Border Health Security Act of 2003

Mr. President, Idaho faces grim news this morning as the deaths of two young wildland firefighters are reported. They were killed late Tuesday afternoon while fighting the Cramer fire in the Salmon-Challis National Forest west of the town of Salmon near the confluence of the middle fork of the Salmon River and the main Salmon. These men are heroes of battle, just as the men and women fighting overseas. They fought a faceless, terrifying enemy with bravery, heroism, and selfless dedication to the families and communities of central Idaho. Their sacrifice will be remembered for years to come as their names are added to the list of those fallen in service to their country in the capacity of wildland firefighters. I pray that those who continue to fight fires in Idaho and across the West this summer remain out of harm's way as they perform their valiant and critical work to preserve homes, property, and life.

The tragedy is that two more people have died. We hope it is not followed by more as we enter another fire season. The truth is that our forests are overgrown, dead and dying, and this kind of tragedy was inevitable. Legislation that I supported in the past would have made a difference. Had it been enacted last year or the year before, these senseless deaths could very well have been avoided. Idaho's wildfire season is just getting into its full swing, and we are asking our wildland firefighters in Idaho and throughout the rest of the Nation to do a dangerous job. We in Congress owe it to them and to the family members of those who didn't make it to provide them with the tools necessary to get the job done as safely and quickly as possible. These deaths are a tragic reminder of the sacrifices and risks wildland firefighters make to ensure the safety of our communities. Congress must act to reduce this threat to our communities and improve the safety of our firefighters. Today, Senator Lincoln and I are introducing bipartisan legislation to address the forest health crisis facing our nation.

As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, Senator Lincoln and I have learned of the similarities between the problems facing

the ecosystems of eastern and western forests. We know that when Congress acts to address the health of forests in the West--forests that have been devastated by fires that garner national attention--we must also reduce the risks to our forests across the country. The threat is not just to our property and lives, but clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat. We must take a comprehensive approach to protecting our resources, and Senator Lincoln and I attempt to do that in this bill.

The America's Healthy Forests Restoration and Research Act builds on the bipartisan legislation that passed the House of Representatives and is now under consideration in the Senate.

Like the House proposal, our bill addresses the ``analysis paralysis'' that prevents us from taking actions to protect our lands. For lands that are at risk of catastrophic fire or that have been severely damaged by insect or disease infestations or the aftermath of severe weather events, such as windthrow or ice storms, the bill creates an expedited process to allow for treatment. For these specific projects on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands--with the exception of lands that are wilderness areas or Wilderness Study Areas--the bill provides for time limits on appeals, reforms the appeals process, and provides guidance to the courts.

The per-acre costs of fuel reduction projects is higher and the amount of time to consider a project is longer with each alternative the agencies are required to consider. Each of these alternatives requires a complete and thorough environmental analysis. By selecting projects through the collaborative process and requiring an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of the specific project, we can ensure that the impacts of the project are addressed, without the analysis paralysis caused by the examination of additional alternatives--especially when projects are most often appealed based on failure to complete adequate analysis on alternatives rather than the substance of the project.

The time for action is now, we should not let fuels reduction projects be delayed or lose their effectiveness through frivolous appeals. By requiring the Forest Service to develop a new process that allows for public collaboration, by requiring substantive comments to the project, and by requiring participation in the process before allowing litigation, the bill ensures that public comment is meaningful and constructive. No longer will these important projects be stopped simply by 33 cents on a postcard.

Our bill also requires that the courts balance the long term effects with the short term effects of a project. This balance of harm should be common sense, but that has not been the case. The courts are reminded they should balance the impact of inaction in their decision making.

This streamlining of the appeals and judicial review process will counter the growing use of appeals and litigation as delaying and frustrating techniques rather than the constructive recourse they were intended for. Cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and ensuring for robust public participation--as outlined in the widely-supported Western Governors Association's collaborative strategy--is a win-win for our forests and our communities. In addition, by streamlining the process, we get more money on the ground and in action to protect our forests. Appeals, litigation, and extensive analysis of unneeded alternatives mean less money for projects. Some estimate that only sixty percent of funds allocated for fuels reduction actually makes it to the ground. Streamlining the process should result in significantly more resources to address forest health.

I have long been an advocate of better utilization of biomass and small diameter materials. This bill addresses the need for more research and more markets. Our bi-partisan bill provides grants to those who would use biomass for fuel or other beneficial purposes. Instead of leaving fuels in our forests to burn or tossing them in landfills, we can reduce the risks to our environment and create an incentive to use what has traditionally not been cost effective to use. Unlike the house bill, we expand eligible uses beyond just useful fuels. In Idaho, we have companies that can use this material for environmental restoration. We need to do more to create incentives to use this material.

To that end, our bill also includes expanded research into utilization and harvesting of small diameter materials. Light on the land techniques that find more and better uses of biomass and small diameter materials can revitalize our rural communities. Research into the costs and obstacles to using these materials will go a long way toward expanded markets and rural development. The bill also provides direction for technology transfer to get this information from the universities and scientists to the communities and small businesses in rural parts of America.

Our bipartisan bill makes research a central tenet. From research into biomass, forests conditions, upland hardwoods, the measure brings a new focus to forest threats. Our legislation expands the research to allow for landscape level research on forest-damaging agents. Fire, insects and disease, and weather events pose a significant threat to our forest ecosystems. The bill provides for cooperation with colleges and universities in applied research to combat these threats.

The bill also focuses research on preserving upland hardwoods. Not enough is known about preserving and restoring the upland hardwood forests of the South. The creation of an upland hardwood forest research center will go a long way toward finding ways to better protect, rehabilitate, restore, and utilize these important resources.

The proposal includes a watershed program that will help foresters enhance water quality in our forests. As many know, our forests serve as critical watersheds that provide drinking water to our communities. This bill provides for grants to allow for technical assistance, education, and financial assistance to enhance our efforts to ensure clean waters for our communities and wildlife.

A program to maintain forested habitat for threatened and endangered species is also an important part of this legislation. By providing for short and long-term restoration agreements the program offers incentives to maintain and utilize efforts that protect species and prevent others from being listed.

The legislation provides assistance to address the problem of nonnative invasive plants, trees, shrubs, and vines. Across the country, the expansion of nonnative invasive plants has changed ecosystems making them more susceptible to threats that could result in catastrophic fires. Our proposal provides assistance to landowners in addressing these invasives.

Finally, the bill declares that the enhanced community fire protection program is an important program in reducing risks to communities. This program, which we enacted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, provides assistance to communities in reducing fire threats. Providing funding for this program, coupled with the savings from streamlining the process, will provide for meaningful progress in reducing the wildfire threat.

I agree with Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, who says we need to move the focus from what we take to what we leave. As he has identified, too many are looking at this as a zero-sum game. They seek someone to blame for forest health problems or argue that logging is inherently bad. We need to get beyond that fallacious argument and realize that what is important is restoring a healthy ecosystem: an ecosystem that allows for a natural fire regime to exist without threatening our communities and lives.

I hope my colleagues will join me moving beyond the narrow focus that currently passes for forest policy, this zero-sum game, and look at the needs of our forest ecosystems. This bill is a bipartisan effort that enhances the House-passed legislation. It sets a mark that the majority of the Senate can and should support.

The skies over Idaho's capitol city, Boise, are smoke-filled this afternoon, and another tiny town on the edge of Idaho's Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, Atlanta, is threatened as fire encroaches on the homes there. Firefighting resources are stretched to the limit as wildland fires are burning throughout Idaho and the West. Wildfires this year have charred some 1.46 million acres nationwide. The National Interagency Fire Center said there were 49 large fires burning in the West, with more than 350 thousand

areas of active wildfires. Let us in Congress take a stand now to help protect our forests and keep them from going up in smoke every year.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to garner their support for this much-needed, bipartisan legislation, and know that they join me in sending condolences to the families of the two young men who died fighting a fire that may very well have been preventable.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend Senator Crapo of Idaho in introducing legislation aimed at rehabilitating this Nation's public and private forestlands. Senator Crapo and I serve as the Chair and Ranking Member of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry, and we have worked together extensively in watching over our Nation's forestlands.

Our bipartisan legislation builds upon the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this year. Our bill will ensure that we can address the many problems affecting all of our Nation's forests--both on public and private forestlands, in southern and western forests, and throughout both hardwood and pine ecosystems. Our legislation is intended to be a marker for the direction we believe forest legislation should move in this country.

Both Senator Crapo and I have been working closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee to ensure that the goals of our legislation are incorporated into the chairman's mark of the Senate's Healthy Forest legislation.

Our legislation is intended to accomplish a few, very specific goals.

First and foremost, we must provide the Forest Service with the tools necessary to immediately address the epidemic of oak decline and mortality in the Ozark highlands of Arkansas and Missouri.

Oak decline is a natural occurrence in older forests or in areas where trees are stressed by conditions such as old age, over population of the forest, poor soil conditions, and the effects of several years of severe drought. And under normal conditions, oak decline is not necessarily fatal to the tree.

However, these conditions have allowed insects such as the red oak borer to flourish throughout the forest and has led to an epidemic of oak mortality throughout our forests.

In fact, many estimates now suggest that potentially up to one million acres of red oaks have been affected in Ozark highlands. And it is important to note that this epidemic has not been long in coming--it was only first discovered in the late 1990s. I am concerned that this epidemic will lead to a complete loss of red oak from the Ozark highlands and cause long-term changes to the health of the forest ecosystem.

It is also important to remember that the epidemic has not been limited to public lands. Private forest landowners and homeowners throughout the Ozarks face the same problem. The past several years of extremely dry summer conditions have weakened trees throughout the region.

The legislation also contains provisions that are intended to streamline and improve the environmental, administrative, and judicial review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects under this legislation. I join Senator Crapo in believing that the review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects, while necessary and beneficial, often consumes more time, effort, and resources than the initial intent of the project.

I am also aware that there are ongoing discussions regarding these environmental, administrative, and judicial review issues. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee and in the entire Senate to modify and improve the environmental, administrative, and judicial review provisions of this legislation in order to address my colleagues' concerns.

As we have seen with the epidemic of oak mortality in Arkansas, the Forest Service must have the ability to quickly respond to insect infestation in order to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the entire forest. Streamlining of the environmental, administrative, and judicial review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects will ensure that we can quickly address what ails our forests.

Secondly, our legislation also provides increased funding and direction for forestland research in this country. Our legislation will ensure that our Nation's colleges and universities are able to devote more research into the insects and diseases affecting our forests. We also require that any forestland research be conducted at a scale appropriate to the forest damage, and that it be conducted within the requirements of each individual forest management plan. Our legislation also includes requirements to ensure this research has clearly stated forest restoration objectives and is peer reviewed by scientific experts in forestland health.

Our legislation includes authorization for a new upland hardwood research center designed to study the myriad of insects, disease, and problems affecting our ability to rehabilitate, restore, and utilize our upland hardwood forests. As we have seen, Arkansas was caught almost flatfooted as the epidemic of oak mortality swept through the Ozarks and severely endangered the health of our forests. Establishing this new research center will help ensure that this does not happen again.

The new research center will specifically research the effects of pests and pathogens on upland hardwoods, hardwood stand regeneration and reproductive biology, upland hardwood stand management and forest health, threatened, endangered and sensitive aquatic and terrestrial fauna, ecological processes and hardwood ecosystem restoration, and education and outreach to nonindustrial private forest landowners and associations.

The establishment of this new research center is necessary to ensure we can quickly identify and respond to the multitude of pests, disease, and other damaging agents that can dramatically affect our beloved forests.

Third, our legislation also includes funding for emergency grants to immediately remove the invasive plants that have become so pervasive throughout this Nation's forests. And when we talk about invasive plant species in the South, we are talking about one thing--Kudzu. Some call it the vine that ate the South. Kudzu was brought into this country several decades ago to be used as cover for bare hillsides and has since spread to cover everything including shrubs, bushes, and entire trees. The grant program included in our legislation will provide the means for landowners to immediately remove kudzu and the myriad other invasive plants that are choking out our forests.

Finally, our legislation also includes widely agreed upon language that would provide for grants to remove non-commercial biomass from our private forested watersheds, and provide for grants to establish private, healthy forest reserves throughout the nation. Many of these important provisions were included in the Senate-passed farm bill last year, but they were not included in the final legislation, unfortunately. Providing grants to remove noncommercial biomass will immediately reduce the amount of fuel on the forest floor and directly reduce the fire danger in our forests and around our communities. Similarly, providing grants to protect our forest watersheds will ensure that we can address our water quality concerns with a voluntary, incentive based approach. And finally, providing funding to establish new healthy forest reserves from willing private landowners will encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of this Nation's forestlands.

Mr. President, I believe that our bipartisan legislation will focus needed attention on a number of extremely critical goals for our national forest policy. One lesson that we have learned over the years is that if we value our forests, if want to conserve our woodland and resources, if we want to preserve their natural beauty, if we want to ensure that the natural bounty of our forestlands is available to future generations, then it is important that we manage those lands and resources with a careful eye toward their long-term health.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn entitled the Border Health Security Act of 2003. This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border.

The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents.

The border region comprises two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four States in the United States and six States in Mexico.

Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, legislation I sponsored with Senators McCain, Simon and Hutchison, was created for the same reasons and annually receives about $4 million in funding that is matched by $1 million from the Mexican government for administrative purposes to improve international cooperation and agreements to tackle health problems in the region. However, we need to take the next step and provide resources to address the problems.

In the border region, three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lower per capita income as a region in the Nation.

The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with little or no resources. Although it is difficult to access the health needs along the border since data is more often collected on a statewide basis, we do know that diabetes, cancer, infectious disease such as tuberculosis, and health disease rates are far greater than the national average but the residents in the area have the highest uninsured rates in the country.

In fact, the States of Texas, New Mexico, and California rank as the States with the three worst uninsured rates in the country to begin with. Arizona is not much better and ranks 46th in the Nation, just ahead of Louisiana and Oklahoma. The uninsured rates of these States are: 23.5 percent in Texas, 20.7 percent in New Mexico, 19.5 percent in California, and 18.3 percent in Arizona.

However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities.

As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health

systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk.''

The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its ``Health Border 2010'' initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent.

However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing another $200 million in funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health worker or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program,

Mr. President, our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States' second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet, the region is often neglected.

As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas.'' If the border were its own state, according to data from the Heath Resources and Services Administration, it would: rank last in access to health care; second in death rates due to hepatitis; third in deaths related to diabetes; last in per capita income; first in the number of school children living in poverty; and, first in the numbers of the uninsured.

I would like to thank Senator McCain, who was the original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation as well, for his outstanding leadership on border issues throughout his career. I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Cornyn for working with us on this important legislation and Senator Hutchison for her constant support for the appropriations of the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission upon the signed agreement between the United States and Mexico, which was signed by President Clinton on July 14, 2000.

I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn entitled the Border Health Security Act of 2003. This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border.

The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents.

The border region comprises two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four States in the United States and six States in Mexico.

Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, legislation I sponsored with Senators McCain, Simon and Hutchison, was created for the same reasons and annually receives about $4 million in funding that is matched by $1 million from the Mexican government for administrative purposes to improve international cooperation and agreements to tackle health problems in the region. However, we need to take the next step and provide resources to address the problems.

In the border region, three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lower per capita income as a region in the Nation.

The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with little or no resources. Although it is difficult to access the health needs along the border since data is more often collected on a statewide basis, we do know that diabetes, cancer, infectious disease such as tuberculosis, and health disease rates are far greater than the national average but the residents in the area have the highest uninsured rates in the country.

In fact, the States of Texas, New Mexico, and California rank as the States with the three worst uninsured rates in the country to begin with. Arizona is not much better and ranks 46th in the Nation, just ahead of Louisiana and Oklahoma. The uninsured rates of these States are: 23.5 percent in Texas, 20.7 percent in New Mexico, 19.5 percent in California, and 18.3 percent in Arizona.

However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities.

As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health

systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk.''

The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its ``Health Border 2010'' initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent.

However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing another $200 million in funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health worker or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program,

Mr. President, our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States' second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet, the region is often neglected.

As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas.'' If the border were its own state, according to data from the Heath Resources and Services Administration, it would: rank last in access to health care; second in death rates due to hepatitis; third in deaths related to diabetes; last in per capita income; first in the number of school children living in poverty; and, first in the numbers of the uninsured.

I would like to thank Senator McCain, who was the original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation as well, for his outstanding leadership on border issues throughout his career. I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Cornyn for working with us on this important legislation and Senator Hutchison for her constant support for the appropriations of the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission upon the signed agreement between the United States and Mexico, which was signed by President Clinton on July 14, 2000.

I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a most distinguished public servant, Mr. David E. Schaffer, Senior Counsel on the Transportation Committee's Aviation Subcommittee. Mr. Schaffer is retiring after twenty-six years of Federal service, including the past 20 years with the Committee. His unmatched knowledge in the field of aviation, as well as his engaging personality, will be sorely missed in the halls of Congress. David's work stands as a prime example of the good that can be accomplished through public service. The American people have been quite fortunate to have Mr. Schaffer's expertise and guidance throughout his career. Every single aviation law passed in the last two decades is marked with David's creative ideas and approaches. As an attachment to my remarks, a list of all aviation laws passed during David's tenure is included.

David's ability to work with people on both sides of the aisle serves as a major reason for the overwhelming bipartisan support aviation legislation has gathered over the last twenty years. His evenhanded and steady demeanor, as well as his thoughtful approach to a matter ensures that all ideas are heard, and that every opinion is considered. The relationships that David has cultivated among both government and industry officials has allowed for a free exchange of ideas on a wide variety of issues. Such exchanges have helped foster the growth of our nation's aviation industry. He has earned an immeasurable amount of respect from everyone with whom he has worked, including Members of Congress, staff, and those in the transportation community.

David began his career in public service in 1978, when he joined the Office of General Counsel of the Civil Aeronautics Board as an attorney, specializing in rules, legislation, and litigation involving small community air service, international air service, consumer protection, and charters. In 1984, he began work with the Aviation Subcommittee as an Assistant Minority Counsel, becoming the Chief Minority Counsel in 1992, and Majority Counsel in 1995. Throughout his tenure with the Aviation Subcommittee, he has been involved in all aspects of aviation legislation, including safety, security, airline competition, international air service, the Airport Improvement Program, air traffic control modernization, Federal Aviation Administration reform, and oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, and the National Transportation Safety Board.

David's leadership proved critical in the weeks following the events of September 11, 2001. His experience played an essential role in creating the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which helped restore confidence to the flying public. In a most precarious time for our nation, we were extremely fortunate to have someone like David Schaffer assisting us. Most recently, his assistance led to the successful passage of Vision 100, the FAA Reauthorization Act, which will have a lasting effect on the aviation industry for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in celebrating the retirement of David Schaffer, and wish him well in whatever venture he seeks next. I would also like to offer an extended note of gratitude on behalf of the previous Chairmen of the Transportation Committee and Aviation Subcommittee whom David has served with great distinction. We wish you good luck and again say thank you for all you have done for both the Congress as well as the American people.

Aviation Laws Passed During David Schaffer's Tenure

108th Congress

H.R. 2115, Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization

Act

S. 579, National Transportation Safety Board

Reauthorization Act of 2003

107th Congress

H.R. 2926, Air Transportation Safety and System

Stabilization Act

S. 1447, Aviation and Transportation Security Act

106th Congress

H.R. 1000, Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform

Act for the 21st Century

S. 2440, Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000

105th Congress

H.R. 2476, To amend title 49, United States Code, to

require the National Transportation Safety Board and

individual foreign air carriers to address the needs of

families of passengers involved in aircraft accidents

involving foreign air carriers.

H.R. 2626, To make clarifications to the Pilot Records

Improvement Act of 1996, and for other purposes.

H.R. 2843, Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998

104th Congress

H.R. 3159, National Transportation Safety Board Amendments

of 1996

H.R. 3539, Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996

103rd Congress

H.R. 904, To amend the Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity,

Noise Improvement, and Inter-nodal Transportation Act of 1992

with respect to the establishment of the National Commission

to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry.

H.R. 2440, Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994

H.R. 2739, Federal Aviation Administration Authorization

Act of 1994

S. 1458, General Aviation Revitalization Authorization Act

of 1994

102nd Congress

H.R. 5481, FAA Civil Penalty Administrative Assessment Act

of 1992

H.R. 6168, Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise

Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992

101st Congress

H.R. 968, Noise Reduction Reimbursement Act of 1989

H.R. 5732, Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990

H.R. 3671, To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to

extend the civil penalty assessment demonstration program.

H.R. 5131, To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to

extend the civil penalty assessment demonstration program,

and for other purposes.

100th Congress

H.R. 2310, Airport and Airway Improvement Amendments of

1987

S. 623, Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1987

S. 1628, An original bill to extend the Aviation Insurance

Program for 5 years

99th Congress

S. 2703, Air Carrier Access Act of 1986

98th Congress

H.R. 5297, Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984

S. 197, A bill to direct the Secretary of the Department of

Transportation to conduct an independent study to determine

the adequacy of certain industry practices and Federal

Aviation Administration rules and regulations, and for other

purposes.

S. 1146, Aviation Drug-Trafficking Control Act