Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1527) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, and for other purposes.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 229 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 229 is an open rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1527, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Obviously, this is a fair rule. It is a totally open rule, one that provides ample opportunity to debate this important reauthorization before us today.

Last year, the House passed essentially the same bill by suspension, but the other body failed to consider the legislation. The House then must again act this year to ensure that the NTSB has the funding necessary to carry out its important tasks.

The NTSB was established in 1967 as an independent agency with the task of investigating transportation accidents, conducting transportation safety studies, issuing recommendations, aiding victims' families after disasters, and promoting general transportation safety.

Since 1967, NTSB has investigated over 114,000 aviation accidents. The NTSB's constant participation in transportation safety, evidenced through 12,000 recommendations to regulators, operators and users of transportation systems, has made them the government leader in crash investigation. I think what is even more impressive is that 82 percent of their recommendations have actually been adopted by these regulatory and transportation bodies.

This bill will increase the effectiveness of the board by authorizing funding through fiscal year 2006 at levels necessary to carry out their investigative mission both here and at aviation disasters abroad.

The bill requires that the Department of Transportation issue an annual report on the progress and adaptation of the board's safety recommendations. It is crucial that the Department of Transportation and that this Congress work to ensure that all recommendations are being met by the public.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill requires that the NTSB turn over their involvement in an aviation disaster to the FBI in the case of an intentional criminal act. This action would be taken by the Attorney General in consultation with the chairman of the NTSB. I think it is very important that in the event of any criminal aviation disaster, such as the one experienced during 9/11, 2001, the rescue of survivors obviously remain a first priority, but the apprehension of those involved commence immediately.

H.R. 1527 is a good bill, important to the continued transportation safety of the Nation, in not only responding to accidents but taking steps, through recommendations, to prevent further tragedies.

The underlying legislation was reported favorably out of committee by voice vote. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his extraordinary leadership on this issue, as well as his ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Mr. Speaker, this important bill recognizes, by reauthorizing essential funding to the board, the importance of this activity charged with investigating tragedies and promoting transportation safety.

This has been a bipartisan effort throughout the consideration of the bill, from consideration in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to this very obviously fair rule reported out of the Committee on Rules, which continues, I think, this constructive debate by allowing all amendments in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both this important underlying legislation as well as the rule before us to bring it to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

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

Under the rules of the House, the majority has the obligation of setting the agenda. I think part and parcel of not only the rules obviously of the House but of democracy is to let the minority speak about whatever the minority wants to speak about. We have seen an example of that today. In case somebody has been paying attention to this discussion, I think it is important to remind us of what the bill before us is, the bill that the Committee on Rules has brought to the floor today, and, that is, the reauthorization of the National Transportation Safety Board. The National Transportation Safety Board is a very important agency. It carries out really a fundamental mission with regard to airline safety and investigation of accidents, studies and reports with regard to increasing the safety of transportation. That is what is before us. Obviously, we would never attempt to stop the minority from speaking about anything. But what we are here today on is the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act.

The issue chosen today, for example, that we learned today was chosen by the minority to speak on is an important issue. Unemployment benefits have not expired. Many of us on this side of the aisle, in the majority, have not only supported unemployment benefits but continue to do so, and they have not expired.

I will not yield. I did not interrupt the gentleman.

Again, to get us back to what we are bringing to the floor today, and to remind colleagues on what they will in fact be voting on today, it is the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003.

We have brought this forward. We have brought it forward with a rule that permits all amendments that may be proposed by any Member to be brought forward and to be debated. Again, we did not know what, if any, opposition would exist with regard to this bill, and we will soon see, but I think it is important, as I said, Mr. Speaker, to remind Members what we are, in fact, here voting on today and what we are not voting on today, even though there are many issues obviously of importance that could be debated, because freedom is the essence of this House, and obviously any Member can talk about any issue under the sun.

No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this rule brings forth the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act, an open rule, absolutely fair rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the previous question to the rule.

The bill before us to authorize the National Transportation Safety Board is a good bill, which I support. I strongly support it. However, after it is passed, we should immediately approve the bill proposed by my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of Americans whose benefits will run out at the end of the month.

In December, the Republican majority allowed this vital program to expire just before Christmas. That left millions of families without work and without benefits. We cannot let that happen again as we go toward the end of May, the expiration date.

Mr. Speaker, since January 20, 2001, when President Bush was sworn in, 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost, the worst record of job creation or lack thereof of any administration since the Great Depression. That is the worst record, as my colleagues can see here. Every President since the war has had job creation above the line. President Bush, 2.727, 100,000 jobs a month since he became President, have been lost. That means that for every working hour of every working day, 563 people become unemployed, more than serve in the House and the Senate. It is as if every hour the House and the Senate would lose its jobs.

Now, some people may think that is a good idea, if we do not have more relevance to the lives of the American people and understand when people are out of work that they need these benefits. The American people do not need a dividend tax cut. The American workers need jobs.

Earlier this month, the Department of Labor announced that April's unemployment rate reached 6 percent, with nearly 9 million Americans out of work. Another 9 million Americans have either given up looking for work or are working part time. Millions of families are struggling with the hardship and the uncertainty of life without a paycheck. Without unemployment benefits many of these families would have nowhere to turn. Indeed, some of them told me yesterday they would become homeless.

Temporary Federal benefits expire on May 31, but President Bush and the Republican leadership have refused to include any extension of benefits in the tax bill that passed the House last week and what is now under consideration in the Senate. This extension is important to America's working families and to our economy.

Economists tell us that extending unemployment benefits is the most effective way to quickly grow the economy and create jobs. It is fair, fast-acting and fiscally sound. For every dollar that the Federal Government invests in unemployment benefits, the return is $1.73 to the economy. In contrast, for every dollar the Federal Government provides to cut taxes on dividends, the return to the economy is 9 cents. This is nonsensical.

The plan proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I commend them for their leadership, would provide a 6-month extension of the Federal unemployment benefits program. It would provide 26 weeks of Federal benefits for workers who lose their jobs, and another 13 weeks for workers who have already exhausted their benefits without finding a new job in this stagnant economy. None of the Republican tax plans, the President's, the House Republicans and the House Senate Republicans, provides one thin dime for unemployed workers.

Again, I want to reiterate why this is important, because contrary to what the Republicans are proposing, which provides 9 cents to the economy, extending Federal unemployment benefits puts $1.73 into the economy. Why? Because it puts money into the hands of unemployed workers and their families. They need that money to spend on necessities. The spending of that money injections demand into the economy, thereby creating jobs. The tax dividend proposal does not do that.

The unemployment rate today is higher than when the temporary Federal unemployment benefits were first approved in March of last year, but Republicans have decided that instead of helping unemployed workers, they should give people who make $1 million a year an average of $100,000 in tax breaks. How can that be right?

While Republicans insist on tax breaks for those who need it least, our Democratic priorities are clear: We will fight to get the economy back on track, we will create jobs, and we will help unemployed workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question on the rule; vote ``yes'' to extend unemployment benefits for 9 million Americans who cannot find work in this stagnant economy.

How can we go down this course of action where we make the same mistake twice? The President came in and gave over a trillion dollars in tax cuts. Now 2.7 million Americans lose their jobs, and they step up to the plate again and offer more of the same. Job losers. Do not even take my word for it, take the word of the Joint Taxation Committee, which is Republican, which is directed by the rules of the 108th Congress to score dynamically, giving every benefit of every doubt to the plan. It is a job loser by their estimation.

So we have to take a different course of action. One remedy that helps the

economy and helps unemployed workers is extending the unemployment benefits. I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for their leadership on this.