our urban areas, in our close-in suburban areas and is affecting rural America as well. Congestion is slowing the movement of people and goods, extending our daily commute, driving the cost of goods up in the marketplace, driving up the frustration of American drivers, making our roadways less safe, costing America more in the long run.

UPS, for example, estimates that for every 5-minute delay they lose $40 million nationwide. There are numerous other examples of costs of delay. The Texas Transportation Institute annually does a study of congestion in America. Their report in January of this year of 75 major metropolitan areas put the cost of congestion at $69.5 billion in just those 75 major metropolitan areas. That means that people are spending a week longer in their cars than they would if they could drive at posted highway speeds, buying four tanks of gasoline more than they would if they could drive at posted highway speeds, and using the name of the Lord more frequently in traffic on weekdays than they do in church on Sundays, I suspect.

We propose to address that problem by attacking bottlenecks in our transportation system, addressing with a megaprojects program huge conflagrations of people, goods, all modes of transportation, passenger rail, freight rail, trucks, passenger cars, maritime, aviation, and loosen the bonds of congestion in those areas with an initiative we call megaprojects, whose result will be net national benefits, net regional multistate benefits and net benefits to our national economy.

We are not just a continental economy. We are a global economy. China is investing, Japan is investing in its infrastructure, Europe is investing in its infrastructure to move goods and people faster, more efficiently, but America is not moving fast enough.

The study that in TEA 21 we commissioned the Department of Transportation to do, an assessment of pavement conditions, bridge conditions, congestion and safety, produced a report that recommended an investment of $375 billion on the grounds that we ought to be investing at all levels of government $125 billion a year in infrastructure improvement and we were only investing $75 billion. We are $50 billion a year short.

So, to keep our place in the competitiveness in the world marketplace, we need to do this. This is an investment that stays here in America. It stays home. The jobs created are American jobs. They are not created in Taiwan or Korea or Japan. They are created here in America, with American goods, American materials; and we ought to make that investment to make our economy move more efficiently, to put 1.7 million more construction workers back to work, generate an additional $80 billion a year in economic activity and keep America moving.

This bill will get us on the right track toward that objective.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 25 seconds to express my deep gratitude to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. He has been a true partner in this enterprise with the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of his subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and myself, contributing his time, days and nights and weekends, calling from home, calling from his district office, lending his consummate grasp of transportation issues from the transportation hub of America, Chicago, where all of America's complexities are joined.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who is a great friend and a great contributor to this product.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.Holden), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), our resident urban planner and thoughtful member of this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our committee resident legal scholar.

(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, may I have a compilation of the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado has identified an issue that has been highlighted by the National Transportation Safety Board. I am in full sympathy with the gentleman, and we will work to accomplish that objective.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We have heard a wide range of thoughtful views, some of them expressed in very hurried fashion due to the time limitations. But if we had 24 hours of debate, there would not have been enough time to hear all the views of all Members because transportation really undergirds our entire economy.

I leave one statistic with my colleagues. In 1987 the cost of logistics, moving people and goods, consumed 16 percent of our gross domestic product of this country. Last year logistics consumed just under 10 percent of our gross domestic product. That is a gain of $600 billion in our $10 trillion economy. That investment gain is due to the investments that we have made through this committee in cooperation with States and localities improving our infrastructure. That is the core of why we are on the floor today, to advance the Nation's economy, productivity, and competitiveness at home and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat like the sinner appearing before the bishop when Your Honorable is in the Chair; but with all due respect, I do relish this moment. We are here today to support H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, known as TEA LU.

This bill is a result of a great deal of hard work and cooperation by the Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a bipartisan basis.

I want to first thank the ranking minority member of our committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He has been a real champion of transportation, working with me to craft this legislation.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee of Highways, Transit and Pipelines, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). His leadership and dedication contributed greatly to bringing this bill to the floor today.

He has traveled many, many miles to try to bring the information and gather the information from the citizens of this great Nation.

In addition, I appreciate the support and cooperation of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking minority member of the subcommittee. This effort demonstrates that, through bipartisanship, working together in cooperation, we can achieve I believe great things and legislate great things in this body.

I particularly want to thank our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his leadership in moving this important legislation along. He has ensured that this body will be able to work its will and proceed as an independent branch of our government under our Constitution, and I do deeply appreciate his support.

In addition, we could not have brought this bill to the floor today without the support and assistance of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) from the Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Thomas is proposing some changes to existing law that will provide additional revenues into the Highway Trust Fund. His proposal makes it possible to achieve a better bill, and I appreciate his advice and counsel.

Lastly, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) of the Committee on the Budget. He and his staff have been invaluable in ensuring that we continue the principles contained in TEA 21 that guarantee that highway trust funds will be spent on transportation, as promised to the American people. We have worked closely together to reach an agreement that meets both our needs at this point in time.

We have worked with other committee chairmen on provisions contained in the bill; and, without their help, we would not have been able to bring this bill to the floor today. We will continue to work with other committees in a cooperative fashion as we proceed to conference.

Mr. Chairman, traffic congestion, poor roads and hazardous highways are not Republican or Democrat problems. These are problems shared by all Americans, from all walks of life or economic conditions and all political parties.

Today, congestion on our highways is greatly reducing the quality of life for American families. Congestion, congestion, congestion causes over $67 billion in lost productivity and wasted fuels, $67 billion lost that produces nothing. It costs the average driver $1,160 a year and more than a week and a half spent stuck in traffic. I want to stress that again. Average driver, $1,160 a year and more than a week and a half spent stuck in traffic.

H.R. 3550 provides a new emphasis and a new program to relieve congestion, maximize roadway capacity and remove bottlenecks. In addition, more than 42,000 Americans are killed and 3.3 million are seriously injured each year on our highways. Nearly a third of the fatal crashes are caused by poor roads and roadside hazards. These fatalities are totally preventable.

H.R. 3550 creates a new core program for highway safety infrastructure improvements, a new high-risk rural road safety program and supports a number of safety programs aimed at human factors that contribute to accidents.

Mr. Chairman, we live in a global economy. Moving freight quickly and on time is absolutely essential to remain competitive and to retaining our

economic well-being. Other countries, such as China, are investing first in their transportation infrastructure because they know that without roads they cannot grow their economies. The United States must be willing to make transportation a top priority if we are to retain our economic leadership.

H.R. 3550 funds five programs designed to improve movement of freight, including funding for border infrastructure, intermodal connectors, projects of regional and national significance and a new corridor infrastructure program.

The bill also provides funding for construction of dedicated truck lanes. This will mean not only faster moving of freight but a vast improvement in safety on increasingly crowded interstates.

Public mass transportation is a key component in our cities. Seniors, the disabled and low-income families rely heavily on public transportation. In addition, without transit our highways would be so congested that we would not be able to move at all.

Therefore, H.R. 3550 continues our commitment to provide for public transportation both to our cities and to many rural areas where the need is great.

America's transportation needs are obvious to anyone who spends time on our roads and highways. We are a Nation stuck in traffic. We based the funding level of H.R. 3550 on the administration's conditions and performance report which set forth the needs of our transportation system.

In addition, we received far more requests from Members for funding of projects than we could possibly accommodate. That proves to me that the needs are real and that they are growing.

Mr. Chairman, this has been never been a want bill. This is a needs bill for this great Nation. So I am disappointed we have had to reduce the funding for many of the very good programs that we proposed in H.R. 3550 as introduced.

Failure to address our transportation needs will leave our country behind in protecting our economy. Mr. Chairman, that is not acceptable to this chairman. It will reduce the quality of life of our citizens if we do not pass this bill.

H.R. 3550 is a bill which embodies our vision for a better transportation legacy for America's future. I urge everyone during this debate and discussion of the bill to be able to listen to the merits of the legislation and support what is right for America.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very frankly for his hard work on this issue. It is a pleasure to work with him.

I understand the needs these small transit systems face. I certainly support the growth, as I told the gentleman personally, of transit throughout the United States, especially in the thriving smaller communities such as in the gentleman's congressional district.

I want to assure my colleague that, as we go forward with this bill, I welcome his continued assistance on this matter and the gentleman's knowledge. I look forward to working with my colleague on this issue as we go through the conference to finding a reasonable and responsible solution to this problem, and I can assure my colleague that probably will happen.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to join the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the subcommittee. I want to thank both of them and also the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee, for their leadership. The gentleman from Alaska has done an incredible job in bringing together the diversity of more than 70 members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to not only bring forth this reauthorization bill, but to soon vote for the successor to AIR-21 and TEA-21, our important transportation measures and policy for the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, this bill that is before us today is very similar to the legislation that was considered under suspension of the rules and agreed to by voice vote of the House on June 4 of last year, and that was H.R. 4466, for my colleagues' reference. This legislation reauthorizes the National Transportation Safety Board for a period of 4 years. It provides funding during those years for the amounts as follows: $73.3 million, $78.7 million for next year, $83 million, and $87.5 million during that 4-year period of authorization.

The National Transportation Safety Board is the agency which is responsible for investigating transportation accidents and also for promoting transportation safety. The board investigates, conducts safety studies, and coordinates all Federal assistance for families of victims of catastrophic transportation accidents. It also has the responsibility to review appeals of certificate and civil penalty actions against airmen and certificate actions against seamen.

Most importantly, the NTSB makes safety recommendations based on its investigations of Federal, State, and local government agencies; and the transportation agencies take actions that hopefully will prevent similar accidents in the future. The aviation safety record is remarkably good, and the safety board deserves a lot of credit for that success. This is a small, well-run, lean, and effective Federal agency.

This legislation makes some changes, however, to the agency's governing statute that should help make the board even more effective. The bill again reauthorizes the agency for 4 years and provides modest increases in expenditures which are authorized, funding levels that I have mentioned. H.R. 1527 also authorizes a much-needed increase in the NTSB emergency fund. This is the fund that pays the necessary expenses for accident investigations not otherwise provided specifically for; and unfortunately, we have had instances where sometimes the cost of some of these investigations is substantial.

The bill also authorizes funding for the National Transportation Safety Board Academy. The bill directs the NTSB to notify aircraft owners and operators of their right to appeal accident determinations, except those where there is a loss of life. The bill requires the board to establish procedures for those appeals. This legislation, again, H.R. 1527, requires the Department of Transportation to report to Congress and the board on the regulatory status of each significant safety recommendation made by the board. The Department must continue, and this is a change and something I am pleased to have helped craft with bipartisan support, the Department must continue to report on the regulatory status of each recommendation each and every year until the final regulatory action is taken.

One of the things we found in our hearing with the very capable former Chair of the NTSB, Marion Blakley who is now heading up FAA, was the recommendation to us that we did not have a follow through; that there would be investigation of these accidents and there would be recommendations and not much was done. This will require repetitive alerting of both the Congress and the Department for implementation of those recommendations until something is, in fact, taken as far as positive action.

Finally, the legislation provides a procedure whereby the safety board would turn an investigation over to the FBI when a criminal act may be involved.

Mr. Chairman, the NTSB has been without authorization for a year. I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his remarks, also for his very sincere commitment to this issue.

As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and with the committee's jurisdiction on this legislation, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Colorado on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification here. The Clerk read the amendment, but we want to make certain it is ``page 5, line 2, before the period insert the following.''

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wishes to engage in a colloquy, and I want to say that I agree with the gentleman that grade crossings are a serious problem in this country. There has been good progress over the past several years, but in the first month of 2003, 30 people were killed in grade crossing accidents.

I was going to ask that the gentleman withdraw the amendment, but I think we have an agreement to accept the amendment now.

The STB has jurisdiction over some of this matter, particularly relating to grade crossing safety improvements. The appropriate place to address this measure will, in fact, be in the reauthorization legislation and also with the Federal Railroad Administration. I think that the gentleman is correct in his pursuing this matter through that particular legislation and those appropriate agencies.

Our proposed Ride-21 bill will provide $60 billion in new infrastructure funding, including the elimination of all grade crossings on new highway speed passenger lines. Perhaps we would also welcome the gentleman as a cosponsor on this important legislation, and I am pleased that the gentleman has modified this particular proposal so that it is acceptable.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have a copy of the Cardin amendment that is being proposed at this point, and I make a point of order against the amendment on the grounds that it violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House because it is not germane to the bill.

Clause 7 of rule XVI provides that no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be considered under color of amendment.

The gentleman from Maryland's amendment deals with an entirely different subject. The amendment that I have here deals with title II provisions relating to unemployment compensation, again having absolutely nothing to do with the subject under consideration.

The subject of the amendment is not addressed in the underlying text of the bill under consideration. The subject matter of the bill is confined to the National Transportation Safety Board or matters relating to the National Transportation Safety Board. And the amendment falls outside the confines of the bill. The amendment, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe is not germane.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate very much the issues that have been raised by the gentlewoman from Texas. I think she makes some very valid points. They are issues that need to be considered, but we do not think they should be in the context of this particular legislative item before us. We are willing to work with her and also consider them in other appropriate legislation. So we thank the gentlewoman, and we hope that she would consider withdrawing her amendment.